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

[JKoerner007]

Okay, I have just taken delivery of the Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR this last Friday, and will now offer my opinions

Let me qualify my preferences by stating I am a hiking-photographer (not a hide- or blind-photographer, who remains in one place). I hike, and am perpetually-mobile, and I capture the wildlife that I see as I do so. In other words, I seldom hike 'to a destination,' to photograph 'there'; I have no destination ... other than to capture what I see as I progress.

I am not trying to be an 'artist,' either; I simply enjoy the thrill, and the unknown, of the anticipation of nature's randomness, and I try to capture authentic, in-situ, images of the wildlife I encounter.

That said, as a background, when I shot Canon, my mainstay lens was their 180mm f/3.5 Macro. When I switched to Nikon, my preferred lens became the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro, which is a terrific lens. After reading posts about the Voigtländer 125 f/2.5 APO Macro, I sold my Sigma and utilized the CV 125 for awhile, but quickly realized I need AF for wildlife—and the limitations of the CV's reach, plus its 620° focus throw, were not meant for impromptu photography, but planned, methodical photography, particularly nature stacks.

While I love (and still do love) the CV 125, I purchased the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II as my primary tool to have 'at-the-ready,' and have been lugging this barbell around for nearly 2 years. The quality of the lens is Otus-like, but its weight [6.39 lb (2.90 kg), being particularly front-heavy] has removed a certain amount of joy from my hiking ever since. My other lenses were never a burden ... but this lens certainly was. [FYI, I bought (and sold) the terrific Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO, twice, for the same reason: terrific, super-sharp lens ... but too heavy to carry with 4 other lenses in a pouch.]

Yes, the 300mm VR II is 3x as heavy as the Zeiss, but it is also 10x as useful for wildlife photography, with even better-quality single images, and so I dealt with it for a long time. Further, I wasn't carrying my 300mm f/2.8 VR II 'in a pouch,' but as my primary lens mounted on a tripod, slung over my shoulder.

However, after about a year of lugging this damned thing around, I had been looking for a way to justify dumping my 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II, for almost another year, just to lighten my load, seeking an easier-to-carry alternative with more mobility. After rubbing my chin on the Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED for a long time ... I finally took the plunge

First, let me state, no, it is not as good as my 300mm f/2.8 VR II ... but it is close enough!

What this lens *IS*, however, is a delight to carry and it certainly delivers images that will please all who view them, except perhaps the most fastidious of curmudgeons

As proof for this, below are some images I took on my first day's trial. The reader needs to keep in mind three very important things: 1) these are not 'staged, stacked shots,' composed with all the time in the world to execute; 2) these are live, impromptu shots, taken on the go, and with but a fleeting moment to capture them ... before the moment was lost. Finally, 3) they were all hand-held; I left my tripod at home for the first time in years. That said, take a look:



Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250] - 40% cropped-in



Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250] - 5% cropped-in



Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250] - 15% cropped-in



Ruby-Crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250] - 10% cropped-in



Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250] - 15% cropped-in


I am very pleased with these results, even knowing my 300 VR II would have perhaps rendered them a bit better. They're good enough!

For the first time since dumping the former, and using the latter, I left a barbell + a tripod at home, and just carried this lens on the chest-slot of my Cotton Carrier.

To be able to walk, hands-free, but be immediately ready for 'whatever nature may throw' was a breath of fresh air! I even tried this lens as a macro equivalent:



Unknown Flower (Mom's garden) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/320 | f/6.3 | ISO 640] - No Crop


Again, this is a single image, hand-held (no stack, no crop). To be able to stand back 4.5 ft. (1.4 meters), with a ~630mm lens, hand-held, and fill the frame with an image like this, is to take live macro shooting to another level. I am positive this lens, if used with a tripod, plus the D850's ability to internal-stack, will produce some incredible results of authentic floral wildlife.

So that is my initial impression: I am absolutely thrilled ... THIS is the hiking lens I have always wanted ... super-light, super-versatile, super-capable

I will post more photos as time progresses ...

In the meantime, feel free to post your own, or ask/offer any questions/suggestions.

Thanks for reading

[BEZ]

Obviously very impressive image quality shown. And impressive handheld technique utilised.

