300mm f/2.8 AF-S II or VR... optical upgrade or just addition of VR

[Ilkka Nissilä]

With the D5 the 125 and 160 settings seem to be firmware gain settings where the dynamic range is actually lower than at ISO 200. At ISO 250, 320 DR is lower than ISO 400, 500 < 640, 1000 < 1250, 2000 < 2500.  So many of these intermediate ISO settings shouldn't be used if you want to maximize dynamic range.  Of course, it can be debated how significant this difference is.

I personally avoid intermediate (1/3 stop) ISO settings at low to medium ISO with the D5, but I do use them at high ISO. Auto ISO doesn't seem to be aware of the issue however.

[BruceLeventhal]

I just realise that this thread is a gathering of what our forum counts in eminent bird / naturalists / environmentalists.  I hope that my small contribution of stinking, noisy, polluting subjects didn't disturb you.... 

Your thoughts are more than welcome as are the addition of your images. In fact, those whose work focuses on sport face similar challenges to those who focus on nature. Capturing distant objects, physical barriers, distracting elements and speed make is challenging for us both to photograph the decisive moment.

cheers,
bruce

[MFloyd]

@Illka: very good remark. I'didn't thought again about the "saw tooth" characteristics, at low ISO, of the D5 sensor.  But not much I can do about in Auto ISO, as you said.

@Bruce: I'm quite good in capturing fast 4x2 meter objects, such as cars; to the contrary of birds and the like, where I clearly lack talent, .... and patience ..😊 I also believe that the need for longer focal lengths (>300 mm) is much higher, simply because the smaller size and/or the fleeing distance (I guess)...

[rs6000]

Hello I know this is a old thread but I just happened to get a hold of a very Nice 400mm f2.8D series II af-s lens for a Very attractive price  It however had bad SWM motor,  So I dug right in was not as tricky as I expected once inside but I am a electronics tech so wasn't too worried as I've worked on lot of shorter focal length lenses, but this was my first foray into the Big league of long AF telephoto in the end SUCCESS
ANyhow I am curious to hear other owners experiences and maybe someone can chime in on how this dated optic stands up against the latest VR FL most of the comparisons I see are all relating to the last VR model but I Really like this lens and dont have 12K in bank to invest this copy was almost 1/10 of that figure
1. WEIGHT most Important IMHO  WOW this optic is almost 1 KG less than the Bloated G series seems like all NIKONS   First gen vr teles gained a lot of weight
2. I don't ever have a need for VR for my type of work it will always be mounted on a WImberley gimbal.

Cheers

[Tristin]

RS, good work and welcome!  Quite a steal for the price you paid!

[Erik Lund]

Congratulations on successful engine swap ! Well done Not an easy job,,,
Here is a list of specs for the 400mm Nikkors
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#400
As you can see there are several optical designs, I practical terms the optical image quality for these super tele-lenses are more or less identical, I would say almost impossible to tell the difference except VR, tripod mount, weight and some extreme cases flare differences due to super coatings,,,

[Frank Fremerey]

I must say that I am confused.

Silent Wave Motors were introduced with the AF-S Series and "AF-D" means screwdriver AF ??

[simsurace]

This one is both AF-S and D, but not G. (Image linked from Roland's Nikon Pages)
If I remember correctly, the D simply means that there is a sensor in the lens that feeds the focus setting back to the camera for better metering and autofocus. Presumably most G lenses have such a sensor, but the D designation was dropped later on.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

D lenses implement (very coarse) encoding of distance; I doubt it can be used for much help in focusing. It's useful for direct flash calculations. I recall that it was used to distinguish between close-up and normal distance subjects as different algorithms were used in matrix metering for those two, but I don't really know if the current algorithms make such a distinction. Nikon do talk about 3D matrix metering when it is enhanced with the distance information.

D is unrelated to autofocus.

[rs6000]

WOW oh wow I did not expect to see that many replies so fast Thank you all, BTW I joined this group several years ago inquiring on methods of UV photography in the digital age appears none aval with current DSLR sensors unless you have 25K lying around to purchase a hamamatsu uv camera. Yes nothing matches Film for it sensitivity, back in the day it was VERY easy to get response down to 253Nm using Fuji RTP even Much lower with spectroscopic kodak 103a  Alas pretty colorful pictures necesitate many overlays bayer filters, IR cut, Low pass, etc etc these stupid hunks of glass attenuate any sub of 385Nm in reaching sensor surface sadly boo hoo.

[simsurace]

Thanks, I wasn‘t sure about the AF, but thought that for AF-S and lenses without motor the D signal is the only way for the camera to know the state of the cams/gears, which could potentially help in supplying the correct voltage to the motor. If this is not the case, I‘m slightly intrigued but then again the control engineers did not find any benefit.

[simsurace]

@rs, I‘m curious: did you have access to a spare motor or did you actually manage to repair it? In what sense was it ‚bad‘?

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Thanks, I wasn‘t sure about the AF, but thought that for AF-S and lenses without motor the D signal is the only way for the camera to know the state of the cams/gears, which could potentially help in supplying the correct voltage to the motor. If this is not the case, I‘m slightly intrigued but then again the control engineers did not find any benefit.

The AF sensor is used to measure the phase difference which is related to the distance between focus plane and subject, and then it drives the motor to minimize this. I don't think the AF system needs to know what the absolute distance the lens is focused to, in order to function. I am not saying that it absolutely doesn't use it but it seems to me that the coarsely graded information provided by the lens would be of little value in this purpose.

Here is some information about the distance data that the lenses report. It seems really coarse.

https://www.scantips.com/lights/ttlbl-d.html

It is of course possible that newer lenses (Z mount, etc.) would provide more precise focus information. Since stepper motors can be driven with the reproducibility of one step, it could be that the camera knows the distance to a great degree of accuracy, but then again is the absolute distance useful in helping the camera decide what is the correct focus?

[rs6000]

I attempted to discover the underlying issue with the m0tor but was unable to separate the 2 sides the spanner is locked down VERY tightly even tried a impact driver as last resort did not budge
and FWIW that kind of agitation totally sucked any remaining life out of the SWM prior to power tool trial it at least moved but slowey and squeaked  loudly
so I now know any sudden impact Ie dropping or hitting would seem to render a perfectly functioning the motor useless
so I had bite the bullet and sunk 600USD into a new SWM assembly

[Erik Lund]

So much confusion over a misplaced D  Quite obvious it's an AFS lens