NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: BruceLeventhal on January 13, 2017, 00:43:35
-
Hello and thanks to anyone who replies.
To those who have owned &/or shot both extensively, I am wondering what I might get from a change in lenses.
Following two years of extensive work with Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 VR1, I sold that lens and replaced it with the 300mm f/2.8 AF-SII w/ 1.4x II and 2x vIII lenses. While I miss the flexibility of the zoom, I do not miss the bulk/weight especially for long hikes and air travel. I have found my 300mm f/2.8 AF-SII to be sharper and faster to focus than the zoom even with the addition of the TC14 ii converter. While I have yet to shoot the lens with the 2x, I know that my current lens should be at least as good (or bad) as my 200-400mmVR was with my 1.4x.
I have attached a long arca-swiss plate to my lens, and while I wish the stock foot was longer (or interchangeable), I have not experienced any stability issues when using my lens w/ a sturdy ball-head (RRS-BH55), Induro Sidekick, or full Induro Gimbal. I am a tripod junky and shoot 95% of my work w/ a 3-series Gitzo leg set. My interest in a new lens would not be based on VR, as I do not shoot anything handheld. I am strictly interested in autofocus speed and optical quality.To be quite honest, I do not see how the lens could be better with my current cameras (D500 and D810), but I would make the investment if there would be a real gain (not theoretical) in image quality.
For the record, my current lens is in great shape (not abused by prior owner and does NOT have an AF squeak).
thanks for your thoughts an regards,
bruce
-
The optical design of the original AFS 300/2.8 (I and II) is very similar to the AFS 300/2.8 VR (I and II). In fact, I wonder if the original lens was already pre-designed for VR, it just took a few more years for VR to be successfully implemented. The MTF charts are very similar (but not identical), I doubt you would see much difference. Both perform to extremely high levels:
AFS VRII MTF
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimaging.nikon.com%2Flineup%2Flens%2Fsinglefocal%2FTelephoto%2Faf-s_300mmf_28g_ed_vr2%2Fimg%2Fpic_002.png&hash=7535e41653f4cc05764bd1def6f570a3ef347ace)
AFS II MTF
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimaging.nikon.com%2Flineup%2Flens%2Fsinglefocal%2FTelephoto%2Faf-s_300mmf_28d_if_2%2Fimg%2Fpic_002.png&hash=49077165e9a1b5ed644e87e68b11bb4ccffd3ed2)
One thing the VR versions have in their favour, is that they also have Nano Crystal Coating (one or two lens surfaces) and a meniscus (slightly curved) front protector plate. These features improve contrast and suppress reflections, especially when shooting into strong light.
On the other hand, your AFS-II version is lighter.
Compare the specifications here: http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#300
I'll leave it to others comment on real-life experience with these models...
-
Bruce (and Roland)
No help on your question since I've never used the AF-S II but I shoot my 300 2.8 vr I for handheld action and rarely use the VR. I use the VR on th 500 f4 from a tripod with the gimbal head loose.
I've discussed with many bird/sports shooters that think the AF-s II is a great lens. One of my concerns is the availability of replacement AF-S motor . The AF-S II is getting hard to find and prices are holding/going up. Had I had more experience I probably would have skipped the VR and save some money :)
When I bought my 300 2.8 vr I had the money and thought the vr would be a real plus. I also bought it instead of the 200-400 vr for ease of use and IQ. I had used the 200-400 and it was on my list. Had I known I would be shooting Soccer with FX I would have bought the 400 2.8 vr instead of the 500 f4 vr (shot them both at the shop when making my purchase) but I was mainly shooting birds and D300/D300s for kids' soccer ;) .
-
Dear Bruce and All
I upgraded from a 300 f4 AF to the 300 f2.8G VRII (a used lens in mint condition from London for 2600 quid). I changed the tripod foot to the Jobu one with inetgral arca-swiss dovetail : http://www.jobu-design.com/Low-Profile-Foot-for-Nikon-500F4-300F28-200-400_p_54.html As I use only Sirui heads, recently i removed and threw away the grub screws that are supposed to prevent slippage of the foot off a tripod head. Sirui has its on safety "spring-button" design which is far superior in use and protecting a loosened lens/camera from catastrophe. See pg 29 on this thread here on my recent harsh lesson (!) http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3440.420.html
I also added a couple of photos there that show this Jobu foot on my 300 f2.8. And see appended links, in case you missed any. Steve Perry's site and blog is loaded with hard-won advice on using Nikkor telephotos on wildlife. His ebook is well worth the US$12, in fact - http://backcountrygallery.com/
Hands down! The newer 300 f2.8G is indeed One Superb Optic. And I'm very glad I took the plunge. My only experience has been using it with a D3 and mainly the D7200 and D500. I often reply on the TCE14 II and TCE20 III, and provided one can clinch the focus, it's hard to detect any drop off in quality. Indeed, performance with the TCE14 II is so good I'm in rush to try the latest 1.4. This confirms official claims etc that Nikon designed the latest TCE's for optimal perfomance with the 300 f2.8. cf https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-tc-20e-iii
But all the prime AF G and E versions of the Nikkor super-teles perform very well with TCEs [ see appended www links ]. As does the 70-200 2.8G and 300 f4E PF. I append some links you may not have see on the 300 f2.8 and also performance with TC's. John Koerner has also posted several times here on NG attesting to their performance etc. e.g pg 4 here http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5243.0.html#lastPost
I have only tried the 200-500 f5.6 which I find hard to handhold in full extension, although it has been well received, and the optics are great.
enjoy your lens!
kind regards Woody
http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses-2.html
http://www.throughthefmount.com/articles_tips_300comp.html
http://www.biglens.com/reviews/nikon300200400.htm
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f2-8g-vr-ii/5
https://photographylife.com/best-nikon-lenses-for-wildlife-photography
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f2-8g-vr-ii
https://photographylife.com/image-degradation-with-nikon-teleconverters
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/499-nikkorafs200f2vrff?start=1
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/11/12/nikon-dx-camera-vs-cropping-or-putting-a-teleconverter-on-a-full-frame-body.aspx/#more-108749
https://photographylife.com/best-nikon-lenses-for-landscape-photography
-
I would go as far as to say it's difficult to shoot a bad image with any of the 300mm 2.8 lenses ;)
However - The change for the worse in back ground Bokeh with an added TC is often quite apparent,,, Nervous and or double lines - Similar can also be seen as an artifact from VR,,,
-
examples of DX Nikon [7200 or D500] with 300mm f2.8G Nikkor VR II only (my ginger cat / male Klaas's Cuckoo);
and TCE14 II (Black-headed heron / Helmeted Guineafowl)
and TCE20 III (male Southern Red Bishopbird)
-
I would go as far as to say it's difficult to shoot a bad image with any of the 300mm 2.8 lenses ;)
However - The change for the worse in back ground Bokeh with an added TC is often quite apparent,,, Nervous and or double lines - Similar can also be seen as an artifact from VR,,,
+1
but you already know that I'm no fan of them... and those photos just confirm it.
