Very easily - it's the best optical quality at 300mm f4 (bar the f2.8s) at a very low price. Definitely a JKL Best Buy. The expensive Fresnel element version saves weight but does not improve quality. I love mine to bits..! :-) (Full review to follow... :-) )
@@jklenses8611 thank you so much! I'm excited! I'm considering selling my Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3 to get the 300mm f4. The lack of VR is what's making me a little hesitant but the high iso performance of my D750 should allow for high enough shutter speeds, right?
Go for it! I think I owned that Sigma lens some years ago and absolutely hated it. On excellent advice I got rid of it and bought the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR lens and used a teleconverter for the very long end. The quality of images just rocketed up when I did this! 😊 I do most of my shooting below 300mm so have always been super-happy with the 70-200 and TC-14E. If I know I’m going to need 300mm+ then I would definitely go for the AF-S (not AF-D) f4. Simple construction of just a few high quality elements gives super sharp images and natural transitions into excellent bokeh and on the second hand market they are just stupidly cheap. I’ve always found the AF-S on the 300/4 fast enough for me and never been much bothered by lack of VR. However, I do pre-focus a lot of the time and then take tens of shots as the object passes through. I know that people who shoot things which hop about unpredictably often don’t use this lens and for them, the VR thing would be a big issue. As always - choose the lens according to what you shoot! 😊 I’ve also never found the 300/4 too big but then I’m nearly always on a tripod. If you have to hand hold all the time and shoot objects which dart around all over the place then I can kind of see why the original AF-S 300/4 would have been a right pain and this is where Nikon are marketing the 300/4 Fresnel lens. This is much smaller, has the very latest lightning AF-S and is much smaller and lighter. This is done using a Fresnel element which makes the image quality very slightly worse but hugely reduces weight and size but also increases cost very dramatically. At JKLenses it’s all about highest optical quality for least money and here the AF-S 300/4 is an absolute steal. I don’t use mine all the time but when I do I notice the step up in image quality oiver my awesome 70-200 f2.8 which is saying a huge amount! As always though - think about the kinds of subjects you shoot as for some, PF and VRII will get them shots which the older lens would miss… Hope this helps… 😊 @@jancovanderwesthuizen8070
@@jklenses8611 I actually own the very same 70-200 2.8 that you have, albeit not in that beautiful tropical grey, and I love it. I think I've made my decision, the variable aperture Sigma has to go! Thank you so much for weighing in, it's much appreciated and I'm looking forward to the review of that lens! :)
I also hear the why do you,very few are aware they are available,albeit rather rare.I have the 400mmf2.8,300mmf4 and the 28-70f2.8. As stated there is no difference between them and the black version and fun to use to confuse a less educated fellow photographer. Glad to see you mention this line. Always enjoy your insight and informative sessions.
Hmmm. I've heard this idea a lot but I don't think it's true. How much an object reflects or absorbs heat depends on its surface finish (ie matt or gloss), not on the actual colour. So, for example, a shiny black lens would reflect most of the heat and absorb only a little, whereas a matt white lens would absorb strongly. The Nikon tropical grey lenses seem to have the same (matt) finish as the black ones and so will absorb/reflect heat the same. I can't find any claim by Nikon that they reflect heat better (which you might expect if they did). I think (although I've never used one) that the Canon white lenses have a different surface finish and therefore do reflect heat away more efficiently. Please let me know if I've got this wrong...! :-)
@@petermcneill7950 Lol,it is after all what anything dark does under the sun. Anyways, I was speaking from personal experience after noticing the black lens heat up and the black camera body as well. It gets almost got enough to make it feel like your hand can burn.
quick question mate.....how good is the 28/70 really. would really like to hear of your impression on the lens. i hear they're notoriously unreliable and delicate.
I love the 28-70/2.8 although sometimes wish it did 24mm. Given its professional standard 'full metal jacket' I'd be surprised if it was anything but bulletproof. Having said that my (admittedly elderly) version has started to squeak a bit when autofocusing, making me wonder about getting it serviced. Still prime lens quality across all foal lengths, though! :-)
Would love to but don't own one and can't afford one at the moment! :-) My best guess would be that it would be much better than the 70-200 (at the 105mm focal length!) as it's a prime lens but my question would be how much better is it than the gorgeous 105mm f2 - enough to justify it's price..? :-)
I also own the grey 70-200mm and have also had more than a few weird looks over the years. What a lens though.
Great videos with good narrative, keep it up!
Could you, if possible, make a review of the AF-S 300mm f4 non-VR lens?
