NikonGear'23

Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Øivind Tøien on November 23, 2015, 00:33:32

Title: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 23, 2015, 00:33:32
....
 And a PN11 in a bag btw...

That caught my interest. I have been looking at my PN-11 (which already has a custom chip) to evaluate the possibility of feed through of the signals for E-lenses. It looks like cables could be fed through without disassembly and without blocking the light path, however I am not sure the contacts in the front could be fitted without disassembly and dremel work. It is also a question of finding a front contact block with adequate amount of connections for the E-lenses.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 23, 2015, 08:56:09
It's a lot less hassle to use a TC... I have done it with an TC20E to try this out, just rip out the glass, works perfectly  ;)

However, many/most/all modern lenses especially with floating elements doesn't do well with extension...
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 23, 2015, 12:35:30
It's a lot less hassle to use a TC... I have done it with an TC20E to try this out, just rip out the glass, works perfectly  ;)

However, many/most/all modern lenses especially with floating elements doesn't do well with extension...

Thanks, the 300PF did pretty well wide open on the PN-11 when I tested it even in combination with TC-14E, but only if set at the close focus limit. This was on a DX body and I have not really checked corners much though. Getting a used TC-20E to "slaughter" is pretty expensive just to get an extension tube (almost as much as I once paid for PN11+105/4 although I do see some lucky purchases in the past on ebay). One would loose the tripod mount that can be useful for shorter lenses like the 105/4. But of course if one has to get a scrap body to scavenge for the contacts, that would also add to the cost. How long is the extension of TC-20E?

Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 23, 2015, 19:29:41
Øivind I know the price of a used TC  ;) ... do you know the hourly price for work of a machine shop  ;)
I used a discarded TC20-E mark I or II
 
Aligning those contacts inside the PN11 would take a lot of tinkering and also soldering, with the TC you also get the correct electronics.

I remember a guy that did modify a PN11 like you suggest btw.

I will have a look how the 300 PF does on my TC20E extension tube
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 23, 2015, 21:18:32
....with the TC you also get the correct electronics.
...

Still considering the TC-20E, some further searching indicates one can get it for a little more than $100 with some good luck. I wonder about aperture readout though - it would report -2 stops to the camera. This seems too be much compensation for the amount of extension it will provide.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 23, 2015, 21:24:16
That's because it - erroneously in this application - thinks 2 stops of light are "lost" due to the TC optics. Ordinary light metering will address and correct this by indirect means believing the incoming light has become almost 2 stops brighter, though. 'Almost' as there will be some change in effective aperture the size of which depending on the master lens in use.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 24, 2015, 05:48:51
Yes, it is of course mostly an exif issue, unless exit pupil data get messed up. With 105/4, the compensation would be correct at 1:1.
Edit: No it will not because the 105/4 is not an AFS lens and responds  like my AF 300/4 that reports the aperture set on the lens.

I have noticed with TC-14E that there is a tendency for underexposure and perhaps more so with 300/4 PF than AF 300/4. I wonder if that could be due to the lower contrast, or possibly due to different degree of light falloff towards edges wide open in the two models, more so with the 300PF. If the body somehow receives data that compensates for this and there is less falloff with a TC, this would influence total metering.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 24, 2015, 11:02:31
The metering on the D3 and D3X is spot on using the 'glass less' TC20E with any Nikkor/chipped lens.

It's more the issue with image quality form CRC or IF lenses..
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 24, 2015, 11:34:58
From the exposure standpoint a change in the [relative] entrance pupil will be decisive *given* the incoming rightness is constant. If an 1.4X TC is added, the focal length increases while the absolute entrance pupil is fixed, thus you "lose" 1 stop of light.

Nikon usually implement their aperture readout so the effective f-number is shown when a lens focuses closer. Behind the screen so to speak the actual diaphragm (determining the aperture) opens up to compensate for the decline in f-number caused by change in magnification of detail. This arrangement has the obvious advantage that the user don't need to bother about what the effective aperture really is. If an incident light meter shows "f/5.6" that is what the lens should read and be set to as well, even though the nominal value changes to say f/4 in order to end up as effective f/5.6.  The caveat here of course is the lens cannot open up the additional stop(s) when it is already at the maximum aperture, so here Nikkor lenses alter the readout instead to reflect the current change.

A quick test indicated that I got the same exposure (say f/5.6 at 1/30 sec) with or without the TC-14E.2 attached to the 300PF. This is of course what one would expect as exposure per se is not determined by the lens only by the actual light level of the scene. If I set the 300PF to f/4 without the TC and then added the 14E, one stop underexposure would result unless corrected by having twice as long exposure duration. Again by the book as it were.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 24, 2015, 14:05:42

I just performed the same test on a uniform target (white wall):
"Correct" exposure according to meter on D5100:
Without TC-14E : 1/30s f/4
With      TC-14E : 1/30s f/5.6
Same results with spot-metering, except for 1/15s on both instead of 1/30 sec.

"Correct" exposure according to meter on D200:
Without TC-14E : 1/20s f/4
With      TC-14E : 1/8s f/5.6

"Correct" exposure according to meter on D40x:
Without TC-14E : 1/15s f/4
With      TC-14E : 1/10s f/5.6

So I am not imagining things. The meter on different bodies may differ in response - D5100 was my initial reference. It is suspicious though that there is exactly on stop error on D5100. Perhaps the angle at which the metering system looks at the screen comes into play. All bodies have Katzye all matte screens. Only D200 has the Optibright treatment. Perhaps a further investigation of how lenses with different max aperture meters on D5100 should be performed...


Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 24, 2015, 15:33:17
Then the problem here is the camera not lens or TC. As I stated before, the Df handled the situation correctly and as long as the aperture was set to f/5.6 or smaller, identical exposures occurred as indeed should be expected.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 24, 2015, 23:13:54
Yes, agree. I need to explore what further quirks the metering of the D5100 may have. Also a Ph.D. student in our lab has a 5100 with the original screen I can compare to. Perhaps you could check your red IR body (was it D5300?) The D200 and D40x results are as expected as exposure can easily flip by 1/3 stop.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 24, 2015, 23:32:39
A good idea. Despite IR not being "light" in the usual sense, the camera's circuits don't know or care about such nitpicking details. Just need to track down an IR light source with constant illumination over a sufficiently wide field.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 25, 2015, 01:00:19
No exposure needed to check the intentions of the light meter, which will be happy with a regular light source. None of my above tests included any exposure; it was just a light meter test.

Edit: I tested my AF 300/4 ED (non-AFS) on the D5100, and with that lens the meter responds in the same way as D200 and D40x did with the 300PF except that the camera will of course not report the correct aperture with the TC. So no metering problem with the AF 300/4 on D5100.  Could there  be a firmware bug in D5100 with respect to how it handles TC-14E with an E lens?  Bjørn, if you are able to reproduce this discrepancy with your D5300 it would be interesting to compare TC-14E/TC14E II to TC-14E III.

The manual exposures I did in this last comparison were as expected from the shutter speed/aperture so there is no indication that there is any problem with the aperture control of 300PF. At f/5.6 the same shutter speed will give identically exposed frames with the two bare lenses, at f/4 there is more light falloff to the edges with the 300PF, while the center seems close to the same. However as indicated by the tests above the meter on the D5100 reports to exposure by 2/3 stop faster shutter speed with the 300PF than with the AF 300 on a uniformly lit white wall (no TCs).
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 25, 2015, 07:48:14
I would not trust the metering readout of the camera, I would definitely make the exposure and look at it as well...

Only reports I have heard about the 300mm PF is that it is actually brighter T stop than f/4
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Mike G on November 25, 2015, 09:15:13
From Eric "Only reports I have heard about the 300mm PF is that it is actually brighter T stop than f/4"

Eric what is a T stop? thats a new one on me?

I'm afraid I haven't quite got the hang of inserting a quote properly!

Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Akira on November 25, 2015, 09:29:23
From Eric "Only reports I have heard about the 300mm PF is that it is actually brighter T stop than f/4"

Eric what is a T stop? thats a new one on me?

I'm afraid I haven't quite got the hang of inserting a quote properly!



Mike, you can simply click REPLY button and click "Insert Quote" at the top right of each previous post displayed below the typing window while typing your reply.

T-stop is another indication of the speed of the lens based on the actual amount of the transmission of the light, as opposed to the F-stop which is based on the physical proportion of the focal length and the diameter of the entrance pupil.  In the cinema world, T-stop is the standard which gurarantees constant exposure between multiple lenses indicated according to T-stop standard.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 25, 2015, 10:00:03
T-stops are used for movie and video equipment  ;)
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 25, 2015, 11:10:00
I would not trust the metering readout of the camera, I would definitely make the exposure and look at it as well...

Only reports I have heard about the 300mm PF is that it is actually brighter T stop than f/4

Sure, no metering involved for that last test, just pairs of similar manual exp (shutter speed/aperture), and center wide open was not much different. My initial impression before this test was that the PF was slightly brighter than the AF 300/4, so the last word about that might not have been said, as this was indoor lighting without repeated tests. Color temperature of light source could have influenced results; AF300/4 seems warmer/greener than 300/4 PF. Also distance to the subject could matter as the 300PF shows slight focus breathing. Note that this is a comparison to the non-AFS version (with 82mm front filter), the AFS -non-VR version could of course differ from that with respect to T-stop. What stands though is that the light falloff towards the edges wide open is more pronounced with the 300/4 PF than the AF 300/4 , which is not surprising at all considering its compact size. At f/5.6 that difference seems to be be mostly gone.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 25, 2015, 11:54:23
The light fall off, vigneting  is actually often really nice for a lot of images/applications so I don't dislike that, the good performance of sensors/raw files and converters these days makes a no-issue as long as it's only about a stop or so - sure above two stops like some Zeiss wa lenses you have difficulty when removing it...
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 25, 2015, 12:20:25
Agree, sometimes it gives a 3D feeling or focus to the images. I have already processed several images from the 300PF where I evaluated using vignetting correction, but liked the result better without it.

Edit: Sorry we got astray here, I was thinking about asking to move this part to the 300PF thread.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 25, 2015, 19:27:16
Please put two and two together...  :P

The most easy DIY job ever it turns out :o
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 25, 2015, 19:55:11
Shot up close, doesn't seem to be off in exposure... Camera set for f/8 on camera
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 25, 2015, 20:48:31
The PN11 tripod collar fits exactly over the TC-20E Mark I and with a little cutting it will also fit TC-17E mark II and TC-20E mark III it's alittle too deep for the TC-14E but custom fit would be possible
Also TC-201 fits.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 26, 2015, 00:34:47
The PN11 tripod collar fits exactly over the TC-20E Mark I and with a little cutting it will also fit TC-17E mark II and TC-20E mark III it's alittle too deep for the TC-14E but custom fit would be possible
Also TC-201 fits.

Now we are talking. What did it take to get it off the PN-11?
Any disassembly required for it to slip onto TC-20E?

What is the extension provided by the TC-20E tube?
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Akira on November 26, 2015, 00:37:25
Now we are talking. What did it take to get it off the PN-11?
Any disassembly required for it to slip onto TC-20E?

Yup, that's the question!
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 26, 2015, 01:29:27
I gave Erik a PN-11 disassembled into its individual pieces. Thus the collar was free .... Ready to slide on the TC I'd guess.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 26, 2015, 01:38:44
Not many clues from the PN-11 electrification page either. He seems to have only have disassembled the internals:
http://damien.douxchamps.net/photo/pn11/ (http://damien.douxchamps.net/photo/pn11/)
There is an interesting discussion of the TC-20E as extension tube, and its electrical side in this thread:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42602800 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42602800)
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 26, 2015, 08:10:42
Just like Bjørn states; PN11 came disassembled... So I just put the two together.

Seams a dead end disconnecting pins... No real need for that IMHO

The result with the 300mm PF and extension gave a huge hotspot, not usable as predicted.

