Thoughts on Nikkor 300 mm f/4

[purplehaze]

I have developed an interest in bird photography in the last couple years and since my outing to the marsh the other week, I have been weighing the pros and cons of various telephoto lenses. I know the Nikkor 200-500 is very popular and the Sigma 150-600 Sport is tempting, but I fear that both these lenses would be too heavy for me and that I might in any case be happier with the image quality of the prime plus my 1.4 teleconverter. I'd certainly be happier with the weight. Any thoughts? I'd be using it on a crop sensor for now. I prefer to buy FX lenses in case I go full frame someday, and to benefit from greater corner to corner sharpness in the meantime. I have read that there is no rear element on the Nikkor and that it is therefore advisable to keep the teleconverter on it at all times. Do any of you currently shoot this combo and have any observations to make, positive or negative? Are there any other options or third-party lenses I should consider that would fit into my current lens line-up (see below)? I got some tax money back and would be willing to pay up to $3000 CA, though obviously I would like to get away with less.

[mikey98e]

I've been using a used Nikor 300mm f4 with a 1.4 teleconverter for a number of years on Hummers and other birds. I finally bought a Sigma 150-600 Sport but haven't had the chance to use it. The Sigma is very heavy compared to the Nikor so I think that weight will preclude handholding the Sigma.
-mike
GoldenCranePhotography.com

[rpcrowe]

Janis,

I don't shoot Nikon but, I used a 300mm f/4L IS Canon lens with and without a 1.4x TC for years. I really liked the combination. In fact, I didn't really see any major differences in IQ or AF between the lens with, and without, the TC.

I also used a 400mm f/5.6L lens which is an excellent birding lens but doesn't have IS.

Finally, I sold both the 300mm and 400mm lenses to fund the purchase of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens which is a wonderfully versatile lens.

Lots of my camera club friends, especially those who shoot Nikon, use the 150-600mm Sigma, either the "Sport" model or the less expensive version. However, among Canon users, the group is just about divided half-way between the 150-600mm Sigma lenses and the 100-400mm Mark-2 Canon with a sprinkling of members using the original 100-400mm Mark-1 lens. I haven't noticed any who shoot the 300mm f/4 Nikon and 1.5x TC combination or the Canon 300mm f/4L and 1.4x TC combination.

The advantage of the 100-400mm Mark-2 lens on a Canon 7D-II, 80D or some full frame bodies is that you can use the 1.4X TC which increases the focal length to 560mm; while still retaining auto focus...

[purplehaze]

Mike, it looks like you got some nice captures with the 300 mm. There's certainly no question of me handholding a super zoom. I would have to buy a heavier tripod than the one I have and would probably want a gimbal head, as well. All of that gear would not make for a casual walkaround kit.

Richard, there's no question that the versatility of a zoom is a consideration and I might well find the prime too limiting. One of the super zooms would give me more chance of reaching the kiteboarders on the lake, and they are fun to shoot...

[george013]

..... I have read that there is no rear element on the Nikkor and that it is therefore advisable to keep the teleconverter on it at all times.

What do you mean with this?

George

[purplehaze]

Oops, it appears I stumbled across a review of the older version of the Nikkor 300 mm f/4. To save weight, they didn't fit it with a rear element, so you could look down the barrel to the diaphragm. If dirt or dust got down there, it was difficult to remove. Happily, though, the new version has a rear element, so this is no longer a problem. If I buy it, I must make sure to get the right one!

[george013]

You probably are looking for the new Nikon 300mm f4E PF ED VR, that has a weight of only 755 gr.

That rear element was new for me. That's why I asked. Now I know.

PF is also new for me. It's why a 300mm lens can measure 147mm, about half. https://petapixel.com/2015/01/10/clo...ns-technology/

Next link http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html gives an overview of Nikon lenses, their serialnrs. and production date, and some other items. In case you want to buy something second hand. The PF one is the only one with VR.

You probably have seen this one. http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/100...rafs3004pfvrff

George

[Mike Buckley]

I stumbled across a review of the older version of the Nikkor 300 mm f/4. To save weight, they didn't fit it with a rear element, so you could look down the barrel to the diaphragm. If dirt or dust got down there, it was difficult to remove.

I have the version of that lens that was made from 1987 to 2000, so my lens is at least 17 years old and might be 30 years old. I wouldn't want to repeatedly take it on and off my camera on a sandy beach or desert when the wind is blowing strongly. That's because of the lack of the rear element. I wouldn't want to be changing any lenses repeatedly in that situation. Otherwise, it's fine when using the same care one would use to prevent dust from getting on the camera's sensor.

