Nikkor 300mm f4 AF-S

[chrisk]

can anyone share their experiences, pros and cons of this lens. would also be particualrly interested if used with the 1.7 TC. have heard mediocre reports about the tripod collar, limit switch and AF speed. just wondering how much of this translates into real world cons or just nit picking testers.

thanks.

[Raskill]

Jeff has one,he uses it for motorsport, and produces nice sharp images with it, so AF can't be much of an issue.

[Pa]

i have the earlier model, i use it with a tele converter some of the time...works pretty good on a sunny day.

i think with a d300 it would work ok

[Jeff]

Hi Rooz
I have had this lens for about 2yrs and use it for motorsport.
It is excellent for the price, the tripod collar is just OK but does not cause me any problems.Value for $ it is well recommended.
What is your intended use?

Jeff

[Glen]

Rooz, I have one. Works well with the 1.7tc (obviously better with a 1.4). The AF speed is ok, no problem at all, the confusion is it is an AFS lens and the speed is about AF speed not AFS speed. By example a 70-200 is much faster. RRS and Kirk? (definitely one of them) make replacement collars, I haven't bothered as I use mine mainly on a monopod.

It is a fraction of the price of a 300/2.8 but provides much more than a fraction of the image quality and performance (bar VR). It is not a 300 2.8 VR, but for an amateur it is probably top of the Nikon tree in that focal lenth. Sharp images as you would expect from a prime.

[chrisk]

thanks everyone for the replies. there are a couple going second hand right now i have my eye on but wanted to get your feedback before i threw my hat in the ring.

i'll be using it for macro 50% of the time and 50% of the time as a typical tele lens, sports, birds etc i keep hearing how sharp it is despite the fact that most MTF analysis i've seen doesn't actually back that claim up.

[gstark]

How often do you shoot MTF charts?

[chrisk]

well, you dont...but you dont drive in bhp either. its just one indicator/ factor to consider when researching i suppose. no point buying a lens' totally blind to how it performs...even if it is just a lab test. thats why its important to balance that lab test with asking the question here to get the inside story from people who have it.

[gstark]

Ok, let's put this a different way.

How often does a lab test sway your choice of a lens? I don't think I have paid any attention to one. Ever.

Keeping your bhp/vehicle analogy, how often do you rely upon road tests of a car to influence your choice of a car?

In the case of a camera, the most important factor, for me, is how that camera feels, to me, in my hands.

In the case of a car, it's very similar: I drive the vehicle, and I make my decision based upon the results of that drive, as well as, probably, the similar test drives of other vehicles.

Road tests? They're only as good as the person who does them: what is the relevance of that person's opinion to mine? Probably not a whole lot. I wonder, bemused, when I see ads on tv (or wherever) with people, whom I know not, who look like (very) average people, extolling to me the virtues of x or y.

Why, I ask? What do those people share with me? Why would their opinions influence mine? Why should their opinions influence mine? What is it about them that commands, within me, respect for them, to the point where I would listen to them and be impressed by their opinions?

I listen to and value the opinions of people who have earned my respect. The rest I treat with elements of disdain.

The object of the opinion matters little: it is the reliability of the source of the reference that I consider to be of value, and too frequently, that will be about as valuable as a used bus ticket.

[chrisk]

all fair points. i take a different view though.

i have no problem taking in results from lens tests, (or tests of ANY product, car, camera, lens, microwave etc), as part of my decision making process. camera bodies are a little easier to get a hold of and use to assess the feel and fit. lens' are harder to get a hold of and things like CA/ vignetting/ resolution etc are relatively easy to scan thru on a test anyway. there are testers that are relatively reliable and unbias so why not use their experience ?

i also have no problem listening and paying attention to reviews by people who have far more experience and expertise than me in testing the optical performance of some products like thom hogan as a good example. he has used alot of lens' and can draw a good picture of not just the lens he is testing but also give a view on that lens in relation to other lens' he has used/ owned.

do i take reviews as "gospel" and use only a lab test to make a decision ? hell no. but to ignore what information is out there and use that in conjucntion with other decsion making factors does seem like a waste of information.

[gstark]

i have no problem taking in results from lens tests, (or tests of ANY product, car, camera, lens, microwave etc),

Neither do I, but I believe that you are missing my point: who is it that is doing those tests? What is the basis of their expertise?