If I decide to use the collar for the other TC's I will have to modify the collar slightly to make room for the locking pin tap on the short TC's and modify the TC-20E Mark III body since it has these grooves around the middle - but so far undecided about that ;)

Balance is really nice with the Collar on the TC for short lenses like the 300mm PF Micro 105mm f/4 Ais etc
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 26, 2015, 08:15:34
Just read the description on DPR, they are missing a crucial point in the description of how to modify the TC to make it work properly... ::)
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 26, 2015, 08:22:49
The result with the 300mm PF and extension gave a huge hotspot, not usable as predicted.

Interestingly I find no hotspot with my 300PF mounted on PN-11, with or without TC-14E between the lens and PN-11, there is almost no light falloff at all. But then I could only test at nominal f/4 and on a DX sensor. At what aperture did you notice the hotspot? Vis. light or IR?

"Just read the description on DPR, they are missing a crucial point in the description of how to modify the TC to make it work properly..."

So what is the crucial point? A stepwise description here would be much appreciated.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 26, 2015, 08:29:23
The 300 PF does hot spot in IR on its own (D5300).

Please guys, if you want to discuss issues and questions relating to the 300 PF, open a new thread under Lens Talk for that purpose. I then can move over relevant posts from this thread.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 26, 2015, 08:34:04
Mixed light, about 1.8 meters - The point is; the lens optics is carefully designed for a specific flange to sensor distance, with IF floating elements moving the optics around in the lens, it would require more than a miracle for any long extension to work for this kind of lens. IMHO ;)
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 26, 2015, 09:07:07
This thread was opened for technical discussions of the  AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens, like consequences of E-aperture, possible solutions for use with extension tubes, IR issues, focus and VR performance etc. Content was moved here where it is more appropriate.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 26, 2015, 13:06:30
Mixed light, about 1.8 meters - The point is; the lens optics is carefully designed for a specific flange to sensor distance, with IF floating elements moving the optics around in the lens, it would require more than a miracle for any long extension to work for this kind of lens. IMHO ;)

Oviously my experience on a DX sensor differs. Wide open with PN-11 only similar light falloff is seen as in regular use.  Below thumnail captures at roughly  1m (close focus), 1.5 and 2.5m (furthest focus), and this result is regardless of color temperature (indoor light and PC screen).  Same with IR, no hotspot with PN 11 or lens used naked, close or far (previouly posted). But again only wide open possible with PN11 or my D40x.

(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s5/v118/p1862680087.jpg) (http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s6/v135/p1836856033.jpg) (http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s4/v10/p1766421508.jpg) (http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s6/v142/p1850039207.jpg)

Thus it is an important question: How much did you stop down before the hotspot showed? (Any filter attached?) For instance if there is a hopeless hotspot at f/8 in visible light with converted TC-20E extension tube, it isn't really much point for me to get it for the 300PF as I already have a chipped PN-11 for my 105/4.

Only focus set to closest distance on the lens gives optimal results with PN-11, but then they are good to excellent, and in particular considering that the lens could only be used wide open. (Sorry for the boring test subject, which incidentally came with the unused monetary gift that allowed me to buy the lens  :)  ;  I tend to be given teddy bears because of my professional work with hibernating bears).

300PF/PN-11 at close focus wide open (whole frame)
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v2/p1701322305.jpg)


300PF/TC14E/PN-11 at close focus wide open  (whole frame)
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s12/v170/p1758601521.jpg)

300PF/TC14E/PN-11 scale at close focus wide open (whole frame, all with D5100)
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s11/v32/p1669908467.jpg)
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 28, 2015, 01:57:10
It is worth noting that the firmware update for D750 that was just released is listed to improve VR performance. Several dpreview members have reported an improvement with the 300PF on the D750: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56843370 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56843370)

Repeated handheld tests I performed last night with 300PF on my D5100 at about 3 m distance did show a very slight (only seen at 100% view) but variable vertical only blur component in 1/100-1/200s range compared to repeated captures at 1/20 - 1/60s  that were more consistent and somewhat crisper on average. At 1/15 s it was harder to get quite as consistent results, but then the blur was more random in all directions with the less successful captures. While this is a far too subtle effect (tripod use with VR off without mirror up and inadequate exposure delay can create a lot more blur) to be called a defect, one can wonder if there will be firmware updates for other bodies that can further improve the VR performance in this range.

Edit: While some dpreview members reported improvement with D750 after firmware upgrade, one or two claimed it did not make things better for them. The image example posted had at least of a whole magnitude more vertical blurring than the little remnants I describe above. But then it is very hard to judge anything like this from single posted example images, one need the impressions provided by repeated tests. The after working fix images do not have less blur than the results I get with D5100 at these speeds, so again what I described in the above paragraph is nitpicking. It is rather remarkable that it is possible to get consistent results at 1/20s.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 28, 2015, 02:08:36
Must go through my field notes again, but from memory the IR hotspot with the 300 PF on my IR-modified D5300 commenced around f/8.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 28, 2015, 02:17:42

Thanks. What about visible light; at which aperture did the hot spot start to show up with the TC-20E modified extension tube?
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 28, 2015, 08:31:28
Wide open...
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 28, 2015, 09:16:20
Thanks, Erik, I think you perhaps just saved me from spending $100 or so on a used TC-20E.
The difference to my results with PN-11 is interesting. Could there be internal reflections in the modified TC-20E? (Could be fixed by adding flocking?) Or is there some sample variation at play (could be confirmed by testing that copy of the lens on PN-11)? Or is the extension with TC-20E longer, and thus changing  the properties? I just tried testing the latter by adding a 12mm Kenko tube to PN-11, but still no hot spot. Or perhaps there cold be some differences as to how the lens interacts with different bodies and sensors.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 28, 2015, 11:54:03
Yes internal flocking - I really just don't like the rendering... I did a couple of images more with the D3X and the 300mm PF works nicely in some shots with the TC-20E glass less 52.26mm extension for a few images.
VR works AF works I still get from time to time a strange rendering and what I call hot spot seems to get much worse stopped down...

So why not use the Micro Nikkor 105mm 4 Ais it feels at home with this combination ;) Or a 200mm Micro Nikkor if you need more distance.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 28, 2015, 12:14:37
BTW, the tip removing connection on contact #10 on the lens side on the glass less TC-20E works very nicely, Any AF or chipped lens now reports a real focal length and the wide open aperture value.

VR and AF is retained although the AF tends too overshoot, Doesn't matter since I will mainly use it for MF.
Thanks1
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 28, 2015, 14:00:14
Erik, thanks for further information.
The inspiration to use a 300/4 for macro like purposes partly comes from the late Ronny Gaulbert's excellent images. His Pbase account is gone, but there are some images here:
http://www.photoportfolios.net/portfolio/pf.cgi?a=up&pi=RONNIE (http://www.photoportfolios.net/portfolio/pf.cgi?a=up&pi=RONNIE)
and here:
http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=522962 (http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=522962)
Bug images here:
http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=263165 (http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=263165)

I think what is gained is an even more pronounced subject isolation due to the larger magnification of the background, but pretty much the same depth of field at the same scale as shorter lenses. For hunting dragon flies and other skittish subject, the long working distance is convenient. It is possible that a TC-14E is enough to get to the right scale with a little cropping. Ronney Gaulbert used AFS 300/4 ED (non-VR) with PN-11 on a D200 and sometimes an additional  shorter extension tube. He typically stopped the lens down quite a bit, shot with tripod in early morning using pretty long shutter speeds, for instance one of my favorites, the Robbber Fly image was captured at 3 seconds @ f/16, ISO-100; great subject isolation in spite of a quite stopped down lens.

Regarding strange rendering with 300PF and the glass-less TC-20E, perhaps turn VR off?


 
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 28, 2015, 14:39:00
The first test images was without VR.

I think a TC-14E is too short to give much for a 300mm.

Well, I have the extension tube now and will use it from time to time - lets see if I grow to like it with some use.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 28, 2015, 15:02:32

TC-14E as TC, not glass-less.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 28, 2015, 15:16:02
The use of extension to 300 mm class lenses has a long-standing tradition amongst nature photographers. The first references in literature I have seen for this approach go back to the mid '50s. I used a 300/4.5 ED-IF plus PN-11 more than thirty years ago ... John Shaw comments and exemplifies the technique in several of his books.

This is a neat way of utilising the fact that depth of field (ie., the zone perceived as sharp) largely depends on magnification, while background blur is controlled by the size of the blur circles, the latter being determined by the absolute size of the aperture. For a short focal length the depth of field tends to be confused with the background blur, as the blur circles are small and one has to examine the image more closely to appreciate the difference, whilst for a long focal length these concepts are much more clearly differentiated. Thus with a 300 mm + extension to give say 1:3 reproduction scale (magnification 0.3X), you can stop the master lens down to f/16 to maximise the depth of field and still keep a blurred background, thus attaining better subject isolation. The main problem is the sheer amount of extension required to get decent magnification thus having a master lens focusing close on its own is a must.

Another popular combination working on the same principle is of course the 180mm f/2.8 ED Nikkor with the PN-11. Subject isolation is not as excellent as with a longer lens, but one gets away with a more compact and manageable package and by opening up more, subject isolation rapidly increases.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 28, 2015, 17:33:37
Ahh, but then you risk the bg bokeh...
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 28, 2015, 18:54:21
As long as the blur circles are overlapping enough, background smoothness is guaranteed even at f/16.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 05, 2016, 17:08:40
I'm having issues with VR on D750. It is almost impossible to get a sharp image at around 1/125s with VR on. I'm currently in email contact with Nikon service in order to investigate this. Will keep you updated!
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Danulon on May 05, 2016, 20:26:45
I'm having issues with VR on D750. It is almost impossible to get a sharp image at around 1/125s with VR on. I'm currently in email contact with Nikon service in order to investigate this. Will keep you updated!


vr problems in general or the infamous vr problem with the 300 mm E PF at certain speeds?
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 05, 2016, 21:34:05
Mostly at speeds between 1/80s and 1/200s.
Otherwise, the lens is pure bliss, so I hope this issue will get resolved.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chris dees on May 05, 2016, 22:34:23
This is THE issue with the 300PF. There's a firmware fix (your lens has to go to a repair centre).
After the fix is done problems are not gone (I have a D810). If you have a grip or a lens plate, you can solve this mostly.
My lens has the fix, but I stil have the problems (not as bad as before the fix). It seems to be no problem on the D500 though.
I have mine with me in Scotland, so we can test it if you want..
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 05, 2016, 22:49:52
This is THE issue with the 300PF. There's a firmware fix (your lens has to go to a repair centre).
After the fix is done problems are not gone (I have a D810). If you have a grip or a lens plate, you can solve this mostly.
My lens has the fix, but I stil have the problems (not as bad as before the fix). It seems to be no problem on the D500 though.
I have mine with me in Scotland, so we can test it if you want..
According to the service advisory, my serial number was made after the batch that was supposed to need the service.
I'm in contact with someone from Nikon support, but I haven't convinced him yet that I have an issue (and not simply a lack of knowledge of how VR works or normal motion blur looks like, LOL). So I'm patiently waiting for clarification.
Yes, let's see whether your lens is any different on my bodies or vice versa.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 05, 2016, 23:09:55
Three center crops at 1/125s on the D750. I see very clear double images in the first two shots, the third is either that or even more random blur. The frustrating thing is that it does not happen only occasionally (I would be fine with that, after all I cannot reliably hand-hold a 300mm at 1/125s) but nearly every time. Maybe one out of 20 shots will be sharp by chance, but that's even less than one can expect without VR, where it's not completely unrealistic to get a decently sharp shot with care. At 1/60s it gets better, fully consistent with all the reports on the D8XX cameras.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on May 06, 2016, 13:20:08
Nikon issued a firmware fix to the D750 that addresses VR performance issues, did you update yours with the latest firmware?

Also the 300/4 PF early versions (lower serial numbers than 205101) needed updating in Nikon service.   

https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/64211/~/to-users-of-the-af-s-nikkor-300mm-f%2F4e-pf-ed-vr-lens

However,  VR issues are still reported by some users even with updated firmware. I think the fundamental problem is transfer of the shutter (and maybe mirror) vibration to the lens which somehow interferes with the VR operation. Reprogramming the lens and camera can only go so far to alleviate the problem.

