NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: oldfauser on September 28, 2016, 18:23:52
-
I know that the 300mm f/4.5 AI ED (not the IF version) is very hard to find whereas the 300mm f/4 ED AF (original D version, not the AF-S one) is not. Other than the slow AF of the f/4 lens, how do they compare? Image quality?
thanks!
Art
-
The 300/4.5 ED non IF is highly regarded for excellent image quality. It outperforms (except for handling) the successor 300/4.5 ED-IF, in the same manner the 800/8 ED non-IF runs circles around the 800/8 ED-IF.
Hardly ever used the 300/4 ED-IF AF so cannot tell much of any difference that might exist.
-
The original AF 300/4 ED IF only existed in a non-D version, until it was superseded by the AF-S 300/4D ED IF. The AF 300/4 ED IF suffers from quite a bit of longitudinal CA, that will require cleaning up in post, to the extent that is possible.
-
According to Jean-Marie Sépulchre using DXO analyzer, the AF is far better than the IF.
From worse to best
AI ED IF then AF then AF-S and then AI ED
-
I had both and liked, despite the extra weight, the AF 300/4 more. Also less CA than the 300/4,5 ED.
-
I'm using actual images and evaluate these. DXO makes numbers.
The ED-IF (AIS) needs proper post processing, but then shows up as being very good. It is also a good match for extension to give a very long working distance for close-ups. On a camera such as D500, the 300 ED-IF performs especially well.
-
I have been using the 300/4.5 AIS ED IF for quite some time now.
If you can live without AF and VR, there is nothing wrong with the lens. And you will NOT find a lens with a smoother focus ring :)
-
I briefly compared my 300/4.5 ED AI against a 300/4 AF-D and the ED was sharper across the frame wide open. Also compared it to a 300/4 AFS and did not like the AFS wide open at all . . . but it could be copy variation because the copy I tried was used and others report loving this lens.
The 300/4.5 ED non-IF stands up incredibly well to my D800 and A7RII and is my go-to compact telephoto that fits nicely in my lumbar pack.
I really want to try it against the 300/4 PF one of these days as the PF is really compact.
-
thanks for all of the reply's!
i guess I'll have to keep looking for a 300mm f/4.5 ED AI to go along with my 400mm f/5.6 AI (that's really an ED lens without the gold band)
Art
-
I've had two different copies of the AF-S 300/4, and it does have strange image qualities wide open. Sometimes it's fine, but other times it isn't. I don't use it enough to analyze why. My copy of the 300/4.5 ED-IF was good on my old D3, with correctable lateral CA.
-
I know that the 300mm f/4.5 AI ED (not the IF version) is very hard to find whereas the 300mm f/4 ED AF (original D version, not the AF-S one) is not. Other than the slow AF of the f/4 lens, how do they compare? Image quality?
thanks!
Art
I can't speak to any of the 300mm f/4.5's, but I have no complaints about the optical performance of the non-D 300mm f/4. On "prosumer" cameras such as the F100 and D800, autofocus speed is "meh." The minimum focus distance and maximum reproduction ratio (2.5 meters/1:7) is in between the non IF 300mm f/4.5 ED (4 meters/1:10) and the AF-S models (1.4 meters/1:4).
Another downside to the 300mm f/4 is the filter situation. The 39mm drop-ins are long since discontinued; I've seen the 39mm polarizer sell for around $200. Even the filter holder can be hard to find; used copies sometimes just come with the gelatin holder. The alternative is to use 82mm filters or a square system. This lens was sold with a "sock" instead of a lens cap. I use a Tamron cap on mine, but if you're willing to shell out $25 you can now get a genuine Nikon cap. (I'll pass). The manual focus feel of the 300mm f/4 is exactly what you'd expect from an AF Nikkor of this era. Again, meh.
On occasion, I've used a Kenko DG 1.4x teleconverter with mine; that same teleconverter would work with the 300mm f/4.5. But these days, I'm more likely to use my Sigma 150-500mm to go beyond 300mm.
-
I briefly compared my 300/4.5 ED AI against a 300/4 AF-D and the ED was sharper across the frame wide open. Also compared it to a 300/4 AFS and did not like the AFS wide open at all . . .
It is getting very confusing when you call the non-D-lens for AF-D. The only 300mm/4 D is the AF-S.
-
It is getting very confusing when you call the non-D-lens for AF-D. The only 300mm/4 D is the AF-S.
]
Sorry - it LOOKs like a D lens since it has CPU contacts. The 300/4D AF-S has been referred to as the AFS version.
-
A lot of lenses have CPU contacts without being "D". There is no direct relationship involved here.
-
The AF 300mm IF-ED f/4 was not D,,, ::)