Very interesting post thank you for sharing.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I’m glad to hear you’re enjoying the 300 PF. It is very much fun to shoot with, and carry. 

[John Geerts]

Beautiful John,  great colours and details !

[beryllium10]

John,  It does look like a really capable lens.  All very nice photos. I especially like the two hummingbirds.  Looks like a lens that would be fun to rent and try out as the weather improves in the next few months. 

I currently use the older/lower tech 300 mm f/4 AFS on a D810, usually with the TC-14 EII.  This works well enough for my level of amateur bird photography (much as I'd like one, I'm never likely to own one of the super-teles).  Though it may sound perverse, I actually like the heft of both camera and lens, and don't mind carrying them hiking up and down mountains.  I find it easier to steady heavy gear when I don't have a tripod along.  VR obviously fixes that for low shutter speeds, but perhaps not for bird photos at 1/1000 sec or shorter.  As with yours the old AFS lens is also very capable for 'macro'-like photos.  I like being able to swap from birds to flowers, and I really like the long-lens perspective at macro scales.  The TC degrades the backgrounds a bit, so if I'm too lazy to detach it I have to frame carefully.  Lately I've started to carry a couple of extender rings to swap out for the TC, which let you get very close.  However this has taught me that outdoor flower close-ups, focused manually, in the breeze, are a fairly frustrating exercise ...

[Roland Vink]

Excellent results, a lovely set of pictures.

All were shot at full aperture with the TC-14III, which suggests a 400/5.6 PF would be an ideal lens, hopefully the designs patented recently make it to market.

[JKoerner007]

Obviously very impressive image quality shown. And impressive handheld technique utilised.

Very interesting post thank you for sharing.

Thank you. I thought folks (who were hiking photographers) would find this interesting

This lens enables me to concentrate on nature, without really thinking about my gear. Before, being burdened with the weight, I was thinking more about my gear than what I was doing.

Also, the 300 f/4E PF's small, unobtrusive stature allows for more stealth to be deployed, which adds two dimensions that you simply cannot get with a 'rocket launcher' on your shoulder: 1) you're able to get closer to the subject, 2) brings out more of a feeling of connectedness with nature as opposed to 'photographing from afar.'



_____________

I’m glad to hear you’re enjoying the 300 PF. It is very much fun to shoot with, and carry. 

Indeed, thanks



_____________

Beautiful John,  great colours and details !

Thanks, John!



_____________

John,  It does look like a really capable lens.  All very nice photos. I especially like the two hummingbirds.  Looks like a lens that would be fun to rent and try out as the weather improves in the next few months. 

Thank you, and it is. I encourage you to do so ... you will have fun, which (sometimes we forget) is the whole point of getting outside the city limits

I currently use the older/lower tech 300 mm f/4 AFS on a D810, usually with the TC-14 EII.  This works well enough for my level of amateur bird photography (much as I'd like one, I'm never likely to own one of the super-teles).  Though it may sound perverse, I actually like the heft of both camera and lens, and don't mind carrying them hiking up and down mountains.  I find it easier to steady heavy gear when I don't have a tripod along.  VR obviously fixes that for low shutter speeds, but perhaps not for bird photos at 1/1000 sec or shorter.

I will still probably purchase a 600mm F/4, at some point, but not for hiking.

We all have our preferences for weight. I don't think your older model would bother me at all; but hiking for hours with a 6.5 lb lens is not fun. (You notice it the whole way.) However, hiking with a 1.7 lb lens is a piece of cake, I didn't even think about it, especially hands-free like I did yesterday, except when I realized how much nicer a time I was having

All I know is, right now, I am enjoying not to have to bring a tripod + barbell with me when I hike
The saying, "I feel like a great weight has been removed from my shoulders," was my literal (not figurative) sentiment

I am finding I can keep excellent quality, if I keep my ISO at 1250 (or below), and not have to crop-in more than 25%. (The bluebird leading the deck is a 40% crop, and it's okay, but the hummingbird and others are all decently-rendered IMO.)

All of these images were taken on an overcast day, at 1/1600. Below 1/1000, hand-holding, I didn't like the sharpness too much. At anything over ISO 2500, I'm not liking the image too much—which is a D500 issue, not a lens issue. That's my initial report.

