300mm f/4.5 (Nikkor-H)

[richardHaw]

Found this in the junk shop. i was looking and waiting for a long time to get a cheap Nikkor-H and i finally found one with a foggy element. so far, the performance was so-so, easily outperformed by current consumer zooms but it still is pretty decent. i was wondering if this lens still has a place today in a photographer's bag or it's going the same route as the 200mm f/4, being left behind because cheap modern consumer zooms outperform them

the Nikkor-P version reputably had worse performance than this but i dont know by how much

[Roland Vink]

The Nikkor-P (P=Penta=5 elements) 300/4.5 was launched in mid 1964. It was replaced by the Nikkor-H 300/4.5 in 1969. The main difference is that the front element of the Nikkor-P was replaced by an acromat doublet to improve chromatic correction, resulting in better contrast and sharpness. Apart from that the rest of the optical design is almost identical. The extra element means the new lens is a Nikkor-H (H=Hexa=6 elements).

The doublet up from means the new lens is marginally longer and a little heavier, but the two versions are almost identical in appearance.

In 1975 the K/New Nikkor version was released with modern styling and multi-coating, but otherwise the same optics. It was upgraded to AI in 1977 and to AIS in 1981 without further optical changes (that I know of).
The AIS version has some other minor improvements however, the close focus limit was reduced from 4m to 3.5m, and the aperture now has 7 blades instead of 6.

All versions are beautifully made, but lack of ED glass means performance is not as good as modern lenses. The rather long focus distance (even of the AIS version) is also rather restrictive.

[richardHaw]

thanks, i actually like how the way this looks compared to the new ones

i imagine that these were popular lenses back in the days

by the way, the 4m minimum focus distance can be annoying at times. i will use this to shoot ducks at the pond after i service this lens.

[Akira]

I had been interested in Nikkor-H 300/4.5 because of its simple and solid tripod mount.  You attach an A-S plate on each mount and you can switch between the portrait and the landscape orientations easily and quickly.

Pity that there was no multi-coated version of Nikkor-H 300/4.5, unlike the Nikkor-Q C 200/4.0.  I used K 300/4.5 and it performed decently on DX and Nikon 1 bodies.  The image quality was not stellar, but I could capture three satellites of Jupiter with the K on NIkon 1 J1!

[richardHaw]

thanks. i am sure that the haze is affecting my results. this lens is built like a stove. this is probably as good as it gets

[chris dees]

The difference in height is about 2 millimeters.
Sorry for the lousy pic.

[richardHaw]

thanks for the comparo 

these lenses look great. i also need to be on the lookout for the 72mm cover. they appear from time to time in the junk box

[richardHaw]

unbelievable!!! i found a piece of cotton inside the lens

this lens is so hard to take apart, looks like nikon used some kind of extra hard glue

[pluton]

Pity that there was no multi-coated version of Nikkor-H 300/4.5, unlike the Nikkor-Q C 200/4.0.  I used K 300/4.5 and it performed decently on DX and Nikon 1 bodies.  The image quality was not stellar, but I could capture three satellites of Jupiter with the K on NIkon 1 J1!

Didn't Roland just write that the optics remained apparently unchanged throughout the K/Ai/Ais run of this lens?  If so, the K/Ai/Ais lenses would be multi coated.
Unless it is the old-style barrel that is desirable....

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The old style barrel is indeed attractive. However, in terms of performance, the quite rare ED version of the 300/4.5, although pedestrian in appearance, wins hands down.

The ED-IF incarnation is also good, but not up to the 300/4.5 ED. Strangely enough the same pattern repeats itself with the 400/5.6 ED and ED-IF, and 800/8 ED and ED-IF. One can but speculate if the fancy new IF design was so intoxicating to implement that other concerns were pushed under the carpet as it were?

[Akira]

Didn't Roland just write that the optics remained apparently unchanged throughout the K/Ai/Ais run of this lens?  If so, the K/Ai/Ais lenses would be multi coated.
Unless it is the old-style barrel that is desirable....

Yes, I know.  But I think the older black-and-silver barrel is very functional if attached with two A-S plates.  I did have used the Ais version (sorry I mentioned K in my previous post, but actually it was Ais) myself.  But I found that the rotation in the tripod collar was not smooth, although it is fantastically sturdy.

The felt is put inside of the collar of the Ai version, which makes the switching of the orientation of the lens very smooth.  The collar of the Ais version does not have the felt, although the collar is much wider and sturdier.

[David H. Hartman]

unbelievable!!! i found a piece of cotton inside the lens

this lens is so hard to take apart, looks like nikon used some kind of extra hard glue

Was the glue white? It was probably high temperature Loctite. A friend uses a small butaine soldering iron to soften the glue holding the bayonet screws on MF Nikkors.

Dave

[richardHaw]

Was the glue white? It was probably high temperature Loctite. A friend uses a small butaine soldering iron to soften the glue holding the bayonet screws on MF Nikkors.

Dave

Hello, Dave!
not having any problems with the bayonet screws.
i am having trouble dismantling the objective and the front barrel even after I have removed the set screw. the adhesives responded to MEK since the MEK has been dissolved but they still won't budge, even with a grippy glove...

[Roland Vink]

Didn't Roland just write that the optics remained apparently unchanged throughout the K/Ai/Ais run of this lens?  If so, the K/Ai/Ais lenses would be multi coated.

Yes that's right. The Nikkor-H 300/4.5 is one of the few old style lenses which was not upgraded to multicoating, in other words there is no Nikkor-H.C 300/4.5. If you want the improved coatings you need to consider the K, AI or AIS versions.

[jhinkey]

The old style barrel is indeed attractive. However, in terms of performance, the quite rare ED version of the 300/4.5, although pedestrian in appearance, wins hands down.

The ED-IF incarnation is also good, but not up to the 300/4.5 ED. Strangely enough the same pattern repeats itself with the 400/5.6 ED and ED-IF, and 800/8 ED and ED-IF. One can but speculate if the fancy new IF design was so intoxicating to implement that other concerns were pushed under the carpet as it were?

Now having the 300/4.5 ED and 400/5.6 ED AI and formerly having owned the 300/4.5 ED-IF and 400/5.6 ED-IF I can attest that this is true what Bjorn says (not that anyone would have doubted it).  The ED non-IF designs are superior optically, but they do weigh more and oh that focus throw.  Not a concern for me since everything I shoot tends to either be stationary or stays at the same focus distances at 1km away.