Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: henrikfoto on March 26, 2016, 07:15:19 am
-
I am looking to buy a Nikon 300 mm for a d800e.
I do not need vr of any kind because I will use it only on a tripod.
My question is: Which of the 300mm lenses are optically best?
I do not need 2,8 onless these lenses are sharper.
I am simply looking for the sharpest one regardless of vr etc.
-
I am looking to buy a Nikon 300 mm for a d800e.
I do not need vr of any kind because I will use it only on a tripod.
My question is: Which of the 300mm lenses are optically best?
I do not need 2,8 onless these lenses are sharper.
I am simply looking for the sharpest one regardless of vr etc.
Does AF focus speed play into the equation for you?
-
I am simply looking for the sharpest one regardless of vr etc.
Can you describe your use case?
-
Does AF focus speed play into the equation for you?
Af-speed is not important. I will use this lens for not moving objects that are not far away.
Short focus-distance would be nice.
-
You might want to consider the venerable Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED Lens. It has a nice close focus, built in lens hood, sells for ~$1000 and is compact to carry. It has very good optics, although not quite as good as the f/2.8 models. I doubt you would notice the difference at f/5.6 and slower.
-
During the last Christmas holiday I took some shots with my D800E and the "venerable" AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED of my sister, using a tripod Gitzo series 2, recommended for lenses not longer than 200mm.
Here are two of them. MF on the tower of the castle (1/5 sec., f/10) and AF on the foreskin of Hercules (1/40 sec., f/10). The weather of the landscape shot (indeed it is a stitching of two shots) was rather hazy but also windy, I shot late in the evening.
-
I am looking to buy a Nikon 300 mm for a d800e.
I do not need vr of any kind because I will use it only on a tripod.
My question is: Which of the 300mm lenses are optically best?
I do not need 2,8 onless these lenses are sharper.
I am simply looking for the sharpest one regardless of vr etc.
I have long experience with both 300mm AF-D f4 IF-ED and 300mm f4 AF-S (again IF-ED)... Optically they are both excellent and near to indistinguishable from each other, the AF-S lens is about 2/5ths of a stop slower (it's not f4, it's about f4.7, the AF-D is 82mm filter diameter and it is an f4), the AF-D has much better (more stable) tripod support, AF is fast and accurate on both, there is a slight advantage with the AF-S on only some cameras that have a "weak" motor for "shaft driven" lenses... usually, it shouldn't be an issue for action shooting even if the in camera AF motor that drives the shaft of the AF-D is weak (it would only cause up to 20% reduction in AF lock time with the weakest motor camera in an already fast focusing lens)... The only real disadvantage of the AF-D is if it used with TCs... this is because it's not compatible with TC-14E/EII & TC-20 EIII (it won't autofocus with them even if one removes the tab and fits them on the lens), so one has to use the inferior Kenko DGX with it... MY (opinion) choice would be the AF=D... especially if use with TCs is only a secondary aspect to consider.
-
If you decide on the AF-S for tripod use, you must replace the Nikon tripod foot by the Really Right Stuff alternative. Never got a sharp image on tripod with the Nikon lens when I owned that lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
During the last Christmas holiday I took some shots with my D800E and the "venerable" AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED of my sister, using a tripod Gitzo series 2, recommended for lenses not longer than 200mm.
Here are two of them. MF on the tower of the castle (1/5 sec., f/10) and AF on the foreskin of Hercules (1/40 sec., f/10). The weather of the landscape shot (indeed it is a stitching of two shots) was rather hazy but also windy, I shot late in the evening.
Thank you for nice sample-shots!
I can see from the statue it is a sharp lens.
-
If you decide on the AF-S for tripod use, you must replace the Nikon tripod foot by the Really Right Stuff alternative. Never got a sharp image on tripod with the Nikon lens when I owned that lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernhard!
I read some comments about that tripod foot.
Would you recommend another lens that is better?