-
Thanks to those who have replied so far...
For the record, I do not need to be convinced about the merits of Nikkor 300mm f/2.8's as I have owned an AiS, AF-N, AF-S I, and now AF-S II.
With respect to converters... agreed. There is a "nervous" background in images especially when there is clutter relatively close to subject. The further the background elements are from your subject, the smoother the bokeh becomes. The decision to shift from the 200-400mm VR to the 300 f/2.8 w/ converters was made knowing that both were a compromise (optical and otherwise).
While I appreciate what people have said thus far, it seems that there is no real reason for me to move to the VR lens... at least in terms of image quality gain. With respect to the AFS motor, as far as I can tell, my lens uses the current motor and should not be difficult to repair (should that be necessary), the same can not be said for the older AFi version.
If I have some misconceptions regarding optical differences (nano coat and meniscus filter being noted), please let me know.
thanks again,
bruce
-
Bruce, I agree with your points, but one...
I would go to the VR version not because of IQ but as an insurance against AFS motor replacement.
The previous versions could be cheaper but if the motor failed and couldn't be replaced you'll end with a MF with less return in the second-hand market.
-
I have no problem with "nervous" bokehs with my 300 VR II + 2x TC III
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenaturephotographer.club%2Fthumbnails%2F1%2F1_thumb_0000001956_large.jpg&hash=67c19f599fd1e4c67162a8e616a350b5f2837e22)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenaturephotographer.club%2Fthumbnails%2F1%2F1_thumb_0000001864_large.jpg&hash=eaaf149fe35492730a3d50c915c8ebe7196910e9)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenaturephotographer.club%2Fthumbnails%2F1%2F1_thumb_0000001917_large.jpg&hash=106e807160802491bee841b2c8ef454425db9b23)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenaturephotographer.club%2Fthumbnails%2F1%2F1_thumb_0000001914_large.jpg&hash=35ccda1511d2ed2b9eb6cd411a048e45b836f9c2)
And these were all taken at f/8.
-
I don't know what is going on with the blotchiness in the skies of Chambeshi's images.
He has the same camera (D500) and lens (300 VR II) as I do.
I suspect this is a processing issue, not a camera + lens issue.
(I don't know if he shoots straight .jpgs, and then re-processes them again, or what, but I never have blotchiness issues with the sky like this.)
I shoot raw, convert to .tiff, then I convert the finalized image to .jpg.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenaturephotographer.club%2Fthumbnails%2F1%2F1_thumb_0000001946_large.jpg&hash=42ef8d4d86251b26348b33751279bde2715b029d)
-
There is some considerable points in what Pedro has said, replace the lens to assure that it remains servicable. But I'd recommend you to wait (if just IQ and speed is your issue and not money) until a AF-S 300/2,8 E FL will come out. I would not wonder if that will be part of this years Nikons announcement.
Personally I have the first version of the 300/2,8 AF-S and bought the 200-400 afterwards - which was the reason why my use of the 300 decreased.
The 400 /2,8 FL is way better than both of these lenses
-
The 400 /2,8 FL is way better than both of these lenses
Yes, it is!
The new FL version is from another world 8)
-
Hi John
yes irksome... it is definitely not in original raw images viewed in Capture NX-D. Obvious in the 2 with blue-sky
I don't know what is going on with the blotchiness in the skies of Chambeshi's images.
He has the same camera (D500) and lens (300 VR II) as I do.
I suspect this is a processing issue, not a camera + lens issue.
(I don't know if he shoots straight .jpgs, and then re-processes them again, or what, but I never have blotchiness issues with the sky like this.)
I shoot raw, convert to .tiff, then I convert the finalized image to .jpg.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenaturephotographer.club%2Fthumbnails%2F1%2F1_thumb_0000001946_large.jpg&hash=42ef8d4d86251b26348b33751279bde2715b029d)
I too shoot in RAW - always. These were exported into High res jpgs, to post here I imported into Corel Photopaint and downsized therein so I can upload the smaller files over copper phone line! The high res jpgs are fine
And there is indeed no problem whatsoever with original images from 300 lens/camera :-)
kind regards
woody
-
Hi John
yes irksome... it is definitely not in original raw images viewed in Capture NX-D. Obvious in the 2 with blue-sky
I too shoot in RAW - always. These were exported into High res jpgs, to post here I imported into Corel Photopaint and downsized therein so I can upload the smaller files over copper phone line! The high res jpgs are fine
And there is indeed no problem whatsoever with original images from 300 lens/camera :-)
kind regards
woody
Hi Woody;
In thinking about it, certain websites (which allow uploads) have software rendering built-in, which can affect images also. (Facebook, for example, used to have terrible rendering to its uploads, as did others.)
Part of what their built-in software does to any uploads is down-rez them (from, say a 300-pixel density down to a 72 pixel density), losing a bunch of info, which can often sully the whole image.
I noticed you uploaded your images here, as an attachment, wheres I create a link to my own site, so that the original pixel density remains where I have control of how the uploaded image is rendered.
Not sure what this site here uses to render its uploads (GD, Image-Magik, etc.), but it can make a difference in the outcome. As I am sure you know, jpgs re-saved again as jpegs lose information with every re-save.
If a 300px file gets saved to 72 px, and then gets saved again as a 72 px, it loses a huge portion of the original color information it had.
Nice captures, BTW, I was just curious why yours were rendered differently, given that we shoot with the same gear :)
Cheers,
Jack
-
The "dpi" setting is entirely irrelevant for viewing on a monitor. Set it to whatever value you like. The setting is just a flag in the file header and won't influence the image data. The pixel dimensions however are crucial and if too large, might initiate a resize. If memory serves, anything larger than 1200 pix on the long axis will get resized for the ordinary page view.
Do note that even images linked from other web sites *will* be resized unless one clicks to get the unchanged file.
Distance to background, processing, aperture used, structure of background, exposure, etc. all influence how the final image will appear. Too many variables are involved to draw blanket conclusions.
