Nikon's New 300mm f/4 Looks Impressive
- Thread starter Rob Bye
- Start date
To be honest, a tripod socket on this lens would be wasted. I can attach the cam to the pod and it doesn't make a difference. This lens is a lightweight.
It would only make it more annoying to carry/shoot with close to no practical benefit. She's like the 24-70mm f/2.8; 2 cm longer but lighter and with good enough VR to make a tripod unnecessary.
Last edited:
It is not the weight of the lens that is the problem; it is the magnification by the focal length. Put on a teleconverter and you compound the problem.
It is a bit stange how I ended up here.
1) I have a Sigma 500 f4.5 which I wanted to replace with a Sigma 500 f4.5 (not 25 years old and the new one without issues) in a few years .
2) I saw the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6E announcement and looking at the MTF charts and price it seems a better option then the Sigma prime, even if that can be false due to not comparable MTF charts, so got interested in that one.
3) In my set-up I missed a light 200mm+ solution so looked into different options there.
4) I noticed that the 300mm f4E is really into the light category and thus is a valid option, except for the price which is out of budget at this moment.
So now my 500mm f4.5 replacement changed into a 300mm f4E complement. I still see a redundancy with the 70-200 + TC1.4, even if the quality is better of the prime, however the portability is what really convinces me.
I'm also convinced that on a D750 the 420mm f5.6 will delivery something very close to the 500mm f4.5. The flexibility missing from not having the 200-500mm will be covered by having the 70-300 and 300+TC1.4 on 2 bodies.
P.S. I also will save up for a second hand Nikon 600mm f4, but this will take several years and will depend on the second hand offering. The result a 70-200 f2.8 + 300 f4 + 600 f4 + TC1.4 + TC2 will be a pro set-up for wildlife even if they are not the latest models.
Is anybody doing BIF with a TC1.4+300mm f4E?
1) I have a Sigma 500 f4.5 which I wanted to replace with a Sigma 500 f4.5 (not 25 years old and the new one without issues) in a few years .
2) I saw the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6E announcement and looking at the MTF charts and price it seems a better option then the Sigma prime, even if that can be false due to not comparable MTF charts, so got interested in that one.
3) In my set-up I missed a light 200mm+ solution so looked into different options there.
4) I noticed that the 300mm f4E is really into the light category and thus is a valid option, except for the price which is out of budget at this moment.
So now my 500mm f4.5 replacement changed into a 300mm f4E complement. I still see a redundancy with the 70-200 + TC1.4, even if the quality is better of the prime, however the portability is what really convinces me.
I'm also convinced that on a D750 the 420mm f5.6 will delivery something very close to the 500mm f4.5. The flexibility missing from not having the 200-500mm will be covered by having the 70-300 and 300+TC1.4 on 2 bodies.
P.S. I also will save up for a second hand Nikon 600mm f4, but this will take several years and will depend on the second hand offering. The result a 70-200 f2.8 + 300 f4 + 600 f4 + TC1.4 + TC2 will be a pro set-up for wildlife even if they are not the latest models.
Is anybody doing BIF with a TC1.4+300mm f4E?
Bengt Nyman
Senior Member
Delivery of this lens is still very slow and sporadic. In addition, early tests by LenScore indicate a 22% lower sharpness than with the older 300mm f4G. LensTip also reports a lower sharpness than from conventional primes in this focal range. I suspect that Nikon might not yet be done with the final development of this lens, which could be why DxO still has not tested it.
I have told my dealer that I will wait with my purchase of the 300mm f4E until DxO test results are out.
P.S. I am presently doing BIF with the TC1.4+300mm f4G with OK results except for the limited reach. I would not be willing to trade down in sharpness, if that turns out to be the final case.
I have told my dealer that I will wait with my purchase of the 300mm f4E until DxO test results are out.
