A Tale of Two 300's | 300mm F4 ED-IF & PF

[FreemanB]

I have been the owner of the Nikkor 300mm F4 ED-IF for nearly a year. It's much lighter than my 200-500mm zoom, and its IQ is stellar. For my needs, this lens is quite limited. You see, you need a generous amount of light or high shutter speeds in order to make great images because it's not easily stabilized (for low SS, a Kirk Collar and tripod is best). I found those drawbacks to be frustrating, so hearing about the Nikkor 300mm F4 PF made me curious and hopeful that I'd found a lens that work well at this focal length and spare me from carrying the 200-500 all the time.

The PF is very, very light, extremely portable, and the VR is amazing! I took it around the neighborhood and to the zoo for some easy test shots. It felt great to have a lens that I could carry around so easily. What could possibly go wrong?

Once I got home to view my photos, I found myself underwhelmed by the images on my screen. They were decent, but there was a lack of depth or texture. I didn't feel the need to tweak the photos much since my exposure was pretty good. This was a real head scratcher for me. Just for grins, I decided to convert a few images to black & white. OUCH! There it was. I sometimes like to view images in b/w in order to see what my editing options are. The photos before me looked dreadful in b/w! Is that alone a deal breaker? Well, I'm undecided on that. I'm no expert, and I don't know what trait this lens is lacking. I've heard the term "micro-contrast" used to describe the characteristic that helps an image have more depth and texture or allows better conversion to b/w.

I started looking through photos from my old 300mm and my 200-500mm. They looked much better! They were better in both color and b/w. This leaves me at a crossroad; the best features of the 300mm PF seem to have nothing to do with IQ - much more about VR and portability. I know there are a lot of reviews that rave about how revolutionary the 300mm PF is, but I stand firm on my observation. If IQ is more important than weight, size, VR and portability, the 300mm F4 ED-IF is the best choice - hands down. If those revolutionary specs are more important that IQ, then the PF is a must have.

I did not sell my old 300mm, and I am reluctant to do so now. As crazy as it sounds, I think I may sell the PF. Thankfully, I am not in a hurry to decided.

 

[trinakie]

Thanks for sharing your experience with both lenses, I was happy to read it since I haven't found many comparisons from actual users between the two 300mm from Nikon. I am still undecided between one of these two or the 200-500mm, each of these lenses has its pros and cons, I guess it's a matter of understanding what pros are more important for you.

 

[dreyko]

I have found the 300mm f4 pf to be very good when properly fine tuned, however it responds poorly to incoming light. Try shielding the lens with your hand from the sun a little, I believe the hood could stand to be longer than it is by about 50%.

 

[FreemanB]

Thanks for sharing your experience with both lenses, I was happy to read it since I haven't found many comparisons from actual users between the two 300mm from Nikon. I am still undecided between one of these two or the 200-500mm, each of these lenses has its pros and cons, I guess it's a matter of understanding what pros are more important for you.

The PF model is, IMO, a good lens. Most of us will get a ton more keepers with it. At my skill level, the 300 ED-IF is harder to master. With it, I have to intentionally guard my mechanics when shooting without a monopod/tripod - and even with the stabilizers, you can't shoot willy nilly. The undisciplined part of me loves the PF for that reason. But when you nail the shot with the prior model, you will smile ear to ear and look at that shot repeatedly.

--Freeman

 

[Paddler213]

Thanks for sharing your experience with both lenses, I was happy to read it since I haven't found many comparisons from actual users between the two 300mm from Nikon. I am still undecided between one of these two or the 200-500mm, each of these lenses has its pros and cons, I guess it's a matter of understanding what pros are more important for you.

The PF model is, IMO, a good lens. Most of us will get a ton more keepers with it. At my skill level, the 300 ED-IF is harder to master. With it, I have to intentionally guard my mechanics when shooting without a monopod/tripod - and even with the stabilizers, you can't shoot willy nilly. The undisciplined part of me loves the PF for that reason. But when you nail the shot with the prior model, you will smile ear to ear and look at that shot repeatedly.

--Freeman

I haven't found that the 300/4D is difficult to shoot so long as you keep the SS high enough. Be sure to take the effective focal length into account. The VR will, of course, give you more keepers with the PF, but it's optically inferior across the frame. Pick your poison. I've kept my old lens and don't find the PF at all tempting.

 

[mrgs1]

I take it your first lens was the AFS version? As the old screw drive 300mm F4 IFED didn't have a removable collar.

