Nikkor 300mm F4 PF lens

[Mike G]

Following my very short acquaintance with this brand new lens here are a few very non scientific observations!

The 300mm I find is a super lens very light in the hand for a long lens, the optical quality I think is very good indeed, the VR is also very effective. Mine is quite a late number so has had the firmware update factory done! I find it quite handholdable when attached to my D810 and it seems to balance very well! The AF is fast and positive.

Physically it is smaller than a 70-300mm VR lens, but it has a whopping great 77mm filter thread, so filters will be quite expensive, and that leads to the only disappointment with this lens is the cost of buying one also the scarcity of the lens in the supply chain only helps to keep the cost up!
 
Well done Tabitha of Grays of Westminster. In one way I'm lucky that I do not have a significant other looking over my shoulder saying why do you need that then?
 

[Erik Lund]

We have been shooting with Bjørns sample from NikonNordic and indeed it is a very nice lens, and no real issues from the PF all images are crisp and clear with a lovely smooth Bokeh.

The lens is not much larger than a 180mm 2.8... Impressive.

Highly recommended travel lens!

[Frank Fremerey]

They all start at 2.000+€ and the price will later settle at 1.850€ or something when early adopters have had their "look it is me who got it first" moment. Also issues will be resolved down the road. I have seen this with my 1.4/24G same price point in the list and some of the early samples had issues. I got mine in a pro shop in cologne, could try the quality in the shop directly.

Having said that, the 300PF is the first long lens that really interests me.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Well, in defence of early adopters, if I had bought the 300/4 PF at the Jan/Feb when I had a chance, I would have been using it and enjoying it for 4.5 months by now. Instead, I'm waiting for it to be available again.  So, early adoption can have its merits if there is a product that gains a very favourable reputation then there can suddenly be a huge increase in demand and the lens can't be easily found in a long time. I got to use a friend's copy for a few hours and I was very impressed. It is so much fun to use and the autofocus (with D810) tracks moving subjects silently and with unusual degree of perfection.  I think this is a breakthrough lens and should be very good for Nikon's market share once the word gets out and the supply catches up with demand.

Thankfully my 200/2 II and TC-14E III seem to like each other very much at f/3.5 - f/4; so it can be said that I don't strictly speaking  need the PF.  But for many applications a compact lens is preferable. I find it surprising that Nikon would take so many years to make a revision to the 300/4 and then be taken off guard by the demand. I find the 70-200/4 also to be a great lens; fun to use and produce images of very high quality. I imagine these two lenses will be sitting next to each other on many trips in the future.  I'm a big fan of large aperture lenses in general, but at long focal lengths they are a project to lug around, even though the images from them are a delight to view.  So it is good to have a slightly smaller aperture option.

Of course, there are sometimes issues with early copies of a product; in the case of the 300/4 PF, the VR glitch (which is a significant issue to some users but not for the way I would use this lens) but I've bought many Nikon products when they came out and had no issues. So it's not guaranteed to have problems. ;-) Usually the price does go down gradually after initial demand is met, but that is subject to changes in economy; sometimes the price can go up.

By the way, has anyone yet used the TC-14E III on the 300/4 PF? I'm curious as to how the performance is.

[Airy]

Mixed feelings here. Brilliant results with the Df, less so with the D800. Maybe a slight AF finetuning issue.

The VR is problematic indeed, also with the Df. I decided to have it on with speeds > 1/250s for viewfinder comfort, avoid it between 1/40 and 1/200 (if needed, I'll prefer the "Quiet" mode and take several shots whenever possible), and if really needed on static subjects, squarely set the speed to 1/25s-1/30s, where I consistently get excellent results. Whatever remaining trouble VR would then make is more than compensated by the smaller aperture or lower ISO, so the benefit is considerable, better than not having it, so why complain? but Nikon made bad headlines with those mirror slap-related troubles, a pity.

[Birna Rørslett]

I have used the 300/4 PF E mainly on my Df, less on the D5300 (DX;IR) or D800 (FX; Vis). The handling is excellent on the Df despite the long focal length, likely due to the short physical build of the PF optics. A little more awkward of the two others but still managable.  Cannot observe any particular issue with these cameras for regular shooting, except the high-resolving D800 yet again confirms I should use a tripod more on a routine basis. On close-ups, some nervousness of the VR occurs but I consider this being more an operator rather than lens error.

[Frank Fremerey]

Ilkka: I do not critisize early adopters at all. I am just happy to wait until issues be resolved and prices have dropped. I never kept any lens above 135mm for longer. All of them sat idle on my shelve until I sold them. If I needed the lens, I mean really needed it or strongly wanted it nothing could keep me from buing one. The X100T was such a case. Strong feeling of I need a silent body and it must be this one. And the time was now and then.

[PedroS]

Brad Hill in his nature blog is going to have a full review (his way, field review) of it very soon

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I brought a review sample with me on the recent Slovenian trip, but let Jakov Minic use it most of the time. My own sample of the 300 PF is ready to be picked up when I return to Oslo in a day or two, though.

[Roland Vink]

Physically it is smaller than a 70-300mm VR lens, but it has a whopping great 77mm filter thread, so filters will be quite expensive

This is the same as the previous version. No way to avoid this unfortunately, the entrance pupil of a 300mm f4 lens is 75mm so 77mm filter size is really the smallest practical size. 77mm filters are found on many of the current "pro" lenses such as 12-24, 17-55, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 20/1.8, 85/1.4 and others. I'm glad Nikon have retained this as the largest size and avoided the temptation to go to 82mm filters as Canon and Sigma have for some of their models.

[Asle F]

The first AF 300mm/4 had 82mm threads (but also used internal filters).

[micloi]

Same bird with the 300mm pf + 2x and the Sigma 150-600mm contemporary
Both at f8

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 300mm pf/D7200 and 2x/300mm pf at 600mm.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 300mm pf/D7200 and 2x/150-600mm c.jpg

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The impression is that your 300 PF is not too keen to be mated with a 2X TC ... plus metering might be impacted as the image has blown areas too.

The Sigma looks significantly better, but as no TC was used for it, that outcome is not a big surprise.

[micloi]

The Sigma is, indeed, a bit better but that's mostly down to being stopped 2/3rds (f8 from f6.3) while the pf + 2x is wide open.
Not entirely fair but I wanted to test them at the same aperture.

Nest I will try f9 for both lenses to see if the 300mm f4 catches up.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Perhaps using both lenses without TC and set to 300 mm is the better comparison. Your bird seems to be very patient ...