I bought mine used from a reputable dealer five years ago, so it's possible that they cleaned it before selling it to me. I don't use it every time I photograph outside but I've never had an issue with dust on the aperture blades.

I mention this for anyone who is interested in getting an old copy of this type of lens and might otherwise be scared away by the lack of rear element. Mine cost $430 and I see that B&H is currently selling a couple of them at about $500. Considering that it is nearly twice the weight of a modern lens and has much slower auto focusing, it surely wouldn't be a good fit for Janis. But it can be a great fit for others as it has been for me.

[billtils]

Janis, I've never used a TC, and was put off going that way when looking at kit for birding as there are many posts to the effect that the exposure issue can be limiting. I bought a 150 - 600 Tamron instead and have been vary pleased with it; I know you have good reason not to take the big beast road, but based on its performance and that of my 90mm macro from the same manufacturer, you may wish to take a look at the Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD.

As a footnote, I do have the Nikon 70-300 and find it a very good value for money lens.

[rpcrowe]

Janis...

I forgot to mention that I kept my Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS lens after acquiring the 100-400mm Mark-2. There is duplication of the focal range with these two lenses but, I use them for totally different types of photography.

The 100-400mm Mark-2 is fairly heavy and weighs in at just a little more than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens or 3.5 lb (1.59 kg). I don't like to carry this lens for a day of walk-around or travel photography. However the Canon 200mm f/4L IS lens plus the 1.4x TC top out to 3.11 pounds which is fairly close to the weight of the 100-400 Mk-2 lens. The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens weighs just about half that or 1.67 lb (760 g). I use this as my travel and walk around telephoto lens. I will use the 100-400 Mark-2 for sports, airshows or wildlife.

However, I have recently used the 100-400 Mark-2 at a Civil War Reenactment because I had shot this event before and I know that I needed a longer focal length for some phases of the photography. 200mm + 1.4x did not quite reach what I wanted to get...

Here's two thoughts about carrying a heavy camera/lens combination.

1. A vest-like carrier such as the Cotton will ease the strain of a heavy camera/lens...

2. A monopod helps me in several ways... It takes the strain of the weight off my arms/shoulders while standing around. It balances the camera/lens when I am shooting and it can act as a walking stick when moving around. This is especially true if you are carrying the camera/lens using a Cotton Carrier.

Finally: a 4/3 outfit or even a bridge camera might give you the focal length you need without the weight of a full frame or even a crop camera outfit.

[purplehaze]

You probably are looking for the new Nikon 300mm f4E PF ED VR, that has a weight of only 755 gr.

That rear element was new for me. That's why I asked. Now I know.

PF is also new for me. It's why a 300mm lens can measure 147mm, about half. https://petapixel.com/2015/01/10/clo...ns-technology/

Next link http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html gives an overview of Nikon lenses, their serialnrs. and production date, and some other items. In case you want to buy something second hand. The PF one is the only one with VR.

You probably have seen this one. http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/100...rafs3004pfvrff

George

George, thanks for that second link in particular. Very useful for sorting out the different models. I admit my aging eyes sometimes glaze over the plethora of abbreviations in lens names, but they are meaningful and it is important to keep them straight. Yes, I had read that review you linked to early on, and the glare issue would be a limitation when it comes to the shooting the kitsurfers against the sun. As far as the autofocus goes, I would expect that the performance on my D7100 would be the same as it is on my 70-200 mm f/4.

[purplehaze]

Janis, I've never used a TC, and was put off going that way when looking at kit for birding as there are many posts to the effect that the exposure issue can be limiting. I bought a 150 - 600 Tamron instead and have been vary pleased with it; I know you have good reason not to take the big beast road, but based on its performance and that of my 90mm macro from the same manufacturer, you may wish to take a look at the Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD.

As a footnote, I do have the Nikon 70-300 and find it a very good value for money lens.

Bill, if I bought off-brand, would I not have to purchase another teleconverter? I believe that is the case with the Sigma lenses. I have to say, I am disinclined to buy something that duplicates range I already have (so many wants, so few resources) without adding significantly more, as the super zooms would.

[purplehaze]

Janis...

I forgot to mention that I kept my Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS lens after acquiring the 100-400mm Mark-2. There is duplication of the focal range with these two lenses but, I use them for totally different types of photography.

Yes, I can see that, which is why I was considering the super zooms.

I loved your civil war reenactment photo; there was no need to delete it.

Here's two thoughts about carrying a heavy camera/lens combination.

