NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Mike G on June 11, 2015, 10:02:28
-
Following my very short acquaintance with this brand new lens here are a few very non scientific observations!
The 300mm I find is a super lens very light in the hand for a long lens, the optical quality I think is very good indeed, the VR is also very effective. Mine is quite a late number so has had the firmware update factory done! I find it quite handholdable when attached to my D810 and it seems to balance very well! The AF is fast and positive.
Physically it is smaller than a 70-300mm VR lens, but it has a whopping great 77mm filter thread, so filters will be quite expensive, and that leads to the only disappointment with this lens is the cost of buying one also the scarcity of the lens in the supply chain only helps to keep the cost up!
Well done Tabitha of Grays of Westminster. In one way I'm lucky that I do not have a significant other looking over my shoulder saying why do you need that then?
-
We have been shooting with Bjørns sample from NikonNordic and indeed it is a very nice lens, and no real issues from the PF all images are crisp and clear with a lovely smooth Bokeh.
The lens is not much larger than a 180mm 2.8... Impressive.
Highly recommended travel lens!
-
They all start at 2.000+€ and the price will later settle at 1.850€ or something when early adopters have had their "look it is me who got it first" moment. Also issues will be resolved down the road. I have seen this with my 1.4/24G same price point in the list and some of the early samples had issues. I got mine in a pro shop in cologne, could try the quality in the shop directly.
Having said that, the 300PF is the first long lens that really interests me.
-
Well, in defence of early adopters, if I had bought the 300/4 PF at the Jan/Feb when I had a chance, I would have been using it and enjoying it for 4.5 months by now. Instead, I'm waiting for it to be available again. So, early adoption can have its merits if there is a product that gains a very favourable reputation then there can suddenly be a huge increase in demand and the lens can't be easily found in a long time. I got to use a friend's copy for a few hours and I was very impressed. It is so much fun to use and the autofocus (with D810) tracks moving subjects silently and with unusual degree of perfection. I think this is a breakthrough lens and should be very good for Nikon's market share once the word gets out and the supply catches up with demand.
Thankfully my 200/2 II and TC-14E III seem to like each other very much at f/3.5 - f/4; so it can be said that I don't strictly speaking need the PF. But for many applications a compact lens is preferable. I find it surprising that Nikon would take so many years to make a revision to the 300/4 and then be taken off guard by the demand. I find the 70-200/4 also to be a great lens; fun to use and produce images of very high quality. I imagine these two lenses will be sitting next to each other on many trips in the future. :) I'm a big fan of large aperture lenses in general, but at long focal lengths they are a project to lug around, even though the images from them are a delight to view. :) So it is good to have a slightly smaller aperture option.
Of course, there are sometimes issues with early copies of a product; in the case of the 300/4 PF, the VR glitch (which is a significant issue to some users but not for the way I would use this lens) but I've bought many Nikon products when they came out and had no issues. So it's not guaranteed to have problems. ;-) Usually the price does go down gradually after initial demand is met, but that is subject to changes in economy; sometimes the price can go up.
By the way, has anyone yet used the TC-14E III on the 300/4 PF? I'm curious as to how the performance is.
-
Mixed feelings here. Brilliant results with the Df, less so with the D800. Maybe a slight AF finetuning issue.
The VR is problematic indeed, also with the Df. I decided to have it on with speeds > 1/250s for viewfinder comfort, avoid it between 1/40 and 1/200 (if needed, I'll prefer the "Quiet" mode and take several shots whenever possible), and if really needed on static subjects, squarely set the speed to 1/25s-1/30s, where I consistently get excellent results. Whatever remaining trouble VR would then make is more than compensated by the smaller aperture or lower ISO, so the benefit is considerable, better than not having it, so why complain? but Nikon made bad headlines with those mirror slap-related troubles, a pity.
-
I have used the 300/4 PF E mainly on my Df, less on the D5300 (DX;IR) or D800 (FX; Vis). The handling is excellent on the Df despite the long focal length, likely due to the short physical build of the PF optics. A little more awkward of the two others but still managable. Cannot observe any particular issue with these cameras for regular shooting, except the high-resolving D800 yet again confirms I should use a tripod more on a routine basis. On close-ups, some nervousness of the VR occurs but I consider this being more an operator rather than lens error.