P.S. I am presently doing BIF with the TC1.4+300mm f4G with OK results except for the limited reach. I would not be willing to trade down in sharpness, if that turns out to be the final case.
It has been popular, which makes for the delivery issues.
The PF is quite new and I have the impression that the G will remain as a none PF alternative for quite a while.
Tests seem to confirm that the E is not as good as the G, the question remains if it does not have other values and what resolution difference really matters.
Senscore:
From these numbers the 105 Micro is 30% less in resolution as the 400mm f2.8E => does this make the 105 micro not sharp enough to buy?
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Review & Rating | PCMag.com
Nikon Nikkor AF-S 300 mm f/4E PF ED VR review - Image resolution - Lenstip.com
A part of the sharpness debate of this lens is silly when you consider what it is used for.
About every review I read agrees she's sharper in at least the center; further, up to the corners, it can be debated which is how much sharper. There is no definitive data yet. Now let me tell you how many corners make it into my shots: close to none. And when my corners miraculously make it into my shot, it also implies I'm now at such a magnification it severely affects my DoF which, more likely than not, no longer covers those corners.
This is not a lens to shoot architecture or landscape so anyone complaining about corner sharpness (or lack thereof) most likely has little knowledge about the practical application of such lenses.
My 135mm f/2 is sharper than this lens. In fact, it is the sharpest and qualitative best of all my lenses and makes them s*ck b*lls in comparison. It makes most lenses on the market s*ck b*lls. Strangely I take more sharp shots with my 300mm than with my 135mm. Even when taking manual focus out of the equation this remains true. The reason is simple; compared to the 300mm, the 135mm feels like made out of concrete and the heavier my lens, the harder it becomes to remain stable. Especially when she becomes front heavy.
The 300mm is a lens that delivers in practice. We can continue to debate for hours about every aspect but what it is about is what she delivers in reality. And I think, no am convinced, she delivers. Less weight, shorter, even sharpness are just numbers when you read them on a paper but not until you put those numbers to work in reality, you really know what those numbers imply.
About every review I read agrees she's sharper in at least the center; further, up to the corners, it can be debated which is how much sharper. There is no definitive data yet. Now let me tell you how many corners make it into my shots: close to none. And when my corners miraculously make it into my shot, it also implies I'm now at such a magnification it severely affects my DoF which, more likely than not, no longer covers those corners.
This is not a lens to shoot architecture or landscape so anyone complaining about corner sharpness (or lack thereof) most likely has little knowledge about the practical application of such lenses.
My 135mm f/2 is sharper than this lens. In fact, it is the sharpest and qualitative best of all my lenses and makes them s*ck b*lls in comparison. It makes most lenses on the market s*ck b*lls. Strangely I take more sharp shots with my 300mm than with my 135mm. Even when taking manual focus out of the equation this remains true. The reason is simple; compared to the 300mm, the 135mm feels like made out of concrete and the heavier my lens, the harder it becomes to remain stable. Especially when she becomes front heavy.
The 300mm is a lens that delivers in practice. We can continue to debate for hours about every aspect but what it is about is what she delivers in reality. And I think, no am convinced, she delivers. Less weight, shorter, even sharpness are just numbers when you read them on a paper but not until you put those numbers to work in reality, you really know what those numbers imply.
<sarcasm>J-see, we can't count on your pictures and real life practical accounts of the lens performance. We need laboratory data and lots of numbers and charts and scientific talk produced by an agency that publishes on the Internet. </sarcasm>
The fact that this lens is easy to handle could easily produce better performance in every day practical use. We don't shoot on a tripod with delayed shutter release and mirror lock up very often, do we?
I'm glad to see you are enjoying the lens, J-see. It seems like it was a very good investment for you.
The fact that this lens is easy to handle could easily produce better performance in every day practical use. We don't shoot on a tripod with delayed shutter release and mirror lock up very often, do we?
I'm glad to see you are enjoying the lens, J-see. It seems like it was a very good investment for you.