The 1st shot with a Nikon 300mm F4

[ajohnw]

Boring subject but might interest some. Taken outside of the camera shop while trying it out. No processing at all. Jpg. Just reduced. Think all camera improvement settings are off. (D7000)



It's just about differentiated the tanker white against the white board behind it.

More interesting - the S full res enlarged by 250%



John
-

[Shadowman]

I read in a magazine that f/4 lenses are the new f/2.8 in terms of photographer's needs and desire. Weight of the lens, cost, quality are big factors in the increase in photographer's interest.

[RustBeltRaw]

I read in a magazine that f/4 lenses are the new f/2.8 in terms of photographer's needs and desire. Weight of the lens, cost, quality are big factors in the increase in photographer's interest.

That's kind of a narrow perspective. Sure, if you can live with f4 depth of field and an extra stop of ISO, then a 300mm f4 will be fine. Many things are new in photography, but not the exposure triangle and all its characteristics. However, the cost point is important. A high-quality 300mm telephoto just above $1,400 is tempting.

[Shadowman]

That's kind of a narrow perspective. Sure, if you can live with f4 depth of field and an extra stop of ISO, then a 300mm f4 will be fine. Many things are new in photography, but not the exposure triangle and all its characteristics. However, the cost point is important. A high-quality 300mm telephoto just above $1,400 is tempting.

The perspective comes from photographers needs I suppose.

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2013/08/rise-f4-zoom-lens

[NorthernFocus]

After obtaining a 300 f4 and using it a bit, my lust for the 300 2.8 subsided. The IQ with that lens is awesome. Unless you are doing portraiture or other work that you will actually shoot the 2.8 wide open, the f4 is a great option. With modern bodies and the available ISO performance most non-professionals can do very well with f4 lenses. I own a 70-200 2.8 and added a 70-200 f4 to my kit because combined with the camera bodies I have it does the job for most of my needs. And is much lighter and smaller.

Yes f2.8 lenses still have their place in the world but most definitely with modern camera bodies there are some f4 lenses out there with extremely good IQ capabilities that will serve most amateur photographer well without breaking the bank. There are now legitimate exceptions to the rule of always spending one's money on better glass.

[ajohnw]

This one is screwdriver focus as I like to call it so very economical and surprisingly light for an all metal lens. I can't see the point in worrying about the depth of field differences between f2.8 and F4 on a lens of this focal length or for that matter the F4 with a 1.4x converter on it. At 100m for instance the DOF is supposedly 12m at f2.8 and 18 at F4. Stick the converter on and the DOF is 11m at the same distance. The big difference between 2.8 and 4 as I see it is hand holding as this shot was taken. 1/5000 sec F9 admittedly but for most work 1/300 sec should stand a fair chance and a mono pod should improve on that significantly. Size is important too. A Tamron 200-500mm weighs little more but is significantly bigger especially higher up the focal length range. It's much more difficult to use.

The telling point really INMHO is that people get far too excited about lenses that offer an extra stop. Colin passed a comment about his F2.8 telephoto in that respect but I'm afraid I can't agree with him. As always with Colin a very good shot. Bird in flight ISO 100, 1/4000 sec F2.8. Given Colin's pp abilities which I am working on and his prowess with a camera ( which I don't think I need) my world isn't going to crumble if I use F4 and 200 ISO. In fact I would probably use F5.6 and 400 ISO.

The lens is near mint. Interestingly nice shiny brass can be seen on the small filter insert holder screw it has so it's probably seen a lot of use. The focus range can be restricted which should help a lot with focus speed. Given the willingness to buy the AFS version which I lack I think I would be inclined to wait until a VR version appeared but I expect that will have a considerable increase on the current around 1000 quid in the UK. It seems Nikon price rises are due very shortly.

I'm finding Nikon ergonomics appalling after an EM-5 especially in terms of button and thumb wheel use. The shot also looks a tad over exposed to me but I was warned about that. In many ways the D7000 is a 2nd camera so I wont be buying any expensive lenses for it.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

None of the arguments on the topic of DOF etc. are right or wrong. All valid and more or less important based on individual needs. I typically shoot dogs, moose, bears, etc. which have long snouts (and bodies). DOF at f2.8 is typically TOO flat to be useful. Different story shooting tiny birds or people. If one doesn't need large apertures, congrats, money saved to be spent elsewhere. But that doesn't mean others are wasting money either. One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other...

Regarding being too excited about that extra stop, all I can say is that if you don't want to spend what such lenses cost, then don't ever look through one or you may just feel compelled to do so...

[Mike Buckley]

Enjoy your lens! Mine also has no motor in it and it fits my needs just perfectly. It's this model that Nikon stopped making 14 years ago. It cost me a whopping $430.