I use faster shutter speeds when hand holding the lens (typically 1/200s or faster) and don't expect critical sharpness at slow speeds with a hand held lens. For landscape and close-up photography, I use the lens with a tripod.  When I've tried the hand held VR operation at different speeds, it seemed that the sharpness gradually increased towards shorter exposure times and figured that this is the expected behavior in a lens.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 06, 2016, 13:40:39
I have the most recent firmware version on my D750.

I don't expect every shot to be sharp. But to have every single shot have the same blur is not acceptable I think because this is actually worse than having VR turned off. This dramatically reduces the usefulness of VR.
Moreover, you can expect to have very sharp shots occasionally, even with 1/125s with VR hand-held on a D810, as this report shows:
http://www.richardpeters.co.uk/blog/2015/06/25/nikon-300mm-f4-pf-review-the-death-of-super-telephotos/ (http://www.richardpeters.co.uk/blog/2015/06/25/nikon-300mm-f4-pf-review-the-death-of-super-telephotos/)

I don't know whether Nikon will find a solution to this problem, but for the time being I will stay in touch with them.

The VR works better on my D600, and very well on the V1 with FT-1. I managed to get sharp results at 1/20s on the V1, which is amazing. To have issues at much faster speeds (like 1/125) on FX is strange.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Airy on May 06, 2016, 14:22:23
I have a recent copy (supposedly with the correct firmware) and, on Df, I do use VR
- at 1/250s at least, to ease framing when handheld (= most of the time)
- at 1/30s (M Mode, with auto ISO to take care of the exposure) on dark static subjects, with excellent results (at least two *really sharp* shots out of three).
The lens is optically sooo goood, and such easy to carry and tuck into a shoulder bag, that I can live with the flawed VR.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 06, 2016, 15:58:24
I agree that the lens is otherwise great, but...

I do not think that VR issues of this degree are acceptable, the VR is among the key features of this lens that are advertised by Nikon. Nikon claims 4.5 stops benefits over hand-holding. Therefore the high customer expectations are warranted. Issues to get any sharp results at all at 1/125s, which isn't even 2 stops under the usual hand-holding speed, are therefore not to be expected (I understand the issues with mirror slap etc that might be at play here, but it is the engineers' task to find solutions for this, or at least the issue should be made fully public such that customer expectations are set straight). Moreover, there are plenty of lenses that do not show the same issue (did anyone ever encounter these issues on a 300/2.8 VR I or II?).

When there is an issue with a product, advanced photographers (I'm not even that advanced IMHO) will quickly notice it. I expect Nikon to react with an attitude which is focused on solving the problem, rather than denying it. Unfortunately, it has often been the case with Nikon that problems are denied until pressure gets too high. I feel that this is getting better, but it crucially demands that customers who are not entirely satisfied give feedback to Nikon such that they realize how wide-spread a given problem is.

Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Airy on May 06, 2016, 16:24:10
I agree this should not have happened, and Nikon's reaction so far is not sufficient. My expression of satisfaction is just personal judgment, not about the company. I initially intended to return the lens, until I got some really beautiful (to me) shots I could not have (easily) obtained with others - neither the 300/4 AF, nor the 70-200VR2. So I decided to keep it, keep on shooting with said settings, and wait for an unlikely reaction from Nikon's part.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on May 06, 2016, 18:36:12
I waited for a VR version of the 300/4 for many years. I am actually reasonably happy with the VR works on this lens for me. I need it when photographing people hand held. The subjects are moving and the VR stabilizes the view and improves my focus keeper rate. The AF was not that great in the previous version but in the VR version I find it works very well. I typically shoot at 1/500s to 1/1000s when the subject is in motion. Occasionally I may take a shot of a static subject at around 1/250s but I don't expect as good results as I would at higher speeds. With the 300/4D AF-S, I would have to go to 1/800s minimum to get a sharp pic hand held and many of them would be out of focus. So the 300/4 VR does do what I need it to do.

A 300/2.8 is a different animal, much heavier and so it shakes less (and is likely less easily perturbed by shutter/mirror movement). A V1 has no mirror and can operate in electronic shutter mode AFAIK. An FX camera has a larger mirror and shutter than a DX camera. The D810 has a motor driven mirror which slows down before impact, causing less vibrations than a D750. Large mirror and shutter, tiny lens with low mass and high magnification. => o-oh.

I am actually waiting for a 300/2.8E FL VR. I know the current G VR II version is excellent but an FL version would be a bit lighter. And I hope for a better tripod mount in that lens. I'm not in a hurry as the 300/4 VR does what I need most of the time.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 06, 2016, 20:40:23
I understand that, Ilkka, and I agree that the lens has so many positives that the VR issues are only a minor point.
I also understand that the usage of very fast shutter speeds is the safer route. That will always be the case, and I will also go that route whenever I can.

But I still hold the view that the behavior that many users report (and that in the case of the D8XX has been officially acknowledged and addressed) is not to be expected, and there are plenty of examples of people getting sharp results in the critical range of shutter speeds (even if there might only be a 1/10 or 1/5 chance of getting them, it is non-zero). Therefore there is a reasonable expectation for occasionally getting usable results at those speeds. The non-monotonic behavior is unsatisfactory and difficult to reconcile with the idea that VR should give a certain number of stops advantage (i.e. it gives 3 stops advantage but not 2, or something like that).

This is pure speculation, but the fact that the D810 showed the problem and they were able to improve on it, and the fact that they could improve on it also on the D800 and D800E suggests that the motorized mirror is not a crucial element of the solution. If the shutter movement is the problem, it should still be something that can be corrected via firmware; the shutter movement-induced vibration is very predictable and could be part of the algorithm that determines the movement of the VR motor. Maybe this is encoded somewhere in the lens and that is the reason they need you to send in the lens to have it serviced. But I really don't know if I'm on the right track here.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chris dees on May 06, 2016, 21:31:54
The problems are much less when I have my RRS L-plate or grip on my D810.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 06, 2016, 21:45:23
Interesting. I do have an L bracket, but I've actually never tested without it, normally I leave it on at all times. So I should probably try to take it off, though I do not expect any miracles.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on May 06, 2016, 23:10:56

Several dpreview users reported that having a lens collar mounted on the lens while hand holding helps. I also think it provides a better grip on the lens, cradling the lens plate in my hand, and I use it the whole time.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 06, 2016, 23:22:45
Thanks! I will try that out as well.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on May 07, 2016, 12:34:01
Much of the frequency content of vibrations initiated by the shutter are higher than that of camera shake due to human hand holding. The VR system can only effectively work on vibrations that are not too high in frequency. Mass (as in the case of a heavy camera body and heavy lens) attenuates high frequency vibration effectively. Since Nikon updated both the lens (300PF) and body (D750) firmware specifically to improve and optimize VR performance, I suspect that's it in terms of firmware tweaks on this topic in the near future. Further improvements in the technology will no doubt come out in the future, mainly in the form of new products.

My experience is that the 300 PF is not unique in that certain shutter speeds result in poor sharpness hand held with VR. Tripod based results (VR off) with the 70-200/2.8 II, for example, are clearly sharper than when hand holding the lens with VR on (normal mode) at 1/160s.

With my 70-200/4, I noticed that VR ceased to function properly in cold weather (I don't remember the temperature but it must have been around -15 to -20 C). I noticed the viewfinder was not appreciably stabilized and the shots came out blurry as well. I brought out the tripod and turned off VR as I should have in the first place (it was a landscape subject and I had no reason to hand hold except being lazy). This technology has many limitations as has often been discussed here.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 07, 2016, 13:11:04
Much of the frequency content of vibrations initiated by the shutter are higher than that of camera shake due to human hand holding. The VR system can only effectively work on vibrations that are not too high in frequency.
To test this, I will use MUP or exposure delay and see whether there is any improvement.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: bjornthun on May 07, 2016, 15:16:18
To test this, I will use MUP or exposure delay and see whether there is any improvement.
If your camera supports electronic first curtain, you should activate that as well. You need to get rid of both the mirror bounce and the shutter shock, for hand held shooting with an image stabilizer to be fully efficient and satisfactory.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on May 07, 2016, 18:12:43
The D750 doesn't support EFCS. But it has lower shadow noise at equal ISOs so ... I'm not sure if the D810's sensor's modifications that implemented EFCS caused the increase in shadow noise or if it is soemething else. Nikon's reluctance to put in EFCS across the lineup suggests they find tradeoffs/problems with it. Of course the D810 is excellent at ISO 64 and very good still at higher ISO. The D750 I find markedly better at ISO 6400-12800 than the D810 but at up to ISO 1000 or so, I really like the D810.

Anyway while I sympathize that the VR should work better, I accept that such a system is imperfect and should be regarded as one tool among others that can be used when it seems likely that it would improve the results. I totally understand that it is an expensive lens and criticism is justified but I think it is likely that the limits stem from physics and engineering hasn't been able to overcome them.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: bjornthun on May 07, 2016, 19:24:32
The D750 doesn't support EFCS. But it has lower shadow noise at equal ISOs so ... I'm not sure if the D810's sensor's modifications that implemented EFCS caused the increase in shadow noise or if it is soemething else. Nikon's reluctance to put in EFCS across the lineup suggests they find tradeoffs/problems with it. Of course the D810 is excellent at ISO 64 and very good still at higher ISO. The D750 I find markedly better at ISO 6400-12800 than the D810 but at up to ISO 1000 or so, I really like the D810.

Anyway while I sympathize that the VR should work better, I accept that such a system is imperfect and should be regarded as one tool among others that can be used when it seems likely that it would improve the results. I totally understand that it is an expensive lens and criticism is justified but I think it is likely that the limits stem from physics and engineering hasn't been able to overcome them.
Whatever tradeoff there might be, I think it's minuscle in comparison to extracting a vibration free image from an (often expensive) lens. Slightly more noise at ISO 12,800 is a secondary priority.

The sensor noise was a non-issue when I had the D800.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Akira on May 07, 2016, 19:47:38
Anyway while I sympathize that the VR should work better, I accept that such a system is imperfect and should be regarded as one tool among others that can be used when it seems likely that it would improve the results. I totally understand that it is an expensive lens and criticism is justified but I think it is likely that the limits stem from physics and engineering hasn't been able to overcome them.

Ilkka, I wouldn't disagree basically.

But the range of the shutter speed (1/80 - 1/125) with the 300/4.0 PF VR is exactly in the range that is supposed to be most benefited by the additional 4.0 stop range announced by the lens.  Also, D800/810/750 are ones of the very cameras that 300PF is most likely used with.  So, I still don't really understand why the problem seems to have been overlooked in the development stage.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Akira on May 07, 2016, 19:53:04
By the way, I also don't understand why you have to "slaughter" TC20E (or whatever TCs compatible with the 300 PF) to extend the close up range.  The magnification factor at the shortest focusing distance of the lens (0.24x) is doubled by TC20 (to 0.48x).  Can you achieve the same magnification with the 300 PF and PN11 (or the slaughtered TC20E) combo?  You can still use tripod collar on the 300 PF.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on May 08, 2016, 12:37:17
About 1/3 stop loss in PDR in the range of ISO settings from 100 to 12800 in the D810 (relative to D800, D800E) may not be real world significant but in the pursuit of the best possible signal quality I can see the designers hesitate to accept such a tradeoff. But it may not be a result of incorporating EFCS but something else that they changed. The D750 pulls ahead from the D8x0 family at high ISO. It is a real world significant advantage when working in low light. These are all excellent sensors but the D8x0 family is not ideal for high ISO work especially under low K lighting. As to what priorities each photographer has for the different features, that's for every photographer to decide. I like EFCS for tripod based landscape work but when I'm photographing an event hand held I use fast shutter speeds and prefer low shadow noise. AFAIK the D500 has EFCS so Nikon is working on it at least for some cameras.

The 300 PF is an E lens and if you want to control the aperture you cannot use a standard PN-11.

