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

[Anthony]

The 300 f/4D produces beautiful results.  But it is SLOW to AF.   If the PF produces similar quality but with increased speed and reduced weight, then it is indeed a wonderful lens.

[MILLIREHM]

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):

Just for nitpicking, that lens on the picture is not the FL version of the 600 but rather the preceding 600/4 G VR - easy to determine by the double lens shade and the up front mount position

[MILLIREHM]

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

Andrea you made my day. I was thinking of the lens scope converter being long gone due to G-Series lenses. So far i did not spend a thought to use the lens scope converter with an AF-E lens.
Dont have the 300 PF but should work on other E-lenses as well

[JKoerner007]

Just for nitpicking, that lens on the picture is not the FL version of the 600 but rather the preceding 600/4 G VR - easy to determine by the double lens shade and the up front mount position

"The devil is in the details"

Detail conceded, but the point remains unchanged

[JKoerner007]

Back to images with this lens

Okay, so I headed out for some late afternoon/early-evening crepuscular-critter shooting.

Most of the birds were sulled-up deep in foliage, but a couple made some clean appearances for non-distracting background shots.
(Sometimes I like a background, though, because it can add to the ambiance, especially if the colors blend with the subject.)

I was going to bring a tripod–but it really defeats the whole point of this terrific little lens–so I left the tripod at home and once again hand-held, this time as it started to get dark (approaching D5 territory). I have read some 'reviews' by 'internet experts' claiming the AF of this lens is substandard, but as far as I am concerned that is baloney. Even in darker conditions, even with mixed light, and even with lots of foliage in the way, the AF was lighting-fast, and super-accurate–more accurate than my late 300mm f/2.8G VR II.

Most of the images were decently-sharp (considering they were being hand-held at slower shutter speeds). Here's the take:



Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonnii) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1000 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250 - 10% cropped-in



California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/640 | f/6.3 | ISO 1600 - No Crop



White-Crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/500 | f/5.6 | ISO 1600 - 7% cropped-in



Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/400 | f/6.3 | ISO 2500 - 10% cropped-in



Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/800 | f/6.3 | ISO 2000 - 10% cropped-in



Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/640 | f/5.6 | ISO 2000 - 10% cropped-in



Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/400 | f/71 | ISO 2500 - No Crop


Normally, I try to shoot over 1600-2500 shutter speed for hand-held (no VR). This time, however, because of the waning light, it would have raised my ISO too high to have a fast shutter, so I tried much lower shutter speeds, with the "VR-Sport" setting activated, so as to keep my ISO down to acceptable levels. Doing this, as long as I was able to fill the frame, or close, the D500 keeps things relatively noise-free. I don't think these shots would have come out acceptably, with higher shutter-speeds + higher-ISO, so the VR definitely worked for me

My takeaway is this: who needs a 10-lb lens to get bird shots ... if you have the little 300 f/4E PF gem

Thoughts? Suggestions?

[JKoerner007]

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.

I'd love to see your shots!

[Akira]

John, your images, even some heavily cropped ones, are all stunning!

One question to you and other users for such skittish animals and birds:

Wouldn't the rather loud shutter noise be surprising to them and make them run or fly away?  Can you keep the distances from them so that the shutter noise won't cause any problems?

[Bruno Schroder]

Hi Akira, most don't bother but it really depends on the animal. I'm shooting small birds and the very shy red squirrel very close in a blind, less than 2 meters, and they don't mind. Same with beavers at 5 meters. Often, they stop and look around at the first click but soon resume. Eurasian jay, carrion crow or the common buzzard, on the contrary, just immediately fly away, even at longer distance.

[Akira]

Hi, Bruno,

Thank you for sharing your experience and the behavior of animals and birds you are familiar with.  The seemingly very skittish animals can be surprisingly nonchalant.

[Macro_Cosmos]

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

I was actually referring to innate optical physics, but as I've said yes, it's pretty much negligible. Some reports show its centre sharpness to be greater than the older version but corner sharpness not so much, also something I won't worry about because I don't take chart photos... well I do for my photomacrography work, but it's not something I want to be known of. "Oh it's that guy, he specialises in taking photos of quartz glass resolution charts and snobbery!" haha


Phased Fresnel elements reduce CA greatly with just one element (rather than heaps, looking at you Sigma, which causes colours to be pale and unpleasing), at the cost of weird flaring with some odd colour casts at certain angles. This is also something I just do not care about. My laowa 12mm flares extremely strongly at a particular angle, but in real world shooting, it never happened.