Henrik
-
I have long experience with both 300mm AF-D f4 IF-ED and 300mm f4 AF-S (again IF-ED)... Optically they are both excellent and near to indistinguishable from each other, the AF-S lens is about 2/5ths of a stop slower (it's not f4, it's about f4.7, the AF-D is 82mm filter diameter and it is an f4), the AF-D has much better (more stable) tripod support, AF is fast and accurate on both, there is a slight advantage with the AF-S on only some cameras that have a "weak" motor for "shaft driven" lenses... usually, it shouldn't be an issue for action shooting even if the in camera AF motor that drives the shaft of the AF-D is weak (it would only cause up to 20% reduction in AF lock time with the weakest motor camera in an already fast focusing lens)... The only real disadvantage of the AF-D is if it used with TCs... this is because it's not compatible with TC-14E/EII & TC-20 EIII (it won't autofocus with them even if one removes the tab and fits them on the lens), so one has to use the inferior Kenko DGX with it... MY (opinion) choice would be the AF=D... especially if use with TCs is only a secondary aspect to consider.
Thank you, Theodoros!
On ebay I find a lot of the af-s but none of the af-d. Maybe that is a rare lens or is it the one that just starts with af 300 ed?
Henrik
-
There is only one AF-D lens... previous to that, it was non AF lenses, all named at f4.5... so if you see a lens without AF-S motor in it and it is AF, it is the AF-D 300mm f4 IF-ED... Note that both lenses (the AF-D & the AF-S) are IF-ED, both have a sliding hood too... the AF-D version, has 82mm front filter diameter and it has a "drop in" 52mm filter slot too, just like the the 300mm f2.8 AF-D... The later AF-S version is (IMO) a simplified version, to bring costs down... Image quality is on par with the 300/2.8 (if it is stopped down a bit) with both... they are excellent performers even wide open.... but the AF-S lens IS NOT an f4 lens, no matter what the marking on the naming of the lens says.... Tripod collar of the AF-S is pure crap too...
EDIT: Note that AF on the AF-D version is very fast, because despite of it being "axle driven", it only moves a light element somewhere in the middle of the design to focus the lens... Great lens, among the best Nikkor lenses I ever had (and I had a lot before I got the JAS adapter, which allows me to use my Contax 645 Zeiss glass on my Nikons too with full dedication).
-
Thanks a lot Theodores!
Very helpful!
Is the attached picture of the correct af-lens?
Do you get ok af-speed with the JAS adapter and the contax lenses?
I have some old Contax 645 lenses that have been resting for a long time.
Which ones have you tested on Nikon? And are they all good?
Henrik
-
Thanks a lot Theodores!
Very helpful!
Is the attached picture of the correct af-lens?
Do you get ok af-speed with the JAS adapter and the contax lenses?
I have some old Contax 645 lenses that have been resting for a long time.
Which ones have you tested on Nikon? And are they all good?
Henrik
Yes, the one in the picture is the correct lens.
AF speed of Contax 645 lenses on Nikon camera via the adapter, is as fast and accurate as with Nikkor AF-S lenses, I have tested all of them but the 350mm which is the only one I don't own (or need). It seems that the poor AF performance of the Contax 645 camera is due the AF system in the body being an "ancient" design with poor sensitivity, there is nothing wrong with the AF motor in the lenses! The difference in focusing with the Nikon is "night to day" difference when compared with the C645 camera and so say others that have used the lenses with Canon or Leica cameras too.... Image quality is just superb, not much improvement in resolution when compared with Nikon top glass, but there is a clear advantage with flare, coma, DR, colour, clarity and contrast with the Contax lenses... I now use only four Nikon lenses (the 17-35mm/2.8 to have for WAs - as Contax glass goes down to only 35mm - the old 35-70/2.8 to have as walk around lens, the 85mm/2.8 micro PC (with or without a Kenko DGX 1.4x TC) and the Nikkor 24mm f3.5 PC/E) all other is the seven Contax lenses via the JAS adapter.... In a couple of weeks time though... Contax lenses will be eight and Nikkor lenses will be ...three!
