Jump to content

300mm lenses-300mm f/4D AF-S vs. 300mm f/2.8 AF-I


ben_hutcherson

Recommended Posts

Recently, I've been using my AF-Nikkor 300mm f/4(screwdriver focus) a fair bit on both my D500 and D3s.

 

Although I'm happy with the optical quality, having anything resembling fast AF even on relatively good cameras seems to require diligent use of the focus limiter. It's nothing at all like the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I've been using along side it.

 

Between using it a lot and having too much time on my hands, I've been looking at another 300mm lens. For the most part, I'm happy with f/4, but wouldn't mind a faster lens. At this time, the PF is really out of my budget.

 

The 300mm f/4D AF-S is well in my budget, though, and I can stretch to a 300mm f/2.8 AF-I.

 

Obviously, I know that the AF-I is a fairly dated lens, but is still a newer design the AF 300mm f/4 I'm using. I know parts are likely a concern, and a lot of examples of the lens seem to have been beat to death. I know if something like the focus motor goes out, it's probably dead(or at least AF is dead). I don't see a lot of information on the optics, but at the same time it seems that Nikon has never really made a bad 300mm f/2.8.

 

The f/4D of course is smaller, lighter, and newer. At the same time, the 3 or 4 examples I've personally handled and played with all had squeaky motors. I'm a bit gun shy about anything I buy developing that eventually, and also about long term repair prospects. Early AF-S fears also scare me away a bit from a first gen 300mm f/2.8 AF-S.

 

Any thoughts on any of the above, or should I just live with what I have now until I can afford a PF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're happy with the image quality of your current 300mm lens and are considering an upgrade to the 300/AF-S, purely for its better AF which you are well aware of being very dicey? Did I just help you answer your own question?

 

Nonetheless, as an owner of the 300/4D AF-S I feel I should say a few things about the lens. I've had it for about 15 years but don't let that throw you off. I bought it for capturing stitched panoramas and that's what I've been doing with it 99% of the time, which is actually quite rare. Even when I'm out shooting all day and have the lens with me, I might break it out only a couple of times. For each such "occasion" I engage the AF 3-4 times tops... So, very little strain on that motor and the total mileage I have on it must be in the low 3-digits, if we're drawing those parallels. With that kind of use the lens started squeaking on me after only about 2 or 3 years (I bought it new). Today, it doesn't squeak every time but I have a feeling that it isn't long before the motor punches out.

 

For my panoramas: I activate the AF once and leave it there for a long time. With any type of "demanding" or even "normal" AF use you're gonna burn through that motor so fast. If you're, like, shooting birds and what not, you'll run that motor into the ground after a couple of months of everyday use. Some people will disagree but to you it doesn't mean anything. It's a crapshoot with this lens and it's you rolling the dice.

 

Also, optically this lens is good but nothing to write home about. Physically, it's heavy and bulky and the built-in hood is very annoying. The stock tripod collar (foot) is stupid. I actually had it replaced a couple of years ago with something else (much better IMO).

 

For what it is, I like this lens but I don't love it. I would have replaced it with the newer 300mm PF, for its lesser weight and bulk, if nothing else, but that one just doesn't quite cut it optically. It's very close but it's not as sharp as my current 300mm, so, it wouldn't be an "upgrade" by definition. Also, as a bonus, not to upgrade my 300mm AF-S costs me nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the 300 PF is not within reach, get the 300mm f/4 AF-S. It is sharper and handles flare better than the PF. It does not work with the TC-14EIII, though. While bulkier and heavier than the PF, it is still not a huge and heavy lens. It does have a reputation for squeaky af, but some lenses only squeak when they have been on the shelf for a while. Nikon have told me that when there is dirt in the af motor, it will squeak all the time. If it only squeaks the first couple of times after periods of non use and then becomes silent, it is nothing to worry about. In both instances, they would recommend an new af motor. The 300mm f/4 AF-S should still be serviceable by Nikon, should you consider the cost and availability of new af motors.