The 300/4E PF + D500 combo is also Steve Perry's favourite hiking combo, that's telling! He carries a tc14e3 in his pocket too. This lens is somewhere on my list, also I might have to decide between it and the 200-500 which is chunky, but has great optics, VR, and I don't mind using a monopod when I hike. It's the most I'm willing to endure myself in terms of weight. The 200-500 is certainly a lot cheaper. Aiming to upgrade to the d850 first, the ergonomics of my d810 is just bad for my macro needs. I do stuff that goes beyond 2:1, not having a flippy touchy screen deducts greatly from the photographic experience.  I might just try out the 70-200 with a TC first to see if wildlife is my cup of tea or not, before going into the mind war of 200-500 f/5.6E VS 300 f/4E PF. 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The 300 f/4D produces beautiful results.  But it is SLOW to AF.   If the PF produces similar quality but with increased speed and reduced weight, then it is indeed a wonderful lens.

In daylight outdoors I found a dramatic increase in focus keeper rate with the 300/4 PF compared to the D AF-S version with the D810 at the time. I think optically both have advantages and disadvantages but overall the two are at a similar level. The PF has VR SPORT which I find invaluable and makes hand held use easier (though as we know there are limitations at certain speeds with this lens) and the AF is superb in most conditions. It is not only fast but also highly accurate.

In indoor sports (figure skating) the 300 PF doesn’t focus quite as fast as the 70-200/2.8 FL or the 200/2 I/II. But it is quite usable still. Generally shots are in focus at f/4 but at the closest distances there can be occasional misses. The ice reflections also reduce contrast. The 200/2II is my favorite choice for this application but for tight close ups a bit more length would be good.

When the TC-14E III is mounted, the AF can become a bit jittery compared to the prime lens by itself, at least in low light. For example at f/5.6 1/500s ISO 6400-20000 (D5) it will still AF but the consistency is not as good as without TC in these conditions, and taking the TC off is probably the best course of action (in case a f/2.8 is not available).

[JKoerner007]

John, your images, even some heavily cropped ones, are all stunning!

One question to you and other users for such skittish animals and birds:

Wouldn't the rather loud shutter noise be surprising to them and make them run or fly away?  Can you keep the distances from them so that the shutter noise won't cause any problems?

Thanks Akira

My answer is similar to Bruno's. To that I would add, it depends on time of day and how used to people the animals are.

Time of Day: Butterflies, for example, can often be closely-approached right after a light rain, when still warm (Florida), or early morning. They tend to bask at this time, languid, wings-open; it's the perfect time for close approach, for both opportunity/light reasons. By mid-day, they are much more wary. Small birds, morning or dusk is best. The light is better in the morning; dusk a bit trickier as the images above reflect.

Used to People: If you have feeders in your garden, or are on well-populated hiking trails (where animals frequently see hikers), they can be extremely tolerant of your presence, almost oblivious to it. If, however, you're out in virgin territory, stepping on dry leaves/sticks, your chances of getting close enough to do anything are slim/none.

Finally, in addition to species-variance, as well as exposure to human presence, how each human conducts him-/herself can affect animals also. Calm, nonchalant movement, being relaxed and patient, can cause many animals to realize you're not a threat and go about 'business as usual' in your presence. (By contrast, being super-intent, and creeping after critters, can make you look like a predator.)

If you come upon a water source, and just wait patiently, many birds that fly away to the treetops when you get there will cautiously return if you keep a respectful distance. While the camera noise can cause some subjects to flee, most of the time the sound results in alert postures to be assumed, which can actually enhance the image. Most birds will grow used to it after a bit. Still, cameras with subtler shutter-sound are preferred.

[JKoerner007]

I was actually referring to innate optical physics, but as I've said yes, it's pretty much negligible. Some reports show its centre sharpness to be greater than the older version but corner sharpness not so much, also something I won't worry about because I don't take chart photos... well I do for my photomacrography work, but it's not something I want to be known of. "Oh it's that guy, he specialises in taking photos of quartz glass resolution charts and snobbery!" haha

 

Phased Fresnel elements reduce CA greatly with just one element (rather than heaps, looking at you Sigma, which causes colours to be pale and unpleasing), at the cost of weird flaring with some odd colour casts at certain angles. This is also something I just do not care about. My laowa 12mm flares extremely strongly at a particular angle, but in real world shooting, it never happened.