-
The 400 /2,8 FL is way better than both of these lenses
Yes, it is!
The new FL version is from another world 8)
Mmmm ... the 400 f/2.8 FL is better than the 300 ED VR II, yes.
But "way" better? Not according to actual measurements.
According to LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org), the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8L is the 2nd-highest standing lens, quality-wise, over every other lens made by anyone (including every other Otus, except the 85mm).
The Nikkor 300mm ED VR II is ranked #11 now ... but the Top 10 lenses are actually all very close. (In some cases one is "better" than the other by only a few points.)
From reading the criteria at LenScore, their benchmark reference lens is the Nikkor 85mm 1/4G, which rates 1000 (considered an "A") across the board.
A score of 800 is considered a "B," a score of 700 is a considered a "C," etc.
The Zeiss Otus 85mm f1/4 is "otherworldly" ... and is rated #1 overall with a total score of 1459 across 10 categories ...
The Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 FL ED a close second at 1427 overall.
(This is a mere 32-point score difference across 10 different categores, so there's a negligible difference of 3.2 points per category.)
Yet the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II isn't really too far behind the Nikkor 400mm FL ED, being up at a 1367 overall score.
That is only 60 points behind the 400 FL, across 10 categories, or a similarly-negligible 6 point average per-category overall difference, out of 100 points possible in each category.
These lenses are all way, way above the excellent "1000" mark, so essentially we're splitting hairs as to the superior quality of one over the other.
To show this, let's take a look individually at the 5 most important characteristics (keeping in mind, a score of 1000 is an "A"):
Nikkor 400mm f/2.8L FL ED
Resolution: 1456
Contrast: 1314
Color: 1119
Bokeh: 1684
LaCA: 1440
LoCA: 1677
As you can see, the 300mm f/2.8 ED VR II isn't too far behind:
Nikkor 300mm f/2.8L ED VR II
Resolution: 1320
Contrast: 1278
Color: 1077
Bokeh: 1566
LaCA: 1217
LoCA: 1650
By contrast, the 200-400 f/4 ED VR II zoom is a bit lower than these primes, but still a very high optic itself:
200-400 f/4 ED VR II
Resolution: 1174
Contrast: 1096
Color: 959
Bokeh: 1280
LaCA: 1157
LoCA: 1388
The 200-400 overall score, across 10 categories (again, click link) drops to 1167 ... which is 200 points below than the 300mm VR II overall ... which itself is only 60 points overall behind the 400mm FL ... making the 200-400 f/4 VR II 260 points below the 400 f/2.8 FL.
A nearly 300 point disparity is a pretty significant drop in quality ... though the truth is these all remain "A" quality lenses.
Jack
-
The pixel dimensions however are crucial and if too large, might initiate a resize. If memory serves, anything larger than 1200 pix on the long axis will get resized for the ordinary page view.
I noticed that, as my original images are 2500.
This is necessary to fit within the forum post-size parameters; otherwise the images would stick out and not flow with the size of the forum.
I will post smaller images to conform to the flow, thanks for the reminder.
-
A while ago Pierre Toscani had a great article in French on the 300mm lenses - now gone. If I remember correctly:
Differences between the first version of AF-S and the second AF-S Version:
Minimum Focus distance got reduced from 2.5m to 2.2m
Weight reduction of about 500 gr, due to the barrel made from Magnesium Alloy.
The first version of the VR, incorporated an image stabilization group in the rear elements. To improve agility, the weight of these elements were reduced from something like 60gr to 40gr (by changing the thickness and radii of the lens elements). One element in the optical axis is made from a different glass type than the predecessors (can't remember which one). The frontal protection element is a meniscus and not planar. Nano coating was introduced as well (on the exit surfaces of 2 lens elements in the third group)
The VR II differs to the VR I only in the management system of the stabilization group.
There is always the danger that VR can potentially degrade the image quality of a lens (besides it's obvious benefits). As the lens elements driven by the VR mechanism are basically driven outside the standard optical axis, those movements lead to temporary abberations in the system. IIRC, the VR system in the 300mm VR lens can compensate "Vibrations" of the optical axis of about 70mm at a distance of 10m, with a response rate of between 3 to 5 Hz.
About 45% of the overall lens weight is contributed by the glass elements.
On a side note, my guess:
Over time, Nikon was able to reduce the weight of the VR driven lens groups in modern lenses and/or find new and more stronger VR electronics to increase the frequency of the response rate of the VR system. That's why now modern VR systems can compensate for 4 f-stops, vs initially the vR systems could only compensate for 2 f-stops.
So, in a nutshell. My POV:
Your lens is still a great performer and the improvements of the VR II are in areas not relevant to your style of photography :)
rgds,
Andy
-
John, I'm not trying to convince you in any way...
Scores are what they are... scores. And they can be presented in different ways.
That said the 300 is behind 10% vs the 400.
I do not choose my lenses based on scores, but rather on my experience with them under my typical expected usage for each.
I do have both lenses, the 300 VRii and the 400 FL. And I can tell you that they are different, being the 400FL better, should I say much better? Maybe not, but better for sure, and visible in certain conditions.
The other important impact is that mighty 100mm of more reach is essential for birds (better yet having the 800FL - on wish list), and allows the 400 to be shooted naked in the majority of the situations, not with the 300. Normally I shoot this one with the TC14III. And then it comes another piece of glass in the equation, hurting badly the 300.
Nothing comes free, and the 300 is VERY "handable", not the 400. Yes you can, but for short periods.
So practical wise the 300 wins, IQ the 400 hands down.
-
Mmmm ... the 400 f/2.8 FL is better than the 300 ED VR II, yes.
But "way" better? Not according to actual measurements.
According to LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org), the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8L is the 2nd-highest standing lens, quality-wise, over every other lens made by anyone (including every other Otus, except the 85mm).
The Nikkor 300mm ED VR II is ranked #11 now ... but the Top 10 lenses are actually all very close. (In some cases one is "better" than the other by only a few points.)
...
Jack
Dont misunderstand me. I compared the 400 FL against the 300 AF-S I and the 200-400 VRI which i all own personally. As Pedro i am not doing maths likel lens core but giving a personal impression, and the 400 FL made special impression to me. The 300 VRII might be closer in numbers, cant say whether how id wouldimpress me, but I guess the upcoming 300 FL will be somewhat better. The choice is depending on the planned usage of course.
the 800 FL is stellar, not as good as the 400 FL but more useful for my birds photography.
