Has anyone purchased the gray market 300mm f4?

I traded in my 18-300mm (DX) lens when I upgraded from a D5100 to an FX body.. And Adorama insisted I give serious thought to purchasing the gray market version with 3 year Mack warranty. I ended up taking their advice but am still within the 30 day return window.

I am not worried about resale value.. As I plan to keep this lens around for a long time. Are there any other downfalls I'm missing?

I'd be grateful for some input..

adamz said:
msmoto - I would love to see the 80-400vr replacement, but though I'm half Your age I may not live to that particular moment :)

Ha...I don't have the patience to wait around for the next best thing. Maybe change my mind if they do actually ever update any of these long awaited lens updates, but so far I have only seen new lenses and no updates really.

msmoto - I would love to see the 80-400vr replacement, but though I'm half Your age I may not live to that particular moment :)

At present I would be reluctant to purchase any VR lens as the VRIII technology is here, I cannot imagine Nikon not putting this into the next generation lenses. And, with the competition out there, this may occur fairly quickly, possibly within twelve months for the majority of the VRI lenses, such as the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6.

I find that the longer end fixed lenses and the 200-400mm zoom can have a longer than normal wait period. I do think that the 300/F4 should be more common though, I waited I think about 4 months for a 400mm after I ordered it.

I have always used my local camera store, Adorama, B&H, and only amazon if they had a sale that nobody else could beat.

I cannot speak about American dealers, as I'm not in the states, sorry no recommendations.

Thanks for the timely reply! Would you recommend a site other than Adorama or BW Photo? Their prices seemed much more competitive than Amazon. If Adorama is the best price I can get (not interested in 'gray market' item), I'll just pay the difference from trade-in.

Usually shipping times for the lens is a week or two, you'll just need to place and order and wait. A number of big retailers have them in stock, so I doubt production has stopped.

Has anyone else thought of purchasing this lens, lately?

I traded in my Nikkor 18-300mm to Adorama and was hoping to purchase a Nikkor 300mm f/4 as a replacement. But Adorama and BW photo have been sold out of the lens for at least a week, if not longer.

Is this a sign that Nikon has depleted their stock and we may see a VR version soon? I don't know if I should wait for news in the near future. Or jump on the AF-S version of the Nikkor 300mm f/4 when Nikon supply more stock to these companies...

Tcole:

Thanks for your feedback and posting those shots. Bokeh is nice, I wonder if the diffraction optics to be used in the new version would affect the sharpness.

I have not shot tons of sports with it. I have 2 high school football games I took some pics at. I mostly wanted it for animals and I have become fond of it for portraits as well.

Overall my impressions so far. Have to keep the shutter speeds up on it without the VR. I need the kirks tripod collar, but haven't wanted to invest in it yet, but it will be the next step. For sports shooting it seems to work pretty well...the games were at night and I had to bump the ISO up pretty high to get the shutter speeds fast enough, but I think you would have to do this even with the F2.8. The bokeh is amazing and anything you want to single out it gives you great smooth bokeh. I have been pretty impressed so far and I am glad I got it and didn't wait. It it harder to shoot then any other lens I have with the shake, but it is tamable with some work. I think VR would be a helpful addition to the lens, but it would only be helpful in certain situations and the lens as is now is sharp, has great bokeh, and is excellent overall.

Here are some sample shots so far and I haven't uploaded any from the last football game I went to.

Have been fooling around with a borrowed 300 2.8 vr2, amazing lens. VR really helps with handholding at night soccer games. Cant really afford to buy one myself (yet), so am really hoping f4 would be upgraded soon.

Any chance this would happen before March '13?

Tcole: How are you liking it for action, and portraits?

Thank you everyone for all the input. So much to respond too.
1-

Gabbb said:
If the budget or size is not an issue, just go for the 16-35.