This is due to me converting the 24PC-E lens in... Contax mount (with full dedication and CPU contacts communication) and thus the lens will be usable back on Nikon cameras, only via the JAS adapter! (shift and tilt mechanisms removed of course and rear part of the lens frame is replaced with a new one which recesses the Contax mount by 17.5mm with respect to the original Nikon mount position)... I can modify the Nikkor 24mm/3.5 PC-E lens for anybody that is interested for Contax 645, Mamyia 645 and Leica S mount, it will cover MFDBs of up to 37x49mm size on MF bodies and it is a very sharp lens (even wide open) across the frame, with low distortions and high flare resistance... It makes a superb MF 24mm lens that would compare with any MF 24mm lens for quality at 1/3rd of the price (conversion cost included). If anybody is interested on a TOP class MF 24mm lens with full interface communication to the MF camera's mount, don't hesitate to contact me.
-
I have the Nikon 300mm F/4 IF ED lens. I used to like it a lot, but I haven't mounted it since I bought the 200-400 f/4 VR. After reading some of this thread I may have to give it a try on the D810 just for fun.
-
Hi Bernhard!
I read some comments about that tripod foot.
Would you recommend another lens that is better?
I used the RRS one on my 70-200 f4 and it is very good. I believe it is the same part they recommend for the 300 f4 AF-S also, but I have not used it myself on that lens.
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/LC-A10-Pkg-Lens-collar-and-foot-package
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I use the 300 f4 IF-ED for birds and surfers w/1.4 tele. I also use the Kirk collar tripod mount replacement. The lens is sharp and handles well. I see no need for a heavy and cumbersome f2.8.
-
I will offer in addition AF-S 300mm f/4 PF. Considering the limitations of the Phase Fresnel design, the $2000 price tag and some VR questions, at least with initial versions, it is sharp, small, light and has a marginally smaller minimum focus distance than the f/4D ED-IF.
I'm not recommending over the others, but do think it bears consideration.
-
I used the RRS one on my 70-200 f4 and it is very good. I believe it is the same part they recommend for the 300 f4 AF-S also, but I have not used it myself on that lens.
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/LC-A10-Pkg-Lens-collar-and-foot-package
Cheers,
Bernard
I found the cradle design of the lens collar/foot from Kirk Enterprises (http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Collar_for_300mm_f4_AFS.html) to be rock solid on the 300mm f/4 AF-S. I haven't used the RRS replacement on this particular lens although I can attest that it works very well on the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII.
- John
-
I will offer in addition AF-S 300mm f/4 PF. Considering the limitations of the Phase Fresnel design, the $2000 price tag and some VR questions, at least with initial versions, it is sharp, small, light and has a marginally smaller minimum focus distance than the f/4D ED-IF.
I'm not recommending over the others, but do think it bears consideration.
I doupt that it is an f4 lens (despite what Nikon says) either... It is 77mm filter thread like the AF-S... isn't it?
-
I doupt that it is an f4 lens (despite what Nikon says) either... It is 77mm filter thread like the AF-S... isn't it?
I have not compared them side by side or seen a comparison with actual measurements of the apertures, but considering it's much shorter length and equivalent 77mm filter thread size, I suspect the PF achieves similar or better light transmission that the older 300mm f/4 ED-IF!
-
I have not compared them side by side or seen a comparison with actual measurements of the apertures, but considering it's much shorter length and equivalent 77mm filter thread size, I suspect the PF achieves similar or better light transmission that the older 300mm f/4 ED-IF!
It should be better than the AF-S, but not of the 82mm filter thread AF-D lens... Maybe a third of a stop slower than f4 with respect to AF-S being three fifths of a stop slower at full aperture than the AF-D version.
-
Have any of you used the Nikkor 200 f.2 in any version?