Update 5 Mar 01

Let me add an update to this review of my 300mm f/2.8 AF-S. I've extensively used this lens through a variety of situations and have found it meeting all of my original requirements. The best thing about the lens is it's small size, super performance, and compatibility with my TC-14e and TC-20e. I can't over-emphasize the importance for the last statement because of the added flexibility of a 600mm f/5.6 AF-S lens in an almost hand holdable package. The best part of this benefit is I can put the lens in my Lowe Pro Nature Trekker backpack that's fairly small in size and still have the ability to reach out to some small birds if needed. It's a lot of capability in a small package. In fact, I'm typing this update while flying to Homer Alaska for my first photography trip to that great state. In the aircraft's hold is my luggage which includes half my photo gear including the 500mm f/4 AF-S. At my feet however is my Nature Trekker packed with 2 Nikon F5s, both my teleconverters, a SB-28, my 70-180 f/4.5-5.6 Micro Nikkor, and other assorted odds and ends like filters and such. The point of all this is if some sort of catastrophy occurs and I loose my primary big lens, I'm still well equiped to handle 80% of my photogrpahy objectives. The trip won't be lost.

If you haven't guess by now, I'm amazed by this lens. In fact, if I had to make a choice for the which of my lenses have the best optical quality, I have to give the nod to this 300mm f/2.8 AF-S. It's wonderful and well worth the expense and effort getting it.

Cheers

Tom

Update 7 Jan 01

300mm f/2.8 AF-S

I've just started to use a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S with my Nikon camera bodies. Compared to my 500mm f/4 AF-S, this lens is considerably smaller and easier to manuever. It weighs about 2/3d's as much at about 5 pounds. Is it hand hold able? No, not really. You still need to support his lens somehow because of its weight. Combined with the Nikon F5 it weighs in at almost 8 pounds. Is that something you want to hand hold? I don't!

Recent trips to Jasper NP convinced me to purchase this lens. I found that too often my 500mm f/4 AF-S was too much lens for the large mammals that populate the park. Many times, I found myself backing up away from the subjects because I wasn't able to get enough room to compose the images I wanted. "Too much lens for wildlife photography" you're saying. Yup, it's true there are times when you can have too much of a good thing. Remember, this only applies in areas where the wildlife are very accustomed to a human presence. In other words they aren't bothered by an occasional photographer or two.

I have found that this lens has not replaced my longer lenses. In many ways I still use my 500mm for all the typical situations. But, I've found when shooting from a car on the road that the 300mm is perfect for the job. In many instances, it's the only tool to use.

A big factor for chosing this lens is its compatibility with Nikon's AF-I teleconverters; TC-20e and TC-14e. Both are indespensible for adjusting your focal length to what you want. Sure, it's not a zoom but the quality of the 300mm f/2.8 AF-S combined with either the 2x or 1.4x teleconverter is amazing. Another big factor is this lens, two bodies, and assortment of lenses all fit into my new Nature Trekker photo backpack. I don't have to worry about lugging that 500mm around everywhere.

I do wish Nikon had it's VR technology up to speed enough to have introduced a 300mm f/2.8 VR AF-S, but alas they haven't. Instead of waiting for that dream lens, I elected to just go ahead and get what I needed. Sometime down the road I'll be getting one of those lenses.

Like any other long lens, camera holding and tripod technique are still everything. Though camera shake isn't as much of a factor with this lens as it is with the 500mm f/4 AF-S, every effort has to be made to ensure camera shake isn't involved with making your images less than sharp. I've found the smaller lens is a bit easier to totally steady the camera. This is a good thing considering the tremendous difficulties that I've had avoiding camera shake with the 500mm f/4 AF-S.

If given the choice of going with a longer 500mm over the more versital 300mm, I'd still go with the longer lens first. There's nothing like a long lens to salvage a situation with a fairly shy subject. Still, the 300mm length will find a place in my operating environment and I'm sure it can in yours.

Cheers.

Tom