I can only assume the CIPA test doesn't catch the VR problem (would you see the blur when holding a 4x6 print at about 1m distance? I don't remember the exact details but the test is based on a fairly low standard of what is acceptably sharp). Or the problem may not have happened in the exact test conditions where Nikon evaluated it. For the real world testing I suspect much of it involved moving subjects and fast shutter speeds. It took them about 13 years to revise the 300/4 AF-S. I would guess the management and certainly customers grew impatient.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: bjornthun on May 08, 2016, 14:45:16
1/3 stop less of so-called "PDR" at high ISO is a very theoretical loss as opposed to the practical gain of shooting telephoto lenses with a minimum of vibrations when tripod mounted. Mirror up + EFCS will give you the lowest amount of vibrations to fight at the outset, when you use a DSLR to do tripod mounted tele photography, particularly with light lenses like a 300/4 or a 400/5.6. Heavier lenses like a 300/2.8 or a 500/4 have much more mass with which to fight vibrations from DSLR mirror slap + shutter bounce.

I assume that the term "PDR" stems from tests done by Bill Claff, tests which I view with much sceptisism.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on May 09, 2016, 14:03:42
1/3 stop less of so-called "PDR" at high ISO is a very theoretical loss as opposed to the practical gain of shooting telephoto lenses with a minimum of vibrations when tripod mounted. Mirror up + EFCS will give you the lowest amount of vibrations to fight at the outset, when you use a DSLR to do tripod mounted tele photography, particularly with light lenses like a 300/4 or a 400/5.6.

I agree and the D810 is my main camera and the one I'd choose for such work. However, my point is that there may be engineering reasons / tradeoffs behind Nikon's reluctance to adopt EFCS across the board in the sensors that they use in their cameras. They have a broad user base whose needs they need to consider. Nikon says that the D810 EFCS may cause uneven exposure at faster shutter speeds with PC-E lenses, for example. So at present it isn't the default mode of operation in the camera but only invoked as a custom function and in a specific drive mode (M-UP).

Quote
I assume that the term "PDR" stems from tests done by Bill Claff, tests which I view with much sceptisism.

Right, I was referring to Bill Claff's site. I think the concept of photographic dynamic range is solid (he uses a higher threshold for the noise floor where the SNR for an image segment is supposed to be at least 20 instead of 1 as in DXOMark's tests to be included in the dynamic range; SNR = 1 is just too low to be considered for imaging purposes and I'm in agreement with Mr. Claff on this subject). What I don't like about his methodology is that he analyzes images sent by others. This does not seem like a truly controlled test methology and could be subject to errors due to test condition and tester variability. However, AFAIK DXOMark do use a testing procedure that is in controlled  conditions (of course every procedure has some variability and the camera and photon noise themselves, as well as camera sample variability contribute to it). I'm not suggesting one should believe the results of one site blindly but when they point to the same direction there is probably something to it.

DXOMark's dynamic range measurements show that the D810 has worse DR than the D800E and D750 from ISO 100 to 1600. From 3200 to 12800 the D750 is above the D800E and D810. So while there are subtle differences, both sites show (using independent data from each other) that the D810 DR has some loss compared to the D800(E) and is not the best of the Nikons, when compared at equal ISO settings (though at ISO 64 it is the best). In other areas the D810 does shine, e.g. the dxomark color sensitivity measurements show an advantage to the D810 over the D750 from ISO 100 to 400. One thing that I noticed when using the D750 is that I preferred the D810 colours and resolution at low to moderate ISO, but the D750 allowed some ISO 6400 shots that were underexposed (shooting into the light) to be recovered that could not have produced acceptable results using the D810 or D800. The Df / D4 family / D5 likely show a further advantage at ultra high ISO over the D750  but I haven't used them enough to say what its real world significance is. I do know that at ISO 6400 the light and shooting conditions are often such that it is critical to get the best image quality possible to make the results presentable. I find the D810's ISO 6400 image quality problematic especially if I need to do vignetting correction (which results in a marked blue shift in the corners with this camera, also with the D800 it was worse as there were lines in the noise which are absent in the D810 images).

My overall preference is the D810 but this has just as much to do with the body ergonomics and features as image quality.  I like EFCS for tripod based landscape and macro shooting with a telephoto. However, I also do event photography and quite a lot of it is at around ISO 6400 and thus one sensor is not optimal across the board. Nikon now offers at least two cameras with EFCS (in raw mode; the D4s AFAIK can do EFCS only JPG if I understood correctly) and so the users with specific needs should choose these cameras to alleviate their vibration issues, if economically feasible. The D750's lack of EFCS was disappointing to me when the camera was introduced but my main complaint about that camera is that it doesn't fit into my hands well, and in the winter when I must wear gloves it is just uncomfortable to use. However, many people love the D750's shape so it is a subjective thing, depends on the individual's hand and finger size. It does present a very attractive second camera due to its compactness, and I intend to take the D810 + D750 pair to Iceland this summer, as I need a second camera for the trip to use in case of camera failure. Also I use it nowadays in preference to the D810 for some of my high ISO work.

Perhaps Nikon can improve EFCS in the future so that there won't be any need not to use it in regular shooting, and it could also be used in hand held shooting with the viewfinder (I'm not sure why there is the limitation to M-UP mode unless it is simply that Nikon wants us to use it only in carefully controlled situations with cable release, so as to make it less likely that the artifacts of rolling shutter and uneven exposure show up more often). I would hope also that future implementations of VR can operate at higher frequencies and better compensate for vibration caused by the mechanical shutter. As of now, both technologies have limitations and we as photographers have to work around those limitations.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: bjornthun on May 10, 2016, 00:53:31
On my Sony cameras I leave EFCS always on, without any ill efects, which means that my cameras don't induce any vibrations until the exposure ends. I have moved completely to Sony mirrorless. You should however pay attention and maybe switch to an all mechanical shutter with very fast shutter speeds faster than 1/1000 sec.

Rolling shutter is a problem that arises due to a slow readout when both curtains are electronic, i.e. in mirrorless cameras that offer a totally silent shutter, and it must be used with care, only when you need it. Focal plane shutters can actually give a rolling shutter with very fast moving subjects, but it's rare.

The video capabilities developed in the Nikon D750 might be a reason why it doesn't offer EFCS. According to a review on EosHD it uses a full sensor readout which is the downsampled to 1080p, rather than line skipping, so EosHD was very satisfied by its' video quality.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 18, 2016, 10:15:47
In the Scotland gathering, we had a couple of 300 PF lenses and many cameras to do a few experiments.

We had three lenses:
Lens A (mine)
Lens B (Chris)
Lens C (Martin)

and 6 cameras:
Camera 1 (my D750)
Camera 2 (Chris’ D810)
Camera 3 (Martin’s D810)
Camera 4 (Günther's D750)
Camera 5 (Thomas’ D800E)
Camera 6 (Andrea’s D750)

Combinations that showed no noticable problems at 1/125s: 3C, 2C, 5C, 3B, 2A
Combinations that showed noticable blur at 1/125s: 5B, 1B, 2B, 4B, 6A, 1A

We only tested 10 11 out of 18 possible combinations due to time constraints. Six combinations showed the problem and five didn't.

The blur caused by VR was immediately obvious to all people that were participating in these tests. It was also obvious what a combo that does not show the problem looks like.
I will forward these results to Nikon and I’m curious what the reaction will be.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Frank Fremerey on May 18, 2016, 10:25:08
I has Chris' on my D500 for birding at our early morning / End of Loch but did not test the 1/125, I shot faster times 1/500 and up...
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chambeshi on May 18, 2016, 11:14:40
In the Scotland gathering, we had a couple of 300 PF lenses and many cameras to do a few experiments.


We only tested 10 out of 18 possible combinations due to time constraints. Six combinations showed the problem and five didn't.

The blur caused by VR was immediately obvious to all people that were participating in these tests. It was also obvious what a combo that does not show the problem looks like.
I will forward these results to Nikon and I’m curious what the reaction will be.

Thank You. Although incomplete, as you say, these data illuminate an irksome problem that's getting more and more online traction.  I will definitely hold back on purchasing this lens until they solve the design/quality control problems. Frustrating as this is ground-breaking telephoto lens, especially in combination of weight, size and optical quality! As the situation stands, the 200-500 is the cheaper and more robust option. Yet I would like to use the 300 f4 PF with TCE II, but at the price the VR MUST work on all current Nikon bodies. This is not an unreasonable demand from committed photographers.

Hello Nikon! Do you read Us!? We have a real problem out here! Will you ignore it or solve it?
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 18, 2016, 11:32:37
No problems with my 300 PF and Nikon D5300, Df, D800,D3X,  Fuji S5Pro.

How many ofhe 300 PF's in that survey had received the recommended hardware fix?
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chris dees on May 18, 2016, 13:46:32
My 300PF has the fix.
I know Martin's copy is just a few months old.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 18, 2016, 14:53:44
No problems with my 300 PF and Nikon D5300, Df, D800,D3X,  Fuji S5Pro.

How many ofhe 300 PF's in that survey had received the recommended hardware fix?

All of the listed cameras and lenses have the most recent firmwares, as far as I know.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 18, 2016, 15:24:33
The mystery thickens ...

Despite doubts to the contrary, Nikon always "listen" to their customers, but the response can be quite indirect and discreet.

I'll have a chat with my Nikon repair techs about this later to see what I can wring out of them on this issue.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 18, 2016, 15:45:57
The mystery thickens ...

Despite doubts to the contrary, Nikon always "listen" to their customers, but the response can be quite indirect and discreet.

I'll have a chat with my Nikon repair techs about this later to see what I can wring out of them on this issue.

I'm really hoping that these reports are listened to. They are one of the important ingredients to make very good products even better.
Thank you for talking to your contacts at Nikon! I'm looking forward to the results!
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 18, 2016, 15:57:18
Users facing issues with VR and the 300 PF should send reports to their regional Nikon headquarters. That is the better procedure and far more conducive to a final solution than posting to internet forums. The latter generates a lot of noise and prevents a real assessment of the incidence rate for the product as a whole.

Understanding Japanese corporate culture helps as well.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 18, 2016, 16:03:09
Users facing issues with VR and the 300 PF should send reports to their regional Nikon headquarters. That is the better procedure and far more conducive to a final solution than posting to internet forums. The latter generates a lot of noise and prevents a real assessment of the incidence rate for the product as a whole.
I'm already in contact with Nikon Switzerland Support as mentioned earlier in this thread. So far, the issue has been 'denied', to put it mildly. It would be great if the approach actually worked, but I have yet to see an example of this.

Understanding Japanese corporate culture helps as well.
I'm afraid that this goes beyond my understanding, but I accept that.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 18, 2016, 16:09:36
External and internal response might differ - and the main point is continuing to send error reports to the local Nikon headquarters.

My reference to Japanese corporate culture has a bearing as well.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Andrea B. on May 18, 2016, 19:25:32
Better that Japanese corporate culture give up its unproductive practices and attempt to understand its customers. It's not my job to understand them. It is their job to understand me and my DSLR & lens needs !!

Unless websites across the world had not posted complaints about the D600 oil splatters and similar issues, the problems would never have been fixed.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 18, 2016, 19:33:26
This assertion simply is not correct.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: bjornthun on May 18, 2016, 20:38:02
Japanese corporate "culture" failed to grasp the smart phone that has now virtually replaced the "compact camera" and become the worlds no. 1 camera device for the common man and woman. That is now a market dominated by American, Korean and Chinese corporate culture, not Japanese.

I wonder where Japanese corporate culture will take the system camera.

Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: stenrasmussen on May 18, 2016, 20:49:33
Isn't it like parents/children? I've watched/observed/learnt how my kids are adapting to a lifestyle that is somewhat unknown/scary/alien to me. But if I want to be able to talk to the kids and their friends, understand their needs, etc. I better keep up.
The same goes with camera manufacturers...they simply HAVE to keep up. I guess ideally they should lead but that requires constant change and that is difficult...seemingly.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chambeshi on May 18, 2016, 21:58:48
Better that Japanese corporate culture give up its unproductive practices and attempt to understand its customers. It's not my job to understand them. It is their job to understand me and my DSLR & lens needs !!

