Nikon AF-S 300mm f2.8 II Non VR

[Luftwalk]

Hey,

thinking of getting this used since it's the lightest of the 300/2.8 primes. The lack of VR doesn't bother me, but I would like to know/see some insights on sharpness (also in combination with TCs). Is it comparable to the newer versions?

One of the things in the back of my mind is also AF-S failure...are spare parts still available for it? Is it prone to failure?

If you have any thoughts or suggestions please share discussion is appreciated.

 

[afoton]

I’ve personally never seen a 300mm f2.8 AF-I lens and they didn’t make many of them, so yes they are rare. Just because you have one and know someone who has one does not make them less rare.

Just because you haven't seen any of them, doesn't make them rare.

According to http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#300 there has been over 6000 of them. The two versions of the AF-S non-VR are each of about same numbers. The first VR just little more. If AF-I is rare, all of these are also rare.

 

[WildlifePhotog]

Of course Sony hired a bunch of lens designers and engineers from Zeiss and other brands, but regardless they make crappy cameras. Sony’s image quality is fantastic, they great sensors and they have bought their way into making good lenses you. However they don’t make cameras like Nikon or Canon does. Specs and on paper sure, even image quality side by side, check, but hold an A9 and then hold a D5 or 1Dx, it feels like a toy. No way in hell is ever switch to Sony even if price was no issue. I love my Nikon gear and hopefully one day Nikon will make a pro mirrorless and by then hopefully the EVF is better than it already is, because although the EVF is good in Z7, it could be better! I was of course exaggerating about the Sony super-tele lenses being a hollow tube, but I like the fact that Nikon made their 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 lenses the way they always have. You don’t mess with with what’s not broken, and Nikon improved upon lenses I didn’t think it possible to improve upon. I owned both the 400mm and 600mm G lenses and now I’m in love with the new 400mm FL. People really have been complaining about the new Canon version III lenses being worse than the version II lenses were, which is all thanks to Canon going to this new lightweight design. The only way to get these lenses down in weight any further is to remove all of the big and expensive FL/ED elements. The Canon and Sony lenses now have only one large front element and a bunch of smaller elements in the rear portion to cut the weight. Yet they charge even more and some people at least on the Canon side seem to think it’s a bad trade off. Sony of course didn’t change anything so we wouldn’t know if they are better or worse. It is scary though when you see the Sony and Canon lenses optical formulas side by side. Almost exact copies!

 

[WildlifePhotog]

I didn’t mean they made less of them, I meant that now 25 years later they are very rare. However yes your right all super-tele lenses are rare in general. Maybe I’ve just been unlucky but I just can’t recall ever seeing one in real life, I’ve seen the 400mm AF-I and the 500mm AF-I, but never the 300 or 600 AF-I.

 

[Rico Tudor]

Have you shot with a Nikon AF-I 300 2.8? Curious as to how some of the older telephotos (e.g., the AF-I 300 2.8, etc.) designed during the film era handle CA, etc.?

The AF-I is a boat anchor with monster performance (4 ED elements). Recoil from the focus motor is quite impressive, and hits critical focus with no problem. I need more than +20 MFA on my D4 but the Z6 doesn't care about that stuff:

Z6, 300/2.8 AF-I, wide open, AF-C. As you can see from the 1x-scale crops, the speculars exhibit no LCA/TCA whatsoever—also no motion blur since I was panning. IBIS was turned off but works well with this lens.

--
Canon, Nikon, Contax RTS, Leica M, Sony, Profoto