I own a Nikon D700 and use a Nikon 80-200 F 2.8 for action - mostly motocross.

I'm by no means a pro. I'm considering buying a 300 mm F2.8.

Yes I know it's expensive and yes I know I don't need it but I want it.

Does this lens have the potential to deliver significantly higher quality shots with regards to DOF and clarity when compared to the 80-200?

Again I know I don't need it but I do...want it.

thank you.

The 300 2.8 to me is the best lens nikon or cannon makes if nikon was to make the 200/400 in a 2.8 I would never touch another lens . YOU WILL BE VERY HAPPY

I have 2 Nikon 300/2.8 lenses, and have used nearly every pro lens Nikon makes. I will not say the 300/2.8 is the best lens Nikon makes. However, I will say it is one of the few lenses that you can attach to your camera and you, other pros, and the general public, can look at the images and know you just shot with something that did NOT come from an an amateur setup. If you get your shot right (focus, composition, timing) with the 300/2.8 you have something you can sell.

Other lenses in this class are 600/4, 400/2.8, 200/2, 200-400/4, and 85/1.4. They just look like nothing else.

The 300mm, f2.8 is the finest Nikon lens I own. Many would argue that it is one of the finest lenses in their lineup. It also takes teleconvertors quite nicely for added reach.

I agree with perroneford, there is something about the images from this lens that is really special. There is no doubt that the images are different from any consumer level lens. When shot wide open, the lens is still very sharp and produces a dreamy bokeh. I still get a thrill whenever I shoot with this glass.

thank you to everyone who responded. I'm sure this has been asked before but..

this grey market thing.

B&H says they have the grey market Nikon lens but Nikon does not service it even under warranty?

you have to buy the US market version for Nikon to warranty support it.

any input on the whole grey market pro's and cons appreciated.

Many years ago, grey market items were significantly cheaper than US market one's and the temptation was VERY high to buy them if you were hunting a bargain. Today, the cost is nearly the same, and you get NO help from Nikon warranty wise. You can send them to Nikon Authorized places for repair, but at your own cost.

Here is my take. I have a lot of Nikon glass. I have no grey market glass. I did buy a lot of used glass. Buying used glass from a reputable source, and I must emphasize reputable, saves a LOT of money, and you end up with the same deal as if you had gone grey market. On something like a 300/2.8, the savings of going used can be over $1000. I said I have 2 300/2.8s. One is a manual focus version I bought used. I bought that lens as a backup to my AF-S 300/2.8 which I also bought used. If anything should happen to my autofocus one, I have the manual backup. The 300 is so important to what I do, I carry two of them. There is really nothing to fail in the manual focus one. It's just metal and glass with gears.

So I say avoid the grey market stuff. The cost savings is next to nothing, and the risk simply doesn't seem commensurate with the savings.

Originally Posted by perroneford ... Other lenses in this class are 600/4, 400/2.8, 200/2, 200-400/4, and 85/1.4. They just look like nothing else.

Does this mean you consider the 500/4 a compromise too far?

pp

Originally Posted by puzzledpaul Does this mean you consider the 500/4 a compromise too far? pp

I didn't care for it. Not to say it's a bad lens, I just personally didn't care for it as much as the other lenses. If someone GAVE me one I'd be thrilled. But if I was spending my own money, I'd get the 600.

Originally Posted by perroneford If someone GAVE me one I'd be thrilled.

I suspect you'd not be alone ...

pp

The other big benefit of the 500 is the weight. It weighs a noticeable amount less than either the 600 or the 400. And if you have to lug it around all day, that might be significant.

Originally Posted by puzzledpaul I suspect you'd not be alone ... pp

Originally Posted by perroneford The other big benefit of the 500 is the weight. It weighs a noticeable amount less than either the 600 or the 400. And if you have to lug it around all day, that might be significant.

Yep - one of the reasons I bought the 500 (used, I hasten to add)

Yes, a 300/2.8'd also be nice - but even more junk to carry around and probably less useful (to me)

pp

Originally Posted by puzzledpaul Yep - one of the reasons I bought the 500 (used, I hasten to add) Yes, a 300/2.8'd also be nice - but even more junk to carry around and probably less useful (to me) pp

By the time you get into this big glass, you REALLY have to know and understand your needs. You see VERY few discussions of 400-600mm lenses, and about a million threads on which 50 or 85 to get. :)

Originally Posted by jwear The 300 2.8 to me is the best lens nikon or cannon makes if nikon was to make the 200/400 in a 2.8 I would never touch another lens . YOU WILL BE VERY HAPPY

A 200-400 2.8 would cost as much as a new car. Sigma makes a 200-500 2.8 that weighs 38 lbs and costs $26,000. A nikon lens would cost close to $40K.

Originally Posted by Harryb A 200-400 2.8 would cost as much as a new car. Sigma makes a 200-500 2.8 that weighs 38 lbs and costs $26,000. A nikon lens would cost close to $40K.

That's not necessarily an issue for numerous buyers. I had planned to go medium format this year, and a body, back, and 2 lenses would have put me at the $40k easily.

I know several owners of the Sigma "Bigma" and they like it quite a bit.

Originally Posted by perroneford That's not necessarily an issue for numerous buyers. I had planned to go medium format this year, and a body, back, and 2 lenses would have put me at the $40k easily. I know several owners of the Sigma "Bigma" and they like it quite a bit.

I just bought the D4 and D800E so I could see spending bucks on something I would use. I don't see many folks going for a 40lb lens. Of course if you could afford a $40K lens then you probably could afford a sherpa.

40 pounds is a light load for me. By the time I get my 3-4 bodies, plates, super clamps, magic arms, big glass, etc., etc., I've got that much easily. Astronomers run around with 100 pound telescopes all over the countryside looking for dark sky.

Just a matter of doing what you have to do.

Originally Posted by perroneford Many years ago, grey market items were significantly cheaper than US market one's and the temptation was VERY high to buy them if you were hunting a bargain. Today, the cost is nearly the same, and you get NO help from Nikon warranty wise. You can send them to Nikon Authorized places for repair, but at your own cost. Here is my take. I have a lot of Nikon glass. I have no grey market glass. I did buy a lot of used glass. Buying used glass from a reputable source, and I must emphasize reputable, saves a LOT of money, and you end up with the same deal as if you had gone grey market. On something like a 300/2.8, the savings of going used can be over $1000. I said I have 2 300/2.8s. One is a manual focus version I bought used. I bought that lens as a backup to my AF-S 300/2.8 which I also bought used. If anything should happen to my autofocus one, I have the manual backup. The 300 is so important to what I do, I carry two of them. There is really nothing to fail in the manual focus one. It's just metal and glass with gears. So I say avoid the grey market stuff. The cost savings is next to nothing, and the risk simply doesn't seem commensurate with the savings.

the difference is about $500?

what about the sigma/tamron alternatives to the Nikon 300 F 2.8? any thoughts?

ps. appreciate the input.

Originally Posted by perroneford 40 pounds is a light load for me. By the time I get my 3-4 bodies, plates, super clamps, magic arms, big glass, etc., etc., I've got that much easily.

So adding another 40 lbs to your kit is just in the noise, eh?

Originally Posted by amadeus the difference is about $500? what about the sigma/tamron alternatives to the Nikon 300 F 2.8? any thoughts? ps. appreciate the input.

I would go with the Sigma if $ is an issue. Otherwise the Nikon 300 2.8 is a hell of a piece of glass.