Unless websites across the world had not posted complaints about the D600 oil splatters and similar issues, the problems would never have been fixed.

I confess to frustration with a swelling crisis. This crisis relates to recurring production problems with otherwise superb Nikon products. The VR problems arising with the in so-many-ways-superb 300 f4 PF underscores the issues at stake. Here we have a great, innovative product, which no shortage of Nikon CLIENTS seek to own, and so try and get together the considerable lump of cash. Yet the frustration arises where a core problem remains problematic and contentious. What do we hear from Nikon Public Relations on this? Silence to my knowledge. Such a crisis calls for a proactive response by the Corporation responsible. In this respect, Corporate/cultural sensitivities etc are trivial. CLIENT relations rank paramount, or rather they shound do. Yet in this case, one is lead to believe the feedback to complaints treats CLIENT concerns as superfluous.  Nikon charge a small fortune for this 300 f4 PF so at very least they should demonstrate professional commitment and responsibility.

The issues and problems raised here and elsewhere on the www are not unfounded. All of us have better things to do than as PAYING Beta-Testers one diagnoses production problems that are Nikon's.

Many of us have relied on Nikon exclusively for photography. In my case for over 30 years and much of this for scientific imaging (macro etc) of biological specimens and landscapes including study sites and landscapes in a geomorphological/geological context. Where time and resources have permitted, and here I've been very fortunate in central Africa, I have used manual  telephots for wildlife photography. A privilege. There are many thousands who make up the committed user base of Nikon - and especially Nikkor. We longer term users, who keep upgrading to new products are devoted CLIENTS of the brand. In my case, many are devout, in fact zealous to the Nikon brand. And like so many, I have also benefited from other Nikon products in the digital revolution e.g the Coolpix 950 etc and AW1, which are indeed superb for scientific fieldwork and recreational photography.

These new AF-S, G lenses and fantastic digital DX and FX products each cost thousands of US $ today. Many of us could only dream of owning such a lens when studying and starting to earn etc. Now those Nikon CLIENTS who can afford them (well sort of/just!) have to endure being used as experimental subjects on products in which production problems (or whatever they really are) could be more easily solved without recourse to Forums. This is if the manufacturer handled the problem with due serious before it becomes a crisis.

But we little option. Not all of us are privy to the inner workings of Nikon, nor have direct access to key office bearers in Repairs etc. The very fact that these complaints and error reports appear are on Forums is due to (1) Truth-seeking by the product user seeking confirmation that the technical problem is real and not due to user error etc (one I often make, so I seek peer review!) This is especially where one has shelled out a small fortune on the likes of a 200-500 or 300f4 PF, and (2) More seriously, and more to the point, CLIENT support is inadequate, in some cases we hear of dismissive, if not arrogant denials. What, one can only ask, has happened to professional CLIENT relations?

I will remain with Nikon for Macrophotography - my optical equipment will last my life time and more. And other flash systems will work. Equally, I will remain using Nikkor AFD lenses where these work (med range zooms and especially the Defocus-Control 135 and 105) And I one am loath to be forced to buy Sigma telephoto lenses but this is now the logical option one is being forced toward by more and more evidence for Nikon's tactics that uses the BUYER as product tester. aka Microsoft selling the first software iterations to consumers to test and fix- What Dave Cutler architect of the VAX on DEC and WinNT calls eating dogfood....

And yes Canon, Fuji,  Olympus etc are there as excellent viable systems for telephoto photography. I cannot afford a 600 f4 Nikkor with its superb AF etc, so the 300 PF with a TC on a DX is the logical alternative. And after so many decades let alone years, I am loath to switch brands. But I will! At least 4 Nikon stalwarts I know have already made this choice, and as it stands I give them hell, but who can blame them? One is forced to take this route, but the way the forum pitch rises more and more Nikon CLIENTS will have no option.

Only at its peril that Nikon can try and modulate genuine CLIENT complaints through the lens of corporate culture. The perception of the Westener to tactics of denial and obfuscation etc is to take this as a lack of concern, or even disinterest by the manufacturer, at worst the complaintant, often in high spirits given the costs involved feels treated with arrogant contempt. This is a terrible shame and plain bad manners, given how the new generation of corporate representatives abuse the reputation of the Nikon brand!

The main reason is declining quality control and mounting frustrations among dedicated CLIENTS. Here again Nikon would be wise to stand up and take this very seriously. Many such CLIENTS are inaugural purchasers of these big lenses. As soon as they run initial tests they post their finds and gripes on Blogs...and no surprise, these swing opinions of emerging photographers. If favourable, many of the latter will buy into such expensive lenses - and thus the BRAND. So no mystery here, they become future Nikon CLIENTS, but as they stand - before purchase - they rank among the vast ranks of CONSUMERS of lenses and related products in the cut-throat market of digital photography. Brand loyalty for these markets is fickle and brutal for the seller. Lessons? Witness cellular phones and other IT products, Nikon.

It is at their peril Nikon makes the risky mistake of lumping loyal CLIENTS into the amorphous sea of CONSUMERS. For its own corporate survival, let alone professional integrity, Nikon needs to overhaul how it handles its relationships with its core base of CLIENTS. As it stands, our brand loyalty is a precious resource. We have invested thousands of dollars in what is still in key aspects an outstanding product. This loyalty to the brand deserves professional service. Nevertheless, there are OTHER options.....

Speaking as a scientist, let's close with two hard facts:
(1) the core way to maintain product quality lies in Honest, Rigorous testing, coupled with professional service with newly released products (something Nikon can do very well, OR did?). The BUYER can indeed participate in testing but only where this delicate process is performed honestly and professionally. Such a Beta-process testing (to borrow Software terminology) can be iterative but it sure is risky. Trying to such Beta-Testing anonymously is precarious at best, engaging paying clients requires strict controls and guidelines in place. A Golden Rule would be to handle what is less than FREE feedback with respect.

(2) In the spirit of Admiral Rickover, the architect of nuclear power and strategic submarines, and in the words of Richard Feynman (ironically a key architect of the Manhattan Project) "Reality takes precedence over Public Relations, for Nature cannot be Fooled!"
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 18, 2016, 22:19:17
I'm not defending Nikon's practice. I try to understand why these problems arise and how they should be best solved from a user's perspective. That is a world of difference involved. Shouting is not the better way.

Big corporations everywhere are shown to do bad things. Just think of Volkswagen. Nikon is a small player on this field. Do not for a second think other camera makers are much different even they might be bigger.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 18, 2016, 22:29:15
Unless websites across the world had not posted complaints about the D600 oil splatters and similar issues, the problems would never have been fixed.
If I remember correctly, the service advisory came shortly after a Chinese class action lawsuit had been filed. I can't tell whether there is a causal connection though, maybe Nikon's fix would have come anyways. But a lot of people make the conclusion you are making, and that is where the reputation of the brand is damaged.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Andrea B. on May 19, 2016, 04:05:37
The problems arise from inadequate quality control and/or inadequate testing. An antique "corporate culture" compounds the problems. Customers suffer the consequences and then stop buying.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Hugh_3170 on May 19, 2016, 04:35:00
I was aware of a pending US lawsuit, but the Chinese one is new to me. 

Sad that it had to get to this. Sadder still is that it has tarnished the name of a great company and that of the D600, which finally established itself (and its D610 twin brother) as a good camera once the oil splatter issue was eventually cured.


If I remember correctly, the service advisory came shortly after a Chinese class action lawsuit had been filed. I can't tell whether there is a causal connection though, maybe Nikon's fix would have come anyways. But a lot of people make the conclusion you are making, and that is where the reputation of the brand is damaged.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chambeshi on May 19, 2016, 07:36:58
I'm not defending Nikon's practice. I try to understand why these problems arise and how they should be best solved from a user's perspective. That is a world of difference involved. Shouting is not the better way.

Big corporations everywhere are shown to do bad things. Just think of Volkswagen. Nikon is a small player on this field. Do not for a second think other camera makers are much different even they might be bigger.

My apologies if words in CAPITALS are seem to denote increased auditory volume (if one applies email syntax. My apologies readers, I should used Bold)... In the case of those who rely on Nikon gear, it is crucial to distinguish between Clients versus Consumers (even though this distinction overlaps somewhat in a grey zone). Nevertheless, the status of a Client is obvious because these individuals have bought into Nikon, and continue to do so. Some have mortgaged themselves in more ways than one.

I agree with your thoughts on this, and suspect our respective values at stake here are congruent. VW makes great cars. But recent events mean that ethically for me, I will never buy one; yet, in fact, a VW Polo was to be the next car I would buy. And some of us ecological literates with an environmental conscience spit on certain corporate names, especially BP and Union Carbide (and whatever it has metamorphosed into...). This is another topic....

Nikon Corp. seems to be in a different category in relation to its client-base and the exploding market in digital photography. It still enjoys remarkable brand loyalty. I would venture to suggest the standing loyalty and prestige of the Nikon brand stands so high that it'is a hard one to match in the economic marketplace. Yet its position is more and more precarious. The emerging generations of consumers, and the latter is not only vast but it is a different animal compared against those of us who grew up with film, and/or got into photography as Digital first took off within the past 2 decades. A significant proportion of this emerging cohort buying into a SLR camera system Could grow into Nikon Clients. Arguably, Key factors must be at play as to initial market choices, especially where the individual's first camera in the SLR-mirrorless niches, and especially choices of 35 mm lenses (likely DX). These will mature into follow up purchases. They are contingent on initial experience of the individual. And these consumers use the www with a passion to make their choices....Fujifilm, Canon etc OR Nikon ???

Nikon is on a cusp in its marketshare, as the digital market explodes. The market for outdoor photography (wildlife, landscapes, macro etc) is interesting here, because this is where the more expensive lighter weight VR lenses open remarkable opportunities for Nikon (and also Canon, Sigma etc) to sell decent quantities of desirable instruments. This is precisely where the extant cohorts of Clients interface with new products. It is especially where those gurus among us report back on initial experiences. Bloggers report to the world. Forums are accessible to the researching consumer agonizing over what model lens to buy etc....This is  Especially where the experienced, erudite Nikon Client rhapsodizes over the new products AND also highlights early bugs and reports how Nikon handled them. Forums are an increasingly important in this market forcing. They are central locations where new innovations and also problems are identified and responded to. As with any such analogous concerns being publicized by a committed, informed and literate minority, this market force cannot be suppressed (even in places like China or Zimbabwe).

For Nikon, the implications, especially the risks should be self evident. The Nikon Client is a market agent - if not force - Of Note!

How Nikon treats this cohort of current Clients will - in increasingly fundamental ways - determine its destiny. To repeat, this causal relationship between sales and markets and produce should be self evident. And the likes of busy professionals such as myself would not move to contribute to such a forum unless we believed in what they say. I write as a zealous Client, who wants to continue to invest in a superb product but am wary of wasting scarce funds on an expensive instrument that has yet to be developed/manufactured to its full potential.

I am even available to beta-test such an instrument, provided the legal relationship between the Client and Manufacturer is clear. As the situation stands, for the very first time  (how sad!) I am forced to consider buying 3rd party lenses to use on my Nikon bodies. Recent problems, especially Nikon's corporate attitude (judged by how it is releasing and managing new products) leave some of us Nikon Clients with little else in the way of options.

This means I will stick to my treasured (and dynamic) inventory of Used lenses (AF-D being the most modern) but refrain from buying into new Nikon glass. I never thought I would come to write words akin to this last sentence! And my advice to an budding wildlife photographer en route to Botswana or Zambia or wherever? Sure my friend, buy a D7200 (or D500 if you can afford it or even better FX like the D810, Df etc) and i'll help you out with loaning / selecting older classic lenses. But go to Sigma for your telephotos....such advice will snowball....

kind regards, chambeshi
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 19, 2016, 07:57:07
Had Internet been free of the high noise levels, it might have been more influential vs the camera makers. Now, any message or feedback tends to drown or lose impact in a virtual world populated by 'experts'. All too frequently this perspective is a victim of the 'net as well. The consumers want the newest and most advanced items and they want it *now*. Urgently. Product cycles tighten and field testing suffers.