As with yours the old AFS lens is also very capable for 'macro'-like photos.  I like being able to swap from birds to flowers, and I really like the long-lens perspective at macro scales.  The TC degrades the backgrounds a bit, so if I'm too lazy to detach it I have to frame carefully.  Lately I've started to carry a couple of extender rings to swap out for the TC, which let you get very close.  However this has taught me that outdoor flower close-ups, focused manually, in the breeze, are a fairly frustrating exercise ...

I think the background is pretty decent with this lens + a TC, provided your light is good, and your ISO doesn't go over 640. Maybe up to ISO 2000, if you don't have to crop.

Mention of the D500 needs to be made as well. All of my images were cropped-in. I wouldn't have had the same results cropping-in another 50%, with the D850, and especially with the D5. The 300mm f/4E PF is literally made for the D500 IMO.

I would leave my TC on for a butterfly, for reach, but agree I will likely take it off for a flower, for optimal rendering. Will post some like this soon

[JKoerner007]

Excellent results, a lovely set of pictures.

Thanks, Roland.

All were shot at full aperture with the TC-14III, which suggests a 400/5.6 PF would be an ideal lens, hopefully the designs patented recently make it to market.

Good point. However, I would rather see a 400 f/4 PF, to allow for more light with a 1.4 TC.

The final difference (on a D500 + TC) would be an equivalent 840mm f/5.6 vs. 840mm f/8. My hope is they revise the patent a bit

Now, a 600mm f/5.6E PF would be the lens of my hiking dreams

But, in all honesty, I am pretty pleased with what I have right now ...

[Frank Fremerey]

wow, another impressive demonstration of your talent and skill. chapeau!

[JKoerner007]

wow, another impressive demonstration of your talent and skill. chapeau!

Very kind of you to say, Frank, thank you.

I guess the moral is, you don't have to spend $10K, and lug 20-lb of gear around, to get pleasing results.

There is a time, and a place, where the 'rocket launcher'-type lens is needed ... but, mostly, they are not needed to capture pleasing images of skittish creatures, even very small birds.

One other thing that I noticed is the ability to adapt, and react with precision, with the tiny 300 f/4E PF should not be overlooked, either.
(Hand-holding this will allow you to nail shots that would be missed, attempting to 're-position a super-tele on a tripod' ...)

However, for lions in Africa, I would definitely prefer taking images from afar with a high-mag super-telephoto

[elsid]

John, Your photos are excellent. I agree with you on the 300 PF. Since May 2016 I have been using the D500+TC 14E III+300 PF combo for wildlife and close ups and I like it a lot. I also have the 300/2.8G VRII which I use on a monopod or tripod. For the money and the ease of use the 300 PF is unbeatable. Try it on the D850, you will love the results.
I am attaching 3 photos with the D500 and 2 with the D850

[Roland Vink]

Good point. However, I would rather see a 400 f/4 PF, to allow for more light with a 1.4 TC.

The final difference (on a D500 + TC) would be an equivalent 840mm f/5.6 vs. 840mm f/8. My hope is they revise the patent a bit

Now, a 600mm f/5.6E PF would be the lens of my hiking dreams
right now ...

A 400/4 or 600/5.6 would be at least the size and weight of the 300/2.8 so you'd be back to carrying a barbell

A 400/5.6 PF should be only a little longer and heavier than the 300/4 PF, so you would have a similar light-weight portable setup, with better IQ.

From memory, Nikon also had patents for 500/5.6 PF and 600/5.6 PF lenses. Nikon has made very few f/5.6 telephotos probably because the options for using TCs are very limited compared to f/4 lenses. But as camera resolution goes up, it becomes harder to make lens+TC or zooms with high enough quality, and the high ISO performance of cameras is now good enough that f/5.6 is fast enough for many purposes, so we might see some quality primes in this area ...?

[JKoerner007]

John, Your photos are excellent. I agree with you on the 300 PF. Since May 2016 I have been using the D500+TC 14E III+300 PF combo for wildlife and close ups and I like it a lot. I also have the 300/2.8G VRII which I use on a monopod or tripod. For the money and the ease of use the 300 PF is unbeatable.

Thank you for the kind words, and we agree

Try it on the D850, you will love the results.
I am attaching 3 photos with the D500 and 2 with the D850

I am going to purchase the D850 by April, so indeed I will.