BTW: I keep the AF-S I because its a D-lens which was alsothe reason i preferred it over the II version
-
I have used the 400/2.8 and 800/5.6 in their latest FL versions and the results are spectacular. That is, if you can overcome the issues caused by the poor tripod mounts of either lens, in particular the 800. This will of course be a non-existing issue for shooting in broad daylight, but the field of long lens photography extends to darker periods of the day or season.
I kept my trustworthy AFS 300/2.8 because it works well enough for my purposes plus it has an aperture ring, which I feel advantageous. Its tripod mount is adequate, not perfect, but does the job. The optical quality holds up well with the TC 14-E Mk.2 and takes a hit with the 1.7 and 2X TCs.
In principle I could buy both the 400 and 800 lenses, but the limited use for me means the purchase isn't worth the significant expenses entailed. Better to get a loaner lens from Nikon Nordic for these limited occasions.
-
I have used the 400/2.8 and 800/5.6 in their latest FL versions and the results are spectacular. That is, if you can overcome the issues caused by the poor tripod mounts of either lens, in particular the 800. This will of course be a non-existing issue for shooting in broad daylight, but the field of long lens photography extends to darker periods of the day or season.
Understand that. I am one of this broad daylight shooters, but nevertheless replaced the tripod mount of every newer Nikon supertele that belongs to the G and E eras (though 400 and 800 are not as bad as the older 400/2,8 and the 600/4 was). Together with a Sachtler fluid head I expect the photography range extended to darker light conditions the upcoming shootings. On the other hand it is easier to handhold them as the precedessors.
Nikon also did some rationalisation. 400 and 800 FL have exactly the same lens shade type and tripod feet which means that the front lens diameter of the 400/2,8 must have been reduced. They were not as rational to give the 400 the 52mm drop in Filter holder(CL-PL3 drop in Polarizer) the 800 shares with the 200/2 VR but rather a proprietary one
I kept my trustworthy AFS 300/2.8 because it works well enough for my purposes plus it has an aperture ring, which I feel advantageous. Its tripod mount is adequate, not perfect, but does the job. The optical quality holds up well with the TC 14-E Mk.2 and takes a hit with the 1.7 and 2X TCs.
[/quote]
It is a good lens and it works with older bodies as well. I am a fan of lenses with aperture rings. For fast tele work dialing the aperture on the camera has some ergonomic advantages though
-
Differences between the first version of AF-S and the second AF-S Version:
Minimum Focus distance got reduced from 2.5m to 2.2m
Weight reduction of about 500 gr, due to the barrel made from Magnesium Alloy.
According to my records, ALL the AFS models focus to 2.2m with manual focus. With AF the first version focuses to 2.5m, the later versions get a little closer to 2.3m. So in term of close focusing, the AFS II does as well as the current VR II version. I'm not sure why these lenses cannot AF all the way to the close limit.
-
There is always the danger that VR can potentially degrade the image quality of a lens (besides it's obvious benefits). As the lens elements driven by the VR mechanism are basically driven outside the standard optical axis, those movements lead to temporary abberations in the system. IIRC, the VR system in the 300mm VR lens can compensate "Vibrations" of the optical axis of about 70mm at a distance of 10m, with a response rate of between 3 to 5 Hz.
About 45% of the overall lens weight is contributed by the glass elements.
On a side note, my guess:
Over time, Nikon was able to reduce the weight of the VR driven lens groups in modern lenses and/or find new and more stronger VR electronics to increase the frequency of the response rate of the VR system. That's why now modern VR systems can compensate for 4 f-stops, vs initially the vR systems could only compensate for 2 f-stops.
So, in a nutshell. My POV:
Your lens is still a great performer and the improvements of the VR II are in areas not relevant to your style of photography :)
rgds,
Andy
Yep.
I have experimented with the VR, but 99.99% of the time, my camera lens is on a tripod.
I bought the lens because it is current and the lens qualities excellent, its weight manageable for long hikes, and I can get close enough to butterflies and such (~7ft) to get virtual macro shots.
I don't know about the VR I version, but the VR II is performs significantly better than the 300mm f/4.0D ED (and can take a 2x TC III).
-
A while ago Pierre Toscani had a great article in French on the 300mm lenses - now gone. If I remember correctly:
Differences between the first version of AF-S and the second AF-S Version:
Minimum Focus distance got reduced from 2.5m to 2.2m
Weight reduction of about 500 gr, due to the barrel made from Magnesium Alloy.
The first version of the VR, incorporated an image stabilization group in the rear elements. To improve agility, the weight of these elements were reduced from something like 60gr to 40gr (by changing the thickness and radii of the lens elements). One element in the optical axis is made from a different glass type than the predecessors (can't remember which one). The frontal protection element is a meniscus and not planar. Nano coating was introduced as well (on the exit surfaces of 2 lens elements in the third group)
The VR II differs to the VR I only in the management system of the stabilization group.
There is always the danger that VR can potentially degrade the image quality of a lens (besides it's obvious benefits). As the lens elements driven by the VR mechanism are basically driven outside the standard optical axis, those movements lead to temporary abberations in the system. IIRC, the VR system in the 300mm VR lens can compensate "Vibrations" of the optical axis of about 70mm at a distance of 10m, with a response rate of between 3 to 5 Hz.
About 45% of the overall lens weight is contributed by the glass elements.
On a side note, my guess:
Over time, Nikon was able to reduce the weight of the VR driven lens groups in modern lenses and/or find new and more stronger VR electronics to increase the frequency of the response rate of the VR system. That's why now modern VR systems can compensate for 4 f-stops, vs initially the vR systems could only compensate for 2 f-stops.
So, in a nutshell. My POV:
Your lens is still a great performer and the improvements of the VR II are in areas not relevant to your style of photography :)
rgds,
Andy
Thank you for adding this detailed comparison. Having owned and used the 300mm AF-S version 1 back in the film and early digital era (F100/ D100 / D2h), I regretfully sold it when I moved to Canon in 2004. My affair with the white lenses ended in late 2013 when I acquired a 200-400mm f/4 VR1 for what was, at the time, a bargain price of $3000. The VR & IS systems rarely got use with my super(ish) telephoto lenses, and I always suspected that I took an aberration hit with the stabilization system. Interestingly, image quality varied even when the IS/VR was switched off. I suspect that in turning the system off, the shifting lenses did not always return to "home-base" in perfect alignment.
The sale of the 200-400mm lens was a good decision for me, as I missed the type of image quality and focus accuracy that I enjoyed when shooting the Canon 300mm f/2.8IS.
