>>I'll pay $1 for a citation of where a cheap shot was made at the D5100.<<
Read carefully.

>>And you spoke that bold of a lens you've not even taken delivery of???<<
What "boldness" are you referring to? I merely made mention that I picked up the Sigma to have a longer lens than my 300.

Read carefully.

I'll pay $1 for a citation of where a cheap shot was made at the D5100.

And you spoke that bold of a lens you've not even taken delivery of???

My response was really more about addressing cheap shots made at not only the Sigma, but apparently the D5100 as well. Not sure what all that was about. Seems a bit holier-than-thou to me.

When I get the Sigma, I'll post a pic. Who knows, perhaps the Sigma may not be so great, and the 300mm Nikkor may be just as good if not better via a the TC versus the Sigma. Let's then look at it from the holier-than-thou perspective. Do you think the 300/TC would look just as good or better than a 500mm Nikkor? That was my point.

That said, your shot looks good, and technicalities aside, is a nice, well composed and good-looking shot.

guys calm down please, and stick to the topic. I'm not closing it only as I'm curious to see the sigma blowing away N300 prime and to be a man of my word, below is a snap taken from N300/4 AF-S + TC 17, handheld. mike, if You have any other (sure You do) please post below:)

@alchse - this topic has been brought up couple of times, under $1000 You have only one decent choice - N300/4 AF-S (You can get a used one from ebay for app.$800)

>>seriously? you're gonna knock TC's when you went and bought a POS Sigma 500mm f7.2? Believe me, ANY Nikon 300mm prime with a TC to get you around 500mm will perform better than your Sigma, especially if you stop it down to roughly where your lens is set at f7.2 <<

Prove it.

vidrazor said:
I'm not a big fan of TC adapters. Why go out of your way to get a quality prime and then proceed to f*#k up it's IQ with one of these things? There's plenty of longer optics available for reasonable prices if needed. I just picked up a Sigma 500mm f7.2 for a decent price so I could have a longer optic than my 300mm Nikkor.

...my D5100...

*facepalm*

seriously? you're gonna knock TC's when you went and bought a POS Sigma 500mm f7.2? Believe me, ANY Nikon 300mm prime with a TC to get you around 500mm will perform better than your Sigma, especially if you stop it down to roughly where your lens is set at f7.2

Yes katseye makes them for d7000

Zooms are junk on the long end. Any zoom, any price. A fixed-focal length optic is the way to go if you're going to shoot long. If you're used to working with modern optics, focusing MF optics may seem stiff, but they're really not. They're properly damped for MF, which AF optics are not. Coming from a MF world I feel just the opposite about AF optics. I hate their focusing rings. I find my 300mm f4.5 to have an appropriate focus ring damping.

I'm not a big fan of TC adapters. Why go out of your way to get a quality prime and then proceed to f*#k up it's IQ with one of these things? There's plenty of longer optics available for reasonable prices if needed. I just picked up a Sigma 500mm f7.2 for a decent price so I could have a longer optic than my 300mm Nikkor.

I concur about getting a KatzEye focusing screen. I recently got one for my D5100 and never looked back. Worth every penny.

Does Katzeye make focusing screens for the D7000?

Drab - good idea - thanks!

Katzeye makes replacement focusing screens for your (D)SLR.

If you've ever used a manual focus body you know how much focus screens have been changed in the AF era. AF focus screens are optimized for maximum light transmission, but in doing so make manual focus more difficult. It isn't the brightness which does this, BTW, it's how they achieve the additional light transmission. MF focus screens also traditionally had microprisms in a variety of form factors which allowed one to do their own phase-based focusing. This too has been dropped in modern AF focus screens in the name of less clutter and the display of other information (focus point indicators, on-demand grid lines, etc).

Personally I can't recommend buying a MF lens for sports without at least playing with the concept first. I don't think you'll like it. Put your 70-300 in MF, and use it as such for a game or two. See if it is something you might like before making a financial investment.

BrownewellPhoto said:

That plus the $160 Katzeye, which I suggest you get, and it should work for outdoor kids sports.

What does the Katzeye do? / How does it work?

Thanks for the feedback everyone

I have a d7k, and currently am using the 70-300 4:5.6

I have been pretty happy with the results but would like a little more reach / IQ on the long end.

I would still primarily use the 70-300, but I thought it would be fun to play around with one of these 300 primes, possibly with a TC.

As the f/4 only bumps me up 1 f stop, I doubt it would be worth the $$$ for me.

So the question for me is, will shooting manual focus be too difficult or as shigzeo said:
"I find manual focus as good, sometimes better than autofocus, for sports. You choose the shots you will take, you set them up with predetermined focus areas, you take. That area will always be 100% in focus, unlike in autofocus where you camera may miss because its autofocus isn't fast enough, or it focuses on an arm instead of a face or chest or something."

tcole1983 said:
IMO a manual focus lens for sports is going to be a nightmare...especially with a sport like soccer or something. You would be better off with the 300 F4 and you can find a used/refurbished one under $1000.

