NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED (The Best Hiking Telephoto Lens ever)

[JKoerner007]

Very nice images, John.

Thank you, Jakov.

The lil lens didn't do too bad ... for a reach disadvantage shot in not-so-good light.

The next images I post will be with the D500/300 f/4 PF combo, mounted on a tripod, using the RRS LC-A12 Pkg Collar, taken in good light ... where I can also fill the frame with each image, rather than crop-in. (An example would be the macro shot I took, on the opening post, but even that was hand-held.)

Should be able to get this done by the weekend.

Jack

[Macro_Cosmos]

Amazing images, love those birds feeding off flowers! I could never get one in focus when I lugged my 300mm f/2.8 around, it's always a miss
Maybe I should try the 70-200mm FL + TC14E mk3 combo. Not as light weight as the 300mm f/4E PF... but should give me better results than an MF lens.

[JKoerner007]

Amazing images, love those birds feeding off flowers! I could never get one in focus when I lugged my 300mm f/2.8 around, it's always a miss
Maybe I should try the 70-200mm FL + TC14E mk3 combo. Not as light weight as the 300mm f/4E PF... but should give me better results than an MF lens.

Thank you

Agreed. The only way I got crisp shots with my 300 f/2.8 was when mounted on a tripod, standing still, waiting for birds to come to me (in an area known to have them). This is the kind of situation for which I will be replacing my 300mm f/2.8 with a 600mm f/4 (which I am going to obtain, not the 400 f/2.8, ultimately for purely reach purposes).

However, for hiking, the 300mm f/2.8 is much more difficult to deploy in a fast-reaction situation "that I have come into" (rather than "I have stood around waiting for").
Two different types of photography, both with their strong points.

The 300 f/4 PF is just so much more nimble, and able to be instantly deployed, to follow moving birds flitting through bushes and whatnot, they're not even in the same universe for quick-reaction situations.

Take hummingbirds, for example. It's one thing to point a tripod + super-telephoto at a particular flower, in a hummer-infested area (like a garden), knowing one will eventually stop at that flower ... to nail your shot. Superb images result from such planning and positioning, no doubt, but it's a lot different to come up on some flowers on a hike, and see a hummer swoop-down 30' ahead of you, totally unexpected, and to have but a few seconds to react in a wildlife setting.

Different situations require different tools. The 300mm f/4 PF is just a great 'have at the ready' tool whilst hiking.

I had considered the 70-200mm FL ... great optic. However, for wildlife, 70mm is pretty useless and even 200mm is pretty short.

Even with a 300mm + 1.4TC + 1.5 crop camera, I almost never find a situation where my (effective) ~630mm is "too much" ... almost without exception, I still have to crop-in a bit, which would be exacerbated by having 100mm less in my lens.

So I guess it depends on what your primary targets are going to be.

Since you're into macro, the 70-200 FL ED is comparable to the 300mm PF for larger macro subjects (butterflies, hummers), but slightly disadvantaged.

Both have great AF with an 'E' electronic aperture (not a G manual one).
However, some points to consider (other than size/weight) is the fact the 70-200 has its worst stats at 200mm, while the 300mm is 300mm, its optimum length.

At its longest setting, 200mm, the 70-200 allows you 0.21x magnification (1:4.76) from 3.61 ft MFD away. (That is pretty darned good, for a non-macro, actually.)

However, the 300mm f/4 PF allows you .24x  magnification (1:4.17) from 4.6' feet MFD away, which gives you slightly greater magnification from a step further back.

Compared both to the 300mm f/2.8, which only allows you 0.16x magnification (1:6.25) from 7.55 feet MFD away. (The 7.55 ft distance is nice, but the reproduction ratio/magnification is not.)

It's pretty hard to beat the size, quickness, and flexibility of the 300mm f/4E PF ED as an all-around nature lens

[JKoerner007]

Here is an interesting blog post from Nikon Ambassador, Richard Peters:

Nikon 300mm f4 PF review: the death of super telephotos?

Here is a photograph to illustrate just how insanely small, delightful, and handy this little lens is to use (taken inside the lens hood of a 600mm f/4 FL ED):


A picture's worth a thousand words. Which lens does the reader feel is likely to be more enjoyable to carry/deploy for a full day's hike?