So.. why consider the VR 300mm f/2.8? There are two reasons, one of which has been mentioned a few times. My lens was discontinued in 2004. This is my main telephoto lens and I shoot a lot of wildlife. I have the ability to throw $3000 towards a replacement or newer optic, but not more. Second, I will be taking a 9 day trip with Brad Hill (a photo tour leader in Canada) on a sailboat in Northern Vancouver Island. Our primary subjects will be marine mammals and I will be shooting from the boat deck and from a zodiac. My wife uses a 200-500mm VR and I'll have my 70-200mm f/2.8VRII and my 300mm f/2.8... Because I have the AF-S II it is light and easy to shoot with just a little support (bean bag/pillow/etc...), but it lacks VR.
Regarding my lens... I actually love it. It is a vast improvement over the 200-400mm when it comes to maintaining AF with flying birds (just returned from shooting cranes at Bosque del Apache in New Mexico and trumpeter swans this morning in 4 degree F weather). The lens with the 1.4x and converter just works... I'll post examples later today. I don't want to sell/trade just for this one shoot with whales, but I don't want to be on a zodiac wishing I had VR.
Finally, with the $3000 sitting in reserve, I could buy a 500mm AF-s I or II in the US. I have never had the pleasure of using a lens like this and would love to add it my bag for shoots where weight restrictions are not an issue.
Ok... last point... I completely understand the appeal of the 400mm FLE lens, but this is way out of budget for a guy like me (a teacher/biologist). I love to shoot and travel. However, an $8000-$10000 expense on a lens is equal to another trip to East Africa or an adventure in Spitsbergen. I'd sooner put the money to getting somewhere exotic than a lens.
cheers,
bruce
-
John, I'm not trying to convince you in any way...
Scores are what they are... scores. And they can be presented in different ways.
That said the 300 is behind 10% vs the 400.
The scores are actually very valuable, because they break down (exactly) where each lens is stronger (or weaker) than the other.
And actually, according to measured numbers, the 400mm is only 3.7% superior to the 300mm overall.
In actual, measured numbers, the resolution is nearly 11% better, which I agree is significant, while the bokeh and LaCA the disparity are only 2% and 1.6% better, respectively.
That is the value that measurements and tests give to the viewer, a more reasoned conclusion than a subjective exclamation like, "it's way better" ...
The measured facts verify that the 400 f/2.8 FL is better, but the actual, measured overall superiority is quite negligible.
Even in the resolution, I am not concerned, because the 300mm is still sharper than a Zeiss 100 Makro and Milvus. That is pretty darned sharp.
I do not choose my lenses based on scores, but rather on my experience with them under my typical expected usage for each.
I think most people, before they spend $6000 to $13,000 read the scores, and every article they can, before buying.
The scores tell you in what areas to expect performance surges/deficits.
I do have both lenses, the 300 VRii and the 400 FL. And I can tell you that they are different, being the 400FL better, should I say much better? Maybe not, but better for sure, and visible in certain conditions.
That the 400mm FL is "better" was never in dispute. You said, "way better," and that is not accurate by actual measurements.
It is between -1% to 11% better, depending on the category. (The 300mm actually has less distortion.)
I personally didn't feel that an overall 3.7% superior design warranted more than double the pricetag.
I thought (and still think), mathematically, the 300mm is the better value.
The other important impact is that mighty 100mm of more reach is essential for birds (better yet having the 800FL - on wish list), and allows the 400 to be shooted naked in the majority of the situations, not with the 300. Normally I shoot this one with the TC14III. And then it comes another piece of glass in the equation, hurting badly the 300.
I do agree with you that the extra 100mm is important. I am not sure how this "hurts the 300mm badly," but I do see the benefit of extra reach.
This is why I use the 2x TCIII.
Your 400mm x 1.4 = 560.
My 300mm x 2x = 600.
I have posted the images I have been able to achieve with this combo, and I am confident they're fine images. Are they the max possible? No. Without the TC would be an improvement, but not that much.
Nothing comes free, and the 300 is VERY "handable", not the 400. Yes you can, but for short periods.
So practical wise the 300 wins, IQ the 400 hands down.
I would say, based on pure mathematics and measured numbers, at $5400 the 300mm wins "hands down" over the $12,000 400mm practically-speaking.
Whereas, optically speaking, with only a 3.7% overall measured superiority to the 300mm, the 400mm FL wins ... "barely."
I think the 400mm isn't a practical purchase compared to the 300 VR II.
For me, mathematically(practically)-speaking, I am saving up for the 600mm FL.
It is virtually-identical, optically, to the 400mm FL ... and while it, too, is also more than twice the price of the 300mm ... the justification is the 600mm gives me twice the reach to validate the doubling of the price :D
Jack
-
the 800 FL is stellar, not as good as the 400 FL but more useful for my birds photography.
I haven't used either lens. The 400 FL would be fantastic to have but it's not possible for me given financial realities.
However, for what it's worth, in photographylife's MTF tests, the 800/5.6 FL scores a bit higher than the 400/2.8 FL in the center and especially in the corners. I recall reading that he used flash to prevent vibration from affecting the test result. So these may not be what you see in the real world (without flash) but his findings suggest the 800 may actually be the sharper lens, for what it's worth. Of course, this takes no position in other image quality characteristics that the lenses may have.
What testing I've done of Nikon tripod collars led me to believe they design them to attenuate intermediate speeds such as 1/125s which may just be used for some living subjects but are at the lower edge of shutter speeds for that kind of use. A more rigid tripod collar can help with vibration at still longer exposure times (e.g. 1/30s, 1/8s etc.) but is not as effective in dampening vibrations at 1/125s (this speed may depend on the lens). I've noticed this with two Nikon collars that I compared with more rigid third party alternatives.
-
John, that's ok , I don't argue any more.
It's always great when someone is happy with camera gear.
-
Dont misunderstand me. I compared the 400 FL against the 300 AF-S I and the 200-400 VRI which i all own personally. As Pedro i am not doing maths likel lens core but giving a personal impression, and the 400 FL made special impression to me. The 300 VRII might be closer in numbers, cant say whether how id wouldimpress me, but I guess the upcoming 300 FL will be somewhat better. The choice is depending on the planned usage of course.
Optically, the 400 FL is quite high, much higher than either the 300 I and 200-400 I, so I am sure you were quite impressed.
The difference between it and the 300, while there, isn't as much of a gain. It's 3.7% overall gain in quality and its 33% added reach advantage don't justify more than doubling the price.
By contrast, the new 600mm, with a similar 3.7% quality increase, and doubling in reach, do justify more than doubling the price.