 

All 300mm f/2.8 Nikkors are excellent, but the AF-I motors are no longer repaired by Nikon and they are slower than the AF-S motors. Nikon do not guarantee parts for all AF-S lenses either, but odds increase the more recent the lens is. I have the previous version, the 300 mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR. Optically it is exactly the same as the current VRII-version (coatings and all). That is definitely one to write home about - absolutely stellar optics.

 

However, between the AF-I and VR, Nikon did make two versions of AF-S lenses. When found, they usually fetch about the same money as the AF-I, so either one of those would be my choice if the PF or VR are too expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had two 300/4D lenses, 300/4AFS, 300/2.8AFD (screw drive), Tokina 300/2.8AF, and now have the first version 300/2.8 AFS. I mainly shoot sports with these, often at night.

 

I thought the /4AFS was just a little better than the /4D. This was a long time ago, I probably mostly went for the increased AF speed. Seems like I had the Tokina at the same time as the /4AFS. Tokina was sharp, but had a lot of color fringing. Nicely made lens.

 

Got the 300/2.8 AFD. Definitely better than the Tokina, and I think better than the /4AFS I had. So, sold the Tokina and /4 AFS.

 

The /4AFS has an occasional squeak, of course the AF motor died in transit to the new owner. Cost me $$$ to fix, so I am gunshy of that particular lens. Seems like there are enough of them listed with sick AF motors to indicate a chronic issue with that lens.

 

Got a deal on the first version 300/2.8AFS. On 12MP bodies, I think I could tell that the 2.8AFS was a little better than the 2.8AFD, but the difference was not large. The AFS can accept Nikon AFS TCs, also. Am sure that the 2.8/AFD was better than the /4AFD, and I think a little better than the /4AFS.

 

Actually, the /2.8D screwdrive AF speed on a newer body was plenty good enough to track people running at me at full speed. I tested with my son running straight at me, the AFD would track until close to MFD. The 2.8AFD is a little smaller/lighter than later versions.

 

I have not owned an AF-I, but one sees a significant number of these with failed/not repairable AF motors. Optics should be about the same as the 2/8AFS. Additionally, the AF-I is the heaviest of them all, I think.

 

Also, I bought another 300/4AFD for portability. I did not think that particular example was good, so I sold it. Maybe haze or dirt inside?

 

So, to summarize, the non VR (you need a monopod, anyway) 300/2.8AFS lenses seem a bargain to me at less than 2K. At around 1K+, the 300/2.8AFD is even a better bargain, and might outlast later versions. Now that I am not shooting much sports, I may go back to the AFD, but probably won't. Still somewhat regret selling the 2.8AFD, though. Whew! too long post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought my 300mm/f4 AF-S pretty much as soon as it was available around 2001. Optically it is excellent, but its AF is among the slowest for AF-S lenses, and I have over 20 AF-S lenses by now. IMO its AF is not sufficient for birds in flight. In these days the best option for f4 is the PF: 300mm/f4 E PF AF-S VR. Hopefully you can afford it. Otherwise, if weight is not an issue, I think the older 300mm/f2.8 AF-S, first generation from 1996, is still very good today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of years ago, I bought a 300mm f/4 ED AF-S IF, produced in ca. 2007. The AF is a bit slow compared to newer lenses, but mechanically it works great, and the images are stunning. I originally bought it for wildlife, but the range is a bit short, and it's been supplanted by my Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6. I keep it to use with my film cameras, since none of them can use the newer "E" series. I paid $600 for it, and I've long since gotten my money from it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also had a 300/4 AF-S for some time (before recent times, it with a TC14 and the 500 f/4 AI-P were vying for the most practical budget way to get past 400mm). It's never squeaked (squoken?) but it's certainly not fast to focus - I too have struggled to follow birds with it. I slightly miss VR for composing hand-held with it; it does get nice and close if you're finding insects, though. It's about the size of a 70-200, and I've been known to take it on trips when I can't be bothered to take the 200-500. Also the tripod foot on the 300/4 AF-S is famously iffy. Currently I've made it even heavier but slightly more stable by using a long lens support, then overloading an astro mount (its filter size being about as big as I could be bothered to buy a light pollution cut filter). I've heard only bad things about the AF speed of the AF-I lenses (except possibly the 400mm) and the AF-D supertelephotos - although a D3s might do better than most.