-
Ilkka: I do not critisize early adopters at all. I am just happy to wait until issues be resolved and prices have dropped. I never kept any lens above 135mm for longer. All of them sat idle on my shelve until I sold them. If I needed the lens, I mean really needed it or strongly wanted it nothing could keep me from buing one. The X100T was such a case. Strong feeling of I need a silent body and it must be this one. And the time was now and then.
-
Brad Hill in his nature blog is going to have a full review (his way, field review) of it very soon
-
I brought a review sample with me on the recent Slovenian trip, but let Jakov Minic use it most of the time. My own sample of the 300 PF is ready to be picked up when I return to Oslo in a day or two, though.
-
Physically it is smaller than a 70-300mm VR lens, but it has a whopping great 77mm filter thread, so filters will be quite expensive
This is the same as the previous version. No way to avoid this unfortunately, the entrance pupil of a 300mm f4 lens is 75mm so 77mm filter size is really the smallest practical size. 77mm filters are found on many of the current "pro" lenses such as 12-24, 17-55, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 20/1.8, 85/1.4 and others. I'm glad Nikon have retained this as the largest size and avoided the temptation to go to 82mm filters as Canon and Sigma have for some of their models.
-
The first AF 300mm/4 had 82mm threads (but also used internal filters).
-
Same bird with the 300mm pf + 2x and the Sigma 150-600mm contemporary
Both at f8
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 300mm pf/D7200 and 2x/300mm pf at 600mm.jpg (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 300mm pf/D7200 and 2x/300mm pf at 600mm.jpg)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 300mm pf/D7200 and 2x/150-600mm c.jpg (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 300mm pf/D7200 and 2x/150-600mm c.jpg)
-
The impression is that your 300 PF is not too keen to be mated with a 2X TC ... plus metering might be impacted as the image has blown areas too.
The Sigma looks significantly better, but as no TC was used for it, that outcome is not a big surprise.
-
The Sigma is, indeed, a bit better but that's mostly down to being stopped 2/3rds (f8 from f6.3) while the pf + 2x is wide open.
Not entirely fair but I wanted to test them at the same aperture.
Nest I will try f9 for both lenses to see if the 300mm f4 catches up.
-
Perhaps using both lenses without TC and set to 300 mm is the better comparison. Your bird seems to be very patient ...
-
The bird was very patient indeed! I used 600mm as this is something I would use in the field, 300 is too short for most situations unfortunately.
-
I got my own copy of the 300/4E PF yesterday and took it for a spin at an outdoor concert. Compared to D version, I find the following advantages
+ gives quite good image with TC-14E III at f/5.6 (I always felt the D version with the TC-14E II was a bit fuzzy and required stopping down to f/8 which made hand-holding difficult in part due to the absence of VR). My 300 PF+TC-14E III is better at 420mm, f/5.6 than my 80-400 was at 400mm f/5.6 but at f/8 the zoom was very good.
+ autofocusing (with D810) is less jittery than with D version, less variation in focus from shot to shot, though with the TC mounted the focusing started to be more variable; probably my hand-holding contributed to it, but it seemed that there was a definite loss in AF performance with the TC-14E III. I quickly tried TC-20E III as well, focusing was very slow. Maybe better in brighter light but it just didn't seem like a friendly match.
+ superb handling, it almost feels like the lens floats in mid air it is so light :)
+ I tested the VR of my copy (208xxx serial) and it worked very well at 1/50s, 1/100s, 1/200s and 1/400s in Normal mode, with the 1/400s being sharpest but all were quite sharp. VR in Sports mode seems to tolerate turning the direction of the camera with faster response in the viewfinder while the Normal mode fights changes in direction of turning a bit, so if following a moving subject that changes direction, sports mode is probably the appropriate choice. I think VR performance is perfectly fine on my copy and it will serve the function that I need for it. However, when photographing living subjects it is still the case that I could observe slightly improved sharpness when going from 1/500s to 1/1000s, this I find to be typical in using high resolution cameras. So: my thinking is that "acceptable" or "good" results can be obtained from slow to medium speeds but the very best results in terms of subject detail still come from high shutter speeds. I haven't used the 300 PF on a tripod yet. I have the RRS collar for the 70-200/4 which should fit on the 300 PF as well, but I think it's better to mount the camera on tripod with this size of lenses. Testing of 300mm PF tripod mounting from collar and without will happen soon. TC may change the balance and behaviour as may the use of a vertical grip.