I would consider the 400 f/2.8 FL to be worth a more reasonable $7500-$8000 than $11,500.
The choice is depending on the planned usage of course. the 800 FL is stellar, not as good as the 400 FL but more useful for my birds photography.
BTW: I keep the AF-S I because its a D-lens which was alsothe reason i preferred it over the II version
Good points.
Other than the eye-watering price tags, the 600mm and (especially) the 800mm lenses are more "sit in a blind, and wait for animals" lenses.
Can't see too many people lugging an 800mm lens for a 6 hr. hike :-X
The 300mm is a more reasonable lens to hike with, being easier to manage and be moble with. The 1.4 and 2x TC give reach options, while keeping the weight reasonable (as well as the price tag).
I would bet ~90% of the people who use the 800mm aren't hiking mountain trails, but are sitting stationary shooting what comes in range. The 600mm seems like it might be (barely) manageable on a hike, but would also seem to better be served while stationary.
I am hoping to go on a safari in 2 years, for which my 300mm + D500 (1.5) + 2x TC (900mm) might not be sufficient.
The 600mm would give me the same 900mm reach on my D500, without a TC, while increasing the optic quality.
If I add the 1.4x TC, it will give me 1260 mm.
Meanwhile, my D810 could carry the 300mm (and give me 600mm if I use the 2x TC III.)
I would therefore be following "Rørslett's Rule (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5243.0.html)" (lol) in having 300, 600, (900) and 1260mm available options with 2 cameras and 2 lenses (and 2 TCs).
I would also have a pouch carrying a 15mm and a 28mm for wide options, for landscapes ... as well as a 50mm for portraits ... and the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 for macro.
Sorry for "thinking out loud" :D
With that said, since this thread topic is about the 300mm, I consider it the most overall useful lens I have ever owned as a wildlife photographer. (It and the 28mm Ai-S.)
-
It was me who said way better, not Pedro
And once again, the comparison was against the 300 AFS-1 and the 200-400
and i also made never a secret that this was a purely subjective impression, not mathematically calculated on test results 2 digits after the comma.
Originally i was addressing Bruces question he said he is interested in maximum IQ and speed of the lens thats why I was recommending the FL series
Of course if price is added the result might be different.
In fact there is never one solution but the lens and its specifications has to meet specific needs
often a lens like the 80-400 can be the best lens because its easier to carry arround and handhold than the big-glass
-
I haven't used either lens. The 400 FL would be fantastic to have but it's not possible for me given financial realities.
However, for what it's worth, in photographylife's MTF tests, the 800/5.6 FL scores a bit higher than the 400/2.8 FL in the center and especially in the corners. I recall reading that he used flash to prevent vibration from affecting the test result. So these may not be what you see in the real world (without flash) but his findings suggest the 800 may actually be the sharper lens, for what it's worth. Of course, this takes no position in other image quality characteristics that the lenses may have.
What testing I've done of Nikon tripod collars led me to believe they design them to attenuate intermediate speeds such as 1/125s which may just be used for some living subjects but are at the lower edge of shutter speeds for that kind of use. A more rigid tripod collar can help with vibration at still longer exposure times (e.g. 1/30s, 1/8s etc.) but is not as effective in dampening vibrations at 1/125s (this speed may depend on the lens). I've noticed this with two Nikon collars that I compared with more rigid third party alternatives.
the 800 is a superb lens, my personal impression is that the 400 is sharper, not much but say 5,543%, maybe not reflected in MTF charts but purely subjective
For me the 800 is more useful due to its longer range and the TC800 gives additional range without visible loss. (400 is performing very well with converters)
Lenscore is ranking the 400 as #2 600 FL as #3 and the AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4.0G ED VR (which is also a stellar lens) as #9 whereas the 800 is #14. MTF charts would show the 800 in front, my purely subjective opinion is that the 800 is at least as good as the 600.
Regarding tripod support: When i first used the AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4.0G ED VR mentioned above using the original collar (Wimberley replacement was ordered but on the way) 2/3rds of the images were unsharp and i thought i am having an AF-issue. The Wimberley food then showed what has been the real reason, and brought my work with this lens to a different sphere. I was not using slow shutter speeds btw
-
A few images, when I tried to lug the 400mm/500mm/600mm/800mm around for a day, most of them rented (except the 400mm). Did I say "heavy" ? :)
After this experience, the AFS 300mm/2.8 VR seemed like a pocket lens - light weight, compact, ......
rgds, Andy
-
Luxury... :D
-
The poor 500/4 looks so tiny in comparison to its siblings :D
-
A few images, when I tried to lug the 400mm/500mm/600mm/800mm around for a day, most of them rented (except the 400mm). Did I say "heavy" ? :)
After this experience, the AFS 300mm/2.8 VR seemed like a pocket lens - light weight, compact, ......
rgds, Andy
You must be a powerlifter to carry all those lenses :o
-
The poor 500/4 looks so tiny in comparison to its siblings :D
Can be adavantageous :D
Here we have got an earlier (bigger) version of the 400 wehich makes the 500 look even more tiny
-
A promised picture from yesterday with my humble kit....
I shoot a lot of winter wildlife when I can and rely on kit flexibility and ease of use. It is for this reason that I first opted for the 200-400mm f/4VR1. In Minnesota, our winter morning temperatures vary from -20F (-29C) to 20F (-7C) through February. These cold temperatures are the best times to see and photograph our yearlong winter residents.
The picture here was made yesterday morning. It was about 4F (-16C) with a slight breeze. I love to photograph winter swans because they can contrast with some landscapes and blend in with others. This bird was flying into pool to great another 20 birds or so. I spent an amazing morning shooting everything from social behaviors and tight portraits to fly-ins across a snowy river landscape. After culling 50% of my pics, I had time to process only one before heading back to the grading/marking pile (a teacher's job never stops).
Specs... Nikon D500 ISO800, 1/1250, f/5 Lens: Nikon 300mm f/2.8 + TC14EII
-
The bird's behaviour is well captured. However, the picture itself appears to be very richly exposed thus plumage and wings are losing detail. It is likely still possible to get the details back with a redevelopment of the RAW in a good converter.
When the slightly busy background results from the scenery itself or the added TC is impossible to say for a viewer.
-
Wow, Wow - that is one line up of Super lenses!!
A promised picture from yesterday with my humble kit....