I agree, that might be very hard to do depending on what body he would be using.

Drab said:
A: There is a 180 F/2.0?
B: The 1.7 TC is more in line with the OP's desire (252 vs 306mm). Still keeps him faster than consumer-zoom f/5.6 @ 300, though.

Oops, you're right, typo, meant to write 180 F2.8 , sorry abou that.

DutchNikon said:
Or ( also very nice ..) Nikkor 180mm F2 and TC-14b ...

A: There is a 180 F/2.0?
B: The 1.7 TC is more in line with the OP's desire (252 vs 306mm). Still keeps him faster than consumer-zoom f/5.6 @ 300, though.

shigzeo said:
I find manual focus as good, sometimes better than autofocus, for sports. You choose the shots you will take, you set them up with predetermined focus areas, you take. That area will always be 100% in focus, unlike in autofocus where you camera may miss because its autofocus isn't fast enough, or it focuses on an arm instead of a face or chest or something.

It takes more work, but honestly, unless you sports are very easy to track sports like car racing or bicycles, manual focus is just as good, if not better. The only thing is you will walk away with like 200 shots instead of 2000. Less deleting afterwards.

.....

Krevlin said:
Why a 300mm prime?

I'd say, the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-6G could be useful. I used it to track planes at an Air and Water show and it didn't seem to hunt too much with my D7000.

Other than that you're only real option is the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4G.

Of course that cost way more than $1000 but down the line it'll be handy.

Or... other brands 70-300 , sigma 100-300, OR nikor 28-300 ( not the best though..).
Or ( also very nice ..) Nikkor 180mm F2 and TC-14b ...
Not saying any of those options would beat the 300-af/s , but they are other options nonetheless...

tcole1983 said:
IMO a manual focus lens for sports is going to be a nightmare...especially with a sport like soccer or something. You would be better off with the 300 F4 and you can find a used/refurbished one under $1000.

I find manual focus as good, sometimes better than autofocus, for sports. You choose the shots you will take, you set them up with predetermined focus areas, you take. That area will always be 100% in focus, unlike in autofocus where you camera may miss because its autofocus isn't fast enough, or it focuses on an arm instead of a face or chest or something.

It takes more work, but honestly, unless you sports are very easy to track sports like car racing or bicycles, manual focus is just as good, if not better. The only thing is you will walk away with like 200 shots instead of 2000. Less deleting afterwards.

@OP - regarding the 300 f/4,5 lens, it IS a stiff lens. A lot of Nikon's older lenses were made with heavily damped focus rings for accuracy and so that when on a tripod, you wouldn't as easily bump the focus off. The 300 f/4,5 is a great lens and very cheap, but if you want slightly better compression feeling, the 2,8 is better. However, it is heavy. The f4,5 is great as you can hand hold it all day with no problem and get very clear shots. See if you can test both lenses side by side.

Why a 300mm prime?

Of course a prime is awesome but I'd think you'd benefit from a zoom.

I'd say, the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-6G could be useful. I used it to track planes at an Air and Water show and it didn't seem to hunt too much with my D7000.

Other than that you're only real option is the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4G.

Or you could get the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G. It's around $1300 which isn't that bad and I figure you'd probably needed it for other things.

Then get a TC-17EII for it and boom 340mm.

Of course that cost way more than $1000 but down the line it'll be handy.

IMO a manual focus lens for sports is going to be a nightmare...especially with a sport like soccer or something. You would be better off with the 300 F4 and you can find a used/refurbished one under $1000.

I think you'd have to go for either a manual focus 2.8 or a used 300mm f/4.

A new 300mm f/4 is just above $1,000.

what camera would you be using ?

I've used the 300mm f2.8 and I love it but I shoot in dark places. I also owned the older 300mm f4.5 which had pretty good results during daylight hours. The only thing i didn't like about the f4.5 was the focus was really stiff, but that could have just been my lens. Right now, the f4.5 is going for less than $100 on *link removed*

That plus the $160 Katzeye, which I suggest you get, and it should work for outdoor kids sports.

Searched the forum and didn't see much on this topic

I've seen the following lenses used for about $600-800 each that caught my eye

Nikon 300mm f/2/8 ED-IF (manual focus)
Nikon 300mm f/4 AF

I will be mostly shooting kids sports...maybe some landscapes, with this lens

are either of these worth owning?

This will be a somewhat of a novelty / secondary lens.....and I would never spend the type of money for a modern day 2.8 AF lens so its one of these or nothing.

Any feedback on either or both of these lenses would be appreaciated.