+ I shot in a bit of rain, front element nevertheless appears pristine so fluorine coating appears to work so far as advertised. Good sized hood also does its job in reducing spray. I think this is a good lens to use for sailing pics (boat-to-boat) since there can be salt water spray, rain, wind, and quick movements required to stay safe so a compact lens is easier to work with. I don't think I could be sure to make a 300/2.8 survive without bumps in sailing action in wind and adverse weather...
+ High contrast fine detail such as hair displayed very sharply with the lens at f/4.
+/- Out of focus rendering is generally nice but not as consistently beautiful as with some other telephoto Nikkors
+/- Colour rendering close to that of other modern nano coated Nikkors.
- low contrast subject matter in low contrast light appears a bit bland and hazy. S curve in post-processing may be needed to compensate in such situations.
I didn't have the kind of subject matter which would have made it possible to evaluate the corner performance (which in some tests was found inferior to that of D version). But overall I think it is the right lens for me to use for outdoor stage performer close-ups. It gives acceptable results wide open with and without TC-14E III, is easy to bring along where-ever I may go, can be hand-held indefinitely (as opposed to e.g. 200-400/4 which I can hand hold for maybe 30s :) ) and it gives sufficient range and detail for pretty much all my needs that are not covered by shorter lenses. The only glitches from my point of view are the AF performance with TCs which needs further evaluation in more favourable conditions (brighter light!), the slightly bland results in low contrast light, and bokeh which is sometimes excellent but sometimes I get result that looks a bit "odd" and requires some getting used to.
I think the colour contrast of the 200/2 II is better than that of the 300/4 PF, and this means the results in this kind of ominous dreary rainy day light look better and have more "pop" from the 200mm than the 300/4 PF. But then we're talking about a different product entirely. This makes me a little bit ambivalent about the 300/4 PF but I hope my mood improves when the sun starts to twinkle between the clouds and weather and light get better.
I've now used it for about six hours with about 900 shots. I give the lens top points for handling and features, including VR and AF performance, while optical quality has some slight minuses observed so far (maybe school grade 8 1/2 or 9- in my subjective scale), but may be a question of getting used to the rendering of the PF optics and finding its best use scenarios. As usual there is some learning curve to finding what a new lens is good for and where its weaknesses may lie. I think I am happier with the 300 PF than I was with the 80-400 and I think it will complement 70-200 type lenses well especially when carry-on space and weight are restricted, but if someone specifically needs 400mm and not 300mm, then I think the 80-400's focusing may be better able to deal with the requirements of focusing at 400mm (somehow autofocusing with TCs is an area which takes many lenses outside of their home turf). Although it seems that some consider the 300/4 PF a replacement for the 300/2.8 (I've noticed this in the wind) I do not find that at all to be the case, the bigger lens is more like a production to use but it produces images with "pop" due to contrast, colour, and in/out of focus effect that I don't seem to quite get with the PF. I also think the 300/2.8 autofocuses with the TC-20E III better that the PF with the same TC, which is not surprising considering the maximum aperture. I don't think the 300/4 PF is the way to get to 600mm, but it seemed to be a reasonable way to get a portable 420mm.
Sorry for the long post :)
-
We like extensive reports. Easier to get coverage of all aspects. The forum setting for post length is "infinite", by the way.
-
Thanks Ilkka, nice write up!
I think it's a really super travel lens, and I also just have one issue the slightly unpredictable background.
-
I will try to embed an image of a street musician. I like the crispy rendering of hair and the colourful blobs in the background (although the fact that the hair is a bit on the eye makes me a bit uneasy, I usually like a clear view of the eyes). This is in the crossing between Aleksanterinkatu and Keskuskatu in Helsinki.
-
Ilkka, you might not like the distraction from the eye, but IMHO that's what makes this image to be a Lot more interesting! So I would try to catch that hair in front of his eye next time as well :)
Here the BG works perfect!
-
Ilkka, I love the way you have isolated the violinist from the background, the hair over the eye does not bother me at all as it is part of the picture, he is what he is!
Liked the write up as well much better than my pathetic little effort.
-
Nice write up Ilkka, you're a much better writer than I am. :)
Your findings are more or less the same as mine.
Only 'problem' with my copy is that I can't get reasonable sharp images below 1/200 and my copy needed/had the firmware update already.