I do not advocate passivity when technical issues arise. On the contrary, actively complain, but use the appropriate channels. Submit reports via dealers or even better, directly to the national Nikon head offices. I have done this a lot myself, and have seen my suggestions being implemented in later models.

Unfortunately, or not, my 300 PF has delivered quality results without any associated issues on all cameras it has been tested with so far. The lens was held back on delivery for the hardware fix to be performed on it. I'll receive my D500 shortly and will of course pair it with the 300 PF to learn of any issues.

As the Nikon Df has become my work horse for visible-light photography, I'm using mainly manual lenses with it. The Df interfaces quite badly with a lot of the AF/AFS constructions  anyway, and I have plenty of manual F-mount lenses to choose from.
 
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 19, 2016, 09:14:08
Internet noise levels are in part high because there are very little signs of someone listening. In addition, traditional channels are (apparently) often blocked by customer friction such as
- The representative available for direct communication is not technically knowledgeable
- The response is that there is no known issue, which is false since the issue was just reported by the very customer whom he is replying to, thus making it known
- No offer of a solution which is satisfactory to the customer

This does not hold for Nikon, but many other companies. They could do many things to improve customer satisfaction and the feedback cycle, such as
- Put technically astute reps into major forums to listen and respond to feedback
- Issue a 'we are working on it' statement even before the problem is solved. This shows commitment and reduces the internet noise on that issue.
- Communicate that feedback is welcome and that the company is willing to use the feedback to improve the product

Ultimately, the collective voice of all customers is right, even in cases where it might be objectively wrong or exaggerated. There is no authority which will be able to rectify matters when the brand reputation has suffered too much. Thus even what is called noise is fully legitimate, and the company has to deal with it. Managing it in an active way would be better in my opinion.

In my personal case with the 300PF, the response to my written report (which was well laid out, not some confused babble, I think) was very unsatisfactory, even after a supervisor has been consulted. This might just be reflective of the specific reps I had access to, or it might reflect the official stance and attitude within Nikon. I don't know. I still hope to be able to convince them with data that there is an issue. I might even have to go to the service center personally even though that requires me to take half a day off from work due to its remoteness. All of this takes a major commitment from my side, and I expect a little commitment from their side as well.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chris dees on May 19, 2016, 11:28:53
Today I had an email conversation with a/my NPS rep and he stated Nikon is aware of the problems.
He has a 300PF with issues himself, so I don't have to explain him everything and I'm sure he will monitor it. :)
He also said that using a grip most of the problems are gone. This is the same as i experienced
 
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 19, 2016, 11:31:44
Today I had an email conversation with a/my NPS rep and he stated Nikon is aware of the problems.
He has a 300PF with issues himself, so I don't have to explain him everything and I'm sure he will monitor it. :)
He also said that using a grip most of the problems are gone. This is the same as i experienced

Wow great!
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on May 19, 2016, 12:26:21
Manufacturers' official presence on the most active online forums might have its own problems. On many prominent forums (not this one), it is obvious that many of the posters are not sincere and post with the intention of stirring discussion and agitating others. Often small issues which do not really affect photography are made into large "issues" (I'm not talking about this thread; I do believe issues such as the D600's dust, the D800's AF and the 300 PF's VR problems are real). People get attacked all the time.  It would be very difficult for an official representative of a manufacturer to figure out what is true and what is fiction on some of those forums. People simply take too many liberties when they can post anonymously and sincere people can easily get hurt in the process (not to mention the truth as a casualty). I'm not saying that monitoring online forum activity would not be useful, and maybe Nikon is doing that in some way. However, in my opinion it is best if users with technical problems contact Nikon regional representatives directly and report the problem. Sometimes the problem gets solved, other times it does not.  I think it's the same with any type of product. Perfection is rare and one might argue that chasing perfection can lead one astray from the path which could lead them to a finding something that works well enough. It can also lead to more expensive products that achieve less, if taken to extremes.

I think rather than resort to trying to get a large corporation which I am very much dependent on, to admit fault and fix a product quickly, I try to be practical. Most products have good and bad sides and I include bugs and quality variations as part of the "quality of the product". I look for products that I can use to make photographs that I want to make. I don't try to chase perfection in products that I buy but I do try to achieve some degree of quality in the photography that I produce. To me the gear is just a tool and if it works, I am happy. If there is a problem with a product, I usually bring it up online - not because I expect the manufacturer to respond, but so that other photographers can be aware of the problem and depending on how they use their gear, decide whether it may apply to their use case or not. This discussion then becomes a part of the collective evaluation of the product quality and that may affect sales in a small way. In the grand view of things such processes (and others) contribute to the sales and the commercial success of a product. What a consumer can do is simply try to find products that will work for their needs and just carry on with the photography instead of being stuck trying to solve a technical problem which is outside of their control.  I'm not saying that one should not complain about it - but once it is reported to Nikon then let them try to figure out a solution and ultimately if they are able to do so, they are likely to contact you with details of the solution. This has happened to me - I reported a problem with a F70 a long time ago - the exposure metering actually had two problems, one of which was a camera specific  fault, the other was a problem they could solve with a new circuit that became available six months later. In the beginning it took some convincing the reps that there was a problem but I was able to do so in a convincing way. Now, it is crucial to find the right person to talk to, when explaining a technical problem. And then try to form a personal working relationship with that person over time.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 19, 2016, 13:16:58
Putting reps into forums would almost certainly calm the situation down. All but the most aggressive personalities would try to be diplomatic towards the rep if the latter proves that he is listening. We see this working in many businesses, where social media channels are used to build the customer relationship. Sometimes those people have to stand some heat, but the heat is much less than if these channels do not exist and it is simply a monologue and complaining fest. It is true that we read some complaints which come down to user error or bad faith, or are delivered in a very rude form. But if it is quite easy for us to filter these out, it should be just as easy for a technically knowledgeable representative.

But I'm not really here to tell Nikon what they should be doing. They have to figure this out for themselves, and if they think the current approach is good enough, so be it. I was just mentioning a few ideas.

Now that Chris found someone to talk to at Nikon who not only acknowledges the issue, but even says that someone is working on it, I'm putting my complaints on hold. Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the lens, and I hope that it will become even better over time.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on May 20, 2016, 11:30:44
Well stated Illka - On a general note, please just enjoy your cameras and lenses - Learn how to work around any issues or return/sell the equipment if you don't like how they work... I have a 300mm f/4 PF it does do nice images at any speed on D810. Even with TC's

On the specific issue with VR - My guess is that the cameras in question have too little mass or a mass at a critical low value - The issue could be the VR is designed around more or less stable camera (heavy camera) and lens going/swinging up/down/sideways - With a light weight camera/lens the whole thing is moving lens and camera, sometimes camera more than lens,,,

Think how the VR lens element compensates, how it actually moves when for instance panning, the element should/can only compensate for up/down shake of the lens and not the rotation of lens/camera... unless it's set for Action VR then it tries to compensate for both camera and lens movements...
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chris dees on May 20, 2016, 12:54:07
Erik, I think it should be something different the just weight.
Why do I experience it on the D810 and not on the D500 (which is much lighter) and why do some people have problems (eg. D810 + 300PF) and others have not with the same equipment.
There should be more. Why takes it so long for Nikon to find a real solution?

BTW. I'm keeping mine as there're much more positives than negatives and I'l avoid shooting at low speed with VR on my D810. :D
I'm sure Nikon will come with a solution.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on May 20, 2016, 13:47:49
The D500 is a DX camera, with smaller mirror and shutter. In a pro DX camera the mirror box is larger relative to the shutter window thus the shutter can be designed to accelerate slower (more room for the curtains to pick up speed). Thus the effect of the shutter vibration is smaller and high frequency components, which the VR system cannot handle, are less pronounced. If a grip is attached to increase weight this attenuates the high frequencies which is probably why some find it helps with the 300/4 PF (extra weight in the body in general to reduce vibrations at slow shutter speeds, not only with this lens).

The VR system probably can't deal with the high frequencies that the shutter causes with the gripless FX body and such a light weight high magnification lens. Also the way the lens is supported varies from user to user. I think it is not at all surprising that there is no easy solution. If there was one, I am sure they would have given to us with the lens and body FW updates. However, recalling the lens a second time should be done in such a way that it is guaranteed to be successful. It must cost Nikon hugely to issue such recalls. They reported a 25% increase in budget reserved for warranty repair reportedly. 25% increase may have been a result of D750, 300 PF etc fixes. I would imagine the D750 in particular must have been very expensive for them. And the D600 and D800 in the past but I'm giving them some slack since they did lose their factories and the society infrastructure due to the natural disasters in 2011 in particular. However the 300 PF problems have nothing to do with that I am sure.

If there are body sample and lens sample dependent variations in VR performance with the same FW installed, then it is very curious. Component weight differences should be very small and I would imagine the variation in material strength to be very small as well. Electrical components may have slightly different characteristics (analog components). But they should have been able to account for the effects of such variations in the design. Assembly?
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: bjornthun on May 20, 2016, 14:02:17
A Nikon D500 probably has a smaller mirror than an FX format Nikon, which also contributes to less vibrations in a D500.

The D500 was released a year after the 300/4PF, so the design of the D500 may account for the 300/4PF at the outset.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on May 20, 2016, 18:14:35
Chris, I'm not stating it's just the weight - It's of course much more complex than that!

And most likely it's also a combination of different little details that make a difference,,, MY advice is; Relax and let the Nikon techs do their thing.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chris dees on May 20, 2016, 20:17:12
Chris, I'm not stating it's just the weight - It's of course much more complex than that!

And most likely it's also a combination of different little details that make a difference,,, MY advice is; Relax and let the Nikon techs do their thing.

I'll wait (already a year). ;D
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 20, 2016, 22:49:00
Well stated Illka - On a general note, please just enjoy your cameras and lenses - Learn how to work around any issues or return/sell the equipment if you don't like how they work... I have a 300mm f/4 PF it does do nice images at any speed on D810. Even with TC's

On the specific issue with VR - My guess is that the cameras in question have too little mass or a mass at a critical low value - The issue could be the VR is designed around more or less stable camera (heavy camera) and lens going/swinging up/down/sideways - With a light weight camera/lens the whole thing is moving lens and camera, sometimes camera more than lens,,,

Think how the VR lens element compensates, how it actually moves when for instance panning, the element should/can only compensate for up/down shake of the lens and not the rotation of lens/camera... unless it's set for Action VR then it tries to compensate for both camera and lens movements...

My D600 does not show the problem, or at least much less, than my D750. Their weight is almost identical.
Some users experience issues on the D810 even with the firmware fix.
Our experiments suggest that not only are there good/bad samples, but good/bad combinations, so the problem is quite complicated it seems.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 20, 2016, 22:55:23
One more thing: I also tested with MUP and exposure delay. Both did not remove the blur issues. So I don't think the blur can be attributed to the mirror slap; if anything, it is the shutter-induced vibration, or simply a bug in the control algorithm (which I think is much more likely; the algorithms there are quite complex, a lot can go wrong). Anyways, I don't know whether the VR is designed to work with MUP and exposure delay. Since the viewfinder is black for an extended period, it is hard to keep the subject centered, so this is not really a practical solution either.

Martin suggested that it might be an issue related to power supply. So the battery grip might just help because it provides a more steady voltage to the VR motors.

