[AugustineVC]

I have seen forums discussing Nikkor AFS 300 f4, I have seen people discussing Sigma 328, 584 and 800, but I have never seen people discuss the performance of Nikon AFS300 f2.8 VRII or Nikon 400, 500 and 600. I am curious to know why. Also, how do Nikon lens perform in these tele ranges? Thanks

[reflexboy]

The fact is that. Those lenses are expensive! Damn expensive! Unless he/she has a special purpose of using them. Such as birding or for jobs. Most people would normally stay away from them and buy something cheaper or something more versatile.

[AugustineVC]

Thanks for your replay

I understand that for Nikon 400, 500 and 600. But isn't the price for Sigma 584 and 800 more expensive than Nikon 300 2.8 VRII and Nikon 200 F2 VRII? There are still a lot of people talking about the Sigma lens or lens at 300 f2.8 for Canon, but very few talk about the Nikon one. That's why I am curious to ask.

How are these two performances when compare with their 'rival' equivalent produced by Sigma such as Sigma 300 f2.8 and Sigma 120-300 f2.8.

[snoopybee]

Augustine, I dont have a need for them but I agree with reflexboy. You might want to try dpreview for more comments.

[whispermakers]

384+2x extend應該都仲平過你講既所有其他鏡.....

[gwu1]

唔洗點discuss，因為一定正同埋貴。

[h0001244]

these lenses are mostly seen on football court
but mostly in white

[Landscape Fans]

AugustineVC

The quality is no doubt excellent. Nikon lense must be at least equal in photo quality, if not superior to other make.

If you don't believe, buy all those lenses and write a detail report for us.

[gk1128]

Nikon d 長炮最大問題係太 "貴重"....又貴又重, 所以少人用咪少d人講.....
加上Nikon只係幾2-3年先更新轉成 AF-S + VR, 比起對家遲上10年8年....
所以早年要用到長炮的用家....多數都係用左"對家" 公司的鏡

[reflexboy]

Quote<<<<<<<<The quality is no doubt excellent. Nikon lense must be at least equal in photo quality, if not superior to other make.

If you don't believe, buy all those lenses and write a detail report for us.>>>>>>>>>>

All because of the price? I don't buy that!

I do believe both Nikon and Canon perhaps others produce some excellent lenses. But it looks like most of the ordinary consumers judge the quality according to the price! How silly they are! Sorry! But that's what I felt anyway. 

I can give u guys an example. Since I've joined this discussion group in 09. I had told it to others for countless time in the Canon sub-forum. The 16-35mm F2.8L is one of the crappiest lens that Canon'd ever made! And 17-40mm F4L is far far far more better! But lots of people were unwilling to accept it! They claimed they'd tried both and thought 16-35 was a better lens! Just because of the amount that they paid Ha........only they know!

 And some dudes just did nothing but quoted so called "test reportes" all the way from a web that supported by tons of camera ads!  What was the reason behind that report?  You know? 

[春田花]

使用呢類鏡頭絕大多數只有兩種人，職業攝影師同業餘攝影師。第一類既然係職業關係，有太多商業因素，好少會在公開而又非商業場合表達個人意見；第二類業餘攝影師買得起呢類鏡頭要有一定經濟能力，多數都會有多於一種嗜好，而且好可能比較自我，斷估都唔會為一支鏡頭寫心得。

[AugustineVC]

Wow! A lot of response! Thanks C hings. ^.^ I now understand a bit more. Somehow, it makes me wonder whether HK20000 will be the cap for 'non- professional photographer' (I mean those who DO NOT make their living by taking photos) to spend on lenses, buying them and testing them. Or is it simply that there is no need in HK urban area for lens range over 300mm. XD Sorry for the silly question and thanks for all your reply in advance. ^^

[reflexboy]

其實講到尾就係價錢再加上普及程度問題。即使我有心祥細同你地討論點解我情願選擇500mm f4，都唔願意用600mm f4，又會有幾多人會回應？

心空廣闊嗰啲就會話我都未用過，無咩可以交流。心空狹窄啲就會講，你邊道有呢啲鏡呀！唔好吹水啦！

所以喺呢啲地方提出討論實在無咩意思！而真正用家，就自然有佢地嘅圈子，喺佢地個社群裡面有所討論。

[春田花]

呢班用家圍內已經交換意見同心得，無必要在public forum討論。

[AugustineVC]

By the way, I am curious to ask, if you have a budget just enough for buying Nikon 300mm f2.8 VRII, will you buy that or will you buy something else and why?