Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED Vibration Reduction II Fixed Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

This lens is top quality , Sharp, and durable. It is probably the best 300mm f2.8 lens money can buy today.I will not get in to the Technical discussion of this lens, since it would take a university's optical department to give you a meaningful assessment of the optical quality and sharpness.So the best I can do here is my experience with the lens and here it is.First of all the Quality, fit and fish and performance is first rate.This lens is lighter and smaller than the specs suggest. this was a very pleasant surprise to me.The VRII is very effective and much quieter than the 200-400mm f4.The Auto focus is very fast, and like other recent Nikon top of the line tele lenses it has its own Auto focus buttons that can be programed as, AF On, AF lock, or Focus distance Memory/recall.I am still finding new ways to use the recall button. very handy in places that has a lot of clutter that could distract the Auto focus system.The lens is compact compare to other Nikon exotic telephotos. I cary the lens attached to a full size DSLR in a 15 L small backpack along with TC 20 and TC14 and other accessories during back country shootings. Speaking of TC 20 and TC14, the lens was designed and lunched with TC 20 III and they are a perfect match for each other. I can can get a 600 f5.6 that I can cary at 10000 feet while hiking and looking for Mountain goats.I have tested both TC's with this lens and the results is much better than my expectation for such a setup. Do I lose sharpness? I am sure I do but I can not tell unless I pixel peep real hard.It can be hand held very effectively for a while (VRii is very helpful) but it wears on you eventually, my setup for this lens in the back country is a monopod and a ProMedia Gear Tomahawk directly attached to the monopod. I use a RRS BH 55 ball-head and a Tripod other wise.If you are debating between this lens and 200-400mm f4, I use both and in my opinion, you will be happier with 200-400mm f4, just my opinion, But based on the fact that you are debating it in your head it tells me you do not have a specific need for this lens and you just want a good quality lens in this range and if that is so, then you really want 200-400mm f4. It is about a $1000 more, but more versatile and well worth the additional investment, but the 200-400 is 4" longer and 1lb heavier.Some things to think about since it may cost you more money( even though if you are going to buy this lens you already made arrangement for a second mortgage or you are a .com baby)The strap is the cheesy Nikon strap that comes with $500 cameras, so plan on buying a good one worthy of carrying a heavy and expensive lens. I use a Black Rapids sports2 strap attached via a Arca-Swiss style clamp to the RRS replacement foot, scary looking but functional.The supplied foot is of a high quality but a bit short and uncomfortable to use during hand carrying. If you are using Arca-Swiss style heads the best is to get a replacement foot that is longer and can be balanced on the head better specially if you go back and forth with different size cameras attached to the lens. I use RRS LCF-14 replacement foot, it is very comfortable when I cary the lens and camera together. This option is not much more expensive than buying a Arca-Swiss plate and is more elegant and lighter weight solution.I also got the Lenscoat for this lens for added protection and eventual help with the resale value.Lastly, The hood supplied with this lens is really more for packing and transporting than it is for every day use. it is too big and clumsy to get off and put on, I use the hoody from Lenscoat (XXL size) but others make similar ones. these hoods are very functional and practical to use.In conclusion, Sharp, high quality, expensive, and once you get over the price shock it is the most fun you will have with your camera,Hope this helps.

I had this lens twice, and I loved it. I get clear and sharp pictures with whatever I use (all Nikon) because I know what I am doing. This is the sharpest lens I have ever used, and if I had to grade it vs the 80-400 or 150-500, both of which I also have, I would say it is an A+, versus an B+ for the 200-500, and an A- for the 80-400. Is it worth the difference for the 300? If you are a pro, probably. If you are not a pro, get the 200-500 or 80-400, especially for wildlife. I sent both of mine back because I have COPD, and the lens is heavy for me, and I am 68, look 55, and feel 90. I got the best pics I have ever taken with this lens, but literally can't carry it for more than 20 minutes, and I only use tripods for Sunsets and Sunrises. If I inherit more money, I will hire someone to carry it for me and immediately buy another one.Hope this helps someone. Good Luck.

I lost my first Nikon 300mm f2.8 telephoto lens last summer when my truck and camper was destroyed in a fire. This replacement shows Nikon continues producing quality camera gear. I would highly recommend this lens for any serious nature photography.

Purchased the lens a couple of days ago and used it to photograph small birds and animals with the Nikon TC20E-III 2x teleconverter. The pictures are excellent and I am very impressed. Relative to the Nikon 300mm f4 lens this one offers the following advantages:1) Much faster focusing that is always dead on.2) VR which is very useful for handheld shots It is rumored that Nikon is developing a 300 mm f4 with VR to be released later in 2014.3) On f-stop faster great for low-light and action photography.4) With the TC-20EIII it makes for a relatively compact 600 mm f5.6. In daylight conditions the 300 mm f2.8 + TC20EIII focuses very quickly on D800.Performance with the TC20EIII is very good, but there is some loss in contrast and sharpness when pixel peeping. I took two pictures of a rabbit both at 300 mm f2.8 in DX crop mode (450 mm equivalent) and 300mm + TC20EII in FX mode (600 mm equivalent). I had both photos printed on 16 x20 Kodak Supra Lustre and honestly both look phenomenal. The bare lens photo is a bit more sharp, but I actually prefer the photo with the TC because the rabbit occupies more of the frame. Typically someone is going to view these photos 2-3 feet back and at that distance I can not perceive a difference in sharpness.To be fair the Nikon 300 mm f4 is a more portable solution and if I were to do an all day hike I would prefer to take the 300 mm f4. However, if I were do a more limited hike (1-2 hours) I would definitely take the 300 mm f2.8 for the faster glass.My wishes for future updates:1) Nikon would produced an actual plastic lens cap that fits their exotic telephone lens. The lens sock is a pain to take on and off and a plastic lens cap would provide proper protection. I find it quit cumbersome to hold onto the lens while putting the lens sock on. Personally I don't like the current aftermarket lens caps and am looking into having a custom cap made.2) Nikon makes an arca-swiss lens foot standard. No one spends almost 6K on a lens and screws it into a tripod. I am very glad that I spent the extra $95 on the RRS lens foot, but such a foot should be standard at this price point.