But it still is a very nice (travel) lens and I'll keep it (until there will be a 400PF ;D).
-
Chris, you must have even more shaky hands than me - a huge feat indeed.
However, although I don't trust the 300 PF to produce top quality at any speed when hand-held, I do have got very sharp images even below 1/10 sec with VR on. The lightness of the lens is a blade that cuts both ways and in my opinion, adding more heft would not be a drawback at all.
My own 300 PF is still on back order and thus I have had no experience using it with proper tripod support. That'll should sort these sharpness issues (hopefully). Nikon Nordic promised me to supply a loaner if my own lens hasn't arrived before my upcoming trip to Ireland, though.
-
Mike,
Hope you enjoy using your new toy, it's getting excellent reviews indeed.
Glad Tabitha came through for you, Grays are often worth trying for difficult to obtain kit! :)
Look forward to seeing what else you capture with this mini beast :)
tony
-
Ilkka, you might not like the distraction from the eye, but IMHO that's what makes this image to be a Lot more interesting! So I would try to catch that hair in front of his eye next time as well :)
Here the BG works perfect!
Ilka,
that's a mighty fine shot, besides everything else the colours are very pleasing indeed.
-
Thanks Tony, I've been quite ill with a virus infection for the last couple of weeks and indeed I'm still quite weak, only I could get flu in June!
The lens is very handable so lugging one around should be no bother at all. As you can see from Ilk's violinist very good indeed!
-
I did a few shots using the 300mm PF and TC-20E III (f = 600mm) using the D810, a tripod, and EFCS at f/8, f/9, f/10, and f/11; the f/8 image contains a bit of a halo or double image around the edges of the petals but stopping down just a bit made it mostly go away. This image was shot at f/10, 1/25s, ISO 400.
The camera was mounted on the tripod using an L bracket. I felt the balance was quite poor and it was not very fast to get the composition the way I wanted, but this is not entirely unexpected. I don't think the balance would be much better using a tripod mounting ring and foot, but I will try that later.
-
Due to the short physical build of the 300 PF, it balances poorly with any camera heavier than a Df once you put a TC on it. Some of the imbalance can be taken care of by putting the RT1 in reverse, ie. with its foot pointing backwards. Not elegant, but doable.
The RT1 collar is for once sturdy enough to keep the lens safely locked to a tripod.
-
Thanks for the tip; I will try reverse mounting of the collar. :)
-
Tried this with the RRS-collar and it works much better, thanks. :)
-
One more pic, to test the link with onedrive (M$ cloud "solutions")
<just does not work>
-
A bit problematic for working against the light, but not badly. Note that the blueish haze partially came from the light from a clear window in my back.
As usual, shot with the VR special setting : manual mode, 1/30s imposed speed, f/5.6, autoISO = 720 then.
-
Otherwise an outstanding portrait lens.
-
Two flags on my river cruise ship!
-
Airy. The colour versions of the two are amazing!
-
indeed: faces benefit from good sharpness and relatively low contrast, while backgrounds benefit from excellent smooth bokeh, plus the absence of obvious chromatic aberrations. This 300pf has become my favorite fm portrait lens, whenever I can step back...
-
I am really enjoying te 300mm PF for it's size, performance at wide apertures, and the virtually complete lack of longitudinal CA/purple fringing in highlights is a real treat. Here are a few recent examples of the closer kind, all on the D5100. Balance on this lightweight body is pretty acceptable opposed to my old AF 300mm f/4. VR was on in all of these. First some high contrast examples with lots of highlights:
#1 @ f/4.5, 1/500 sec.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs7%2Fv152%2Fp1583578665.jpg&hash=3ad1205eee59526062fb91a317008c44f9d23d72)
#2 @ f/5, 1/640 sec.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs3%2Fv8%2Fp1583578705.jpg&hash=69d03dc856ef2262064b488a00367cb966dc38e7)
#3 @ f/5.6, 1/250 sec.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs8%2Fv82%2Fp1583578721.jpg&hash=3204933c9495180b1af9773f1a5c3fa45894fc1e)
Then time for some local wildlife. I do not know what this squirrel was doing on my roof with a piece of carrot; I am definitely not feeding wildlife (except when we bait traps for Arctic ground squirrels in the field for scientific studies). This was captured in rather grey, rainy type of weather.