 

I don't think the f/2.8 glass and the 300mm f/4 PF are for the same target. I wouldn't want to hold a 300 f/2.8 for long without additional support, especially without VR - and I'm okay with my 200/2 and can, for short periods, use a 400 f/2.8. The PF is a very portable lens, on the other hand. If you think you want one, having an f/2.8 and leaving it at home won't be a good choice. Good luck with either route, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the advice. This is a lot to digest...

 

I see a lot of comments about the 300mm f/4D AF-S being slow. Can anyone who has used both the AF-S and the AF-Nikkor 300mm f/4 on a fast screwdriver focusing body(like a single digit camera) comment on how they compare? If it wouldn't be a big improvement in AF speed, that seems like kind of a pointless upgrade.

 

There again too, maybe it's just not appreciating what something really good is capable of, but as long as I can nail the focus(which partial depends on something like a bird, which is what I've been photographing with it, staying still long enough that the camera can get it there) I've not been disappointed with the sharpness. My 70-200mm f/2.8(VRI) is better, and of course I can also more reliably hit focus with it, but the 300mm has not left me wanting for a lot on the D500.

 

I'm not TOO scared of the weight of a 300mm f/2.8.

 

With all of that said, it's sounding like I might be better to wait and buy either a first or second gen AF-S f/2.8, or get the PF. Neither are AS out there as I was expecting. When I posted this, I was targeting $1K or less, but it looks like an f/2.8 AF-S or a PF is doable for ~$1500 used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the advice. This is a lot to digest...

 

I see a lot of comments about the 300mm f/4D AF-S being slow. Can anyone who has used both the AF-S and the AF-Nikkor 300mm f/4 on a fast screwdriver focusing body(like a single digit camera) comment on how they compare? If it wouldn't be a big improvement in AF speed, that seems like kind of a pointless upgrade.

 

There again too, maybe it's just not appreciating what something really good is capable of, but as long as I can nail the focus(which partial depends on something like a bird, which is what I've been photographing with it, staying still long enough that the camera can get it there) I've not been disappointed with the sharpness. My 70-200mm f/2.8(VRI) is better, and of course I can also more reliably hit focus with it, but the 300mm has not left me wanting for a lot on the D500.

 

I'm not TOO scared of the weight of a 300mm f/2.8.

 

With all of that said, it's sounding like I might be better to wait and buy either a first or second gen AF-S f/2.8, or get the PF. Neither are AS out there as I was expecting. When I posted this, I was targeting $1K or less, but it looks like an f/2.8 AF-S or a PF is doable for ~$1500 used.

 

A crop body and a 300mm for birds is not a terrible combination but no VR? (Talking about the 300 AF-S). You will definitely need a monopod, even when bumping the ISO to something undesirable. You see, this lens (as many others) is an f/4 only on paper. In reality it's something like half a stop dimmer than f/4, wide open. I only shoot with it at f/8, f/11 and f/16, because I need the DOF and the reduced vignetting for shooting my panos. And when I said that this lens is "good", that's what I was talking about, not at wide-open. I've shot full-body portraits with it outdoors and even closeups in my studio, most around f/4 and f/5.6. It was OK for that at f/5.6 but the pictures almost looked like they came out of a zoom at f/4. This lens is good for what it is and you'll like the photos so long as you don't expect it to be what it's not.

 

On the plus side, my copy of the 4D AF-S is surprisingly good with a 1.4TC, so that's something. Again, talking about F-8, in that range, have not actually tested it wide-open. Maybe I have but if the IQ was good I would remember. Anyway, if you're already on a monopod, you should be fine stopping down to F/5.6 (=F8), bumping up the ISO and getting a crisp, tight shot with that "630-mm" combo. With stationary birds you should be OK (so long as the squeaky AF doesn't spook them) but to catch anything decent mid-flight you'd have to be very lucky. (Personally, I don't believe in luck)

 

*Set aside those $$$ for fixing the motor when it gives out.