Could someone (maybe Chris) with a battery grip test this? E.g. tape the contacts of the battery grip batteries to see whether it is the mass of the battery grip that leads to less blur, or the power supply coming from the battery grip? I don't possess any battery grips.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Akira on May 20, 2016, 23:04:50
Does the direction of the blur changes from vertical to horizontal, when you hold the camera in the portrait orientation?  With the mirror lockup, of course.  If so, you could be sure that it is shutter related problem.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 21, 2016, 00:16:09
Thanks, Akira.
The blur is always more or less in the up-down direction in a horizontal image. But I haven't tested with the exposure delay/MUP.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: bjornthun on May 21, 2016, 02:14:56
Is it possible to test it with mirror-up and electronic first curtain shutter (EFCS) enabled at the same time? This is one more way to get a hint, if the shutter movement is causing the problem. Afaik, the D810 has got EFCS.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Øivind Tøien on May 21, 2016, 04:32:25
Lots of activity in this thread; out on work travel I have not been able to follow up.
Now to the question: Did anyone on the trip test with/without a tripod collar attached? I cannot see any mention of this.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on May 21, 2016, 09:37:38
My D600 does not show the problem, or at least much less, than my D750. Their weight is almost identical.
Some users experience issues on the D810 even with the firmware fix.
Our experiments suggest that not only are there good/bad samples, but good/bad combinations, so the problem is quite complicated it seems.
I have heard and read that.

I still believe my reasoning is correct.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 21, 2016, 12:56:13
Lots of activity in this thread; out on work travel I have not been able to follow up.
Now to the question: Did anyone on the trip test with/without a tripod collar attached? I cannot see any mention of this.
I see no difference when using the collar vs. no collar attached. But I'm not using the Nikon collar, but a rather inexpensive one off of ebay I got for the 70-200/4. It does a good job as a tripod collar, but not to dampen the vibrations that are causing the blur when handholding.

Does the direction of the blur changes from vertical to horizontal, when you hold the camera in the portrait orientation?  With the mirror lockup, of course.  If so, you could be sure that it is shutter related problem.

I just tested with one second exposure delay (to avoid having to press the shutter release twice). The blur direction relative to the camera is conserved, i.e. it is up-down for the horizontal image (image 1 below) and left-right for the vertical image (image 2 below). Look at the bright dots just below the edge in the shade.

I'm not a 100% sure about your reasoning though. It could also be that the VR unit has a defect that manifests itself in a up-down blur (relative to the camera). When turning the camera to portrait orientation, the lens turns also. It would be less likely to have a defect which is always up-down irrespective of the camera orientation, unless it is gravity-related. But these are all wild speculations anyway, the Nikon engineers will hopefully find the real problem.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chambeshi on May 21, 2016, 13:14:25
Chris, I'm not stating it's just the weight - It's of course much more complex than that!

And most likely it's also a combination of different little details that make a difference,,, MY advice is; Relax and let the Nikon techs do their thing.

Interesting observations. Obviously, it is Nikon's responsibility to solve this problem(s), but i suggest it will be enlightening run off coordinated empirical tests. Although the logistics appear  challenging to get together enough copies of the offending lens in this case and  say 4-5 bodies (Df, D750, D800, D810 and DX's etc). The ideal would be to get together several 300 f4 lenses in the 2 categories (i.e well behaved/ no issues Versus Shaky) and test them on the same standardized images (this test sheet can be circulated electronically). With standard settings (e.g 1/30 >>> 1/1000) with VR On vs Off). Cameras with mirrors up vs usual function, and tripod collar on vs off, and of course on different DX and FX bodies.

The internet can take this process a long way forward. Many of us are positioned to run off such tests using a std test image that we can pool then the images to a willing analyst.....Suitably one or two Nikon owners who have bought a troublesome copy of this 300 PF can then summarize and bring the results to Nikon's attention.

At the moment I don't own a 300 f4 PF [been put off so far!] and only have a D7200 - Df scheduled for later this year :-) but in my case, I can ask around in the Cape for willing collaborators. Indeed I know at least willing 3 friends, and we could arrange to test together with a D7100 and D5100 etc.

Basically this is doing heavy lifting on behalf of Nikon,  but purely a suggestion. Where some Clients have been waiting for too long - and there is yet to be informative Feedback from Nikon - such a coordinated test will provide fairly statistically solid empirical evidence....
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on May 21, 2016, 17:38:10
Is there any report of issues on a D3 D4 or D5?,,,
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on May 21, 2016, 17:42:59
If you plan on carrying out a set of tests using multiple lens and camera samples, you also need to rotate the photographers taking the shots since photographer variability is likely to be much greater than lens sample variability in hand held shooting. And the number of shots made with each combination of body+lens+photographer+shutter speed should be at least 20 to get meaningful data and to reduce the effect of randomness in the hand holding on the mean and other statistics. The image should be focused using live view and the distance to target such that the shake of the lens forward and back does not affect image sharpness appreciably. The photographer should be unaware of which sample of lens they are using. This is not an easy thing to do and there are many ways to do it wrong.

If Nikon can make EFCS work without M-UP mode, and put it in more cameras, this problem would be solved for all lenses, not only the 300mm PF.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: bjornthun on May 21, 2016, 18:37:05
If you plan on carrying out a set of tests using multiple lens and camera samples, you also need to rotate the photographers taking the shots since photographer variability is likely to be much greater than lens sample variability in hand held shooting. And the number of shots made with each combination of body+lens+photographer+shutter speed should be at least 20 to get meaningful data and to reduce the effect of randomness in the hand holding on the mean and other statistics. The image should be focused using live view and the distance to target such that the shake of the lens forward and back does not affect image sharpness appreciably. The photographer should be unaware of which sample of lens they are using. This is not an easy thing to do and there are many ways to do it wrong.

If Nikon can make EFCS work without M-UP mode, and put it in more cameras, this problem would be solved for all lenses, not only the 300mm PF.
I agree completely with Ilkka's assaessment.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on May 21, 2016, 19:40:12
Should not be needed to do such a test IMHO - The lens should just work on any camera for almost any user.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: ArendV on May 21, 2016, 19:58:34
I just got my D500 today and based on initial testing I do not have the VR issues in the shutterspeed range from 1/60s - 1/180s that I definitively had with my D7100.
I am a happy camper  ;D although I mostly anyhow use this lens at shutterspeeds of 1/320s and higher.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 23, 2016, 11:29:01
If you plan on carrying out a set of tests using multiple lens and camera samples, you also need to rotate the photographers taking the shots since photographer variability is likely to be much greater than lens sample variability in hand held shooting. And the number of shots made with each combination of body+lens+photographer+shutter speed should be at least 20 to get meaningful data and to reduce the effect of randomness in the hand holding on the mean and other statistics. The image should be focused using live view and the distance to target such that the shake of the lens forward and back does not affect image sharpness appreciably. The photographer should be unaware of which sample of lens they are using. This is not an easy thing to do and there are many ways to do it wrong.

If Nikon can make EFCS work without M-UP mode, and put it in more cameras, this problem would be solved for all lenses, not only the 300mm PF.

The expectation of sharpness given the null hypothesis (the lens works as advertised) apparently varies from person to person. If you have a fairly wide distribution of outcomes, it requires more data to reject the null hypothesis. But instead of making a lot of experiments under the same condition, one can do a few control experiments to exclude confounding factors. For instance, the variability of shakiness of the photographer can be controlled for by putting the lens on a table or on a tripod, and shooting at even slower speeds than 1/125s. Especially the latter, i.e. shooting at 1/60s and getting results that are basically as sharp as at 1/500s or higher, removes almost any doubt that the issue is present. Or like the instance of Chris putting my lens on his D810 and getting at the first shot a tack sharp result, which he has never seen before with his lens sample. You have to have very low (and complex) expectations towards the efficacy of VR to accept this as chance.

I think this sort of data is fairly convincing even though it might not be up to the highest scientific standards. It is about as much as I'm willing to do, although I could certainly do better if I wanted to. It is Nikon's job to do more detailed research. Not only would it be highly inefficient for the user base to do this research since we don't have access to the algorithms of the VR and the various firmwares to do debugging, but it would also be unsolicited work that is unpaid and we would be doing in our spare time instead of using the lens we paid for to be functional in order to do creative work.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 23, 2016, 12:05:14
Just shot a long sequence with the 300PF on my Df. Hand-held I can easily do a stationary subject at 1/30 to 1/50 sec, with VR normal on. Tried at 1/125 hand-held and got identical results. Tested from 1/125 to 1/20 sec @VR normal on my most shaky tripod, a Gitzo that partially survived a tripod stress test I conducted a few years ago for a Norwegian magazine. It'll do service as a backup tripod in my studio where lighting is studio flashes and there is less exacting demands on tripod stability. No problems detected here either.

Each sequence had N=30, so the results are significant.

Do note this exercise used my normal approach for the 300PF, ie. shooting stationary subjects. So it only in part answers the current question about the claimed issue for the 300PF.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: MFloyd on May 23, 2016, 17:48:03
Is there any report of issues on a D3 D4 or D5?,,,

Erik, do you mean in relation with the aforementioned problem, or issues in general ?
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 23, 2016, 17:57:32
Just shot a long sequence with the 300PF on my Df. Hand-held I can easily do a stationary subject at 1/30 to 1/50 sec, with VR normal on.
Thank you. This is very reassuring.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 23, 2016, 18:02:54
Forgot to mention that I kept the tripod collar on even for the hand-held shots. In my opinion, this actually improves the handling of this lightweight lens.

I did landscape and 45 degrees tilted shots (tripod-mounted & hand-held). The tilted shots should easily show sharpness issues were they to exist. VR Normal throughout. No mirror lock-up.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Andrea B. on May 23, 2016, 19:29:38
Simone S - Love that experimental design and discussion of expectations !!
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on May 23, 2016, 20:05:18
Erik, do you mean in relation with the aforementioned problem, or issues in general ?
Naturally regarding the subject at hand!
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: ArendV on May 23, 2016, 22:36:38
I have shot several series with the 300PF in a shutterspeed range from 1/10 - 1/500s with both the D7100 and V1 to convince myself (and the Nikon Servicecenter in the Netherlands) that my D7100 has an issue with the VR at shutter speeds between 1/60 - 1/180s. My V1 did not have this issue using the electronic shutter.
After the firmware update the sharpness increased a bit in the mentioned shutterspeed range, but for tack sharp photos I always stayed above 1/200s. Having done all this testing, the first shots of the D500 are already convincing enough to me as with the D7100 not a single photo was tack sharp in that shutterspeed range.
For sure the damping of the mirror and shutter must be better in the D500.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chris dees on May 23, 2016, 23:01:17
I have shot several series with the 300PF in a shutterspeed range from 1/10 - 1/500s with both the D7100 and V1 to convince myself (and the Nikon Servicecenter in the Netherlands) that my D7100 has an issue with the VR at shutter speeds between 1/60 - 1/180s. My V1 did not have this issue using the electronic shutter.
After the firmware update the sharpness increased a bit in the mentioned shutterspeed range, but for tack sharp photos I always stayed above 1/200s. Having done all this testing, the first shots of the D500 are already convincing enough to me as with the D7100 not a single photo was tack sharp in that shutterspeed range.
For sure the damping of the mirror and shutter must be better in the D500.

This is more or less my experience as well.
The 300PF and D500 are meant for each other. ;D
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 24, 2016, 00:07:36
One more reason to want a D500, LOL.
But that is still no replacement for an FX cam.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 24, 2016, 15:56:57
With the D500, I now have repeated the experiments done with my Df, and got exactly the same results.  For stationary subjects, using VR in the range 1/20 to 1/250 sec is not an issue whether shooting hand-held or using a [shaky Gitzo] tripod. I did not use electronic first curtain shutter although the D500 likely has it (haven't gone through the manual yet, but will have to to turn off the nasty wi-fi/NFC)

I have to charge more batteries so the D800 & D3X can be powered up.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 24, 2016, 21:09:54
To put the 300 PF issues into perspective, I just mounted my 50-300/4.5 ED AI Nikkor on the D500 and verified it was at least as sharp as the 300 PF, if not sharper. Since the vintage 50-300 is purely manual (but with CPU)  there is neither AF Fine-tune nor VR behaviour to attend to.

Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Jakov Minić on May 24, 2016, 21:21:25
To put the 300 PF issues into perspective, I just mounted my 50-300/4.5 ED AI Nikkor on the D500 and verified it was at least as sharp as the 300 PF, if not sharper. Since the vintage 50-300 is purely manual (but with CPU)  there is neither AF Fine-tune nor VR behaviour to attend to.

