Last weekend I took both of those lenses to go hiking and whale-watching, handheld. I brought the 70-300 with me because I thought I might need a little less obnoxious looking lens in a crowd (and didn't want to hit anybody by accident). but I found the 300f4 too good to keep in the bag. After you get used to it, handheld with the 1.4x works well too if you let the iso bump up a little and keep the shutter around 1/250, 1/350.. well, my opinion anyhow.

And I thought the 105mm macro was a heavy lens!

Weight definitely makes a big difference, especially when it doesn't balance properly with the D40.

I still don't see the issue that some people talk about with the stock collar. I can shoot long exposure (3+ seconds) with the stock collar and they are tack sharp.

As a day-by-day user of N300/4 I can say that this lens is excellent - very sharp wide open, works well with TC-17 / although You have to stop it down to f8 to achieve exceptional results. As for AF speed and handling, well... it's much faster than N70-300vr (which IMHO is a nice budget telephoto lens, and good only to 200mm, after that it's too soft), once You add the Kirk photo replacement collar You get great stability when used on tripod.

If You doesn't have money for the top of the line primes, than there's no better option right now on the market. I had or tried almost all of the lenses and neither one was close to the results I got from N300/4.

That is somewhat true. Sure I can hold the 300mm F4 all day, 1.44kg isn't heavy at all, in the grand scheme of things. The trouble is holding it steady enough for sharp images. ;-) Which is why I like using a tripod. I can get sharp images of birds with it at 1/200s from a tripod with a 1.4TC attached, something I doubt I could ever pull off hand held.

Calm down dude, it was a joke. Notice the little smiley face after the remark? It's OK.

The comment wasn't made to be macho, it was to realize that when you shoot with some optics you're going to wind up out of your comfort zone, but you can be rewarded with it's results, and it's worth the work. Sure, a lens like that gets heavy after a while, but as I said it is what it is. You can cut yourself off from useful equipment by thinking it's not worth schlepping something like that around.

I wasn't "complaining" about VR either, my point is that people get spoiled by such things and again cutting themselves off getting potentially great shots using optics that don't have it, like the 300mm Nikkor. There is an optical world without VR.

Finally, if you take the time to shoot with such "heavy" un-VRed lenses proficiently, it will make you a better photographer when you do use lenses that are lighter and have VR because you'll be able to go down even lower in shutter speeds applying old school techniques with modern technology.

A lot of useful photographic technique is getting lost in technology.

PB PM said:
The 300mm F4 gets tiring to use when shooting hand held. The lack of VR is not a big deal, if you can keep your shutter speed up to at least 1/400s. 90% of the time i shoot from a tripod when using it though. The 70-300mm would be much better for hand held shooting over several hours.

I don't really get out in bad weather so I would say most shots would have plenty of light. I might invest in a monopod at least if I get the lens.

vidrazor said:
>>My biggest concern would be that I like to shoot without a tripod and without VR it might not be practical.<<

>>however, I do not think that I would have wanted to hand hold it standing up for more than a few shots.<<

What a bunch of wimps. :-)

A 300mm s not normally a lens you take out unless you have a very good use for it. However it is what it is and it can give you pictures you're never going to get from a zoom. It's heavy? Has no VR? Please. There are a good number of shooting techniques developed in the ages of old that made shooting with such lenses practical, like proper bracing against your body and such. Even with VR such practices are good to know and use. While VR is a good tool, too many people have made it a crutch. Same goes for AF. You guys should get yourselves an old MF 300mm like these:
http://tinyurl.com/3g7mrlp
http://tinyurl.com/3w822gq
...and learn to shoot proficiently with it. I promise you that you will become a much better photographer with ALL your lenses after that! You'll have an awesome lens as well.

I think people such as yourself underestimate the weight of things or just try to act macho, but heavy equipment is a pain to carry for long periods or time...even if you can bench a car. Anyway, not sure why some feel like they are cool when someone comments on the weight of equipment. To most it is a factor and one I have taken into consideration. I find it insightful when someone provides this information.

And as for VR...I have non VR lenses. I even shoot in manual mode every once in a while. No one ever said VR is crucial, but the more mm the harder it is to get a clear shot especially in low light. It is a great tool and makes shots possible that aren't without it...you are actually the first person I have heard complain about someone wanting the feature.

Lastly I am glad you can shoot your old lens whatever way you like. By all means go back and shoot your manual film camera if you can't provide some insightful information on the subject. This wasn't supposed to be a thread on how cool and amazing you can be with a heavy, old, manual focus lens :)

Thanks to those so far that have actually posted good info.