 

PS: If in this day and age, and with a current DSLR body you are even considering a screwdriver tele lens for birds, you need to have your head examined. AF speed isn't even what I'm talking about. Screwdrivers are notoriously inaccurate and because of their inherent inconsistency they are impossible to fine-tune to be within an acceptable margin of error, not with pixel-packed DSLRs. For distant objects (like sports) you could get into the ballpark (no pun intended) but with birds (close focus), at or close to wide-open? On a monopod or handheld? You're in the worst possible scenario, where you will need every bit of accuracy out of the AF. If your "tool" for the job is an old screwdriver, dude, you're "screwed"!

Edited by david_r._edan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A crop body and a 300mm for birds is not a terrible combination but no VR? (Talking about the 300 AF-S). You will definitely need a monopod, even when bumping the ISO to something undesirable. You see, this lens (as many others) is an f/4 only on paper. In reality it's something like half a stop dimmer than f/4, wide open. I only shoot with it at f/8, f/11 and f/16, because I need the DOF and the reduced vignetting for shooting my panos. And when I said that this lens is "good", that's what I was talking about, not at wide-open. I've shot full-body portraits with it outdoors and even closeups in my studio, most around f/4 and f/5.6. It was OK for that at f/5.6 but the pictures almost looked like they came out of a zoom at f/4. This lens is good for what it is and you'll like the photos so long as you don't expect it to be what it's not.

 

On the plus side, my copy of the 4D AF-S is surprisingly good with a 1.4TC, so that's something. Again, talking about F-8, in that range, have not actually tested it wide-open. Maybe I have but if the IQ was good I would remember. Anyway, if you're already on a monopod, you should be fine stopping down to F/5.6 (=F8), bumping up the ISO and getting a crisp, tight shot with that "630-mm" combo. With stationary birds you should be OK (so long as the squeaky AF doesn't spook them) but to catch anything decent mid-flight you'd have to be very lucky. (Personally, I don't believe in luck)

 

*Set aside those $$$ for fixing the motor when it gives out.

 

PS: If in this day and age, and with a current DSLR body you are even considering a screwdriver tele lens for birds, you need to have your head examined. AF speed isn't even what I'm talking about. Screwdrivers are notoriously inaccurate and because of their inherent inconsistency they are impossible to fine-tune to be within an acceptable margin of error, not with pixel-packed DSLRs. For distant objects (like sports) you could get into the ballpark (no pun intended) but with birds (close focus), at or close to wide-open? On a monopod or handheld? You're in the worst possible scenario, where you will need every bit of accuracy out of the AF. If your "tool" for the job is an old screwdriver, dude, you're "screwed"!

 

Well, you use what you have available, and right now it's an AF-NIkkor 300mm f/4 and D500. Note that I'm NOT considering buying that combo, I already have it.

 

And yes, I know this isn't a bird(and I'm not trying to track birds in flight) but this is a sample of what I've been able to do. So examine my head all you want, but like I said I'm looking for something that will IMPROVE my hit rate even though I know you think it shouldn't be possible at all...I'm sorry to have offended you so much by commenting on a lens I already own and saying that I want more reliable results, especially since I'm apparently "screwed" by using it.

 

DSC_3750.thumb.jpg.db83d6e680fa20aede43505db57ccf49.jpg

 

DSC_3816.thumb.jpg.604f73aafa013b62b253f0d8b24df1f8.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned no one was offending anyone or being offended. I was merely being 'colorful'.

I think that you also got it wrong with regards to my current setup which is a D850 as the main body (never owned or used the D500). I myself made a mistake of thinking that you were considering "upgrading" from an "AF-I" to a screwdriver lens. Nevertheless, what I said still holds.

And those pictures don't mean anything. I could dig out a couple of keepers from a pile of trash myself. Not saying anything about those photos or your photography, I'm simply illustrating that even if the AF is bad you are bound to get hits if you take tons of pictures.

