Check out Travel Photography - Tips and More section of our forum.
nikon 300mm 2.8 ais ed mf vs. 200-500mm af vr
Nov 6, 2019 19:52:37 #
Cant see as I am a senior. Use my 300mm with tc 301 and have good results but have difficulty as my eyes are not what they used to be. Is it worth it to go with the 200=500 af vr?
Nov 6, 2019 20:00:25 #
Nov 6, 2019 23:55:52 #
Check out Film Photography section of our forum.
Nov 7, 2019 05:26:23 #
randheart wrote:
Cant see as I am a senior. Use my 300mm with tc 301 and have good results but have difficulty as my eyes are not what they used to be. Is it worth it to go with the 200=500 af vr?
The 300 2.8 is much better optically than the 200-500 but neither will improve your vision. Spend your money on glasses or contact lenses and you will be able to see what to focus on.
Nov 7, 2019 05:30:53 #
Nov 7, 2019 05:44:24 #
Nov 7, 2019 06:26:55 #
dugeeeeeee wrote:
I have special dog and will trade for 200-500
But I wouldn't give up a 300mm 2.8. 
Check out Video for DSLR and Point and Shoot Cameras section of our forum.
Nov 7, 2019 08:06:03 #
randheart wrote:
Cant see as I am a senior. Use my 300mm with tc 301 and have good results but have difficulty as my eyes are not what they used to be. Is it worth it to go with the 200=500 af vr?
I don't know if the Nikon 300/2.8 is anything like the Canon 300/2.8 but if it is then definitely stay with the 300 and TCs.
Nov 7, 2019 08:34:58 #
joer wrote:
The 300 2.8 is much better optically than the 200-500 but neither will improve your vision. Spend your money on glasses or contact lenses and you will be able to see what to focus on.
Cold.
There are sr. eye conditions that can not be aided.
Nov 7, 2019 08:35:29 #
DaveO wrote:
I would buy a special dog first.
Heartless and humorless
Nov 7, 2019 09:20:13 #
Rich1939 wrote:
Heartless and humorless
A special dog has lots of heart. And humor requires Sense of such things.
Check out Printers and Color Printing Forum section of our forum.
Nov 7, 2019 09:29:22 #
joer wrote:
The 300 2.8 is much better optically than the 200-500 but neither will improve your vision. Spend your money on glasses or contact lenses and you will be able to see what to focus on.
I don't have the 300 2.8 but don't see how it could be much better optically than the 200~500. It's faster but...I use the 200~500 for wildlife, most often at 500mm and get tack sharp results. Can anyone say that about the 300? And no, not all that heavy. I shoot mine hand held about 80% of the time and I'm a doddering 65 YO.
Nov 7, 2019 10:11:50 #
Retired CPO wrote:
I don't have the 300 2.8 but don't see how it could be much better optically than the 200~500. It's faster but...I use the 200~500 for wildlife, most often at 500mm and get tack sharp results. Can anyone say that about the 300? And no, not all that heavy. I shoot mine hand held about 80% of the time and I'm a doddering 65 YO.
I owned a Canon 500mm f/4L which for years was reportedly one of the best wildlife lenses out there, just behind their 600mm, I can tell you that when I got the new 300mm f/2.8 and a 2X extender it is sharper than my 500/4 was. Consider that a quality prime is always optically superior to a zoom lens, then also consider that for some reason 300mm seems to be a sweet spot for these manufacturers. There is a reason that your 200-500 cost in the $1200 range and the 300mm f/2.8 is closer to $5500, that difference is seen in the images.
Nov 7, 2019 11:58:00 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Retired CPO wrote:
I don't have the 300 2.8 but don't see how it could be much better optically than the 200~500....
The zoom is about convenience, while the 300mm f/2.8 is about absolutely top quality images. If you ever actually tried the 300mm and compared them, you'd easily see the difference in images.
However, the 300mm f/2.8 is more of a "commitment"... bigger, heavier and a lot more work to haul around. Not to mention, a whole lot more expensive. Plus it doesn't have the convenience of the zoom. Even if you got top quality 1.4X and 2X teleconverters to use with it, the 300mm doesn't give you the ability to rapidly reframe moving subjects as they move closer or farther away, the way the zoom does.
Nov 7, 2019 12:01:01 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
I owned a Canon 500mm f/4L which for years was rep... (show quote)
Look at my images before you say that. The difference is in the speed not the image quality.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.