I am at this point more slated to spend more on my wide than I am on my tele. I use my wides more often and it would certainly get more use. But I don't want to buy a less expensive tele and then end up with a less expensive paperweight after I buy my better tele. I realize I could sell it at that point but it's cheaper in the long run if I can afford it (which I can) just to buy the better one now. To put it this way. I've already got 130k worth of loans for art school on their way, another 2 or 3k on top is no big deal. 5-9k is.

sevencrossing said:
The 80-400, the 28-300 and the 70 -300 are only f 5.6 at their max focal length
I have not used any of these lenses but most reviews indicate, they are better if stopped down to f 8

the 70 -200 is still f 2.8 at 200mm and can be used wide open at all focal lengths

The 70-200 ( with out a TC ) will focus faster then any of the other lenses

you stated "The tele however needs to be FAST"

if you want a FAST tele, sady , there is no budget option

Sadly f8 is just too slow. Those are great for sports where there a big bright lights, but getting a blue bird at dawn is a different story. the f2.8 70-200 blue a 1.4x or 1.7x TC is amazingly attractive besides that 2,400 price tag. Which I can muster up the dough for, But basically I was hoping to find a less expensive ~almost~ equivalent. Which doesn't seem to exist as you mentioned.

ericbowles said:
At the wide end I chose the 16-35 over the 14-24. The 14-24 has better image quality - especially in the corners. But I photograph a lot of moving water and the ability to use screw on filters is a big deal. I use either a CP and a Vari-N-Duo for 90% of my water images. VR is also a positive as there are situations where a tripod is not possible or not helpful - for example from a small boat. The corners bother me, but the 14-24 just won't meet my needs.

Which is exactly why I dont want that 14-24 because I have all my 77mm & 58mm NDs and polarizers that I use CONSTANTLY for exactly that, water shots and long exposures.

TaoTeJared said:
I would suggest the 28-300mm f/3.5 ED VR only as a walk-around lens for snapshots. The 70-300mm VR is much better for wildlife. If I had the choice, I would take a 16-35 over the primes for the VR and more usefulness.

If you have noticed, everyone here loves to nudge people towards really expensive and heavy glass. Nothing wrong or incorrect about it - everything everyone has said is correct. I'm afraid coming from a m4/3 system where everything is light, you might be put off by the weight and choose not to take you camera. If I'm out shooting birds that I will see again, I use my 70-300vr. Yes it is cheaper, but it is a top notch lens and I don't get tired of carrying it. The D800 + 70-200vr is close to 7 lbs and it gets heavy. I normally take that only for things I may not see again. Special occasions like shooting the Sandhill cranes, I take the 70-200 and the 300mm f2.8 - and two Advil in the morning.

If you are committed to taking everything (close to 10 lbs of gear) by all means the 70-200 is top notch (I have the VR1 and never saw any advantage over the VR2 - used one would be a good option) and I personally would add the new TC 1.7 or the 2.0 for the reach if you felt the need. If you are "just starting out" and don't have much experience, I would go with the 70-300vr, and get a feel to see if you want that extra 100mm first before dumping $2k on something you are not familiar with. It also sounds like you would want a walk around lens as well - doing that would give you the funds for something in the middle as well.

It seems many just want the justification or convincing to spend a ton of money - I just look at things more practical. When I bought my 70-200, I knew I needed it and there was no question and plopped the money down. That came from experience. I shoot my 70-300vr more do to the practical limit of my back to carry a lens for 2-5 hours. To me photography is all about taking your camera everywhere. If you leave it home due to the weight, bulkiness, or the felling it is "just too much" - then you have a 7Lb $5,000 paperweight.

Well for 1- I'm certainly not a beginner. I was a beginner in 2008, I know my way around a lens or two and could certainly handle the 70-200 adequately, or if not I could figure it out fast. I don't mean to sound offended, Im not. Just sayin... I know what I need its just finding whats best for what I need from a brand I'm not familiar with.

2- I'll pretty much have two walk arounds. In my first post I mentioned I already had a nifty fifty. Thats my every day walking around the park shooting people and architecture. I love my 50. Really keeps me focused on my subjects and my framing. For my forest hiker lens I'll be lugging around the 70-200 with a 1.7 TC on my camera and have the 16-35 in my bag for any nice vistas I come across.

3- I'm quite used to lugging around 3-4 lenses in my backpack on my nature hikes. 10-15 pounds for camera, lenses, tripod, GPS, water, etc... weight is of little importance unless we're talking like 30 pounds.

D800 with a 70-300vr

aquarian_light said:
So would you suggest say...the 28-300mm f/3.5 ED VR over the 70-200 just for the sake of that extra 100mm? the 70-200 seems a better build from what I've put my hands on at camera stores. it is 1.3k less... I was fairly certain of that 70-200 with a 1.7x teleconverter to bump that up to 340mm.

---------------
Well take that for relative in experience. I've had my hands on 85, 50, and 35 primes but never a prime as short as either a 24 or a 20. I'm still torn on the 16-35 or either the 14, 20, or 24 f/2.8 primes.

