NikonGear'23
Reviews => Ramblings of the Fierce Bear of the North => Topic started by: Bjørn Rørslett on June 13, 2015, 11:59:33
-
[ Posted 05 March 2015 - 11:28 Article and image copyright Bjørn Rørslett ]
In terms of size, the use of a Fresnel principle has indeed dwarfed this 300 compared to other lenses of the same speed and focal length. Without its beefy sunshade, the PF Nikkor is just a tad longer to say an ED 180 mm f/2.8. It's lighter as well. Filter is the by now ubiquitous 77 mm size. Build and workmanship follow the current slick yet curiously anonymous fashion of modern Nikkors. The lens is slim enough to share the removable tripod collar of the 70-200 mm f/4 Nikkor. In common with that lens, the tripod collar is an optional extra. My review sample had no collar so I haven't been able to assess its qualities, perhaps owners of the 70-200/4 can pitch in here.
The flight control deck on the left-hand side has settings for A/M, M/A, and M focusing modes. Apart from the pretty obvious implication of 'M' mode, one really has to consult the paperwork to decide upon the difference between A/M and M/A modes. Apparently M/A allows faster override on the AF functionality, but the information provided by Nikon here is terse and slightly confusing. Perhaps I need to become a hard-core AF enthusiast to appreciate the true difference. There is also a range switch to limit the lens to focus within infinity to 3 m. The near limit is approx. 1.4m, which does allow for some pretty tightly framed close-ups. AF speed is decent, but no more, on my Df. Accuracy was excellent so no need for any fine tuning here.
Nikon follows the practice of some recent lenses by giving the 300 PF an electronic aperture. This means some of the older Nikons, say from the D2 series or earlier, cannot control the lens aperture. It's quite clear Nikon wants to introduce 'E' aperture to every new Nikkor, but thankfully they have commenced this make-over with specialised high-end products first. Despite the operational advantages of 'E' envisioned by Nikon, I still much prefer the fail-safe and time-tested manual aperture control directly on the lens. My Df simply calls for lenses with aperture rings to yield the perfect handling of the camera/lens combination. However, the 300 PF isn't that badly functional on the Df if you close your eyes to the lack of an aperture ring.
VR is implemented via a three-way slider control to give 'Off, 'Normal' and 'Sport' settings. There is the usual confusion as to what really controls VR; the shutter release or the AF-ON button. Or perhaps both, at least in 'Sports' mode.
The Fresnel lens construction shortens the optical path significantly. At the same time, new kinds of optical issues are introduced. It's obvious Nikon has mulled over this design for quite a long time until they finally decided to give it a go. Thus, expectations of high performance are natural and the rather stiff pricing point adds to this as well.
Now, to the business end of this Nikkor.
The main properties are as follows;
- The image is very sharply rendered corner to corner.
- Vignetting (corner light fall-off) is present at the widest apertures.
- Bokeh and blurring of background is nice. However, mechanical vignetting ("cat's eyes" blur circles) can be seen towards the image periphery at the widest aperture settings. Blur circles are kept quite circular up to f/6.3 and some edginess can be seen at f/7.1.
- As expected from a telephoto design, there is some geometric distortion of the pincushion type. However, the levels are low, thus even architecture could be depicted with only occasional need of any post-processing correction.
- There is a surprisingly high amount of chromatic aberration given its ED design. Most if not all of this is of the lateral kind, though, so removal in a decent RAW conversion programme is quite easy. It is worth noting that the preview shown in camera is based upon a jpg and accordingly, the lateral chromatic aberration is almost impossible to detect there. Open up a NEF however and you'll see LCA in spades.
- Image contrast is slightly lower than what we see with ordinary telephoto designs. Thus most captures benefit from a slight tweaking of contrast later in the work flow.
- Bleeding of highlights apparently is kept under excellent control.
Time perhaps to put up some real sample images?
This is a snapshot across the valley where I live, in the northern parts of Oslo. The depth of the scene is about 1 km. shot at f/5, 1/1000 sec, 250 ISO, with my Df and the 300 PF hand-held. No VR.
The entire frame is presented, no adjustments other than a small detail increase in PhotoNinja to counteract the slightly low contrast of the PF lens. LCA reduction is applied as well.
Please view large (right-click on images to enlarge).
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/uploads/gallery/album_446/gallery_2_446_16020.jpg)
Here is an example of the detectable, yet very low pincushion distortion exhibited by the 300 PF.
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/uploads/gallery/album_446/gallery_2_446_127168.jpg)
Entire frame scaled to 2000x1333 pix, 1/1000 sec at f/7.1, 160 ISO, hand-held, on Df.