 

[FreemanB]

I take it your first lens was the AFS version? As the old screw drive 300mm F4 IFED didn't have a removable collar.

Yes, you're correct.

 

[wildlifr]

I have been the owner of the Nikkor 300mm F4 ED-IF for nearly a year. It's much lighter than my 200-500mm zoom, and its IQ is stellar. For my needs, this lens is quite limited. You see, you need a generous amount of light or high shutter speeds in order to make great images because it's not easily stabilized (for low SS, a Kirk Collar and tripod is best). I found those drawbacks to be frustrating, so hearing about the Nikkor 300mm F4 PF made me curious and hopeful that I'd found a lens that work well at this focal length and spare me from carrying the 200-500 all the time.

The PF is very, very light, extremely portable, and the VR is amazing! I took it around the neighborhood and to the zoo for some easy test shots. It felt great to have a lens that I could carry around so easily. What could possibly go wrong?

Once I got home to view my photos, I found myself underwhelmed by the images on my screen. They were decent, but there was a lack of depth or texture. I didn't feel the need to tweak the photos much since my exposure was pretty good. This was a real head scratcher for me. Just for grins, I decided to convert a few images to black & white. OUCH! There it was. I sometimes like to view images in b/w in order to see what my editing options are. The photos before me looked dreadful in b/w! Is that alone a deal breaker? Well, I'm undecided on that. I'm no expert, and I don't know what trait this lens is lacking. I've heard the term "micro-contrast" used to describe the characteristic that helps an image have more depth and texture or allows better conversion to b/w.

I started looking through photos from my old 300mm and my 200-500mm. They looked much better! They were better in both color and b/w. This leaves me at a crossroad; the best features of the 300mm PF seem to have nothing to do with IQ - much more about VR and portability. I know there are a lot of reviews that rave about how revolutionary the 300mm PF is, but I stand firm on my observation. If IQ is more important than weight, size, VR and portability, the 300mm F4 ED-IF is the best choice - hands down. If those revolutionary specs are more important that IQ, then the PF is a must have.

I did not sell my old 300mm, and I am reluctant to do so now. As crazy as it sounds, I think I may sell the PF. Thankfully, I am not in a hurry to decided.

 

[Paddler213]

I'd like to see an update of the 300/4D AF-S which had VR, FL, and an E shutter. That would be a killer lens at not much more than the PF. Same IQ as the 300/2.8 in a lighter package. I view the PF version as a nice, portable lens but with a design that sacrifices ultimate sharpness.

 

[kwe]

I have beeen using the 300mm/f4 PF for some years and fully agree that if at all it suffers a bit in the corners.

Recently, I added the TC-14e iii and would like to share a couple of shots I took some weeks ago:

 

[wildlifr]

I'd like to see an update of the 300/4D AF-S which had VR, FL, and an E shutter. That would be a killer lens at not much more than the PF. Same IQ as the 300/2.8 in a lighter package. I view the PF version as a nice, portable lens but with a design that sacrifices ultimate sharpness.

That's just an incorrect assessment unless you're referring to the corners. The center is sharper than the older version. And I think that even the corners are equal when stopped down. I don't know for sure because I almost never shoot it at any aperture other than wide open.

 

[BasilG]

Can we see an image or two? Hard to know what's going on without one.

 

[a_c_skinner]

And can we see them blind, without EXIF data to avoid bias?

 

[FreemanB]

I wrote this review to share my thoughts on the two lenses. I had/have no intention of posting comparison shots. We all have our opinions, and we have an idea of what we want our photos to look like. No promises, but I may post something to compare in a couple days.

 

[BasilG]

I wrote this review to share my thoughts on the two lenses. I had/have no intention of posting comparison shots. We all have our opinions, and we have an idea of what we want our photos to look like. No promises, but I may post something to compare in a couple days.

But those interested in buying the lens might want to know what the problem you're describing looks like...

 

[FreemanB]

I wrote this review to share my thoughts on the two lenses. I had/have no intention of posting comparison shots. We all have our opinions, and we have an idea of what we want our photos to look like. No promises, but I may post something to compare in a couple days.

But those interested in buying the lens might want to know what the problem you're describing looks like...

I will do what I can, but I don't have a problem. I described observations on the differences between the two lenses. I named what I feel are the trade offs between the two. I have a choice to make about which one to keep. I think I'm gonna keep the AF-S.