#4 @ f/4, 1/160 sec.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs4%2Fv65%2Fp1589917063.jpg&hash=bb23093cb7b5d5cb697ee8c31bcc02ded1c68254)
#5 @ f/4 1/125 sec.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs11%2Fv3%2Fp1589917114.jpg&hash=3159ba254cb5bf6224955c6c3db6eb17fb61f505)
Normally it is pretty skittish while I am outside, however this time curiosity took over to see what this new lens was about:
#6 @ f/4.5 1/320
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs3%2Fv23%2Fp1589917124.jpg&hash=3a84b668722bfa0b23866d2f4cc79bf4e1d83292)
#7 @ f/4.5, 1/200 sec
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs3%2Fv24%2Fp1589917131.jpg&hash=75935b6471737e057e3ac0be086ace18d21e1d27)
Posing for the new lens:
#8 @ f/4.5, 1/320 sec.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs9%2Fv88%2Fp1589917139.jpg&hash=2c560d378243706da0130fc7e115d585ec062370)
More timid again, hiding safe in the branches of a tree. This is a crop of slightly more than half the height of a horizontal frame:
#9 @ f/4.5, 1/320 sec.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs7%2Fv155%2Fp1589917175.jpg&hash=29c62ce0518f02da741ea99de9e718543a24cdf4)
Some examples of infinity performance on the Nikon 1 AW1 can be found the moon thread: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1867.0.html (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1867.0.html)
-
Very nice! I especially love #1 and #2. This lens is on my bucket list ;D
-
Thanks for the comment, Wally.
I think the lens has a wonderful resolution, and my copy seems to be very well centered. It is considerably better than my copy of the AF 300mm/4 ED (non-AFS), and in particular wide open and close up, which was a pleasant surprise. If set at it's minimum focus I can also get excellent results with my PN-11 extension tube, then only wide open due to the electronic aperture of the 300PF. General contrast at infinity seems to be about the same between these two lenses.
I was struggling a bit with the performance with TC-14E (I), however once I discovered some flaws in my tripod technique with D5100, it became clear that it resolves very well even then (much better than with the old AF 300/4) and most of the improvement occurs at only 1/3-2/3 stop down from wide open. Instead of the RT-1 i bought a Vello collar for it that is almost an exact copy at less than 1/3 of the price. It is quite well made made; if anything I could wish it to clamp a little tighter. I think it will be easy to modify it a little to do so if necessary. In spite of the short length and light weight of the 300PF one need to be careful with this lens, due to the low inertia on a light body. I found that trampling the ground 5m away from the tripod (Gitzo 120 w/BH40 head) was enough to cause a severe shake on a zoomed in live view screen. Shooting without mirror lockup in the critical range of 1/4 to 1/30 sec. or so did not give optimal results, and applying the equivalent of a "wine cork" between the lens and the mount does not improve results in this non-optimal situation so it does not look like the tripod mount is the weak point. (I did perform my first tests from live view but there was a too short exposure delay - all my 3 remotes broken...). Even combining TC-14E with the PN-11 for a 38mm wide field of view on a DX sensor gives very good results.
A very nice surprise was that autofocus seems to be right on with my D40x- IR720 body that has Lifepixel standard calibration (for the 18-70mm DX lens). With my old AF 300/4 i had to focus manually, and then do small visual defocus towards close range; I lost many captures over time when I forgot to do this.
As E-aperture is not supported on D40x (or my D200) the 300 PF can only be used wide open. Performance is so excellent that this is not a problem except when more depth of field is needed. Here are a couple of near visible infrared examples of long distance performance. The full frame is available for the first two if opened in a new tab. (As usual with IR captures, contrast was increased during post processing).
The Cold Climate Housing Research Center at University of Alaska Fairbanks.
#1
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs8%2Fv75%2Fp1593147063.jpg&hash=5491896fe06b037e0852beeb349e177c85a7967a)
#2
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs9%2Fv2%2Fp1593147125.jpg&hash=ba30b7a7fa1c8e6d405477012d4feb9640255133)
The 300 PF can show some nice IR flares likely related to the PF element, under the right conditions when there is extreme overexposure of highlights:
#3
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs8%2Fv0%2Fp1593147135.jpg&hash=54108ac3f13b29b8a8c3acdb2cecaa7a98f19dfb)
No problems with the high contrast in this IR capture though:
#4
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs1%2Fv6%2Fp1593147141.jpg&hash=54b53119a4421f259af3109882193912d734347c)
-
The last one is wonderful, Øivind, and indeed shows the strength of the 300 PF. Properly used it is a highly useful addition to the line-up of long Nikkors.