I would suggest the 28-300mm f/3.5 ED VR only as a walk-around lens for snapshots. The 70-300mm VR is much better for wildlife. If I had the choice, I would take a 16-35 over the primes for the VR and more usefulness.

If you have noticed, everyone here loves to nudge people towards really expensive and heavy glass. Nothing wrong or incorrect about it - everything everyone has said is correct. I'm afraid coming from a m4/3 system where everything is light, you might be put off by the weight and choose not to take you camera. If I'm out shooting birds that I will see again, I use my 70-300vr. Yes it is cheaper, but it is a top notch lens and I don't get tired of carrying it. The D800 + 70-200vr is close to 7 lbs and it gets heavy. I normally take that only for things I may not see again. Special occasions like shooting the Sandhill cranes, I take the 70-200 and the 300mm f2.8 - and two Advil in the morning.

If you are committed to taking everything (close to 10 lbs of gear) by all means the 70-200 is top notch (I have the VR1 and never saw any advantage over the VR2 - used one would be a good option) and I personally would add the new TC 1.7 or the 2.0 for the reach if you felt the need. If you are "just starting out" and don't have much experience, I would go with the 70-300vr, and get a feel to see if you want that extra 100mm first before dumping $2k on something you are not familiar with. It also sounds like you would want a walk around lens as well - doing that would give you the funds for something in the middle as well.

It seems many just want the justification or convincing to spend a ton of money - I just look at things more practical. When I bought my 70-200, I knew I needed it and there was no question and plopped the money down. That came from experience. I shoot my 70-300vr more do to the practical limit of my back to carry a lens for 2-5 hours. To me photography is all about taking your camera everywhere. If you leave it home due to the weight, bulkiness, or the felling it is "just too much" - then you have a 7Lb $5,000 paperweight.

I agree with the other posts - the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is an automatic choice. Add a Nikon 1.4 teleconverter if you want more reach. This is a relatively recent lens optimized for FX - and one of the best lenses Nikon makes.

At the wide end I chose the 16-35 over the 14-24. The 14-24 has better image quality - especially in the corners. But I photograph a lot of moving water and the ability to use screw on filters is a big deal. I use either a CP and a Vari-N-Duo for 90% of my water images. VR is also a positive as there are situations where a tripod is not possible or not helpful - for example from a small boat. The corners bother me, but the 14-24 just won't meet my needs.

You could fill the middle with several lenses - zooms or primes. The Nikon 24-70 is a likely choice, but I could see an update of that lens to include VR. You can still find good used copies of the 28-70 f/2.8 which saves a little but also gives up a little image quality.

For wildlife you may need to compromise until the budget permits something longer. Just get the Sigma 150-500 and wait until you can afford a 200-400 or long telephoto. There are no bargains with long glass - you get what you pay for. A Nikon 300 f/4 AFS and the 1.4 teleconverter is a good choice for a little more money. But good composition and technique will show even with a less expensive lens.

@aquarian_light: Welcome. Here is mine short and sweet. You are dead on with the 70-200 2.8 VR II. get it and don't look back. It's must have for any sport and then some. For wide and landscape: 14-24 2.8 Simply, IMHO, the best. The End.

The 80-400, the 28-300 and the 70 -300 are only f 5.6 at their max focal length
I have not used any of these lenses but most reviews indicate, they are better if stopped down to f 8

the 70 -200 is still f 2.8 at 200mm and can be used wide open at all focal lengths

The 70-200 ( with out a TC ) will focus faster then any of the other lenses

you stated "The tele however needs to be FAST"

if you want a FAST tele, sady , there is no budget option

most well know wildlife photographer have BLOGS and review the lens they use

for birds the 400 f 2.8 + TCs features a lot

for mammals the 200 -400 f 4 is a popular lens

aquarian_light said:
I'm still torn on the 16-35 or either the 14, 20, or 24 f/2.8 primes.

If the budget or size is not an issue, just go for the 16-35. It's better than any of those primes at their comparable focal length. (at least if you get a good copy of it, strangely there is a lot of bad copies out there) For me the wider the lens the more problems i have with it being a prime. I used to have a Samyang 14mm prime and I had to swap lenses 3 times / minute with that. I used to shoot with a Mamiya compact that had a 24mm lens, I found that to be acceptable at the time, but anything wider and suddenly it's really becomes a specialty lens.

TaoTeJared said:
If you are into birding etc. and don't have the $6k to spend, look at the 70-300vr or the 80-400mm vr. ~ I love my 70-200vr, but it is usually too short for any type of wildlife.