In your own images (very cool, btw ), I do prefer those taken with the D850; however, that is mainly due to the harsher lighting in the D500 images (not your fault, just the time of day). The images taken with the D850 appear to have been taken in much softer, more optimal light, particularly the last, which has very smooth, pastel evenness throughout.

Thanks for sharing!



___________________

A 400/4 or 600/5.6 would be at least the size and weight of the 300/2.8 so you'd be back to carrying a barbell

A 400/5.6 PF should be only a little longer and heavier than the 300/4 PF, so you would have a similar light-weight portable setup, with better IQ.

Great point ... and, funny you mention it, because I almost felt the "new gear buzz" wear-off at the thought of toting another large lens around

Right now, I am too thrilled with the 300 f/4E PF to want anything else at the moment

From memory, Nikon also had patents for 500/5.6 PF and 600/5.6 PF lenses. Nikon has made very few f/5.6 telephotos probably because the options for using TCs are very limited compared to f/4 lenses. But as camera resolution goes up, it becomes harder to make lens+TC or zooms with high enough quality, and the high ISO performance of cameras is now good enough that f/5.6 is fast enough for many purposes, so we might see some quality primes in this area ...?

Another good point. Thinking about it, I might be tempted to upgrade to a 400 f/5.6E PF, due to not much size/weight increase, but the jury is still out on that. I don't think I would opt for a 600 f/5.6E PF though.

Reason being, part of what makes me so happy with the 300 f/4E PF is its small size, not just the light weight. I had considered the 200-500 f/5.6, as a lighter alternative to the 300 f/2.8 VR II, and I have seen some terrific images with the 200-500 f/5.6. However, at the end of the day, the 200-500 is a big, honkin' lens ... with an unwieldy size ... that gets even bigger as you zoom.



(taken from Ken Rockwell)

No thanks!


I much prefer this:


(taken from The Image Chaser)


The 300 f/4E PF is just such a conveniently-sized lens (even smaller than a 180mm macro, yet twice the reach), it really is in a league of its own. It is sharper and better than any Nikon zoom (save the 200-400), while being lighter and more wieldy to boot. You can move from one subject to another (or follow a single subject with it) quicker, and more naturally, with this lens than any other IMO.

Yes, there are better lenses, if you want to study charts. However, if you want to enjoy a hike, with a very versatile, light, beautifully-manageable piece of glass ... that can take truly superb images ... you'd be hard pressed to scan the internet for a lens that can match this one on all levels: convenient dimensions, weight, versatility, capability.

"You had me at, 'Hello' ..." was my immediate gut impression of this lens after just one hike

[JKoerner007]

Had a chance to take some more photos with my new toy

Had a trucking fatality case to investigate, with a witness appointment in Camarillo, CA at 6:30mp.
So I went there 4 hours early, so I could take a detour near an irrigation canal to fire-off almost a thousand shots with my new 300mm f/4E PF ED before I had to deal with another casualty case

Anyway, admittedly, with the exception of the first two shots, the lighting was sub optimal today.
In addition, I had reach issues each time (had to crop-in with every image), on top of the challenging lighting conditions, but the results were still acceptable.
I remain absolutely delighted with the light-weight and ease-of-deployment. Hiking is fun again

 
 
Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/4000 | f/6.3 | ISO 640 - 70% cropped-in



Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250 - 20% cropped-in



Rock Wren (Salpinctes obsoletus) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/3200 | f/71 | ISO 640 - 50% cropped-in



Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/2000 | f/7.1 | ISO 640 - 60% cropped-in



Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/2000 | f/6.3 | ISO 2500 - 25% cropped-in


All shots hand-held, no tripod.
The last two shots were an exercise in opposites: one with extremely harsh light, the other with not enough light (the end of the day).
(FYI, the first two species are tiny, and very squirrely.)

Again, with the extreme cropping required with the 300PF and the D500, I don't think the D850/D5 would have made the cut with this lens, like the D500 did.

I also noticed, with the D500, at ISO 640 and below, an image can take extreme cropping and still look okay ... but anything over ISO 1250 cropping over 20% degrades unacceptably ...

[Jakov Minić]

Very nice images, John.