Some notable quotes from Peters' blog:

• Picking this lens up for the first time, it almost feels weird. It’s like you’re experiencing something that your brain is telling you shouldn’t be possible. As a photographer who has lugged around the beautiful but monstrous 600 f4 for many years, I can’t state enough the appeal of the newer generation of lighter lenses that are gradually coming to the market.

• So we know it doesn’t weigh much and we know it doesn’t take up much space in the camera bag. At this point I think you’d almost forgive the 300 PF if its optics were only good, given the other benefits it achieves. But they’re not just good, they are in fact exceptional.

• ... where it really, really shines is when paired up to a DX sensor. I had the use of a D7200 during my testing and found the two to be a truly impressive combination. It was a breath of fresh air walking around with a setup that gave me an equivalent focal length of 450mm or 630mm when using a converter.

• Going one further and pair the 300 PF with the Nikon D500 ... you get an exceptionally powerful and easily manageable wildlife setup.

• The latest 300mm prime in the Nikon stable is a special lens. There’s simply no doubt about it. Its insanely compact size and weight make it a complete joy to use and I’ve no doubt it wouldn’t be an unfair statement to say this is possibly the perfect travel telephoto lens ....

"A complete joy to use" were my own sentiments, exactly.

Sorry to be a broken record on this lens, but I honestly have never been so thrilled with the potential I see out of one, single lens before. Not even close.

I will lay off for awhile and post some more photos later. Would like to see others' too.

[Macro_Cosmos]

Here is an interesting blog post from Nikon Ambassador, Richard Peters:

Nikon 300mm f4 PF review: the death of super telephotos?

Here is a photograph to illustrate just how insanely small, delightful, and handy this little lens is to use (taken inside the lens hood of a 600mm f/4 FL ED):


A picture's worth a thousand words. Which lens does the reader feel is likely to be more enjoyable to carry/deploy for a full day's hike?

Man I rate that illustrative photo 20 out of 10, it really shows the day and night difference between super-teles and the light weight PF lens. Oh, and maybe you would like hold off purchasing a 600mm, since nikon already hold patents for a 400, 500 and 600 f/5.6 PF lens. Not sure if they will materialise or not. https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/01/the-latest-nikon-patents-400mm-500mm-and-600mm-f-5-6-phase-fresnel-pf-lenses.aspx/

There are some obvious downsides of PF elements, but with lenses weighing less than a conventional 70-200, it's a great trade-off. Whatever gets the photo! I've hiked with the 300mm I used to own, it was not fun. 

[gryphon1911]

I also agree with the usefulness of the 300/4E PF.   I absolutely love it.  I've used the 300/2.8VR and used to own the 300/4 AF-D.  The 300/4 AF-D was excellent optically, but weighty...the f/2.8 more so and not something I would want to just bring along.

I picked up the 300/4E PF to use for my trip to Yellowstone NP.  I partnered it with a Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Nikon 18-140 on the D500.  I wanted for nothing on that trip and used the 300 with the TC14E-III with no regrets.

[JKoerner007]

Man I rate that illustrative photo 20 out of 10, it really shows the day and night difference between super-teles and the light weight PF lens.

Indeed!

Oh, and maybe you would like hold off purchasing a 600mm, since nikon already hold patents for a 400, 500 and 600 f/5.6 PF lens. Not sure if they will materialise or not. https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/01/the-latest-nikon-patents-400mm-500mm-and-600mm-f-5-6-phase-fresnel-pf-lenses.aspx

What I am going to do now is ... enjoy hiking again

I have my perfect setup now: light, high-quality, mobile & at-the-ready.

My intention for obtaining a 600mm will not be for hiking, but for "wait-and-shoot" photography on location. I will likely opt for the FL ED version, for the f/4 + converter, turning my lens into an 840 f/5.6 (and, with the D500 crop factor, an effective 1260mm).

There are some obvious downsides of PF elements, but with lenses weighing less than a conventional 70-200, it's a great trade-off.

There are no downsides to this lens, at all, actually

I've seen the reviews that talk about flaring, but that's an intentionally-created "error," just to have something to write about. In the real world, I would never waste my time shooting into the sun like that with this lens. When you're actually attempting to get good wildlife shots, in good light, this lens delivers

The truth is, there are 10x as many 'downsides' to a standard super-telephoto lens for hiking (starting with price, weight, comfort, mobility ... and ending with rigidity in deployment) than there are to this one

Whatever gets the photo! I've hiked with the 300mm I used to own, it was not fun. 

Agreed!