The rendition of the out-of-focus areas is quite pleasing and you can stop down a bit a still keep the background sufficiently smooth.
This is f/7.1 at which point the blur circles from specular highlights start to lose their perfectly circular shape. With the PF (Phase Fresnel) optics goes a propensity for forming 'onion rings' with these blur circles. They indeed do occur, but not as distinct as say exhibited by the new AFS 20 mm f/1.8 Nikkor.
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/uploads/gallery/album_446/gallery_2_446_54011.jpg)
Here, I tried to provoke severe flare by shooting sun reflecting off a window frame. According to the light meter, and the in-camera preview, the capture should be well and thoroughly overexposed. However, thanks to the dynamic latitude of the Df's sensor, and some internal wizardry of PhotoNinja, only a very small part of the image is actually blown out. This is the entire frame,
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=51611)
The 100% crop of the overexposed area clearly shows how well the PF lens handled the immense contrast. The transition from blown to parts with some details intact is very smooth and gradual and flare entering the darker brick wall is controlled. Most telephoto lenses of conventional construction could be hard pressed to render these details any better.
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=51612)
I've alluded to chromatic nasties a few times already, so time to scrutinise this potential problematic area.
On subjects with inherent high contrast, such as snow on branches or trees seen against the sky, the 300 PF shows significant amounts of lateral chromatic aberration. As usual for this kind of colour issue, the fringing increases in intensity towards the peripheral parts of the frame. Here is an example, taken under low contrast light during a morning snow fall (the crop is the lower left corner and the branches are not in the plane of best focus).
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=51613)
However, due to the lateral nature of these fringes, a quick fix in PhotoNinja clears up the rendition remarkably well. The crop below is the same frame run through PhotoNinja's automatic Chromatic aberration Tool so basically is a one-click affair.
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=51614)
The readiness by which LCA is cleared in the software conversion is an indirect sign of low longitudinal chromatic aberration ('axial colour'). This detail of a snow-covered chair, taken at 45 degrees of incidence at the near limit, shows axial colour indeed is almost perfectly gone;
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=51615)
Thus, one can expect crisp and clear colour rendition for close-ups. A most welcome departure from the stock Micro lenses (Nikon and other brands the names of which shall not be mentioned) with all their murky colour fringing around the focused plane.
Now, to the VR performance. It's no secret I'm not in general too keen on having VR incorporated in a lens as the optics become more complex, and you do lose some control over detail rendition and the manner in which the image blurs appear. Nothing beats a well-designed (not necessarily heavy) tripod for getting the sharpest shots. However, it cannot be denied the stabilising feature can save your day -or make you get the picture - once in a while, so I'll accept it grudgingly as long as it can be switched off easily.
The 300 PF Nikkor has three setings for VR: Off (should be in the default position but isn't), Normal (which occupies the middle default location), and Sport. The paperwork accompanying the lens isn't very clear what the decisive differences between Normal and Sport really are. I assume the Sport mode allows a little more movement of the camera say for panning, but haven't seen much of a difference during my tests. Both VR modes apparently get into action when the shutter release is pushed halfway down, whether or not AF is initiated by the release, and deactivate if you use AF-ON to focus. A configuration that really does not make much sense to me and it defeats the purpose of the dedicated AF-ON control found on the better Nikon models.
Notwithstanding these niggles, VR really works quite well on the 300/4 PF Nikkor and you can, with some luck, shoot at 3 stops slower than the normal recommended shutter speed.
I shot some VR test shots using an Olympus DSLR as subject, for a change. The setting were ISO 250, f/4.5, and 1/40 sec with the lens hand-held on the Df. The entire frame is here,
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=51616)
and the 100% crop of the frame with VR off clearly shows I cannot get a sharp image at that speed with a hand-held 300 mm lens. No big surprise. Let this be the reference to assess the efficacy of VR.
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=51617)
Here is the same subject , now with VR in Normal mode;
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=51618)
The improvement in image clarity is quite significant to my eyes.
Using Sports mode for VR produces more or less the same result as Normal, but there is a tendency to a slightly harsher background rendition. Could be a fluke under the current abysmal shooting conditions, so take this observation with at least a pinch of salt. I'll try to repeat later.
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=51619)
If weather improves I might venture into the field to shoot more interesting scenery. All in due time.
Aargh, still inclement weather. Thus the Moth Orchids in the window of my girl friend's home had to serve as test subjects for the close-up performance of the 300 PF. Nikon's data sheet specifies a reproduction ratio of 0.24x (approx. 1:4), which were the 300 a zoom lens would have netted it a 'Macro' designation.