1. A vest-like carrier such as the Cotton will ease the strain of a heavy camera/lens...

2. A monopod helps me in several ways... It takes the strain of the weight off my arms/shoulders while standing around. It balances the camera/lens when I am shooting and it can act as a walking stick when moving around. This is especially true if you are carrying the camera/lens using a Cotton Carrier.

Finally: a 4/3 outfit or even a bridge camera might give you the focal length you need without the weight of a full frame or even a crop camera outfit.

I have a monopod, but have not used it much. I should make a effort to practice with it. I will look into the Cotton Carrier; thanks. Don't think I am in the market for a 4/3 or a bridge camera. I have a little Sony RX100M4, which I sometimes carry as a second camera, but if I were to buy a third, I think right now I would go for a D750.

[rpcrowe]

I love my monopod because it eases the strain of holding the camera, even when I am not shooting it...

I also find it easier to sling my long lens over my shoulder with the lens facing towards the rear and then hold the rig using the monopod as a handle.

I like a tilt head on the monopod rather than attaching the camera directly or using a ball head. I prefer to keep the monopod straight up and down when I am shooting and the tilt head allows me to do that...

Thanks for the compliment re my Civil War image. Here is a link to my Smugmug Civil War Reenactment site...

https://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/CIVIL-WAR/i-nVC3D9p

Speaking about weight... I purchased a very lightweight composite, wheeled, carry-on suitcase for my trip to South Carolina... It was great! I am now thinking that I could probably shot the trip using my little Canon SX50 HS bridge camera. I got this camera on sale from Canon as a refurbished unit specifically for carrying to dog rescue events and for carrying with me when I deliver adoptive dogs to their new homes. However, I am going to try to photograph the San Diego area like I would if I were a tourist using the SX50 HS. After all. my son-in-law shot his ten days of African safari with an SX50 HS and brought home some pretty decent images...

[billtils]

I have a monopod, but have not used it much. ... but if I were to buy a third, I think right now I would go for a D750.

I have one of those and my experience to date is 5 serious photo shoots and 5 times I really wish I hadn't bothered! However, in discussions with a 'photo buddy' who also has the Tamron 150-600 I can manage it just fine hand-held and he gets on much better with the monopod.

As far as the D7100 - D750 issue goes, I went that route and haven't had a moment of regret.

[Manfred M]

Janis - both my wife and I have used Cotton Carriers for a number of years now. I find them particularly useful when in rough terrain where I want my hands free and the camera very handy; I can have the camera in shooting position almost as quickly as when using a shoulder strap. It does take the weight off the neck.

[purplehaze]

Thanks, Manfred. I am liking the look of the one that attaches to a camera or sling bag as I am usually carrying one or the other when I am on my walkabouts. I have been meaning to take up cycling again now that I do not have a dog to walk, and it looks like it would lend itself to that.

[Manfred M]

Thanks, Manfred. I am liking the look of the one that attaches to a camera or sling bag as I am usually carrying one or the other when I am on my walkabouts. I have been meaning to take up cycling again now that I do not have a dog to walk, and it looks like it would lend itself to that.

I use the original chest mount, so can't comment on the other designs. We have the holster mount that goes on the belt of the chest mount one, but never use it as the camera interferes with walking.

[rpcrowe]

Monopods, like tripods, can be PITA's to use or valuable tools. It all depends on the photographer's experience and proficiency with these devices. I will have to mention, that in shooting fast moving, especially erratically moving subjects, I will often decide to use my camera/lens hand-held; rather than trying to use a monopod or tripod. This is especially true when shooting subjects that are flying: birds or airplanes.

I am often awed at the capability of my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens to allow me sharp images when shooting at a longer focal length combined with a slower shutter speed. The IS of that lens is fantastic!

[DanK]

I have the chest-mount cotton carrier. In fact, I had it on much of the day yesterday. I was photographing the Burlington marathon race, and I had a 70-200 on my 5DIII much of the day. The Cotton Carrier allowed me to carry this all day without discomfort. I now use it for even shorter outings when I am using my much heavier 100-400 lens. It takes the weight off your neck, and equally important for some of us with back injuries, it makes the weight symmetrical. I find that releasing the camera sometimes takes a second or two of fussing, but not enough to be a problem.

The company sells on optional mount that combines the proprietary circular mounting plate needed for the vest with an arca-swiss compatible plate, so I can easily take the camera off the vest and mount it on my lightweight monopod, on which I have an arca-swiss compatible (Kirk) tilt head.