>>My biggest concern would be that I like to shoot without a tripod and without VR it might not be practical.<<

>>however, I do not think that I would have wanted to hand hold it standing up for more than a few shots.<<

What a bunch of wimps. :-)

A 300mm s not normally a lens you take out unless you have a very good use for it. However it is what it is and it can give you pictures you're never going to get from a zoom. It's heavy? Has no VR? Please. There are a good number of shooting techniques developed in the ages of old that made shooting with such lenses practical, like proper bracing against your body and such. Even with VR such practices are good to know and use. While VR is a good tool, too many people have made it a crutch. Same goes for AF. You guys should get yourselves an old MF 300mm like these:
http://tinyurl.com/3g7mrlp
http://tinyurl.com/3w822gq
...and learn to shoot proficiently with it. I promise you that you will become a much better photographer with ALL your lenses after that! You'll have an awesome lens as well.

I covered a 5K run about three weeks ago with the 70-300VR, it was 08.00hrs and the light was fantastic, slighty overcast, just right, however, after about two hours [1276 pictures] it had begun to get very heavy and I wished I had brought a monopod with me.

Pictures were fantastic with only about 15-20 dicarded, not the lens fault. used it at f7.1 for max sharpness and good DOF.

I used a friends 300mm f4 to cover boat racing, it is fantastic, however I was sitting on the pier with my elbows on my thighs and left wrist on my knee, it was fast and sharp and a pleasure to use with the boats comming towards me, however, I do not think that I would have wanted to hand hold it standing up for more than a few shots. this was at 13.00hrs in bright sunlight, so, I had my choice of aperture and shutter speeds to play with. fantastic, get it if you can afford it.

I use the 70-300 for birds, however at 300 you need to stalk to get close to them, or shoot raw and crop.

Also used a friends C------40D with the sigma 80-400mm, it feels solid, big, heavy, and will flare badly if you are shooting into the light. did I say big, cannot comment on the focus speed, only played with it for about half an hour, and was not familar enough with the auto focus speed of he C----- to say if it is fast, the 70-300 is faster on a Nikon,however, if you pay attention to the lighting conditions, it did a nice job.

The 300mm F4 gets tiring to use when shooting hand held. The lack of VR is not a big deal, if you can keep your shutter speed up to at least 1/400s. 90% of the time i shoot from a tripod when using it though. The 70-300mm would be much better for hand held shooting over several hours.

I had thought about the 300 F4 not having VR. I wish they would update it, but I haven't seen any indication it will be done anytime soon. My biggest concern would be that I like to shoot without a tripod and without VR it might not be practical. I also have never seen the lenses at a shop so I have no way to try them out.

Sigma had a 300mm F4 but I never used it but heard it was a great lens as well. They also had a 100-300 F4 that I always looked at on the web but have never been able to find one in a store to try. The other option would be the 80-400mm from either sigma or nikon.

I do have the 70-300vr and love it. It is very sharp and the VR works great but at F5.6 it can tend to hunt in very low light. If you only shoot during the day or under stadium lights the AF is quick and snappy for that type of zoom. I have seen some Nikon refurbished ones in the high $300 to low $400 range lately which is a great deal and you loose much if you wanted to sell it later. Pixel peepers, people who try to shoot VR on over 1/500, or people who throw a crappy Best Buy filter on, it is very sharp. It is softer than the F4 at 300mm but for $600 less and a zoom, what else would you expect. I can still print 11x17 that look great. Each stop down, the lens gets better.

It may come to how you will use what you get. I too looked at the F4 but honestly I don't use a tripod much, and a lighter lens with VR suits me better. The F4 is a bigger lens and I realized I wouldn't take it out much unless I was tracking animals and hand holding would not be realistic all day.

That all said I would love to hear from anyone who has used it for shooing sports (US football in particular) as I have to shoot some games this season.

The AF-S 300mm F4 is a great lens, in terms of sharpness and contrast. The quality of the glass, and build, is worthy of the gold ring it has. For wildlife it is okay, as long as it isn't too late and or/early in the day. The 70-300mm VR is known to be a little soft at 300mm, unless you stop down to F8, while the F4 is tack sharp wide open at F4. For sports the 300mm F4 is not very flexible, and zoom might be better.

The Sigma 150-500mm is in the same price range and has OS, but is already F5.8 (or something close to that) at 300mm, yikes! Sharpness wise, it is okay, at least comparable to using the 300mm F4 with a 1.4x TC (at least the one I tested was).

I have really been wanting the Nikon 300 F4. Are there any other comparable lenses in that $1000-$1500 price range? I know there are several zoom lenses that cover this range, but how would those compare to the performance of the Nikon 300 F4. Or lastly...just wait for an updated lens?

How would you compare the 70-300 VS the 300 F4. I would assume sharper pics, but maybe only a stop or two difference wide open at 300mm?

It would mostly be used for wildlife pictures, and sports or such as a minor use...90/10 split.