The highlight flare behaviour of the 300 PF is very different to "normal" refractive optics and I have observed (and used to good effect) the almost Kodak HIE-like flaring of strong light sources for my IR photography too.
By the way, on my Sachtler tripods, the native RT-1 collar is supportive enough. You are right about the issues caused by light weight, though. People need to be aware of the inherent pitfalls there.
-
The last shot is truly amazing.
-
Yes, stunning !!
-
Last shot is amazing!
-
Thanks for the kind comments all of you. It is funny how what is initially going to be a test shot can work out. Bjørn, I certainly agree that the 300 PF has character. That tiny bit of flare can create a nice but subtle dreamy effect under the right conditions.
Regarding the extremely blown highlights in visible range and mostly night shots, I am seeing a bit more of the PF flare than I expected from the sample images Nikon presented. However it is very dependent on the wavelength of the light. The red end of the spectrum just shows normal flare that can occur with another lens, while the blue end (and thereby white light) can manifest the typical widened blue-green circles, and in very extreme cases some of the "newton rings".
Further experiences: To avoid flooding this thread with more squirrel images ;D I have started a new squirrel thread here: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1909.msg21239.html#msg21239
The last image there was captured with TC-14E. I do see a tendency for under exposure with the TC (possibly 2/3 stop, but depends on subject), which together with the lower contrast can cause one to initially not feel so good about the captures, but looks a lot better when corrected.
-
A few shots using the 300mm on my trip to London.
-
Quite good handling of light sources in the image. This is from the Natural History Museum, one of my favorite places on this planet. :)
-
Ikka, the second one looks very crisp and has nice background rendering.
Here are some very high contrast back-lighted examples from the 300 PF in warm late afternoon light from a local lake.
The 300PF is very clean with respect to longitudinal fringing, and flare is not noticeable here.
#1
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs4%2Fv67%2Fp1604493660.jpg&hash=c82887d8065c48a4cc39417d82de62965622d373)
D5100, f/8 @ 300 mm, 1/1000, ISO 100
#2
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs5%2Fv118%2Fp1604493665.jpg&hash=75fca15a0544130f4067bce07617de5e2160c6c7)
NIKON D5100, f/6.3 @ 300 mm, 1/1250
For comparison, a capture from 105 f/2.5 at the same aperture, showing purple-green fringing causing some interesting color shades.
#3
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs12%2Fv174%2Fp1604493674.jpg&hash=c98f5dd0aa64cbf45fdce166c203f4e44b9b130a)
D5100, f/6.3 @ 105 mm, 1/640, ISO 100.
Back to 300 PF again:
#4
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs6%2Fv141%2Fp1604493707.jpg&hash=0d9e21eb8e81e7006f6de3a4d84d4b471c1ea6ea)
NIKON D5100, f/5 @ 300 mm, 1/400, ISO 100
Colder light somewhat earlier:
#5
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs7%2Fv152%2Fp1604493985.jpg&hash=fecb77d2f06f6bf7ae9bfd020b9af21fba2f4080)
D5100, f/5.6 @ 300 mm, 1/640, ISO 100
At dusk:
#6
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs11%2Fv30%2Fp1604493991.jpg&hash=956914bcb369e03ece05112953011ad062457cd0)
D5100, f/4 @ 300 mm, 1/320, ISO 100
Fisheye overview of the scene:
#7
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs1%2Fv22%2Fp1604565927.jpg&hash=20ce21e1322610e6e327da66fb75ca50d5836ffb)
-
Øivind: a beatiful reminder of the approaching winter. Only the occasional cold day over here and traces of hoar frost that disappears quickly. Mostly days are just miserably damp so arrival of real cold weather, snow, and ice, seems more desirable by the day.
Your observations on how the 300 PF gracefully handles flare from strong reflections mimic my own.
-
From today's walk
-
I'm quite jealous of you guys (can't justify the cost of upgrading from my AFS version).
Great collection Ovind. Love the squirrel sets. The crop shows quite a lot of detail too.
Looks like that squirrel has been raiding the kitchen (or the waste bins!)
-
Like ColinM, the AF-S is going to have to satisfy my needs for quite some time to come.
