Is there any REAL difference in optical quality between the VRI and VRII versions of the 300mm f2.8G IF-ED?
56716
There is only one 300mm f/2.8 if-ed. The difference between VRI and VRII is at least one stop. From 3 with VRI to 4 with VRII. But the other 300mm nikon has is an f/4d without any VR. It makes a huge difference with a lens this size for handheld.
990747
depends on your usage, i'd say the 35mm f1.8g because its a better all rounder and is a lot sharper than the 55-200 ( i have both of these ) the 35mm is great for indoors i chose the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8 because its wider. The build quality is not that great on the 55-200 and the vr motor gives a noise also the focusing speed is slow on the 55-200mm
1253032
I'd be curious about this as well. I bought a standard definition FS200 which had really grainy, poor video quality. I'm ready to pay extra for the HD version but would like to know how you like the video quality of of the HF200 so far.
935597
It's very close in quality to its 1.4 counterpart. The L version has a very slight edge in contrast and sharpness. I opted for the 35mm f2 IS because the difference wasn't large enough for me to justify spending twice as much for the 1.4.Hope this helps!
522356
Actually, one more difference.Magnification factor for A200k is x0.83, while A300k is x0.74. So called, "tunnel-vision" effect has been noted with A300k's optical view finder. So I would suggest you to take a look at the sample first and make the decision.
19332
Thirding the question. Is there any new element and is the optical quality the same? How would a better lens be cheaper than the previous version?
382298
The 2.8 gives you slightly better VR and one more stop over the f4. You could always take advantage of Amazon's 30 day return policy and try the f4. If it works well for you, keep it. If not, return it for the f2.8 model. Your current lens has NO VR, so either lens would be a big improvement.
1794471
Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens in either version. Highly recommended! Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens... » Read More Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens in either version. Highly recommended! « Show Less
1945788
Yes, it is. It will get you close to the action and will still allow you to be able to move around for better views and better angles. As others have already pointed out, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Super Telephoto Prime Lens will perform better in low light but with a hefty price tag and also a loss of mobility due to the increased size and weight.
466982
I don't have the 200 f/2.8, but I do have the 70-200 f/4, and the 300 f/4. The 300 is an excellent prime lens. I think the primary difference is the light gathering capacity, and I can live with that.
305767
I had both lenses and sold the 28-300 after I got the 28mm 1.8. No contest at 28mm. Now i use the 70-300 VR for long range and switch to the 28 prime for wide angle. The flexibility in aperature is also huge for me. If you are just shooting snapshots at 28mm for 4x6 or 5x7 prints you won't be able to tell the difference, but if you are shooting for money or larger prints, the 28mm will resolve much higher clarity especially in the corners on FX.
873522
I am shooting on a Nikon 3200. I went with the 55-300 for its flexibility. It gives great depth of fields and allows me take great pics no matter what. Being in an austere environment this lens works great for long range and close range photograph. The longer 400mm lens has some problems and the 300mm gives better f-stop in my opinion. I found for cost and range of meters to be perfect. Clear shots, great DOF and quickness is great. I shot 90% free hand and have no vibration problems/blurry in my photos thanks to the VR.
1268392
Besides the focal length and the "Vibration Reduction " feature, almost nothing. A while back the price for the 10-30mm was higher for the VR. Now that they are the same, like someone said, why bother unless you just like to have a full camera bag like myself.
784399
If you have VRI and a DX camera, I think you should keep it, unless you shoot directly at a light source (the new one has N - Nano coatings which reduces flare) or want to utilize the benefits of VR II. that means you should be shooting handheld at really slow shutter speeds. If you have a FX body and shoot landscapes with VRI lens, you may not see corner to corner sharpness. The new version is essentially viewed as an upgrade to FX shooters (mostly pro shooters at the moment) who want corner to corner sharpness in all their shots. Save yourself some money and enjoy your old one. Get a good wide angle lens for that cost. Again, all this, if you are on a budget. If you are a Nikon fanboy, you wouldn't have posted this question here.. Gud luck with your choice...
1041573
Are you comparing it to the lens without VR. I work for Nikon and the price was actually the same price I get with my employee discount and it didn't include the extra filters. I used the lens on my d3100 to get some incredible shots of the lunar eclipse
464456
No comparison. Ability to go to F1.4 makes the depth of field control so much better. These two lens are in completely different class.
624550
I have the 2.8L lens, and I love it, but I wish it had IS. In my opinion, the only real advantage of the 2.8 is its greater light gathering power, to shoot inside or in deep shadows. The f4 with the IS can do most everything you want, especially if you have a camera with a high ISO. I don't know of any differences in the glass.