Nikon 300mm f4.5 IF-ED AIS?

[Hermann]

I've been offered a 300mm f4.5 IF-ED at a pretty good price, well below 200 €. The lens is in good shape. The reason why it's so cheap is that the tripod collar is missing. That's no real problem as a friend of mine still has a collar he kept after he forgot his lens on the roof of his car before driving off ... I also suspect the collar from my 400mm f5.6 IF-ED will fit the 300mm as well.

What I don't know is what the optics of the 300mm IF-ED are like on digital bodies. I know Bjørn's assessment, and he seems to be a bit lukewarm about the lens. I'd use it as a lightweight tele for long hikes in the mountains, for instance on the Nikon 1 V1. Just how good is it, especially wide open? If I need to stop the lens down I may as well take my 70-300mm zoom, even though I don't really trust it on trips when things may get a bit rough. The 70-300mm seems me to be a bit fragile.

Anyone have any experience with that lens?

Hermann

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 'lukewarm' sentiment is because there will be visible CA on a digital camera. However, with a god RAW conversion software, the CA can be removed. Thus more an annoyance than a deal-breaker.

In terms of build and robustness the 300 ED-IF leaves little to be desired. It can be used with a PN-11 attached for useful close-up work, though not by any means 'macro'. The clamshell-type tripod mount is interchangeable with the 400/5.6 ED-IF as you surmised.

[BillO]

I've had pretty good luck with this lens on a D600, both as a tele at shorter distances and as a close-up lens with PN-11 tube.

A couple examples at these ranges are:

1. A Killdeer bird on its nest where the added distance allowed an image without disturbing the bird too much (although the fanning tail indicates a certain amount of upset)

2. With the extension tube to get close to a cicada larvae (?) that had recently emerged from the ground and was about to shed  (note: exif shows a different lens because I did not remember to reset it in the camera and the lens is not chipped)

Both were taken before I discovered Lightroom PP, so are essentially JPG's SOOC camera except for resizing.  I guess neither of these had sufficiently contrasty areas to show much CA (or my old eyes don't see it that well  ).

[Jakov Minić]

Hermann, I love this lens!
Ever since I bought it I haven't been using 300/2.8 AF-I that is resting peacefully in its suitcase.
It's light unobtrusive, the same weight as the new 300/4 PF.
The focusing is the smoothest I have ever experienced on any lens I have ever used.
I use it wide open all the time and I am very happy with the results.

[Hermann]

Bjørn, Bill and Jakov:

Thanks a lot for your comments. I think I'll get that one. It's really a light weight alternative to bigger lenses, especially when I'm on long hikes when I carry binoculars, scope+tripod anyway, so that's quite a bit of weight already. And in many situations I don't really use the AF anyway, simply because it doesn't work (songbirds in bushes ... ).

Hermann

[ColinM]

Jakov, how much do you want for your F2.8?

BillO, what is the second image?

[David H. Hartman]

One can get (0.5x) half life size out of a 300/4.5 ED-IF AI or AIS with a PN-11, PK-13 and PK-12. A lens cradle is needed which might be based on a lens plate like a Wimberley P-50. A spacer would be needed under the PN-11.

Dave

[BillO]

...
BillO, what is the second image?

Colin,

That is a periodic cicada nymph which I incorrectly identified as a larvae (I'm not sufficiently well-versed in bugs to know the true scientific name).

The nymph grows underground for many years (12-17) feeding on roots in wooded areas.  This accounts for the big front legs which it uses for underground foraging and digging out its eventual escape.

At the right time, it digs out to the air and flies a short spurt to a tree during the night.  Then it molts into something like a fat grasshopper.  In the molted stage it is mostly known for the incessant buzz the males produce during warm summer nights.

I caught this nymph in a tree outside my RV at early dawn.  It must have come up from the ground during the night.  By the next day it was a dried out hulk.

[Harald]

Just got a copy on friday. (190€ including shipping, near mint)



It seems to be on the same quality level like the 200mm f4 Ai. CAs are sometimes visible and the bokeh is just ok. But the mechanical quality and focussing is nearly perfect. Handling overall is ok on the DF. I have to wait for better weather here....

Harald

[Hermann]

I got mine as well. Also near mint, except for the missing tripod collar. A nice and small lens, ideal for carrying on long hikes, I think. The build quality is as expected very high. No comparison really to any of the modern zooms in particular.

The weather hasn't been all that nice over the weekend, so I only had a chance to get a couple of test shots to see if everything is OK. First impressions are pretty positive, even wide open. The colour fringing Bjørn mentions in his review is quite obvious though and will need to be dealt with in critical shots. But other than that I find the image quality if anything better than that of the 70-300 VR which does get pretty soft at the long end.

I'll experiment with my TC-14b once the weather gets any better, despite Bjørn's warning that the image quality of the combination isn't good enough. Even if it doesn't work that well, I wonder if the quality is good enough for record shots of birds.

Hermann

[jhinkey]

I've been offered a 300mm f4.5 IF-ED at a pretty good price, well below 200 €. The lens is in good shape. The reason why it's so cheap is that the tripod collar is missing. That's no real problem as a friend of mine still has a collar he kept after he forgot his lens on the roof of his car before driving off ... I also suspect the collar from my 400mm f5.6 IF-ED will fit the 300mm as well.

What I don't know is what the optics of the 300mm IF-ED are like on digital bodies. I know Bjørn's assessment, and he seems to be a bit lukewarm about the lens. I'd use it as a lightweight tele for long hikes in the mountains, for instance on the Nikon 1 V1. Just how good is it, especially wide open? If I need to stop the lens down I may as well take my 70-300mm zoom, even though I don't really trust it on trips when things may get a bit rough. The 70-300mm seems me to be a bit fragile.

Anyone have any experience with that lens?

Hermann

I found my copy of the 300/4.5 ED-IF was just slightly better than my 70-300VR at the time hence I sold it.  Central sharpness was about the same as the 70-300VR, but it had better sharpness off into the edges and corners.  Both lenses are no longer with me.

I recently tried a copy of the /4.5 ED-IF on my A7RII and it was not that sharp at distance even stopped down.

Since then I've acquired a 300/4.5 ED AI (non-IF) and it is significantly better than the IF version for sharpness and CA, especially on today's high MP bodies (D800 and Sony A7RII for me).  These are rare, but if you find one for an OK price grab it.

[Jakov Minić]

Jakov, how much do you want for your F2.8?

BillO, what is the second image?

If anybody is interested in the 300mm f/2.8 AF-I, send me a personal message with your best offer

[Bjørn Rørslett]

As I believe this is the very lens Erik owned previously, I can vouch for its optical qualities.

[Jakov Minić]

I just played with it a bit in my office, and it will be going with me to Scotland, that's for sure
It has emotional value!

[crazycaper2000]

I'm interested in how to tell the difference between the nikon 300mm 4.5 ed and the nikon 300mm 4.5 ed if. Is there a marking on the lens somewhere? help thanks