Author Topic: 200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4?  (Read 3700 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bill

  • Article Contributor
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Gender: Male
200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4?
« on: February 18, 2006, 02:06:07 PM »
Both of these lenses are about the same price.  I know the 200 is extremely sharp, but how does the 300mm compare to it?  Is the 300 as good as the 200 with a 1.4 TC?  I have read many reviews and ratings, but I would like to hear from someone with firsthand knowledge of the two.

I would use the 200 by itself and also with the TC.  I would use the 300 by itself, although if it was recommended that the 300 + TC was also a good sharp combo...I might consider it as a way of having a 420mm f/5.6.

Thanks,

Bill
a77 + vertical control grip, a700 + vertical control grip,  24-70/2.8 SSM ZA,  70-200/2.8 SSM G,  HVL-F42AM flash

dcap

  • Guest
Re: 200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4?
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2006, 02:26:15 PM »
I've had the 200/2.8 for about 10 months.  Cracking!  Its superb.  And with the 1.4 I could see no noticable drop in quality.  I also now have an original 300/2.8 APO G, the first model.  The 200/2.8 is certainly sharper, and with the 1.4x they are about a match. 

Sorry, no personal knowledge of the 300/4.  But when I was shopping for the 200/2.8 I considered the 300/4, but discounted it. 

I don't normally recommend a loook at photodo.com - but the numbers stack up.

Please be aware that I am slightly bias, I am selling my 200/2.8!  But this would have been my opinion anyway

See also my http://MaxxumEyes.com website, there are links to on-line user reviews of both the lenses you consider.

I view it as this.

200/2.8
- its an AF 300/2.8
- its an AF 420/4
- its an AF 600/5.6

300/4
- its an AF 450/4
- its an AF 630/5.6

300/2.8
- its an AF 450/2.8
- its an AF 630/4
- its an AF 900/5.6

Sure 300/2.8 is different money!  But I would be considering only the 200/2.8 or 400/4.5

Depends what you want it for.  The 200/2.8 is quite a bit smaller than the 300/4 (lots smaller than the 300/2.8 :grin:)

dcap

  • Guest
Re: 200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4?
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2006, 02:26:48 PM »
see also:
http://www.vividoptic.com/Reviews/Min20030014.htm

I decided that the 300/2.8+ 1.4 were not good enough optically for me.  So added the 1.4x converter to my lens sale list.  Keeping the 300/2.8 cos is just sexy big
« Last Edit: February 18, 2006, 07:20:56 PM by dcap »

Offline Bill

  • Article Contributor
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Gender: Male
Re: 200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4?
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2006, 02:52:16 PM »
What???  I thought you were keeping the 300 over the 200???  Also,  I am NOT digital, I have a Maxxum 7. 

I know this is a digital site, and I may at some time go digital, but for now I visit here because you guys have great knowledge on the Maxxum equipment AND you are a lot of fun!

A 200mm f/2.8 is actually a 200mm f/2.8 to me!

Bill
a77 + vertical control grip, a700 + vertical control grip,  24-70/2.8 SSM ZA,  70-200/2.8 SSM G,  HVL-F42AM flash

Offline rhett121

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
  • Gender: Male
Re: 200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4?
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2006, 06:36:01 PM »
The 300f4 is reputed to be very sharp and reasonably quick. I have the 200f2.8 and the 300f2.8 as well but I also have the 70-200f2.8 and usually carry it instead. The versatility of the zoom usually outweighs the extra sharpness of the prime (for me) unless I know exactly what I'm going to be shooting at a fixed distance, in which case I usually carry the 300mm for the extra range. I mostly use the 200f2.8 for portraits but now since we "digital" users have to suffer with the 1.5x "crop" it puts me too far away from my subject to retain the same coverage.

So my verdict would be to go for the 300f4 and find a good zoom to cover the 200mm range. (or find the 400f4.5 for your long tele, it's really nice)
« Last Edit: February 18, 2006, 06:38:02 PM by rhett121 »
- I've always thought a good lashing with a buggy whip would benefit you immensely

dcap

  • Guest
Re: 200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4?
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2006, 07:21:51 PM »
What???  I thought you were keeping the 300 over the 200???

I've put my sentance into correct English now, just I am keeping the 300/2.8 over the 200. 

I know this is a digital site, and I may at some time go digital, but for now I visit here because you guys have great knowledge on the Maxxum equipment AND you are a lot of fun!

A 200mm f/2.8 is actually a 200mm f/2.8 to me!

OKay, so the same holds true: 

200/2.8
is a 200/2.8
is a 280/4
is a 400/5.6

300/4
is a 300/4
is a 420/5.6

The f2.8s offer more options.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2006, 07:23:32 PM by dcap »

dcap

  • Guest
Re: 200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4?
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2006, 07:24:32 PM »
The 300f4 is reputed to be very sharp and reasonably quick. I have the 200f2.8 and the 300f2.8 as well but I also have the 70-200f2.8 and usually carry it instead. The versatility of the zoom usually outweighs the extra sharpness of the prime (for me) unless I know exactly what I'm going to be shooting at a fixed distance, in which case I usually carry the 300mm for the extra range. I mostly use the 200f2.8 for portraits but now since we "digital" users have to suffer with the 1.5x "crop" it puts me too far away from my subject to retain the same coverage.

So my verdict would be to go for the 300f4 and find a good zoom to cover the 200mm range. (or find the 400f4.5 for your long tele, it's really nice)

That makes sence.  70-200/2.8 + 300/4 are a good combo.

Offline ISO3200

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1551
  • Gender: Male
  • Shaken, not blurred...
Re: 200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4?
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2006, 11:38:33 PM »
I have a Nikon 300/4 and it's my favourite tele, period, even over a 400/4.5. A minolta version is on my wishlist, but only for the AS. I'm happy with Nikon's version in most respects. Image quality above all.
SB-400, 28-200/3.5-5.6 AF G, 50/1.8 AF D, 60/2.8 AF D Micro-Nikkor, 105/2.8 AF-S VR G Micro-Nikkor, 70-180/4.5-5.6 AF D Micro-Nikkor, 200/4 AF D Micro-Nikkor, 70-300/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR G, Nikon PB-6... Yes I quite like macro.