Specs... Nikon D500 ISO800, 1/1250, f/5 Lens: Nikon 300mm f/2.8 + TC14EII
well as many - a combo that's very hard to better for flying birds and leaping mammals and breaching whales ;D ;D ;D
-
The blur/Bokeh of the snowy areas is a true fingerprint of the 1.4 TC's
-
In the summer of 2014, I had the opportunity to test the 400mm f/2.8 for an entire day, thanks to Nikon Switzerland who was present at Air14, a very big air show which lasted over 10 days. At that time, the only modern long focal length I had was the Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6. The 400mm is quality wise probably the best lens I experienced: however, its bulk, cost and area of deployment (most racing, planes) made that I decided to go for the AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR II; together with the TC-20E AF-S III. Now, about 2 years later, I took about 8'000 pictures in 300mm and 3'000 pictures in 600mm. The quality of the 300mm is really outstanding; and remains excellent with the TC-20E III. One of the best purchases I made with a reasonable cost / performance ratio.
Hereunder a couple of pictures, the third one with full aperture, which is my normal working aperture with this lens; it is mounted on a RRS baseplate, quick release clamp and most of the time on a carbon monopod. Standard modus operandi is "VR ON".
(1) 300mm f/5.6 1/320s ISO 110
(2) 600mm f/8 1/400s ISO 110
(3) 300mm f/2.8 1/4000s ISO 100
(4) setup D5 / 300mm / RRS / Vectronix
(5) crop 100% (1200x1200px) 300mm f/8
-
The bird's behaviour is well captured. However, the picture itself appears to be very richly exposed thus plumage and wings are losing detail. It is likely still possible to get the details back with a redevelopment of the RAW in a good converter.
When the slightly busy background results from the scenery itself or the added TC is impossible to say for a viewer.
Thank you for your thoughts here Bjorn. While the behavior of this species has become increasingly easy to predict (not just because my former life as a researcher was as a behavior ecologist ;D ), exposing for them has not. The place where I photograph trumpeter swans involves the birds flying from deep shade into bright sun and back to shade for a landing. The flock moves about quite a bit and they tend to hang out on icy and snowy rivers. Since they are about as white as it gets, exposure is a challenge. In addition, I tend to expose to the right so as to avoid noise in the shadow. In the case of this picture, the highlights are not clipped/blown (at least according to LR), and there appears to be detail in the coverts when viewing the wings on my home monitor. I will play with the highlight slider a bit, but I fear that jpg compression can do some nasty things when downsizing an image to present on the web.
thanks again for chiming in.
bruce
-
The blur/Bokeh of the snowy areas is a true fingerprint of the 1.4 TC's
I don't know if what you see actually is a "tell" of teleconverter use, but it could be... In my case, I feel as if I have few options... use a teleconverter or shoot with a bulkier/heavier lens. Having just returned from a 2.5 mile hike through fresh snow to photograph a hibernating black bear that created an accessible nest, I am not sure if my back could have handled another 2kg. I wonder, had I not indicated that the shot was taken with a 1.4x, you might not have noticed the snow... it is tough to avoid one's perception if he or she has already developed a bias.
However,... just to be clear, there is no doubt that a straight 400 f/2.8 will be sharper and have a prettier bokeh than a 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x. The improvement in this quality comes at a cost (financial and physical) that I don't wish to bare... speaking of which, the black bear I "chased" did not make for much a photograph, but it, nonetheless, was quite exciting to see.
bruce
-
I just realise that this thread is a gathering of what our forum counts in eminent bird / naturalists / environmentalists. I hope that my small contribution of stinking, noisy, polluting subjects didn't disturb you.... ;) A small technical remark about the rather atypical "110 ISO": in situations where I have to control speed (in the aforementioned pictures, to maintain speed blur) AND depth of field, I go as close as possible to the 100 ISO limit (in Auto ISO) but keeping a small margin, not to get overexposed; that's the quid pro quo.
-
With the D5 the 125 and 160 settings seem to be firmware gain settings where the dynamic range is actually lower than at ISO 200. At ISO 250, 320 DR is lower than ISO 400, 500 < 640, 1000 < 1250, 2000 < 2500. So many of these intermediate ISO settings shouldn't be used if you want to maximize dynamic range. Of course, it can be debated how significant this difference is.
I personally avoid intermediate (1/3 stop) ISO settings at low to medium ISO with the D5, but I do use them at high ISO. Auto ISO doesn't seem to be aware of the issue however.
-
I just realise that this thread is a gathering of what our forum counts in eminent bird / naturalists / environmentalists. I hope that my small contribution of stinking, noisy, polluting subjects didn't disturb you....
Your thoughts are more than welcome as are the addition of your images. In fact, those whose work focuses on sport face similar challenges to those who focus on nature. Capturing distant objects, physical barriers, distracting elements and speed make is challenging for us both to photograph the decisive moment.
cheers,
bruce
-
@Illka: very good remark. I'didn't thought again about the "saw tooth" characteristics, at low ISO, of the D5 sensor. But not much I can do about in Auto ISO, as you said.
@Bruce: I'm quite good in capturing fast 4x2 meter objects, such as cars; to the contrary of birds and the like, where I clearly lack talent, .... and patience ..😊 I also believe that the need for longer focal lengths (>300 mm) is much higher, simply because the smaller size and/or the fleeing distance (I guess)...
-
Hello I know this is a old thread but I just happened to get a hold of a very Nice 400mm f2.8D series II af-s lens for a Very attractive price :) It however had bad SWM motor, So I dug right in was not as tricky as I expected once inside but I am a electronics tech so wasn't too worried as I've worked on lot of shorter focal length lenses, but this was my first foray into the Big league of long AF telephoto in the end SUCCESS ;D
ANyhow I am curious to hear other owners experiences and maybe someone can chime in on how this dated optic stands up against the latest VR FL most of the comparisons I see are all relating to the last VR model but I Really like this lens and dont have 12K in bank to invest this copy was almost 1/10 of that figure
1. WEIGHT 8) most Important IMHO WOW this optic is almost 1 KG less than the Bloated G series seems like all NIKONS First gen vr teles gained a lot of weight
2. I don't ever have a need for VR for my type of work it will always be mounted on a WImberley gimbal.
Cheers
-
RS, good work and welcome! Quite a steal for the price you paid!
-
Congratulations on successful engine swap ! Well done ;) Not an easy job,,,
Here is a list of specs for the 400mm Nikkors
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#400 (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#400)
As you can see there are several optical designs, I practical terms the optical image quality for these super tele-lenses are more or less identical, I would say almost impossible to tell the difference except VR, tripod mount, weight and some extreme cases flare differences due to super coatings,,,
-
I must say that I am confused.
