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 have been a Nikon professional camera user for over 20 years, starting with an F4s film camera I purchased in 1990. Over these years, I've had the pleasure of using many versions of Nikon's 300mm 2.8 lens. Finally, I own one and use it regularly with a Nikon D3S. If you're hesitating to spend the money, don't. You won't be disappointed. This lens is the latest example of the highest quality I've come to expect from my Nikon collection and I expect I will be using it twenty years from now, like many other Nikon lenses I own. This is a professional quality imaging tool that will reliably deliver high quality images day-in an day-out for decades. The 300mm 2.8 can be handheld for short stretches at high shutter speeds, but produces the best quality off of a monopod or tripod. I use a Gitzo carbon fiber monopod with a Manfrotto ball head out in the field and a variety of Manfrotto tripod/head combinations depending upon the situation. I also have the TC-20E III teleconverter to take the focal length out to 600mm. The combination works well and feels sturdy, though you lose some speed. With a modern high ISO digital, that isn't an issue. Again, if you are thinking about making the plunge, you won't be disappointed.