However, one-fourth life-size is in no way true 'macro', so the 300 PF was saved from such disgrace. In common with most telephoto lenses, its performance drops at near range, as plainly seen in this capture of Phalaenopsis flowers. Shot at f/4, 1/250 sec ISO 400, with VR Normal activated. I tried this, and other flowers, using VR Sport mode, and had severe trouble getting focus accuracy because VR kicked in as soon as I touched the shutter release and jilted the focus off target. Besides, many of the shots (at 1/125 sec) had double contours to indicate VR-induced movement.
(http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=51648)
Thus, the 300 mm f/4 PF Nikkor is no substitute for a Micro-Nikkor or equivalent lens. But it can deliver the image in a pinch.
I repeated close-up tests with a tripod support to eliminate the potential adverse influence from hand-holding the lens. Using my AF 200 mm f/4 ED-IF Micro-Nikkor as a reference, the 300 PF Nikkor now delivered much better results. Not entirely up to a genuine Micro-Nikkor, but close enough for for most situations. However, it again proved imperative that VR should be turned off and you also should employ proper technique such as combining mirror lock-up and a cable release to capture the shot. For long exposures with a tripod-mounted lens, VR is likely to degrade the image by making blurs in one ('Normal' mode or two dimensions ('Sport' mode). For these tests, shutter speeds ranged from a 'fast' 1/8 sec to a 'slow' 0.8 sec.
-
Df, 300PF at f/4.5, 1/30s, VR on (normal), handheld, 12800 ISO which is my usually set limit. +1.1 EV in post-processing, and de-noising of course. Using a tripod may have brought us a better picture, essentially thanks to lower ISO and, maybe, a smaller aperture. But VR was certainly not detrimental to the quality of the shot, given the circumstances.
(http://tw3aya-ch3301.files.1drv.com/y2pbXMJH4YsZN1FZDhR4KvxV-hIX0T1zhaOvd313Ndzx5QvfCD27OpLx6dUd2c_-UGOILmlo-7MAi29qhybNujTh3Any_isNjrr81SnkNAELRUqgsbZxOrycgdJ9Bd_5JrUK7iDya84McsqtFdIF1bvCDu2utyMQlDOfhKI4hB6Ztw/_DFC2410.jpg?psid=1)
-
This is another attempt tu publish the pic corresponding to my post above. I hope it works now.
(http://m2.behance.net/rendition/pm/27615633/fs/757d227026cb912f3efcfce6252a0648.jpg)
Edit note: you obviously shouldn't link to an https URL, only http Changed the URL and now the image shows.
-
Thanks Bjorn for the detailed account of this lens and real world results, and to Airy too.
I would have been very happy to have this lens tonight as I'm sat with a wonderful family of Jays visiting our garden, light levels dropping and as my ISO settings rise, the use of VR would have really helped!
-
Any chance you have tried this for 830nm IR?
-
No, haven't, only 720 nm which works just fine. So my guess is 830 nm should be similar in behaviour.
-
Thanks.
-
I would like a 300mm lens, mostly for stage shows. My concern with this lens is the reports I have seen that shooting into light sources gives bad results I like the small size, lighter weight and lower cost compared to the 300mm f2.8 but not at the expensed of unsatisfactory results. Have you observed this problem? Thank you.
-
I would like a 300mm lens, mostly for stage shows. My concern with this lens is the reports I have seen that shooting into light sources gives bad results I like the small size, lighter weight and lower cost compared to the 300mm f2.8 but not at the expensed of unsatisfactory results. Have you observed this problem? Thank you.
In stage lighting I haven't had any problems (a few spots in the background).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/28156705820/in/dateposted-public/
I really like the way the lens renders hair and texture, e.g. here the subject is lit from the side.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/28400279893/in/dateposted-public/
As long as the sun is not within the frame or just outside of it, I haven't run into problems. When the sun does hit the front element, then there is flare, but I try to keep it so that it doesn't. In practical shooting avoiding direct sun can be done by having something obstruct the light such as tree leaves:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/27503067925/in/dateposted-public/
Later on that afternoon the light did ruin shots, but I am generally happy with the lens.
It does have a slight tendency to render skin with low contrast and I think it is related to the PF design but the way I use it is that I try to have good lighting contrast, and colourful texture in the subject, and these result in snappy pictures with this lens. Usually perfomers on stage put some attention to the way they are dressed so generally speaking this lens has worked very well for these subjects. However, if the light is very soft and dim then the results are not so great, and a conventional lens like 300/2.8 (or in my case 200/2) works better.