[rpcrowe]

My Canon 300mm f/4L IS lens is an absolutely awesome combination of capability, image quality, weight and price and I would assume that the Nikon 300mm f/4 lens is in the same ballpark.

I bought my 300mm used forom it from an acquaintance who was liquidating his 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L lenses because he needed faster glass for a night high school football contract in Texas. They really take their football seriously in that state.

I took both lenses at slightly less in price than a new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens. My idea was to try both lenses and keep the one I liked the best. Several years later, I still have both lenses because I like them both.

The f/4 aperture combined with the 300mm focal length provides a selective depth of field that is quite workable...



My 300mm also works quite nicely with a 1.4x TC...

[AB26]

A new 300mm F4 @ around $1635 or a 300mm F2.8 @ around $7145 (in SA). If you are not Bill Gates, yet…………?

Ok, if you are a professional you will go with the F2.8, I have little doubt about that. It is not about the extra light but all about the effect you can get from the F2.8.

John, I am sure you will really enjoy the lens, and for what you paid for it – I guess it was not even close to $ 7000.

[ajohnw]

289 quid Andre which I feel is a bit of a bargain. The 1.4x converter is by Kenko and cost a little over 100 quid new. I found some tests and concluded after a careful look at test shots that there isn't really any difference to the Nikon one which might be hard to find. I suppose I might be tempted to change that at some point.

Afraid if I looked through an F2.8 I would look at it objectively. Size, weight etc and if I found some tests would probably find that the lens has some drawbacks at F2.8 and gets to it's best a little before the F4 does. If it was by Sigma the lens would never catch up. The Nikon 300mm F4 seems to be a very sane lens to me. If for instance it was 400mm it would be much more of a handful.

Pro's are in a different world really. The cost of the lens would probably be included in the contract pricing and who knows some one in the crowd might be using an F4. That is bad news for a pro although I suspect some would disagree. Really it's skills that make the difference not a 1 stop reduction in exposure time etc.

John
-

[AB26]

Really it's skills that make the difference not a 1 stop reduction in exposure time etc.

John
-

That is the point John, the one stop makes a difference to the "skill" of the Pro. A Pro knows how to use that extra stop to get a better background. To us mortal people it might not mean a lot but when you look at the difference between F4 and F2.8 in the hands of a skilled Photographer, it makes sense that the Pro wants that extra F stop. ( Most portrait professionals will tell you, "get the 70-200 F2.8".)

[ajohnw]

I can just imagine a Pro saying hey guys stop the football or what ever match move yourselves to there so that I can get the background right. Over the distances that those sort of shots are often taken the dof isn't significantly different. Optical quality is as shots may have to be heavily cropped. 300mm is probably a bit of an odd ball in that respect. I'd guess a full set of primes for this sort of work would be 200,300 and 400 sometimes wishing for longer. 300 is nicely in between. General purpose maybe.

Portraiture which oddly I do know something about is a different matter, fashion and border line porn too but best not go into that, is another matter. Yes I would like a 70-200m F2.8 lens on full frame for portraiture but might feel I was doing it on the cheap and would prefer 3 fast primes. but would settle for 2. 80-90mm and say 135 as it was readily available focal length. Nikon offered an ideal set, 85,105 and 135. When I was into that sort of thing (and the others) no really capable pro would shoot 35mm anyway and would be using a larger format along with several lenses.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

the one stop makes a difference to the "skill" of the Pro.

That depends on the situation. If the larger aperture is need to allow one more stop of light, the high-ISO capabilities of the modern cameras that a pro would likely be using makes very little practical difference, if any. If the larger aperture is needed to control the background, that will likely be an important factor only in the closer shooting distances such as the portrait situation you mentioned, not the longer distances between camera and subject.

[NorthernFocus]

I can just imagine a Pro saying hey guys stop the football or what ever match move yourselves to there so that I can get the background right. Over the distances that those sort of shots are often taken the dof isn't significantly different....

Precisely the point of shooting as flat a DOF as possible is due to not having the luxury of getting a perfect background. Using a flat DOF isn't about what's within but rather what is outside of the DOF. Unless the BG is low contrast and much farther from the subject than the camera to subject distance, there is a very noticeable difference in the appearance of BG from 2.8 to 4 to 5.6. At smaller apertures the difference starts to become minimal.

It is one thing to say the difference in BG appearance doesn't matter to one's photographic needs. But to say there isn't any difference simply isn't true and begins to sound like a need to justify one's own decisions. A perfectly human behavior which I myself exhibit with more frequency than I would like.

[ajohnw]

I don't think I would argue about the extra stop being useful on film. In terms of stopping action it could be very important. There might be a weaker argument in the same direction on digital as well. I can't imagine anyone using 300mm for portrait shots but I have rather fixed traditional idea on that area that are best used in a studio.

John
-