 

The fact that you're looking to improve your hit rate, shooting perched birds, is indicative of your situation and the very flaw in the system that I was talking about. I'll say it again: getting another "screwdriver" lens is really not the way to go about it.

 

On a side note: I was giving friendly advice (as per your request) which would save you a good amount of time and money, should you choose to follow it. Please, there's no need to get yourself checked in for an observation, I wasn't being literal. Because this is a discussion in an open forum, the information (and advice) posted here has the potential of affecting other people's decisions further down the road. I felt that in 2020, spending actual money on a screwdriver 300mm lens for birding should be strongly discouraged, in general. Hence the colorful wording.

Edited by david_r._edan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, where on earth did I say I WAS considering buying a screwdriver lens? I HAVE one and am looking to upgrade it. so I don't see why you need to continue telling me not to buy one!

 

I said in my more recent post that I would look strongly at either the PF or a first gen 2.8 AF-S.

 

With that, though, I'm done if all you're going to do is tell me not to buy something I already have and am looking to move past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can report that the 300 f/4 AF-S is reasonably fast to focus on a static subject (on a D8x0), but I've tried to follow birds in flight and had it not keep up. At least some of that will have been operator error, it's never an easy thing to do with small birds moving erratically. Vs a screwdriver lens... faster than an 80-200 mk1 (possibly than all of them), slower than a 28-80G. :-)

 

If you're just trying to get to bird before they move, rather than tracking anything in motion, it's likely fine. I've been happy, usually close to wide open. I might not rule out the latest 70-300 AF-P (although I don't recall whether the D3s likes it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 300 f/4 AF-S is reasonably fast to focus on a static subject

Yup, that's true.

 

I bought my 300mm f4 AF-S for a project that never happened, sounds similar to the 'mosaicing' mentioned above. It was OK pointed straight up for a ceiling survey, but i never really got on with for flighty butterflies, BIF or airshows.

 

It always seemed a tad behind in AF speed. I'm sure there was some user error in there (as Andrew above)... but.

 

I managed perfectly well after I sold it and got the 300mm 2.8 VR.

 

It's VR is a bit noisy and I guess it's pretty early on in Nikon VR tech, but it gets the job done. It's no-where-near as good as the VR in the 200-500mm but OK enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben,

Owned the AF 300mm f4 IF-ED screw driver model for a 4-5 years and now the AFS 300 f4 version for 17 years and early on replaced the tripod collar on the AFS with a Kirk foot that braces the lens at two points. I could never tell the optical difference between the two lenses and don’t remember the difference in AF between the two. The AFS version has 77mm filter threads and accommodates my Marumi and Canon 77mm close up diopters though the older D lens thread is 82mm and you would need to use a step down ring. Very fond of doing close up photography with fixed lenses in the 200-300mm range and the 300mm AFS does a nice job, That said not sure that you sacrifice anything optically with the older screw driver model that is inexpensive but does not focus so close on its own. Both have aperture rings that allow me to use my now ancient “space age” Nikon auto extension tubes. The PF focuses a little faster and closer. Not sure is it is optically better but it is much smaller so that you can stuff more things in you camera bag. Have never been totally put off by the autofocus on the AFS version and always shot it on a tripod usually with a gimbal head for birds in flight. The PF has VR but the truth is when the light is waxing or waning there is not a 300mm lens around that can be used hand held or on a monopod consistently in low light. Vr or no Vr. The big advantage with the PF version would be to use a series 2 Gitzo rather than my much loved series 3 otherwise it would not change my photographic behavior. One might try to take more bad pictures by hand holding in hopes to get lucky. Have been using a Tamron 100-400 stabilized lens off and on in the last year or so. The big advantage is that its light but it still goes on a tripod for serious shooting. The Nikon 300mm f4 AFS version is listed at auction right now at 649 US dollars with a Kirk foot. With the 300mm f2.8 AFI your adding size as well as an antique internal motor that you may or may not be able to replace. Have never owned a 300mm 2.8 but understand they work well with 2X and 1.4X converters. I remember images of Frans Lanting posing in Antarctic in the 1980s with his bulbous Nikon 300mm f 2.8 and romantically dream of acquiring the same status some day. Since having professional friends who have either visited or wintered over at the South Pole where there is little wild lifeI figure my time is next perhaps in another life or by osmosis :) It’s amazing in a disposable society how Nikon gear including your 300mm AF IF-ED is still well made. Wish I had kept mine cause it would still work in its entirety on all my bodies except my D3200 but in manual focus.

