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.