Just because they claim to be experienced or an expert does not make it so.

And what, if any, are their vested interests?

i also have no problem listening and paying attention to reviews by people who have far more experience and expertise than me in testing the optical performance of some products like thom hogan as a good example.

If you believe Thom to be a good example, I will not argue the point.

I'm not a believer of the adage that "I saw it on the internet, it must be true". I prefer to take the view that the information that I glean from the internet costs me all of .... hmmmm .... $0.00. And I value it accordingly.

And again, let's say that person A claims to have x years of experience in doing something. How do you verify that?

Let's take that to next level, and in so doing, I'm going to get personal. I've been taking photos, both as a professional and as an amateur, for over 30 years now. That's a good deal of experience, right? That means I should be good.

Or does it?

I have never made any such claim, and I never will. There's lots that I know, and there's lots that I know how to do. There's lots that I have done, and I certainly think I know more than my fair share of tricks.

None of which makes me a good photographer.

The same goes for my music, btw. I've been playing bass for even longer; I have a good knowledge of certain aspects of music and music theory. None of which makes me good, or a talented, musician.

Now, the issue is that i know that I am flawed, and in a great many ways and fields. I believe that the same is true for most of us (sorry) and thus I need to investigate people and their claims, and give them a chance to earn my respect. When that has been done, I will value their opinion at something greater than the cost of any freely available internet opinion.

do i take reviews as "gospel" and use only a lab test to make a decision ? hell no. but to ignore what information is out there and use that in conjucntion with other decsion making factors does seem like a waste of information.

You're making the presumption that all of that information "out there" is of some value.

My experience suggests that what is "out there" needs to be very carefully considered.

[chrisk]

Neither do I, but I believe that you are missing my point: who is it that is doing those tests? What is the basis of their expertise? Just because they claim to be experienced or an expert does not make it so. And what, if any, are their vested interests?

i understand your point, but you can say that about anything in life. you may aswell never watch TV news, never read a paper, never listen to anyone you havent known for 20 years cos you cant verify things that are being stated. we will never be able to have intimate knowledge of the integrity of people giving us information to be able to say with 100% certianty that what they are saying is totally true or they havent been influenced by a vested interest. in which case, forget lens tests, how could you form an opionion on anything in life that is outside your scope of control/ influence/ experience ?

you cant possibly know someone that you trust on every single issue, on every single purchase point you are going to have. its impossible so you must at some time research and during that research you will come across many views, tests, reviews etc. all of which can be considered and then used as part of a decision making process. the voracity of your interrogation of that information will depend on the consequences and/ or risks of your decision.

If you believe Thom to be a good example, I will not argue the point.

i assume you're being sarcastic. its ok to have different points of view about the validity of sources of information. i personally like alot of what thom has to say and like his reviews. i also like the fact that he has used alot of nikon equipment and can draw some comparisons on performance. you dont agree ? thats ok, we dont have to.

I'm not a believer of the adage that "I saw it on the internet, it must be true". I prefer to take the view that the information that I glean from the internet costs me all of .... hmmmm .... $0.00. And I value it accordingly.

neither am i, but i'm also not a believer of the adage that "i saw it on the internet, it must be bullshit". as i said, i use the reviews as one factor to consider during research of products or in fact, any other topic i may be discussing. i'm still trying to figure out why thats a bad thing ?

And again, let's say that person A claims to have x years of experience in doing something. How do you verify that?

well, again, you cant. but again, apply this to anything you see and hear about any topic. i dont have the time or inclination to reference check every piece of information i recieve in my life about every single issue. the idea is to form an opinion using a number of sources aswell as your own real life experience and your own intelligence.

Let's take that to next level, and in so doing, I'm going to get personal. I've been taking photos, both as a professional and as an amateur, for over 30 years now. That's a good deal of experience, right? That means I should be good. Or does it? I have never made any such claim, and I never will. There's lots that I know, and there's lots that I know how to do. There's lots that I have done, and I certainly think I know more than my fair share of tricks. None of which makes me a good photographer.

true, none of it will make you a good photographer. but what it will do is give you plenty of expereince.

