shivaswrath said:
does the 300 2.8 work with the newer tc20iii?

it works like a charm, could get decent snaps with 1/2 sec wide open - perfect quality starting from 5.6 (2.8x2)

shivaswrath said:
does the 300 2.8 work with the newer tc20iii?

The TC 20E III also works well with the VRII 70-200 2.8

NM, it does, just figure it out . . . WoAH, $5800 for the lens and $400 for the converter. . .makes the 200-400 vrii look cheap, lol. . .

does the 300 2.8 work with the newer tc20iii?

WaterEngineer said:
Frankly the 300mm (both f4 and f2.8) are two of Nikkor's best lenses for IQ.

Your point has been discussed many time at DPReview.com

I suggest you do a search on that website, on the Nikon Lens forum.

IMHO a 300/2.8 +1.4TC on a DX body is the way to go for wildlife and BIF.

BURN!!!

Here is a shot I took with the 200-400mm from the actual top of a Nikon Pavillion^^
NSXType-R your right I'm trying to buy one and might be able to pick up one from a senior photographer at work who may dump his in favour of the VR II this year hopefully.

Hello Friends,
Thanks for all your input, am more predisposed towards 200-400mm but am more keen on fast focussing based images like birds in flight etc, i have seen some of the comparisons as suggested by Waterengr and GD here above but was further confused as to the sharpness of the lens, most of the images of 200-400mm appear a tad soft in comparison with 300 f/2.8 shots. i hold a 500 mm already.
Thanks Again
P

What sort or shots do you want from the 300? I am happy to put some up. Both by itself and with the tc-20eIII.

I like the shallow DOF on the 2.8 a lot, and I use it with another body for field sports, but in rain one body would be preferable, and therefore the 200-400 would be very useful.

kanuck said:
Its strange but I have always been more impressed with the 200-400mm VR lens over the 300mm prime. I know its supposed to be the other way around, but I have gotten some of my best shots with the 200-400mm and its the one lens I seem to rent the most. I have to leave room in the budget every month for it. I must have rented it about a dozen times in 2010, I would love to own one.

Maybe time to buy one? If you're spending a bit of your budget per year to rent it, you might be better off buying one.

Its strange but I have always been more impressed with the 200-400mm VR lens over the 300mm prime. I know its supposed to be the other way around, but I have gotten some of my best shots with the 200-400mm and its the one lens I seem to rent the most. I have to leave room in the budget every month for it. I must have rented it about a dozen times in 2010, I would love to own one.

Agree that a google search will pull back many results.
http://www.hickingbotham.com/reviews/nikon300200400.htm

You might also want to ask yourself what type of shooting you want to use it for ("wildlife" is quite general). Specifically:
- do you need f2.8?
- a 200 - 400 zoom is a lot more "flexible" than a 300 prime, even if the 300 prime "wins" at 300

To be honest, if your pictures aren't on the money with either of these lenses then it isn't the lens at fault. Both are pro grade. Andy Rouse loves the 200 - 400 lens (see Tiger shots):
http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/blog.asp?offset=160

Frankly the 300mm (both f4 and f2.8) are two of Nikkor's best lenses for IQ.

Your point has been discussed many time at DPReview.com

I suggest you do a search on that website, on the Nikon Lens forum.

IMHO a 300/2.8 +1.4TC on a DX body is the way to go for wildlife and BIF.

Hello Friends,
Am on tenter hooks as far as the Image quality and sharpness of Nikon 200-400VR V/s Nikon 300mm 2.8 for predominantly wildlife photography, would be much obliged if fellow nikonians can share a few samples and suggestions to aid my decision.
Many Thanks

This would be a perfect situation to borrow one of the lenses. The 500mm is $250 on borrowlenses.com for 3 days.

Plan a little trip and see how it goes, i think you will realize pretty fast if the lens is long enough for you.

personaxinz said:
... manoeuvrability and IQ differ between 500mm and 600mm
Cheers and Thanks
Persona

please note that the Nikon-original carrying case for the 600mm exceeds the airline hand luggage dimension. The lens itself is 460mm (which is inside the standard international length of 550mm), but you would have to compromise on the transport container. The 500mm has no such restriction.

the 500 and the 600 are both huge and not maneuverable at all. you would have to be crazy to try and hand hold them. IQ wise i'd say they are the same. most people tend towards the 600 if they can afford the price difference. depends what you need it for.

they are both great for wildlife and sports, although the 600 is probably a tad too long for sports, even on full frame.

i have the 300 2.8, which i can use in a gym on full frame, on a field on dx or for wildlife with or without the tc-20eiii on fx or dx.

Thanks for the input buddies

I joked with a rep at B&H on the 500 and 600 once and he said they usually don't have many if any in stock but they can always order them within a reasonable amount of time.

NPS members get first dibs on such lenses, and availability is very limited. I know some people said they had to wait up to a year to get one. If you want one, place an order and get in line.

Being an expensive specialty lens, you're probably best asking somewhere that it is used by a number of people. It's definitely used for wildlife photography. You can probably get first hand info at these sites:

http://www.birdphotographers.net

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/

I have often heard that the Nikon 500mm and 600mm lenses are often out of stock and generally hard to come by.

Dear Friends.....
I have been seeing in B&H that Nikon 500mm VR II is being shown as being back ordered and exact date of arrival unknown....can some one throw some light as to when it may be available.....can the users corroborate whether manoeuvrability and IQ differ between 500mm and 600mm
Cheers and Thanks
Persona