Silent Wave Motors were introduced with the AF-S Series and "AF-D" means screwdriver AF ?????
-
This one is both AF-S and D, but not G. (Image linked from Roland's Nikon Pages)
If I remember correctly, the D simply means that there is a sensor in the lens that feeds the focus setting back to the camera for better metering and autofocus. Presumably most G lenses have such a sensor, but the D designation was dropped later on.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photosynthesis.co.nz%2Fnikon%2Fafs40028ii.jpg&hash=ee1012c33468ba1a7a4443a7e12e0d95d8419252)
-
D lenses implement (very coarse) encoding of distance; I doubt it can be used for much help in focusing. It's useful for direct flash calculations. I recall that it was used to distinguish between close-up and normal distance subjects as different algorithms were used in matrix metering for those two, but I don't really know if the current algorithms make such a distinction. Nikon do talk about 3D matrix metering when it is enhanced with the distance information.
D is unrelated to autofocus.
-
WOW oh wow I did not expect to see that many replies so fast Thank you all, BTW I joined this group several years ago inquiring on methods of UV photography in the digital age appears none aval with current DSLR sensors unless you have 25K lying around to purchase a hamamatsu uv camera. Yes nothing matches Film for it sensitivity, back in the day it was VERY easy to get response down to 253Nm using Fuji RTP even Much lower with spectroscopic kodak 103a Alas pretty colorful pictures necesitate many overlays bayer filters, IR cut, Low pass, etc etc these stupid hunks of glass attenuate any sub of 385Nm in reaching sensor surface sadly boo hoo.
-
Thanks, I wasn‘t sure about the AF, but thought that for AF-S and lenses without motor the D signal is the only way for the camera to know the state of the cams/gears, which could potentially help in supplying the correct voltage to the motor. If this is not the case, I‘m slightly intrigued but then again the control engineers did not find any benefit.
-
@rs, I‘m curious: did you have access to a spare motor or did you actually manage to repair it? In what sense was it ‚bad‘?
-
Thanks, I wasn‘t sure about the AF, but thought that for AF-S and lenses without motor the D signal is the only way for the camera to know the state of the cams/gears, which could potentially help in supplying the correct voltage to the motor. If this is not the case, I‘m slightly intrigued but then again the control engineers did not find any benefit.
The AF sensor is used to measure the phase difference which is related to the distance between focus plane and subject, and then it drives the motor to minimize this. I don't think the AF system needs to know what the absolute distance the lens is focused to, in order to function. I am not saying that it absolutely doesn't use it but it seems to me that the coarsely graded information provided by the lens would be of little value in this purpose.
Here is some information about the distance data that the lenses report. It seems really coarse.
https://www.scantips.com/lights/ttlbl-d.html
It is of course possible that newer lenses (Z mount, etc.) would provide more precise focus information. Since stepper motors can be driven with the reproducibility of one step, it could be that the camera knows the distance to a great degree of accuracy, but then again is the absolute distance useful in helping the camera decide what is the correct focus?
-
I attempted to discover the underlying issue with the m0tor but was unable to separate the 2 sides the spanner is locked down VERY tightly even tried a impact driver as last resort did not budge >:(
and FWIW that kind of agitation totally sucked any remaining life out of the SWM prior to power tool trial it at least moved but slowey and squeaked loudly
so I now know any sudden impact Ie dropping or hitting would seem to render a perfectly functioning the motor useless
so I had bite the bullet and sunk 600USD into a new SWM assembly :(
-
So much confusion over a misplaced D :o :o :o Quite obvious it's an AFS lens ;D
-
At this point it's easy to think that AFS always means G and vice versa, since the vast majority of autofocus F-mount Nikkor versions over the years are either both or neither. The changeovers from screwdrive to AFS and from just D to G + D (with D not mentioned) happened a long time ago, and for most lens series these changes were made at the same time. Of course there are exceptions such as the DX 10.5mm fisheye (G but not AFS), the 17-35/2.8 (AFS but not G), and the supertelephotos during the transitional period (also AFS but not G).
I like the AFS I and AFS II (non-VR) supertelephotos because they combine AFS with an aperture ring. They could even be used on a manual-focus film camera, though I haven't tried that yet.
-
BTW I joined this group several years ago inquiring on methods of UV photography in the digital age appears none aval with current DSLR sensors unless you have 25K lying around to purchase a hamamatsu uv camera. Yes nothing matches Film for it sensitivity, back in the day it was VERY easy to get response down to 253Nm using Fuji RTP even Much lower with spectroscopic kodak 103a Alas pretty colorful pictures necesitate many overlays bayer filters, IR cut, Low pass, etc etc these stupid hunks of glass attenuate any sub of 385Nm in reaching sensor surface sadly boo hoo.
Several shops will convert your camera to broadband by replacing the sensor glass. This conversion costs a few hundred dollars US and will allow light down to around 300nm. The Bayer filter remains, with the exception of the special conversions done by maxmax.com which are very expensive but allow more sensitivity. The bigger problem is probably getting a good UV lens, and of course you still need a UV-pass filter.
Are you aware of ultravioletphotography.com? The site has a wealth of information; check the sticky posts in the "technical zone" at the bottom of the page.
-
So much confusion over a misplaced D :o :o :o Quite obvious it's an AFS lens ;D
I know that "D" is for "Distance encoding" and "G" means "D" without and aperture ring, but I was not aware that there are lenses with Silent Wave Motor AND Aperture ring, which means tgey are AF-S and Aperture Ring
-
AFS lenses with aperture ring include the AFS 300/4, AFS 28-70/2.8, AFS 80-200/2.8 and the early AFS super-telephotos.
-
And the 17-35/2.8 ;) (Oh, mentioned already earlier)
-
I know that "D" is for "Distance encoding" and "G" means "D" without and aperture ring, but I was not aware that there are lenses with Silent Wave Motor AND Aperture ring, which means tgey are AF-S and Aperture Ring
Got the 17-35/2,8 the 80-200/2,8; 300/2,8 and 500/4 all AF-S (I) with D characteristics AND aperture ring , so there was no technical reason but pure "political decision" to skip the aperture ring and introduce G-Lenses (namedly the 70-200/2,8 as the first professional lens which filled the gap between 70 and 80 mm which was the reason why i quickly got the 80-200 second hand then). In addition the first 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 had VR (as the first Nikkor) also combined with aperture ring but even was lacking silent wave motor and equipped with screwdriver AF so even VR and aperture ring are not a contradiction