Very easily - it's the best optical quality at 300mm f4 (bar the f2.8s) at a very low price. Definitely a JKL Best Buy. The expensive Fresnel element version saves weight but does not improve quality. I love mine to bits..! :-) (Full review to follow... :-) )
@@jklenses8611 thank you so much! I'm excited! I'm considering selling my Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3 to get the 300mm f4. The lack of VR is what's making me a little hesitant but the high iso performance of my D750 should allow for high enough shutter speeds, right?
Go for it! I think I owned that Sigma lens some years ago and absolutely hated it. On excellent advice I got rid of it and bought the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR lens and used a teleconverter for the very long end. The quality of images just rocketed up when I did this! 😊
I do most of my shooting below 300mm so have always been super-happy with the 70-200 and TC-14E. If I know I’m going to need 300mm+ then I would definitely go for the AF-S (not AF-D) f4. Simple construction of just a few high quality elements gives super sharp images and natural transitions into excellent bokeh and on the second hand market they are just stupidly cheap.
I’ve always found the AF-S on the 300/4 fast enough for me and never been much bothered by lack of VR. However, I do pre-focus a lot of the time and then take tens of shots as the object passes through. I know that people who shoot things which hop about unpredictably often don’t use this lens and for them, the VR thing would be a big issue. As always - choose the lens according to what you shoot! 😊
I’ve also never found the 300/4 too big but then I’m nearly always on a tripod. If you have to hand hold all the time and shoot objects which dart around all over the place then I can kind of see why the original AF-S 300/4 would have been a right pain and this is where Nikon are marketing the 300/4 Fresnel lens. This is much smaller, has the very latest lightning AF-S and is much smaller and lighter. This is done using a Fresnel element which makes the image quality very slightly worse but hugely reduces weight and size but also increases cost very dramatically.
At JKLenses it’s all about highest optical quality for least money and here the AF-S 300/4 is an absolute steal. I don’t use mine all the time but when I do I notice the step up in image quality oiver my awesome 70-200 f2.8 which is saying a huge amount!
As always though - think about the kinds of subjects you shoot as for some, PF and VRII will get them shots which the older lens would miss… Hope this helps… 😊
@@jancovanderwesthuizen8070
@@jklenses8611 I actually own the very same 70-200 2.8 that you have, albeit not in that beautiful tropical grey, and I love it. I think I've made my decision, the variable aperture Sigma has to go! Thank you so much for weighing in, it's much appreciated and I'm looking forward to the review of that lens! :)
Still waiting for the 300mm review 😍 Hope you do a comeback, youbhave very useful reviews!
I also hear the why do you,very few are aware they are available,albeit rather rare.I have the 400mmf2.8,300mmf4 and the 28-70f2.8.
As stated there is no difference between them and the black version and fun to use to confuse a less educated fellow photographer.
Glad to see you mention this line.
Always enjoy your insight and informative sessions.
They do have an advantage under the sun as they don't heat up as much. The black lenses absorb a tremendous amount of heat.
Hmmm. I've heard this idea a lot but I don't think it's true. How much an object reflects or absorbs heat depends on its surface finish (ie matt or gloss), not on the actual colour. So, for example, a shiny black lens would reflect most of the heat and absorb only a little, whereas a matt white lens would absorb strongly. The Nikon tropical grey lenses seem to have the same (matt) finish as the black ones and so will absorb/reflect heat the same. I can't find any claim by Nikon that they reflect heat better (which you might expect if they did). I think (although I've never used one) that the Canon white lenses have a different surface finish and therefore do reflect heat away more efficiently. Please let me know if I've got this wrong...! :-)
You have never tried wearing black t-shirt instead of a white one on a very hot sunny day!
@@petermcneill7950 Lol,it is after all what anything dark does under the sun. Anyways, I was speaking from personal experience after noticing the black lens heat up and the black camera body as well. It gets almost got enough to make it feel like your hand can burn.
quick question mate.....how good is the 28/70 really.
would really like to hear of your impression on the lens.
i hear they're notoriously unreliable and delicate.
I love the 28-70/2.8 although sometimes wish it did 24mm. Given its professional standard 'full metal jacket' I'd be surprised if it was anything but bulletproof. Having said that my (admittedly elderly) version has started to squeak a bit when autofocusing, making me wonder about getting it serviced. Still prime lens quality across all foal lengths, though! :-)
Hello JK, Big fan. Do you mind if you can do a Review on Nikon 105mm 1.4E ED. Do you think its a better choice than the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8? Thank you
Would love to but don't own one and can't afford one at the moment! :-) My best guess would be that it would be much better than the 70-200 (at the 105mm focal length!) as it's a prime lens but my question would be how much better is it than the gorgeous 105mm f2 - enough to justify it's price..? :-)
love your videos! fyi - for convenience sake, here is a link: www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html
Many thanks! :-)