 

[BasilG]

I wrote this review to share my thoughts on the two lenses. I had/have no intention of posting comparison shots. We all have our opinions, and we have an idea of what we want our photos to look like. No promises, but I may post something to compare in a couple days.

But those interested in buying the lens might want to know what the problem you're describing looks like...

I will do what I can, but I don't have a problem. I described observations on the differences between the two lenses. I named what I feel are the trade offs between the two. I have a choice to make about which one to keep. I think I'm gonna keep the AF-S.

Quote:

"Once I got home to view my photos, I found myself underwhelmed by the images on my screen. They were decent, but there was a lack of depth or texture. [...] This was a real head scratcher for me. [...] OUCH! There it was."

You are saying there's a problem with the pictures that the lens is producing. You also clearly state the if IQ is the priority, the older lens is better. Because I'm considering the lens, I'm wondering what that problem is. If you don't want to share the shots (because of content or whatever), that's fine. Otherwise I'd appreciate if you could share a few. Thanks!

 

[wildlifr]

I wrote this review to share my thoughts on the two lenses. I had/have no intention of posting comparison shots. We all have our opinions, and we have an idea of what we want our photos to look like. No promises, but I may post something to compare in a couple days.

But those interested in buying the lens might want to know what the problem you're describing looks like...

I will do what I can, but I don't have a problem.

You do though. The problem is that you're about to get rid of what is overwhelmingly considered the better lens, almost certainly because you haven't tested properly. And it's considered the better lens by those who have tested properly.

I described observations on the differences between the two lenses.

Not really. You've described the difference in images produced by two different lenses, shooting different scenes, with different lighting, different subjects, different distances, and different camera settings. It seems to me that all you've really observed is that different photography sessions produce variations in image quality.

I named what I feel are the trade offs between the two. I have a choice to make about which one to keep. I think I'm gonna keep the AF-S.

 

[wildlifr]

I wrote this review to share my thoughts on the two lenses. I had/have no intention of posting comparison shots. We all have our opinions, and we have an idea of what we want our photos to look like. No promises, but I may post something to compare in a couple days.

But those interested in buying the lens might want to know what the problem you're describing looks like...

I will do what I can, but I don't have a problem. I described observations on the differences between the two lenses. I named what I feel are the trade offs between the two. I have a choice to make about which one to keep. I think I'm gonna keep the AF-S.

Quote:

"Once I got home to view my photos, I found myself underwhelmed by the images on my screen. They were decent, but there was a lack of depth or texture. [...] This was a real head scratcher for me. [...] OUCH! There it was."

You are saying there's a problem with the pictures that the lens is producing. You also clearly state the if IQ is the priority, the older lens is better. Because I'm considering the lens, I'm wondering what that problem is. If you don't want to share the shots (because of content or whatever), that's fine. Otherwise I'd appreciate if you could share a few. Thanks!

I wouldn't bother waiting. Trust the professional reviews. It's an astounding lens, and I can promise you that you won't see any problems with "depth" or "texture"; whatever they mean.

 

[wildlifr]

I wrote this review to share my thoughts on the two lenses. I had/have no intention of posting comparison shots. We all have our opinions, and we have an idea of what we want our photos to look like. No promises, but I may post something to compare in a couple days.

But those interested in buying the lens might want to know what the problem you're describing looks like...

I will do what I can, but I don't have a problem. I described observations on the differences between the two lenses. I named what I feel are the trade offs between the two. I have a choice to make about which one to keep. I think I'm gonna keep the AF-S.

Quote:

"Once I got home to view my photos, I found myself underwhelmed by the images on my screen. They were decent, but there was a lack of depth or texture. [...] This was a real head scratcher for me. [...] OUCH! There it was."

You are saying there's a problem with the pictures that the lens is producing. You also clearly state the if IQ is the priority, the older lens is better. Because I'm considering the lens, I'm wondering what that problem is. If you don't want to share the shots (because of content or whatever), that's fine. Otherwise I'd appreciate if you could share a few. Thanks!

Here's a few taken a few minutes ago. You won't see the slight loss in sharpness in the corners of the PF shot because the trees are so out of focus, so I didn't include them. But these are the only results I've ever seen testing this lens properly. More good news is that the PF is also sharper with the 1.4tcII. See if you can see any difference in "depth or texture."


PF


old


PF Left, Old right


PF left, Old right



BTW, these are taken with the camera stabilized, in live view, captured raw and converted to jpeg in lightroom with no changes except for auto lens corrections. Distance was about 20 ft.

--
Tony