-
I guess an important point is that my typical application of the 300/4 PF is outdoors and there is always some soft light as a fill even when the sun or stage lights contribute to the lighting. Indoors, in a night club type lighting I use shorter lenses and I haven't used the PF in such conditions.
-
I can confirm what Ilkka said about the "smooth" rendering of skin. See for instance this fine bossa singer (outdoor shoot last year + crop). No push in contrast or clarity here.
-
I have not tested it yet under those typical harsh lightings from, say, pop concert stages. One example though is this painted wooden statue of St Peter, which was surrounded by two clear glass windows. The full shot has been left untouched, and you can see the flare-related loss of contrast. The cropped version has been gently edited to restore adequate contrast.
-
Another example of "non-artistic" lighting, from indoors concerts - well, organ recitals. And a bad mix of tungsten- and skylight (through clear windows). No bad side-effects are to be seen.
-
The initially feared 'Fresnel-induced flare' for the PF design has proven itself to be more subtle and less troublesome. However, even though the lens handles contrasts with aplomb, shooting directly into point-light sources *will* generate more flare than what the usual optical designs deliver.
I'm using this lens for IR and am very well aware of the problem strong point lights can cause. An example is shown below, from a test series shot at night which included several strong street lamps (sodium high-pressure presumably, having that dirty yellow-orange appearance. The comparison lens is the veteran 300 mm f/2.8 ED-IF AIS from early '80s.
300 AIS first, then 300 PF. Both at f/5.6. (D5300 IR)
-
Very nice finger print ;)
-
Magnified onion rings. Aspherical lenses are humbled.
-
Not related to the current discussion flare, but I'll post this image anyway.
I used to get a lot of these kinds of opportunities where my AF-S 300/4D could not be used to capture the animals because of too dim light and also usually too far a distance to the animals. However, the 300 PF is so small and light that it is really easy to handle and it makes me want to try. This image was shot with the D5, f/4, 1/100s, 300mm, ISO 102400, VR Sport mode in the dreaded shutter speed range. I used Quiet continuous mode to avoid the rather loud sound of the camera - it seems to be a good compromise. I processed the image with DXO's PRIME algorithm which is really slow but it handles chroma noise quite well (into oblivion). However, the background appears a bit as if painted and I'm not sure if I should try a little less noise reduction. This was just as the daylight was about to extinguish itself.
I'm very inexperienced in wildlife photography but I give it a try on occasion. Most of my subjects are people and landscape. I believe this opportunity presented itself because the animals dared closer to the road due to the approaching darkness.
-
Thank you Ilkka, Airy and Bjorn. I shoot a lot of outdoor festivals, where the current fad in lighting is to light up the audience as well as the performers. At minimum, there are usually backlights on the performers (LED) and the light sources are visible in the pictures. I've been using the 70-200 f2.8, and would like something with more reach. The 70-200 takes great pictures, and I don't want to backtrack in image quality. From Bjorn's post, it looks like I might have a problem with the 300mm f4 PF ED.
-
I promise to contribute more pictures I am amazed by this lens.
-
Thank you Ilkka, Airy and Bjorn. I shoot a lot of outdoor festivals, where the current fad in lighting is to light up the audience as well as the performers. At minimum, there are usually backlights on the performers (LED) and the light sources are visible in the pictures.
Good luck then. Even with the 70-200, I found it difficult to get usable shots under such or similar circumstances. The most common problem is channel saturation (I hope that's the correct term), by which you get imposed cartooning effect. The only way out of boredom is then to switch to black & white...
-
I processed the image with DXO's PRIME algorithm which is really slow but it handles chroma noise quite well (into oblivion). However, the background appears a bit as if painted and I'm not sure if I should try a little less noise reduction. This was just as the daylight was about to extinguish itself.
This is a D5 / D500 processing issue at High ISO. I tend to skip noise reduction whenever possible.
You might try the following: Develop two shots, one with minimum noise reduction, one with maximum.
Put them on two layers in photoshop and then "paint" noise reduction into the parts that might need it using a vers soft eraser tool and / or masking.
-
here we go (near field / far field / skin tones / detail rendering / different light qualities / bokeh):
-
Very consistent, good performances across users and usages.
I am looking forward to a portrait session, one of these days (the encounter with the busking bossa singer was sheer luck)
-
Using masks to select areas for noise reduction seems like a good idea, thanks! In the straight raw conversion the field in the foreground is full of colour noise but somehow the trees in the background do not have as much of visual noise that it would bother me. In the DXO NR processed image, the forest looks too processed but the foreground looks okay (to my eye). So I could use a mask that combines the field from the NR processed image with the forest background without noise reduction, or some intermediate mixture. However, for me it is important for the image also to look decent in a print and I suspect the noise would become more apparent there, so some processing of the forest as well is probably a good idea. I can always experiment.