I need to investigate people and their claims, and give them a chance to earn my respect. When that has been done, I will value their opinion at something greater than the cost of any freely available internet opinion.

this is not a life and death situation Gary. and like i said above, i dont have the time to do that research. there are some things you just have to take on face value if you dont have access to, in this case, the lens itself. if i ask people on this site what their opinion is of the lens, i just have to take it on face value that what they have told me is true of their experiences. thats a comprimise i'm prepared to make. i also have to take on face value that if i look at a test from photozone and the CA figures look horrific that it's probably not too far off the mark. again, thats a comprimise i'm prepared to make.

You're making the presumption that all of that information "out there" is of some value.

no, i'm not. you are making the presumption that all of the information "out there" has none.

My experience suggests that what is "out there" needs to be very carefully considered.

there ya go...i knew we'd agree on something eventually ! lol

[Glen]

Rooz, I lean more your way than Gary's, I look at reviews by reviewers I have some faith in, then make my own judgement.

Just to show both sides of the argument, I wrote to Thom about two years ago to let him know that in his Nikkor 12-24 review had an error in it where he chided Nikon for referring to 1 foot as 30cm, he believed it was 28cm. He wrote back that a foot has varied through the ages between 10-13in and has been different sizes. I wrote back that his reviews really deal in the present, especially in the context of his comment. He wrote back he believed he was right. I believe that 1 foot equals 30.48cm, or if rounded down to the nearest centimetre, 30cm. Thom clearly doesn't, nor does he believe the few thousand google hits which say the same! That he doesn't know metric conversions really doesn't surprise me as he is US based but the measurement of photography is the metric system. So in summary, we are reading and believing reviews from an individual who doesn't know how big a foot is in centimetres, then when faced with undeniable proof argues in the face of it and maintains his totally incorrect position!!

Here is the paragraph in question (it is still up to this day on http://www.bythom.com) :

You get AF-S focusing with this lens, and that'll take you down to 1 foot (.28m, which Nikon in its inconsistent fashion rounds to .3m in some of its literature). The supplied lens cap is the new pinch-front type.

[Matt. K]

Rooz
I have the manual focus 300mm F4.5 ED and I love it! Not only is it sharp but it's sweet. I prefer the manual focus in this focal length as it is known to be silky smooth and can be turned with the tip of a finger.

[Dargan]

A Zen Master is visiting New York city. He goes up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything". The hot dog vendor fixes a hot dog and hands it to the Zen Master, who pays with a $20 bill. The vendor puts the bill in the cash box and closes it. "Where's my change?" asks the Zen Master. The vendor responds "Change must come from within"

Rooz is just buying a lens. I also think the answer lies within

[Glen]

[idleowen]

"couple going second hand" if you mean ebay,check I think they are the old AF versions (not AF-S).

[chrisk]

the af-s one sold on ebay and there is a couple more now which are the af version. quite expensive though.

[radar]

Rooz,

I have the 300mm f4 and love it. It is a great lens, easy to carry in the field as it is not too heavy. I also have the TC1.7 and at times it can be slow to focus, especially in low light, but usually works nicely. I have mainly used it for wildlife. It is very sharp, even at f4. I have used it on a D70s and currently on my D200.

I have replaced the tripod foot with the Kirk foot, big difference in stability when on a tripod, I would recommend it if you have an arca swiss type ball-head.

Cheers,

André

[chrisk]

ok, this guy has relisted cos it didnt sell for 895. far too expensive. what would you say is a reasonable price for this ? my main problem here is that being a non af-s lens, i cant use my TC with it. curse the day i ever bought that thing instead of a soligor. so maybe i should hold out for the af-s version after all.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... otohosting

[Glen]

Rooz, at anywhere near that price I would just buy it from bargains, a couple of hundred dollars extra to be able to autofocus with a TC seems like a no brainer especially considering it is then brand new with warranty, if you plan to use the TC a lot this would be the best option. If you plan to go manual I would take Matt's suggestion and buy a manual lens, save a fortune. If you don't plan to use a TC buy the AF version. PS Check the lens doesn't have mould! The business selling this lens is http://www.mould.com.au

[radar]

Rooz,

check out http://www.keh.com/

It is always a good place to check out prices for used lenses. Prices seem to range from $450 to $665USD, depending on condition. So at $895AUD, I think the guy is being optimistic. As Glen says, at that price save a bit longer and get it new from the bargains section.

HTH,

André

[chrisk]

thanks for the feedback guys. much appreciated.