So would you suggest say...the 28-300mm f/3.5 ED VR over the 70-200 just for the sake of that extra 100mm? the 70-200 seems a better build from what I've put my hands on at camera stores. it is 1.3k less... I was fairly certain of that 70-200 with a 1.7x teleconverter to bump that up to 340mm.

TaoTeJared said:
If you don't understand the difference of the 20mm vs 24 or think 4mm is not that much, you really should consider renting or trying them at a shop. There is a large difference. I'm partial to the 24mm but realize most new zooms are better than the older primes. I have an older Tokina 17mm ATX and love the thing. Not much distortion and nice and small.

Well take that for relative in experience. I've had my hands on 85, 50, and 35 primes but never a prime as short as either a 24 or a 20. I'm still torn on the 16-35 or either the 14, 20, or 24 f/2.8 primes.

If you are into birding etc. and don't have the $6k to spend, look at the 70-300vr or the 80-400mm vr. Both are good and light enough to carry around easily are are great lenses if you use them correctly. Anyone who says they are soft, doesn't know how to use them and the VR feature as far as I'm concerned. I love my 70-200vr, but it is usually too short for any type of wildlife. With the ISO performance, you will not have the same issues as a m4/3 with pumping the ISO up for birds and can easily handle the f/5.6-8. You are in a whole different ball game now. You will probably have to "un-learn" some of the things you had to compensate for before.

If you don't understand the difference of the 20mm vs 24 or think 4mm is not that much, you really should consider renting or trying them at a shop. There is a large difference. I'm partial to the 24mm but realize most new zooms are better than the older primes. I have an older Tokina 17mm ATX and love the thing. Not much distortion and nice and small.

Want to save money, "think used". Don't over look a few cheap old manuals 28 f2 AIS $225, 105 f2.5 AIS $225 or 135 f2.8 AIS $150, If your doing landscapes they would be perfect. On the newer lenses the 17-35 f2.8 AFS $1100 IMHO is a must. A good light weight tele 300 f4 AFS $1100 and works perfect with a TC14E.

I do like the 70-200 VR but am using it less and less.
The 105 f2 AFD DC is tops but costs way more than the AIS manual.

framer

msmoto said:
Mmmm... it is all about money....Wide...16-35mm f/4 VR is great and can be hand held nicely......$1260 Lots of barrel distortion, but I find it sharp.

In the $2000 range, the 14-24mm f/2.8.....I do not have this, but the reports are it is a good lens. Medium wide the 24mm either in the f/3.5 PC Nikkor...super for landscapes where the focus plane can be altered or if architectural structures are in the photos...and very sharp. The shift can make things so nice. Or the f/1.4 is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses.... A stunner. The 20mm f/2.8 is fine but I do not find it as sharp as some of the others.

On the long end...the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is fantastic. And works well with the teleconverters. But, if you have lot of money at the $6000 point, either the 200-400mm f/4 VRII, or the 300mm f/2.8. The 300mm f/4 I do not know about. Of course, for the "Big Gun" 400mm f/2.8 is the Holy Grail IMO.

If I had $4000 for lenses...the 16-35mm f/4.0 VR and 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII. Expand later to ohers

Very informative thank you, just the answer I was looking for!

Mmmm... it is all about money....Wide...16-35mm f/4 VR is great and can be hand held nicely......$1260 Lots of barrel distortion, but I find it sharp.

In the $2000 range, the 14-24mm f/2.8.....I do not have this, but the reports are it is a good lens. Medium wide the 24mm either in the f/3.5 PC Nikkor...super for landscapes where the focus plane can be altered or if architectural structures are in the photos...and very sharp. The shift can make things so nice. Or the f/1.4 is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses.... A stunner. The 20mm f/2.8 is fine but I do not find it as sharp as some of the others.

On the long end...the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is fantastic. And works well with the teleconverters. But, if you have lot of money at the $6000 point, either the 200-400mm f/4 VRII, or the 300mm f/2.8. The 300mm f/4 I do not know about. Of course, for the "Big Gun" 400mm f/2.8 is the Holy Grail IMO.

If I had $4000 for lenses...the 16-35mm f/4.0 VR and 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII. Expand later to ohers

Ren Crockwell has done a review of most 24mm lens prime and zooms

his vote is for the 16 -35 f4 for flexibiy and 24 f 2.8 for bangs for bucks