However, I don't see the problem as so much related to any specific camera - ultimately this type of noise mostly comes from the fact that only a small number of photons arrives on the sensor during the exposure and since individual photons arrive at random times, there is a lot of uncertainty in how many get recorded in the given fixed time interval, leading to a lot of visually apparent noise. What noise reduction can do is try to make the image look more pleasing to the eye. In very low light, the human eye utilizes rods which do not have colour discrimination ability, so in a way it is okay for the image also to become more monochromatic. DXO PRIME seems to process out the colour noise and leave luminosity information within the deer fur for example. It kind of makes sense to do that as it maintains the overall colour of each object and detail within each object is more monochromatic. I guess this creates a little bit of a painted appearance. Still it looks a lot better than the unprocessed original in this case.
-
here we go (near field / far field / skin tones / detail rendering / different light qualities / bokeh):
Frank,
Why did your first photograph in this series immediately bring to mind the British SiFi series, Dr. Who? Instantaneously.
Dave
-
Ilkka: I do not have experience with DXO RAW processing or Noise reduction. I tried PhotoNinja, NX-D and ACR. From that experience I feel the fifth generation (EXPEED5) RAW files are different in handling than the D3 and the D600 files, esp when it comes to high ISO noise. I am still lacking the ultimate recipee for them. Generally it seems a good idea to do Bracketing with 3 shots and 1.0 eV distance. The noise behavior from frame to frame seems very different. Some noise seems to help the details, some seems to cover the details. A perfect exposure in a given situation helps the RAW processing tremendously. I will write more about it if I come to a well reproducible conclusion.
Psychologically it helps to shoot a roll of film in between and then laugh the ISO noise away.
The advanced NR in NX-D allows me to only hit on the chroma noise and reduce the sharpening. This way I get a very nice film grain look into my High ISO pictures.
The standard Nikon NR and also in Noise Ninja lead to a high loss in structure and details.
-
Psychologically it helps to shoot a roll of film in between and then laugh the ISO noise away.
LOL. But maybe our watching shots on screen makes it difficult to compare with film. On screen, the noise perception (especially in the never-that-dark shadows) is exacerbated, I think.
-
Very definitely the personal transport ship of Sontaran Commander Strax. No doubt about it. It even looks like a Sontaran!
Well captured - in Germany? If so, then please inform Angela Merkel without delay.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Frank,
Why did your first photograph in this series immediately bring to mind the British SiFi series, Dr. Who? Instantaneously.
Dave
-
Prints can be made, of course, and compared. Scanning film introduced its own contribution to the way noise is seen in images as well, and often resulted in disappointment. A glorious slide when viewed through a projector or loupe would translate to a grainy mess after scanning. A microscope view of a slide by contrast was a very pleasant experience and it can only be wondered what happened to the image in scanning. Maybe it is a question of the type of light source used in scanners, as well as the aliasing of the grain structure itself.
-
Well captured - in Germany? If so, then please inform Angela Merkel without delay.
See travel diaries / Maastricht ...
-
Sunflower - Phillips Color - The Nikkor 300mm PF f/4 shot directly into the light wide open on the D810, Lovely rendering no issues at all IMHO
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8364/29818093511_d9903b8cce_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MqVwmx)_EGL6494 (https://flic.kr/p/MqVwmx) by Erik Gunst Lund (https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_lund/), on Flickr
-
Erik, Erik, Erik!!!
-
The flickr hosting sucks since it was purchased by Verizon.... :(
-
Now I can see Erik's image. This is AWESOME!!!
-
300 PF works very well for figure skating as well. D5, 300/4E PF, f/4, 1/1000s, ISO 5000; cropped by about 1.25x. Kaethlyn Osmond took first place at Finlandia Trophy yesterday.
-
Very nicely captured!
-
Thanks!
Reigning world champions Duhamel and Radford won the pairs competition.
-
I very much like your pictures Ilkka.
-
Nice captures, Ilkka. The second one is great!
-
I have only had my copy of this lens for a week or so but really enjoying using it so far!
Teamed it up with my D500 and seems to make a nice combo.
Really pleased and surprised with how it renders out of focus areas and it is proving itself to be a very versatile lens.
I have attached a few pics as examples if thats okay.
All the best Rich
-
Very nice samples! Looks like the D500 gives a bit more reach without any issues at all :)
I like all the images except the post processing of the last one, I think the image is too pale and bright.
-
Thank you Erik.
It does seem nice on the D500 with the extra reach but is also great on my D3.
Yep agree with the white Fallow deer buck ref.processing.