by Guest » Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:37 pm
I'm torn between these two lenses. I've seen a lot people shooting wildlife with a 300mm f2.8 plus 1.4x teleconverter, and getting great results. Part of me wants to use a 300mm f2.8 for other purposes as well, but if it's always attached to a teleconverter then I might as well get the 400mm. I don't shoot a lot of bird photography. I mainly shoot deer in scenic settings, and I try to incorporate the surroundings. In my budget, I'm currently looking at a Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR ii and a 400mm f2.8 VR1. They're about the same price, 400 being a little more. Is there a big advantage of having VR ii vs VR1? I know the 300mm f2.8 is often used for portraits (Ken Rockwell), can the 400mm also be used for portraits? I'm looking for a wildlife lens that I can occasionally use for portraits and other things. What is the main use of the 400mm F2.8? Sorry, many questions.
I'm torn between these two lenses. I've seen a lot people shooting wildlife with a 300mm f2.8 plus 1.4x teleconverter, and getting great results. Part of me wants to use a 300mm f2.8 for other purposes as well, but if it's always attached to a teleconverter then I might as well get the 400mm. I don't shoot a lot of bird photography. I mainly shoot deer in scenic settings, and I try to incorporate the surroundings. In my budget, I'm currently looking at a Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR ii and a 400mm f2.8 VR1. They're about the same price, 400 being a little more. Is there a big advantage of having VR ii vs VR1? I know the 300mm f2.8 is often used for portraits (Ken Rockwell), can the 400mm also be used for portraits? I'm looking for a wildlife lens that I can occasionally use for portraits and other things. What is the main use of the 400mm F2.8? Sorry, many questions.