But for interest's sake, the AF-S is a very nice lens for catching butterflies and dragonflies due to it's close focusing distance and fast AF, how would the PF fare at this?
-
But for interest's sake, the AF-S is a very nice lens for catching butterflies and dragonflies due to it's close focusing distance and fast AF, how would the PF fare at this?
I haven't tried it for insects but with flowers I do enjoy the PF. It gives good sharpness and smooth backgrounds at 1:4. I find the AF also works well and because of the light weight it is very easy to maneuver hand held.
However, the 300/4D is also excellent in close up photography.
-
Thanks for the comments all of you. Even images from the old AF 300/4 sharpens up quite nicely (at the cost of a little extra noise), so once files are processed the difference in quality is not as much as one would think. However it sure helped to skip one generation in term of quality increase. (I bought the AF version new shortly before the AFS version came out...).
Another capture, this time from a training session with panning, VR in sports mode:
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs4%2Fv65%2Fp1606326861.jpg&hash=efdb5a8f1ac070b993acdd0ab78a733c8e417ca1)
D5100, f/8 @ 300 mm, 1/60, ISO 100.
-
Øivind, very nice crisp lake images, the lens renders the scene very well!
-
I haven't tried it for insects but with flowers I do enjoy the PF. It gives good sharpness and smooth backgrounds at 1:4. I find the AF also works well and because of the light weight it is very easy to maneuver hand held.
However, the 300/4D is also excellent in close up photography.
Thanks Ikka
-
Finally the wait has an end ;D Amazing 46 years of difference between the two...
-
Øivind, very nice crisp lake images, the lens renders the scene very well!
Thanks Erik, glad you liked them.
Now on to the question how the 300PF performs for night shots. As I mentioned the "PF flare" in visible light is dependent on wavelength, here exemplified by some changing distant traffic light and approaching cars (frame is cropped to ca. 1/4 width). Only green and white lights exhibit the "PF flare":
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs6%2Fv149%2Fp1638099194-4.jpg&hash=d514812a4304c09c7b8168eed191879290b513fc)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs8%2Fv83%2Fp1641729403-4.jpg&hash=3440c363ddebfdaf15df96e26e21550ecbbda3cb)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs12%2Fv171%2Fp1773301124-4.jpg&hash=ae41bfb750541bb8fe1d7eeaa4e21b854122306b)
Sometimes it can sort of make things more interesting. One has to have very blown out highlight before the more nasty multicolored rings show up:
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs5%2Fv118%2Fp1728890935-4.jpg&hash=4ea850d6212eb4e297ec4f4203964973cffa6e16)
This one is a bit more nasty, looking directly into the closest street light from below, however the complete absence of the flares would have been pretty boring 8)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs12%2Fv184%2Fp1814785682-4.jpg&hash=88f1deb6e470e900965689cd6707d58ec81b88e5)
Not all white lights will exhibit the flare. In this distant scene only the large blown display board shows a moderate amount of the PF flare. Intensity of flare might be related to the size of a heavily blown area:
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs5%2Fv116%2Fp1630751113.jpg&hash=5311324a4cf82c7ea204225a2487a63fd8a28ec6)
Also one need to consider how a non-PF lens would behave in a similar situation. This extremely back-lighted daylight scene does not in particular show "PF flare", only normal white flare with the 300PF (very heavy crop of distant scene).
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs3%2Fv8%2Fp1575945885-4.jpg&hash=f4a6d0a60cce5af6d0f9ab79d7f4d07c81a1030e)
The Old AF 300/4 (non-AFS) shows even more flare and heavy purple fringing along the edges of the blown highlights. Which one do you prefer? :D
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs1%2Fv6%2Fp1575945898-4.jpg&hash=0af9d2d9a5297c05316659c407b1d1f9a7f22f55)
Both lenses show veiling flare when the sun hits the front element just out of the frame, exacerbated by some haze in the air.
I should add that I tried the "PF flare removal" tool in CNX-D and it is mostly useless. It just makes the flare a little darker, looking even weirder. A control point in CNX2 is a much more useful tool if one really does not like the flares.
-
I am considering to buy either a used 200/2, a 70-200/2.8 or a 300/4 PF. I am not sure I can afford a 200/2 but I am thinking the size of the 300/4 PF would be excellent. Also under consideration a 200/4 mikro nikkor.