Have you compared sharpness with other manual focus 300mm lenses, like for instance with a 300/4.5 AiS?
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 24, 2016, 21:31:01
No, just got the D500 and am busy trying to learn the camera's darker secrets. The 50-300 just happened to be in the vicinity when I did the 300 PF tests on the D500.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 25, 2016, 02:08:29
Fired up the D800 and again, no issues found with 300 PF and VR over the range 1/20 to 1/250 sec. I feel like being on a ghost chase.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on May 25, 2016, 09:11:43
You are Bjørn, the 300PF is a wonderful lens!
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 25, 2016, 09:23:00
Never said against that ... it has a lot of virtues. Still, surprising that the vintage 50-300 can match it in sharpness .... That came unexpected for sure.

As to the VR issue, I'm none the wiser. I don't doubt it exists for some combinations of 300 PF lenses and cameras, but my 300 PF apparently isn't troubled.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 25, 2016, 12:26:31
As to the VR issue, I'm none the wiser. I don't doubt it exists for some combinations of 300 PF lenses and cameras, but my 300 PF apparently isn't troubled.

I don't think this is very surprising. It would have been interesting to test with my lens on all your cameras.

Could you please post a sample 100% crop of the D800 at 1/125s? Just to get an idea how sharp it is.
The issue is that the Nikon rep I was talking to was denying that the expectation of getting a sharp result at these speeds on the D750 (which has less resolution than the D800) is realistic at all, and thus my complaints that it was impossible to avoid the strong blurs (for which I posted examples earlier) were misplaced. I then showed them online reviews where people get sharp results, to which he said that they are very surprising and not to be expected.

He told me to use faster than 1/400s speeds at 300mm if I want sharp pictures, a suggestion which renders VR almost superfluous as a feature and as a selling point. The rep told me that he had talked to a supervisor, who had supported this view.

To me, this attitude seems like a joke. Examples such as yours are apparently insufficient evidence to establish that my (and other people's) expectations of what VR needs to accomplish are realistic and justified.

The rep that Chris talked to in the Netherlands seems to have a much stronger belief in the capabilities of Nikon's products. :D
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on May 25, 2016, 15:36:35
I basically agree with the response Simone got from Nikon. Although acceptable (slightly blurry, with sharpness varying from shot to shot, most shots "usable") results can be obtained at slower speeds, sharpness in my 300 PF shots increases towards faster shutter speeds and 1/400s sounds like a reasonable guideline for consistently high level of sharpness. I prefer a bit faster speeds myself, from 1/500s to 1/800s. At these speeds, VR stabilizes the viewfinder image, resulting in more precisely controlled compositions and better autofocusing and probably also reduces the effects of hand shake on the images. With the 300/4D AF-S, I needed to go to 1/800s or faster for acceptable hand held sharpness even with 12 MP FX  (1/500s didn't do it) so there is some advantage to having VR in the lens, in the form of improved sharpness at borderline shutter speeds. To get the advertised number of stops you have to switch to a  lower resolution standard i.e. something that you might see in small print at some distance away, or on a typical laptop display without cropping, or on a mobile phone screen.

I have the same experience basically with other lenses, e.g. I don't normally let the shutter speed below 1/200s with the VR 70-200/2.8II since if I do, sharpness invariably starts to fall. However, at 1/200s VR does help, at 200mm focal length; it helps with composition, autofocusing and reduces the effect of camera shake. I'm perfectly happy having this advantage in my VR lenses and think expecting perfect pixel-level sharpness at slow speeds is just unrealistic and a tripod should be used instead. However, if the usage of the image is a relatively low resolution presentation, then shots taken at very slow speeds can sometimes be considered acceptable.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 25, 2016, 15:44:27
As requested, this is 300 PF at 1/125 hand-held with the D800. Test target the curtains in my living room, well suited actually as light is shining through the fabric and thus any blur would be easily spotted.

'Sharp enough' in my book. Perhaps it would be even sharper at a higher shutter speed? Really a moot point. This level of sharpness will print to any realistic size from a D800 file.

100% crop, centre of frame. VR set to 'Normal'. Do observe the subject is not flat so follow a wrinkle downwards once it appears to be in focus. The salient point, however, is the absence of visual blurs into the darker areas.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Andrea B. on May 25, 2016, 16:52:59
I'm quite eager to get the 300/4E VR regardless of potential AF problems at certain speeds. So it is great to see this lens tested & discussed so thoroughly here.

One thing I've gotten from this thread is that I should get out there and actually test the VR at various speeds on any of my lenses which have it - something I have never done - although I am aware that at certain speeds VR on any lens is best left turned off.

Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Andrea B. on May 25, 2016, 17:07:16
Examples with D750 + 300/4E VR

Photos followed by unresized excerpts.

The final unresized excerpt shows that if speed is moved to 1/400", then there is no "doubling".
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 25, 2016, 17:42:28
Had I obtained such results with my lens, I would have demanded my money back ....
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 25, 2016, 18:53:41
I basically agree with the response Simone got from Nikon. Although acceptable (slightly blurry, with sharpness varying from shot to shot, most shots "usable") results can be obtained at slower speeds, sharpness in my 300 PF shots increases towards faster shutter speeds and 1/400s sounds like a reasonable guideline for consistently high level of sharpness.
I really appreciate your thoughts on this, but I fear we are really talking about different things here.

There is an abysmal difference between certain 300PF combos (camera+lens) and others. You may not agree with the evidence presented, but I think it is pretty well-documented by now.

The good combos show consistently higher sharpness than what your post suggests is possible, and certainly much better than the bad combos (just look at Bjørn’s example for a ‘good’ example, even though I believe I have seen even better).

While I agree with your statements and Nikon’s as a conservative ’best practise for the highest consistency of sharpness, I was not asking for that since I already know those practises and I will try to use them as much as possible. However, and this is my main point, those statements are not an acceptable rebuttal (to me anyway, and I don’t think I’m alone in this) to the evidence presented, since they do not address the evidence at all. When has it become acceptable to ignore evidence? At least they should explain why the evidence is deemed invalid. I think the response I got from a rep (which I quoted in one of the previous posts) very badly represents Nikon and the efforts of their engineers to design an excellent product. Hiding behind the safety of worst-case scenarios shows a lack of commitment to their products. (As an analogy, it would be like a producer of off-road vehicles recommending they only be used on paved roads to avoid any damages like broken axles etc. So while that statement is technically true and every sane person knows that any car can break when Murphy strikes and bumpy ground increases the probability of breakage, it is a strange (to use the mildest of all adjectives) thing to tell a customer who has just presented some evidence for a design flaw in the axle which makes damages more likely. The minimum courtesy is to explain why the evidence is deemed invalid). This sort of response is very reminiscent of the case where Nikon told D600 customers that (let me paraphrase) “sensors just get dirty” when that camera’s propensity to accumulate dirt/oil at a much faster rate than any other DSLR had already been documented. I’m not getting bitter over it nor am I blaming it on individual employees, but I will never say that this an acceptable thing to tell a customer.

But I will no longer harp on the issue now. According to Chris, at least one Nikon technician under this sun has already acknowledged that there are unresolved issues with VR on the 300PF and stated that somebody at Nikon is working on them, so there is nothing left for me to prove I guess.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 25, 2016, 18:54:31
Examples with D750 + 300/4E VR

Photos followed by unresized excerpts.

The final unresized excerpt shows that if speed is moved to 1/400", then there is no "doubling".

Thanks for posting these examples. They were the basis for the table of working/non-working combos I presented earlier.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 25, 2016, 18:57:05
As requested, this is 300 PF at 1/125 hand-held with the D800. Test target the curtains in my living room, well suited actually as light is shining through the fabric and thus any blur would be easily spotted.

'Sharp enough' in my book. Perhaps it would be even sharper at a higher shutter speed? Really a moot point. This level of sharpness will print to any realistic size from a D800 file.

100% crop, centre of frame. VR set to 'Normal'. Do observe the subject is not flat so follow a wrinkle downwards once it appears to be in focus. The salient point, however, is the absence of visual blurs into the darker areas.

Thank you!
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: simsurace on May 25, 2016, 18:59:29
Had I obtained such results with my lens, I would have demanded my money back ....

This is one possibility that I have pondered. I may still demand my money back from the dealer if I don't hear back from Nikon.
I thought that talking to Nikon Support first would be more productive for them. If they are willing to listen...

Giving the lens back and getting another one would give me a reasonable chance to end up with another faulty sample. I haven't decided whether I want to go through this experience. The VR issues no-withstanding, my lens sample is exquisitely well-centered and it could be that I get lucky with regards to VR, but unlucky with regards to centering :D. How funny is life's randomness...
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Andrea B. on May 25, 2016, 19:38:22
Simone, I do agree that evidence should not be ignored. There is no equivocation applicable here because clearly there is something (still) wrong with the lens, the problem should be acknowledged, replacements should be offered.

This is not simple "VR softness" which we know can happen. This is some kind of weird "doubling" effect. Like the VR hiccups at some point in the stabilization procedure.

It might serve a useful purpose to ask for your money back or for a replacement 300/4E VR because this request would let dealers - and then perhaps Nikon - know that this kind of thing should not, nor cannot, be ignored.

If you do this, then of course I know you will thoroughly test any replacement lens before accepting it.  ;D
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on May 25, 2016, 20:57:23
Simone, I agree that if you can get a full refund for the lens, it makes sense to go for it, or ask for a replacement lens.

Sometimes Nikon replaces the lens with a new one if it is the most cost effective way to a functional lens. Howeve, for that they would have to admit the lens is defective. If is is easier to get a replacement or refund at the camera store, I would go that route.

Bjorn I completely agree the subtle differences in sharpness may not be real world significant but I tend to try to minimize sources of uncertainty and blur, no matter how small, as in real world shooting the sources of blur tend to add up, eventually leading to something that the eye can see in print.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on May 25, 2016, 21:00:49
Absolutely, in a real world setting I would never attempt hand-holding a 300 mm lens, VR or no VR. Nor would I use a Gitzo 3551 either.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chris dees on May 25, 2016, 22:18:04
It's still a weird problem.
This image is with my D810 and Simone's 300PF.
I can't get a sharp image with my 300PF and Simone can't get one with his copy.
When we changed our 300PF's everything looked good. We even thought about keeping it that way. :)

My D810, Simone's 300PF F4.0 1/125 ISO250 some basic LR PP. I would be very happy to get this result with my own copy.
Second one is about 100% crop

Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: chris dees on May 25, 2016, 23:03:15
And this one is even better.

Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: ArendV on October 14, 2016, 11:54:51
Did some testing with 56mm extension based on a recent discussion in another thread (using rings from Apurture with 8 contacts and decent stability).
(moved it from Photobucket to flickr now - full resolution via the link).

@f/4
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5750/30316413415_dbb954410a_b.jpg)
300PF 56mm extension testing (https://flic.kr/p/NbXxv2) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr

@f/4 (need to clean my shaving brush.....)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5712/30281413376_5ded159fc2_b.jpg)
300PF 56mm extension testing (https://flic.kr/p/N8Sad5) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr

@f/8
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/6/5566/30316409605_cd78a8d180_b.jpg)
300PF 56mm extension testing (https://flic.kr/p/NbXwnk) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on October 14, 2016, 12:03:42
No photos are showing.
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: ArendV on October 14, 2016, 12:11:39
Photobucket was not cooperative - now moved them to flickr (full resolution via the links).
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on October 14, 2016, 12:21:08
This is what I have seen using my TC-20E extension ring, a very narrow central zone with good resolution and sharpness, then iq declines rapidly into oof

There will be difference also where on the focusing scale you are, closer to minimum focus distance should be 'better',,,
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: ArendV on November 06, 2016, 16:04:33
Yesterday in the zoo - so not so challenging to take - but the result shows why I like this lens so much wide open on my D500 :-)

(https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5780/30798441435_8ca4307e3d_o.jpg)
Lion (https://flic.kr/p/NVy4CX) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Technical aspects of the AFS 300mm f/4 E PF lens
Post by: Erik Lund on November 06, 2016, 16:06:38
Nice rendering!