Based on personal experience hiking with both lenses (2 years with the 300 f/2.8, 2 days with the 300 f/4 PF), I can heartily confirm I get 10x as many keepers with my PF than my 2.8. My ability to react quickly is much improved, and my enjoyment of the entire process of nature photography is dramatically-improved

[JKoerner007]

I also agree with the usefulness of the 300/4E PF.   I absolutely love it.  I've used the 300/2.8VR and used to own the 300/4 AF-D.  The 300/4 AF-D was excellent optically, but weighty...the f/2.8 more so and not something I would want to just bring along.

Hear-hear!

I picked up the 300/4E PF to use for my trip to Yellowstone NP.  I partnered it with a Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Nikon 18-140 on the D500.  I wanted for nothing on that trip and used the 300 with the TC14E-III with no regrets.

Sounds like a great team

Mine is similar: D810 + CV 125 holstered on my right hip, with the D500 + 300 f/4 PF carried in-hand. (I can also holster the latter on my chest, for hands-free hiking.)

I carry a Zeiss 15mm f/2.8, an AI-S 20mm, 28mm, and Micro-Nikkor 55mm all in a single pouch, strapped cross-wise on my chest, resting on my left hip, to utilize if I decide I need landscapes or up-close, wider perspective. (I find myself leaving the Zeiss home, though, more often than not.)

I used to use a photo backpack, which I still do at times, but I much prefer the Cotton Carrier + Pouch. Reason being, I don't have to take anything off my back ... I can just reach down, unzip the pouch, and make a lens switch (D810 only) ... if I want to use a landscape lens instead of a macro.

Like you, I want for nothing as well ... and, having replaced my 300mm f/2.8 with the 300 f/4 PF, it's all in complete comfort.

[Ace]

Another nice feature of the 300 PF is that, being an E lens, the iris remains fully open when the lens is not mounted on the camera, allowing the use of the lens scope converter, transforming the lens in a 30x scope. This does not apply to the G type lens whose iris remain fully closed, one detached from the camera (unless you play some "trick").
Andrea

[Frank Fremerey]

I love the 300PF on the D500 as well as the D850. The weight is so small I have the lens on me very often. Very interesting to hear about a 5.6/500PF. I would surely test it and consider to buy it. But. For me the limiting factor currently is demanding non photographic projects. Not equipment.

[Michael Erlewine]

I have used the NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED IF, the older lens, for years for close-up work, mostly because of its relatively-short minimum-focus distance of 4.6' (1.40 m). I would then crop from there. It's a nice lens. When I was selling off lenses I seldom use, that was one of the few I kept.

[JKoerner007]

Another nice feature of the 300 PF is that, being an E lens, the iris remains fully open when the lens is not mounted on the camera, allowing the use of the lens scope converter, transforming the lens in a 30x scope. This does not apply to the G type lens whose iris remain fully closed, one detached from the camera (unless you play some "trick").
Andrea

Interesting.

As a principle, I will no longer buy any G lenses, simply because the 'mechanical aperture' is an anachronism in today's photographic world and is fast going the way of the Dodo.

Even if there is a complete mirrorless transition (of which I am not altogether convinced), the E lenses will be those most likely to be able to handle an adapter—and therefore still remain relevant.

Other than a Nikkor E, I will only purchase MF lenses, again due to the ease of adapter compatibility to future change.

[JKoerner007]

I love the 300PF on the D500 as well as the D850. The weight is so small I have the lens on me very often. Very interesting to hear about a 5.6/500PF.

Agreed, Frank.

[JKoerner007]

I have used the NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED IF, the older lens, for years for close-up work, mostly because of its relatively-short minimum-focus distance of 4.6' (1.40 m). I would then crop from there. It's a nice lens. When I was selling off lenses I seldom use, that was one of the few I kept.

I believe you mean the Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED, a different animal, but (yes) a quality lens in its own right.

The optical qualities are similar in the two lenses; however the difference is size and weight and speed of AF is night-and-day.

Here is a visual comparison to illustrate:


Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR (the subject lens) vs. the Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED
(Photo borrowed from Photography Life)

[Ann]

I received curious glances when I climbed onto a Safari jeep in South Africa wearing a 300 mm PF on one of my camera bodies because people assumed that this very small lens was a 24-70mm lens — hardly something which would normally be used on a game drive!

The 300 PF is a truly remarkable lens and I have used mine extensively and very happily (often in conjunction with a TC) during the past 18 months.