Nikkor 300mm f4.5 as per Bjorn's lens evaluation page

[spanielman]

I have used Bjorn's lens evaluations as a guide for building a lens library. As of this date I have not been disappointed in any of the lenses I have obtained. My questions is really more of a clarification in respect to the 300mm f4.5 ED pre IF. All these lenses resemble one another and most are IF versions. I want to use this for a lightweight sports rig. Not interested in the 2.8 version. want sharp lightweight and while the lens may be elusive what are my options. Pics if possible to help differentiate.

[jhinkey]

I have used Bjorn's lens evaluations as a guide for building a lens library. As of this date I have not been disappointed in any of the lenses I have obtained. My questions is really more of a clarification in respect to the 300mm f4.5 ED pre IF. All these lenses resemble one another and most are IF versions. I want to use this for a lightweight sports rig. Not interested in the 2.8 version. want sharp lightweight and while the lens may be elusive what are my options. Pics if possible to help differentiate.

I have the 300/4.5 ED AI (non-IF) which took me a couple of years to find and I was not disappointed.

As to identifying which of the 300/4.5 lens variants and what they look like go to here:
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#300

which has pictures of each type of 300/4.5 Nikon made.

- John

[spanielman]

Thanks jhinkey that certainly is a valuable resource!

[Roland Vink]

Not interested in the 2.8 version. want sharp lightweight ...

Consider the AFS 300/4 VR PF. Unless you really want an old-school lens with aperture ring and manual focusing, this is by far the lightest, and it is sharp.

[chris dees]

Consider the AFS 300/4 VR PF. Unless you really want an old-school lens with aperture ring and manual focusing, this is by far the lightest, and it is sharp.

What Roland says.
It'll cost you something, but it's a real keeper.
Killer combo with the D500, even with the 1.4x TC III

[Jakov Minić]

I have the PF and the IF ED 300/4.5. I have to admit that i still use the manual focus version. I have never used a lens that has such smooth focus. It all depends on your budget and need of AF and VR. They are about the same weight.

[David H. Hartman]

I don't think the 300/4.5 ED AI Nikkor is that well suited to sports based on my ownership of the 400/5.6 ED AI and previous ownership of the 300/4.5 AI (non-ED). The focus is slower than the IF manual focus versions and drags as it is focus close. I lift the front of the 400/5.6 ED AI and used to the 300/4.5 AI (non-ED, non-IF) with one finger to cut the drag. Any other use and the ED AI (non-IF) version are said to have better image quality. I can only repeat what I've read because I've never owned the 300/4.5 ED AI, though I would like to and I've never owned the 400/5.6 ED-IF.

I think those advising more modern lenses are right but then I haven't owned any of these AF lenses. I would think this advice holds for sports and wildlife were rapid and accurate focus is very important.

For sports consider focus speed and accuracy of focus. It doesn't matter how sharp or how well corrected a lens is if you miss the focus.

One more note on the 300/4.5 ED-IF AI/AIS. The focus is very fast so it may have a lower reputation than it might due to focus errors. It takes skill and practice to nail the focus repeatedly. I trust the 300/4.5 ED-IF can't attain the image quality of the 300/4.5 ED AI (non-IF) as the non-IF lens doesn't need a IR focus index mark.

I've used Nærfoto Bjørn Rørslett (the legacy site) as my Gold Standard for lens reviews. I've bought several lenses based on those reviews and kept one I might have sold.

Hope this helps,

Dave

[jhinkey]

I don't think the 300/4.5 ED AI Nikkor is that well suited to sports based on my ownership of the 400/5.6 ED AI and previous ownership of the 300/4.5 AI (non-ED). The focus is slower than the IF manual focus versions and drags as it is focus close. I lift the front of the 400/5.6 ED AI and used to the 300/4.5 AI (non-ED, non-IF) with one finger to cut the drag. Any other use and the ED AI (non-IF) version are said to have better image quality. I can only repeat what I've read because I've never owned the 300/4.5 ED AI, though I would like to and I've never owned the 400/5.6 ED-IF.

I think those advising more modern lenses are right but then I haven't owned any of these AF lenses. I would think this advice holds for sports and wildlife were rapid and accurate focus is very important.

For sports consider focus speed and accuracy of focus. It doesn't matter how sharp or how well corrected a lens is if you miss the focus.

One more note on the 300/4.5 ED-IF AI/AIS. The focus is very fast so it may have a lower reputation than it might due to focus errors. It takes skill and practice to nail the focus repeatedly. I trust the 300/4.5 ED-IF can't attain the image quality of the 300/4.5 ED AI (non-IF) as the non-IF lens doesn't need a IR focus index mark.

I've used Nærfoto Bjørn Rørslett (the legacy site) as my Gold Standard for lens reviews. I've bought several lenses based on those reviews and kept one I might have sold.

Hope this helps,

Dave

Yes, what Dave said.
I've owned both the ED AI and ED-IF AIS and the non-IF version is clearly superior (I currently have the ED AI).  It's not the lightest or most compact as per the 300/4 PF, but it's built like a tank and does very very very well at 36+MP.  Sports with either - no way, unless you are doing still images in-between the sports action.  Even then it will be hard to use.

- John