Good hunting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a number of years ago now, I don't remember which AF 300mm f/4 but it was sharp and I used it for a few macro shots of flowers (can't recall if a tele-converter was used with it). Don't remember the AF being slow - think the minimum focusing distance was 5'. Anyhow, I hardly had any use for it, and someone at Photo.Net happened to be looking for one and I ended up selling it to him and he was happy. No regrets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought my 300mm/f4 AF, with 82mm front filter, way back in 1990. That was my second AF lens after the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF, first generation. AF on that 80-200 was really slow and the 300mm/f4 was a bit better, that was the stone age of AF and I was using an F4 and N8008 back then.

 

Since Ben is after faster AF, I would not get the 300mm/f4 AF-S from year 2000 if you are shooting birds in flight, but usual static subjects, either the original 300mm/f4 AF or the 300mm/f4 AF-S should be fine. I sold the earlier lens to buy the AF-S, but the 300mm/f4 PF AF-S VR is the best in these days, but it costs more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently counting some pennies and also hoping a 10-20% KEH sale pops up soon. They have a BGN 300mm f/2.8 AF-S(I) that's near doable for me, and if I could bring it down even 10% with what use to be frequent sales I could swing it.

 

There again, I didn't realize how affordable they actually were. Even if this one doesn't work out, I think I can manage in the near future, and that seems a good option all considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Alright, stopped in the local camera store today to pick up my "new"(to me) 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S.

 

They're been hurting after being closed for two months, so I revisited a 300mm f/4 AF-S with a mild focus squeak that they were selling as is. It's been there well over a year, and the last I looked it was priced at $600.

 

The owner was in the mode to move some stuff and get revenue flowing, so he gave me a price that was hard to pass up for both the 24-70mm and the 300mm as long as I was willing to pay cash/check in full today. I walked out with both for only about $100 over the KEH price for a BGN 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S back the last time I looked and they were in stock, so I'm not complaining too hard about that. I don't have a ton in this lens if it does crap out soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, stopped in the local camera store today to pick up my "new"(to me) 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S.

 

They're been hurting after being closed for two months, so I revisited a 300mm f/4 AF-S with a mild focus squeak that they were selling as is. It's been there well over a year, and the last I looked it was priced at $600.

 

The owner was in the mode to move some stuff and get revenue flowing, so he gave me a price that was hard to pass up for both the 24-70mm and the 300mm as long as I was willing to pay cash/check in full today. I walked out with both for only about $100 over the KEH price for a BGN 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S back the last time I looked and they were in stock, so I'm not complaining too hard about that. I don't have a ton in this lens if it does crap out soon.

 

I bought a 300mm f4 afs new a year and a half ago because it has an aperture ring and can use it on my mechanical Nikon film cameras. The image quality is up with my best lenses and outstanding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought a 300mm f4 afs new a year and a half ago because it has an aperture ring and can use it on my mechanical Nikon film cameras. The image quality is up with my best lenses and outstanding.

Image quality from the 300mm/f4 AF-S is still very good today. My main complaint is relatively slow AF for an AF-S lens, but clearly that is a moot point when you use it on mechanical film bodies, which have no AF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Image quality from the 300mm/f4 AF-S is still very good today. My main complaint is relatively slow AF for an AF-S lens, but clearly that is a moot point when you use it on mechanical film bodies, which have no AF.

Another advantage, if slow is ok, is that all of the 300mm f/4 nikkors hold a good iq when teamed up with a fitting nikon TC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...