How much would you pay a Nikon AF-S 300 2.8D ED II (non VR) version? lens is a 8/10 and with its second owner, with no warranty.

What is its market value today?

Thanks.

Great Image !! My longest is 200mm ;(

Well, thanks for all of the responses guys, and as the others have said, great work Squamish. I think your experience with the AF lenses is similar to mine- slow if you going from closest to infinity, but acceptable in real situations.

Testing123, you've pointed out some holes I've left out in my original post, so I'll elaborate a bit more. I'm really only doing some preliminary research, so it's not like I'm actually going out to buy one of these lenses tomorrow or even in the next year or two. I don't really need a lens like this since most of my shooting is much closer in range, and yet sometimes there are opportunities where it might be nice to get longer than 400. I just want to see what options are around.

Since this is a very long term sort of thing, budget isn't really a big issue (it would be a matter of saving for a few years vs 10 or more), but what I'm really interested in is the amount of improvement that the 300/2.8 lenses have seen over the past 20 years, and how practical these improvements in terms of real world shooting. After that, I can figure out if I'm willing to pay for those or not.

jerl said:
1000-1500 AF/AFn version (screwdrive)
1500-2500 AFI version (built in autofocus before AFS was invented)
2500-3500 AFS version (non VR)

Let's simplify this a bit.
1 - Do you need autofocus? (the price of the MF has plateaued, so you likely won't loose much if you change your mind later) If no then buy the MF, if yes than don't. One down.
2 - Don't buy the AFI if your prices are right. AFI repairs cost an arm and a leg, and from what I've heard the supply of new-old-stock parts is minuscule. People are resorting to cannibalism for repairs. The forgotten tech stepchild of Nikon. Avoid if this is a long term investment. Two down.
3 - How much do you want to spend? You now have only two choices at significantly different price points. While I can't speak to the objective image quality of either of them, I'm having a hard time believing someone has an honest issue deciding between two lenses separated by such an ocean of money. Ye have done little to describe your needs, style, or finances so it is really up to you to decide just how much you are comfortable spending. Rest assured, though, neither of these will depreciate significantly more in the near term, so a change of heart won't be that expensive.

man i just spent the weekend trying to get shots like that eagle photo at lake biwa in japan (well, with the familty it was more like an hour) with my 300 2.8G vrI, and my shots are not even close to being that good. even with the tc-20eiii they were too skittish and never stayed still. it must take serious patience to get shots like that.

Ahhhhhhh - Shows how much I am looking for one of these lenses.

SquamishPhoto said:
He just forgot to put a dollar sign at the start, those are all different Nikon 300mm lenses.

THAT makes sense! Thank you.

He just forgot to put a dollar sign at the start, those are all different Nikon 300mm lenses.

TaoTeJared said:
700-1000 ED IF version (no autofocus)
1000-1500 AF/AFn version (screwdrive)
1500-2500 AFI version (built in autofocus before AFS was invented)
2500-3500 AFS version (non VR)

I have never heard or seen any of these. Any sites with info on them?

Yea, I thought the MF 1200-1700 was Nikon's longest, period.
Someone's smoking the crack. A 3500 would most likely be longer than me.

700-1000 ED IF version (no autofocus)
1000-1500 AF/AFn version (screwdrive)
1500-2500 AFI version (built in autofocus before AFS was invented)
2500-3500 AFS version (non VR)

I have never heard or seen any of these. Any sites with info on them?

NSX - google for "To stack or not to stack Nikon Teleconverters"

I didn't even know you could stack teleconverters.

does anyone compared the IQ on 200vrI and 200vrII? also, has anyone used it with stacked TC's - TC17+TC14 (f4.8, 480mm) or TC20+TC17 (f6.8,680mm).

SquamishPhoto said:
Hah! I've thought about selling gear and doing exactly what you just suggested. But now that the new one is out, Im more inclined to keep the 300mm for long stuff and save up for the VRII chubb to use it for absolutely everything that my 85mm wont do better.

I want the 200mm 2.0 so badly. I was able to try one out on my D3 in the store the other day (VRI). And wow... that lens was sharp handheld at 1/125th. Id usually want the latest and greatests of the lenses but if i had to choose... the 200 vrI would be good enough for me. ( I do no bird/nature photography so a long 6k tele just doesn't justify it compared to a used 3500 lens).

smarterchild said:
I have no idea about those tele's but after reading your post and your budgit, How about picking up a used 200mm 2.0 VRI for less then 3500 and getting a 1.4 teleconverter for a 280 2.8?

Hah! I've thought about selling gear and doing exactly what you just suggested. But now that the new one is out, Im more inclined to keep the 300mm for long stuff and save up for the VRII chubb to use it for absolutely everything that my 85mm wont do better.

I have the AF 300mm 2.8 (used to have the AF-S F4) and I love it. Sure, it takes longer to track through the full range of focus, but when you are birding or anything similar you really only care how fast the micro adjustments in focus are, and in that regard its more than adequate. Its optics are incredible. Its front element is HUGE and gathers so much light, but physically light it is not. Weighs a ton, but I don't mind it considering what it does for me.

AF 300mm 2.8(D700):

AF-S 300mm F4(D300):

I have no idea about those tele's but after reading your post and your budgit, How about picking up a used 200mm 2.0 VRI for less then 3500 and getting a 1.4 teleconverter for a 280 2.8?

So normally I wouldn't consider getting one of the giant super teles, as the cost is too high, and I wouldn't use it all that much. But looking at a bunch of used equipment retailers on the web, I've noticed that I could actually afford one if I didn't want a new version with all the latest bells and whistles (although I'm still unlikely to get one, I'm mostly curious). The costs seem to be

700-1000 ED IF version (no autofocus)
1000-1500 AF/AFn version (screwdrive)
1500-2500 AFI version (built in autofocus before AFS was invented)
2500-3500 AFS version (non VR)

And we all know how much the VR versions cost. I wouldn't consider 3rd party models (even new).

So I'm wondering if any of you guys have actually used these lenses (not just read the reviews, since I've already read most of those). How good are the optics of the old lenses? And how does the autofocus speed (on say something like a D90) compare to some of the modern lenses (let's say 70-300VR for reference)? And is it really worth it to get the VR? If I got one, it would be mainly used for shooting birds in flight with a teleconverter (and obviously with a Wimberly or something similar).