So, as I look at the Nikon 300mm F/2.8 and think, "How could someone possibly afford this thing?" I've found myself left with the question - what's the point of a fixed telephoto lens? They've obviously been around forever, and while I understand the idea of a 50mm f/1.4, the 300mm f/2.8 (or f/4 - just for example) seems like its versatility would be quite limited.
Am I missing something?
Again, never knowing anything about anything,
Shacklebolt
The answer is "It depends." For instance, if you're shooting sports, a 300mm 2.8 is the lens of choice- if you're doing anything in poor light, early light or late light, you pretty-much need f/2.8.
I shoot with the Nikon 400/2.8 AF-S II, which is much heavier and for sideline sports I think the 300 is much easier to deal with if you're moving up and down the lines.
The Nikkor 300/2.8 is ~$4500. If you figure you'll shoot for 10 years on the lens, that's $450/year or about $37.50 a month. So, if you're selling prints at any reasonable rate, that's about a print and a half a month (covering insurance, cleaning, etc.) Obviously, that means you're keeping a lot of equity tied up, so you'll want to sell more than that to do a good ROI, but most photographers selling fine art prints do better than 18/year.
As far as versatility, I suppose it depends on what you shoot, but for me, the wider aperture of a prime telephoto gives me 25-45 minutes of shooting at either end of the day compared to a f/4 lens- so the flexibility of the faster lens beats the composition flexibility of a zoom that can't shoot in lower light when everything is active. I expect the D3 will make the 200-400/4 zoom much more convenient- but again I'll be able to shoot in half the light, so the advantage outweighs the fact I may have to back up occasionally.
You sure those aren't 400's
Sorry, the 400 f/2.8 is the sport's photographer's wet dream from what I've been told.
While a 400 is a nicer lens for far-side action, most of the sports shooters I know simply don't want to deal with the extra weight when running up and down the lines for an hour or so. Even track-side for motorsports, the few times I've done it, I was the only one with a 400, while the folks who did it regularly shot 300mm lenses.
Not to mention that lenses have a very long useful life - primes even more than zooms I imagine. Whatever cash you spend on a lens seems more reasonable the longer you use it.
Exactly, though I'm not sure that zooms are any less useful over the time periods we're talking about.