Exactly. You have to try to make this lens take a lousy photo. In the real world, esp. in optimal light, the colors it produces are sublime and realistic.

The 300/4E PF + D500 combo is also Steve Perry's favourite hiking combo, that's telling! He carries a tc14e3 in his pocket too.

Yep. Once you've experienced it, it's hard to go back to anything else. My TC III is simply glued to my lens. Never need to take it off, unless photographing inanimate objects.

This lens is somewhere on my list, also I might have to decide between it and the 200-500 which is chunky, but has great optics, VR, and I don't mind using a monopod when I hike. It's the most I'm willing to endure myself in terms of weight. The 200-500 is certainly a lot cheaper.

There's a reason the 200-500 is cheaper: its optics are good, not great

I think Perry compared the two, and even with a TC the 300 PF is sharper. At the long-end, the 200-500 does give a hair longer reach (vs. 420 w/TC), but the difference in size/weight/portability is literally night and day. After Perry's comparison, while he did say the 200-500 offered an occasional advantage, the most important observation to remember is which one he kept for hiking

Aiming to upgrade to the d850 first, the ergonomics of my d810 is just bad for my macro needs. I do stuff that goes beyond 2:1, not having a flippy touchy screen deducts greatly from the photographic experience.  I might just try out the 70-200 with a TC first to see if wildlife is my cup of tea or not, before going into the mind war of 200-500 f/5.6E VS 300 f/4E PF. 

If you're worried about price, the 70-200 is more expensive than either, and far less desirable as a wildlife lens. It's more a 'nature, sport, and portrait' lens, than for animals (which invariably need far more reach).

Like I said, the 200-500 is capable of producing excellent photos. So is the 300 f/4 PF + 2x TC.

The difference is the 200-500 is 3x the weight, and 3x the length (fully extended), and nowhere near as convenient to deploy. (I personally owned the even bigger, even better, Sigma 150-600mm sport, but it is no fun to go hiking with )

While somewhat smaller, the 200-500 remains a behemoth lens compared to the compact 300 PF. Look at both attached to a camera, and remember the fixed prime 300 f/4 PF edges the other in image quality. Of course, we all have different tolerances/preferences, but if a person were to make a benefit/liability line-item assessment chart, for the hiking photographer, the 300 f/4 PF would offer 10+ advantages to every one advantage the 200-500 might have.

[JKoerner007]

In daylight outdoors I found a dramatic increase in focus keeper rate with the 300/4 PF compared to the D AF-S version with the D810 at the time. I think optically both have advantages and disadvantages but overall the two are at a similar level. The PF has VR SPORT which I find invaluable and makes hand held use easier (though as we know there are limitations at certain speeds with this lens) and the AF is superb in most conditions. It is not only fast but also highly accurate.

Agreed. Overall, the speed/accuracy of the AF is excellent.

Agreed again: IMO the VR Sport is the only way to hand-hold this optic in lower-light situations.

In indoor sports (figure skating) the 300 PF doesn’t focus quite as fast as the 70-200/2.8 FL or the 200/2 I/II. But it is quite usable still. Generally shots are in focus at f/4 but at the closest distances there can be occasional misses. The ice reflections also reduce contrast. The 200/2II is my favorite choice for this application but for tight close ups a bit more length would be good.

The 200 f/2 is 3x the cost, and possibly one of the best, most incredible lenses Nikon makes

When the TC-14E III is mounted, the AF can become a bit jittery compared to the prime lens by itself, at least in low light. For example at f/5.6 1/500s ISO 6400-20000 (D5) it will still AF but the consistency is not as good as without TC in these conditions, and taking the TC off is probably the best course of action (in case a f/2.8 is not available).

That's pretty much true with a TC on any lens, though.

[Akira]

My answer is similar to Bruno's. To that I would add, it depends on time of day and how used to people the animals are.

John, thank you for your very detailed answer.

It is a bit surprising to know that the shutter sound seems to be less bothering than I expected.  But that would also very much depend on the behavior of the photographer.

Even though the birds continue their usual jobs when I go by them, they would flee the moment I stop to hold the camera and shoot them...