Nikkor 300mm F4 PF lens

[Ilkka Nissilä]

A few shots using the 300mm on my trip to London.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Quite good handling of light sources in the image.  This is from the Natural History Museum, one of my favorite places on this planet. 

[Øivind Tøien]

Ikka, the second one looks very crisp and has nice background rendering.


Here are some very high contrast back-lighted examples from the 300 PF in warm late afternoon light from a local lake.
The 300PF is very clean with respect to longitudinal fringing, and flare is not noticeable here.
#1


D5100, f/8 @ 300 mm, 1/1000, ISO 100



#2


NIKON D5100, f/6.3 @ 300 mm, 1/1250



For comparison, a capture from 105 f/2.5 at the same aperture, showing purple-green fringing causing some interesting color shades.
#3


D5100, f/6.3 @ 105 mm, 1/640, ISO 100.


Back to 300 PF again:
#4


NIKON D5100, f/5 @ 300 mm, 1/400, ISO 100


Colder light somewhat earlier:
#5


D5100, f/5.6 @ 300 mm, 1/640, ISO 100


At dusk:
#6


D5100, f/4 @ 300 mm, 1/320, ISO 100



Fisheye overview of the scene:
#7

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Øivind: a beatiful reminder of the approaching winter. Only the occasional cold day over here and traces of hoar frost that disappears quickly. Mostly days are just miserably damp so arrival of real cold weather, snow, and ice, seems more desirable by the day.

Your observations on how the 300 PF gracefully handles flare from strong reflections mimic my own.

[Airy]

From today's walk

[ColinM]

I'm quite jealous of you guys (can't justify the cost of upgrading from my AFS version).

Great collection Ovind. Love the squirrel sets. The crop shows quite a lot of detail too.
Looks like that squirrel has been raiding the kitchen (or the waste bins!)

[Peter Connan]

Like ColinM, the AF-S is going to have to satisfy my needs for quite some time to come.

But for interest's sake, the AF-S is a very nice lens for catching butterflies and dragonflies due to it's close focusing distance and fast AF, how would the PF fare at this?

[Ilkka Nissilä]

But for interest's sake, the AF-S is a very nice lens for catching butterflies and dragonflies due to it's close focusing distance and fast AF, how would the PF fare at this?

I haven't tried it for insects but with flowers I do enjoy the PF. It gives good sharpness and smooth backgrounds at 1:4. I find the AF also works well and because of the light weight it is very easy to maneuver hand held.

However, the 300/4D is also excellent in close up photography.

[Øivind Tøien]

Thanks for the comments all of you.  Even images from the old AF 300/4 sharpens up quite nicely (at the cost of a little extra noise), so once files are processed the difference in quality is not as much as one would think. However it sure helped to skip one generation in term of quality increase. (I bought the AF version new shortly before the AFS version came out...).


Another capture, this time from a training session with panning, VR in sports mode:



D5100, f/8 @ 300 mm, 1/60, ISO 100.

[Erik Lund]

Øivind, very nice crisp lake images, the lens renders the scene very well!

[Peter Connan]

I haven't tried it for insects but with flowers I do enjoy the PF. It gives good sharpness and smooth backgrounds at 1:4. I find the AF also works well and because of the light weight it is very easy to maneuver hand held.

However, the 300/4D is also excellent in close up photography.

Thanks Ikka

[Wally]

Finally the wait has an end  Amazing 46 years of difference between the two...

[Øivind Tøien]

Øivind, very nice crisp lake images, the lens renders the scene very well!

Thanks Erik, glad you liked them.