I used to have a 300/2.8VR but swapped it to buy 600/4 which I haven't regretted so far.
How do you guys consider the 300/4 PF compared to the mentioned lenses in terms of sharpness, contrast, bokeh, etc. I know the lenses are vastly different and have different purposes so I am really much interested to hear if this new lens matches up those lenses good enough for midrange telephoto considering its light weight and portability. I wouldn't want to lug around two 600/4 size lenses.
How is the size compared to the 70-200 VR II?
Grateful for anyone taking the time to reply. Bjørn, I see you write comments here also. How are you? We wrote a couple of times through e-mail. I have much respect for your work and I hope everything is ok after that incident with the tic bite.
Warm regards
Jens
-
I am considering to buy either a used 200/2, a 70-200/2.8 or a 300/4 PF. I am not sure I can afford a 200/2 but I am thinking the size of the 300/4 PF would be excellent. Also under consideration a 200/4 mikro nikkor.
The 200/4 AF D Micro is a great lens for close-up work when you need to shoot over some distance. I love using it for photographing ice on rocks in creeks and often with focus stacking.
The 300/4 PF has some close-up capability as well (1:4) and works quite well across distances. I wouldn't say it's the equal of a 200/2 II - there is a special kind of magic with the images from lens. But the 300/4 PF has magic of its own, in terms of its easy to carry and handle shape, size and weight, and it does produce good image quality. The 70-200/2.8 II is a great general purpose lens. Nowadays I tend to use the 70-200/4 a lot more than the f/2.8 variant as it is so compact and the image quality is excellent.
The 70-200/4 and 300/4 PF make a great pair for having medium telephoto focal lengths covered (for outdoor use at least) in a smallish bag. Their total weight is about the same (or slightly more) as the 70-200/2.8 II alone. I use the 70-200 f/2.8 II for events where I need to shoot indoors now and the f/4 version for most outdoor shooting in this range.
The 200/2 II I use when I'm shooting stage and I want to avoid clutter (by using the shallow depth of field) or if I am shooting an event in really low light. The main drawbacks of this lens are its weight and price. However, I find there is no lens quite like it in terms of the "look" of the images and so the weight is to be suffered according to the principle "no pain, no gain". ;)
I used to have a 300/2.8VR but swapped it to buy 600/4 which I haven't regretted so far.
If you want lenses to carry together with the 600/4 I suppose the pair of 70-200/4 and 300/4 would work well, and not be too much of a burden. Or you could go for the 70-200/2.8 if you don't mind the extra weight.
I sometimes wish I had bought the 300/2.8 instead of the 300/4 PF, but the f/4 PF gets a lot more use than a faster variant would get, due to its supreme portability and unassuming size.
-
Hi Jens,
See for yourself regarding the size differences 8)
-
and the comparison with the 70-200mm/4 zoom
-
Thanks Wally, that is nice. :)
-
Thanks a lot. Does it hold up in terms crispness and sharpness compared to the 300/2.8?
I love that lens but it seems too much to carry both that and the 600/4.
I Think you are right that the 300/4 would see more use due to the weight/size.
-
There is nothing lacking in resolving power of the 300PF. I do suspect you will find it differs in character from the 300/2.8 version, although I do not have that lens. The many images of this thread should convince of the quality. What is a real treat with this lens is the almost total lack of longitudinal fringing/highlight fringing (I might be repeating myself here from previous posts...). Here are a few more of my friend the local squirrel - right click and open image in new tab to see the full resolution, not sure how well this site has re-scaled from that size. It is from a quick series of 6 captures in less than 30 sec, all of them in focus; only minimal capture sharpening applied, all with D7100 at 1/1000 sec f/4.5, auto-ISO 450-640. These little ones move fast and do not allow much time for aiming and focusing!
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs1%2Fv48%2Fp1892212330.jpg&hash=35a96d555870c96abf8073eed8dbf7771dd7c279)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs9%2Fv97%2Fp2098709725.jpg&hash=54dcb7df8fefd16e527cef8b9d47a48085389a50)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs7%2Fv168%2Fp1920796782.jpg&hash=57ea39848683e21bc2455ddafd9f81df3e0d061b)
-
Looks very nice indeed! So it is as sharp as the 70-200/2.8 i reckon?
:D
-
full aperture, handheld on D800, out of camera
-
Looks excellent.