Now on to the question how the 300PF performs for night shots. As I mentioned the "PF flare" in visible light is dependent on wavelength, here exemplified by some changing distant traffic light and approaching cars (frame is cropped to ca. 1/4 width). Only green and white lights exhibit the "PF flare":







Sometimes it can sort of make things more interesting. One has to have very blown out highlight before the more nasty multicolored rings show up:





This one is a bit more nasty, looking directly into the closest street light from below, however the complete absence of the flares would have been pretty boring 




Not all white lights will exhibit the flare. In this distant scene only the large blown display board shows a moderate amount of the PF flare. Intensity of flare might be related to the size of a heavily blown area:




Also one need to consider how a non-PF lens would behave in a similar situation. This extremely back-lighted daylight scene does not in particular show "PF flare", only normal white flare with the 300PF (very heavy crop of distant scene).





The Old AF 300/4 (non-AFS) shows even more flare and heavy purple fringing along the edges of the blown highlights. Which one do you prefer? 




Both lenses show veiling flare when the sun hits the front element just out of the frame, exacerbated by some haze in the air.


I should add that I tried the "PF flare removal" tool in CNX-D and it is mostly useless. It just makes the flare a little darker, looking even weirder. A control point in CNX2 is a much more useful tool if one really does not like the flares.

[snowtiger]

I am considering to buy either a used 200/2, a 70-200/2.8 or a 300/4 PF. I am not sure I can afford a 200/2 but I am thinking the size of the 300/4 PF would be excellent. Also under consideration a 200/4 mikro nikkor.

I used to have a 300/2.8VR but swapped it to buy 600/4 which I haven't regretted so far.

How do you guys consider the 300/4 PF compared to the mentioned lenses in terms of sharpness, contrast, bokeh, etc. I know the lenses are vastly different and have different purposes so I am really much interested to hear if this new lens matches up those lenses good enough for midrange telephoto considering its light weight and portability. I wouldn't want to lug around two 600/4 size lenses.

How is the size compared to the 70-200 VR II?

Grateful for anyone taking the time to reply. Bjørn, I see you write comments here also. How are you? We wrote a couple of times through e-mail. I have much respect for your work and I hope everything is ok after that incident with the tic bite.

Warm regards

Jens

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I am considering to buy either a used 200/2, a 70-200/2.8 or a 300/4 PF. I am not sure I can afford a 200/2 but I am thinking the size of the 300/4 PF would be excellent. Also under consideration a 200/4 mikro nikkor.

The 200/4 AF D Micro is a great lens for close-up work when you need to shoot over some distance. I love using it for photographing ice on rocks in creeks and often with focus stacking.

The 300/4 PF has some close-up capability as well (1:4) and works quite well across distances. I wouldn't say it's the equal of a 200/2 II - there is a special kind of magic with the images from lens. But the 300/4 PF has magic of its own, in terms of its easy to carry and handle shape, size and weight, and it does produce good image quality.  The 70-200/2.8 II is a great general purpose lens. Nowadays I tend to use the 70-200/4 a lot more than the f/2.8 variant as it is so compact and the image quality is excellent.

The 70-200/4 and 300/4 PF make a great pair for having medium telephoto focal lengths covered (for outdoor use at least) in a smallish bag. Their total weight is about the same  (or slightly more) as the 70-200/2.8 II alone.  I use the 70-200 f/2.8 II for events where I need to shoot indoors now and the f/4 version for most outdoor shooting in this range.

The 200/2 II I use when I'm shooting stage and I want to avoid clutter (by using the shallow depth of field) or if I am shooting an event in really low light. The main drawbacks of this lens are its weight and price. However, I find there is no lens quite like it in terms of the "look" of the images and so the weight is to be suffered according to the principle "no pain, no gain". 

I used to have a 300/2.8VR but swapped it to buy 600/4 which I haven't regretted so far.

If you want lenses to carry together with the 600/4 I suppose the pair of 70-200/4 and 300/4 would work well, and not be too much of a burden. Or you could go for the 70-200/2.8 if you don't mind the extra weight.

I sometimes wish I had bought the 300/2.8 instead of the 300/4 PF, but the f/4 PF gets a lot more use than a faster variant would get, due to its supreme portability and unassuming size.