300/4.5 ED-IF AIS vs. 300/4 AF-D

<p>Occasionally there's a really nice copy of a 300/4.5 ED-IF AIS to be found - how does it's IQ compare to the 300/4 ED-IF AF-D? I'd be using it on a D300 so MF is not an issue.<br>

Thanks - John</p>

<p>John, I sold mine because the IQ was not quite up to where I thought it should be. I reluctantly bought the f/4 version and found it to be superb. I am no expert on the f/4.5, but that was my experience. Could be a bad copy, but that's my take.</p>

<p>Thanks Michael -<br>

The reason I'm interested in the 300/4.5 is that I recently purchased a 400/4.5 ED-IF AIS and was very pleased with its sharpness, especially compared to putting any of my 200mm lenses on a 1.4 TC - the 400/5.6 won every time (even wide open). So I was wondering if the 300/4.5 ED-IF AIS would have similar performance characteristics and might be an economical alternative to the 300/4 ED-IF AF or 300/4 AFS.<br>

- John</p>

<p>I had a chance to compare used samples of the 300/4.5 AI ED and 300/4 AF Nikkors side by side a few years ago. The 300/4.5 AI ED was every bit as sharp. I got it because that particular sample of the 300/4 AF the store had in stock was in rough condition. For action, of course the AF will be a better choice. The 300/4.5 AI ED is very slow focusing due to the long focus throw; the AIS version is reportedly a little faster with a shorter focus throw. Just depends on how you plan to use it and how comfortable you are with manual focusing.</p>

<p>I've used the 300/4.5 AI ED on my D2H to photograph fairly stationary birds (including hovering hummingbirds) and, on a few occasions, slow flying birds like turkey vultures and kites. Prefocusing and lots of shots help.</p>

<p>I only can say about the 300/4.5AiS IF ED. I think it stands, despite of its age. I keep it for this reason, I consider it still very usable. Anyway the 300/4 has one more element, higher diameter and it`s more modern, it should be noticed somewhere.<br /> <br /> I don`t use it so often, almost never for flying birds. I`ve found a seagull pic taken with a D200 @ 400ISO, wide open, hand held (1/1000sec.). It was an overcast, rainy day.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://a05-b05.mypicturetown.com:80/P2PwebCmdController/cache/GlE2c-SH_4%3D8UZAw9qKMW%26%26iNOB1ge27vEsjh3vRqVG6v2GRr6.F32AE.XIWh3M/item.jpg?rot=1" alt="" width="400" height="267" /><br /> <br /> If you like to check a 100% crop, <a href="http://a05-b05.mypicturetown.com:80/P2PwebCmdController/cache/O*QGHBs0h4%3D_V-nRGIG6jhoIS4U%26xP4xL9Xrlw3jxpYKE0kQ5R_Oyf8a7zM%3D/item.jpg?rot=1">click here</a>.</p>

<p>Yes it's unclear from Bjorn's website how he would rate this on a DX sensor like the D200 or D300.<br>

These guys (http://www.verwoerd.info/nikon/tele.html) rate it at 4.8/5 while the 300/4 AF is 5/5, but on what camera I don't know (I suspect its on film).<br>

The French site http://www.pictchallenge-archives.net/TESTNUM/D3_optiques.html<br>

Rate the 300/4 AFD as being equivalent sharpness to the 300/4 AFS which goes against other reports - I think this is a typo. It rates the 300/4 AF slightly less than the 300/4 AFD (not sure why there would be a difference), but this lower rating is identical to the 300/4.5 ED-IF AF.<br>

Very confusing. - John</p>

 

<p>The Nikkor 300mm f/4 ED-IF AF is a good lens, sharp and compact. One problem is the 39mm drop-in filter, which can be difficult to find and in the case of the polarizer, very expensive. In lieu of this, it also can take an 82mm filter on the front. I often carry this lens on trips "just in case" rather than one of the newer, much heavier lenses.<br /> <br /> I have kept a copy of the 300/4.5 ED-IF AIS for macro use with the PN-11, but this lens is not up to the optical quality of the AF lens until it is stopped down to around f/11. However, the build quality and handling are among Nikon's best. I have not done a direct comparison of these lenses on DX format, so the comments above are based on film.<br /> <br /> By comparison, the earlier (non-ED, pre-AI) version of this lens was mediocre at best, IMHO, and I sold it long ago.</p>

<p>It seems to me that Rorslett was more fond of the f2.8 versions, and I see he prefered the AiS 300/2.8 ED IF over the first f2.8 AF one.</p>

<p>I think his evaluations are more precise: at least he mentions the format he use (FX, DX, film), and some ideas about the lens. On the AiS 300/4 ED IF <em>"... you will note some colour fringing from chromatic aberration (CA), most if not all of which can be cured by appropriate post processing... "</em> This is absolutely true, no other mention this issue. I notice this even on the very center of the frame (imagine a woman`s tight portrait, her ear rings will show this effect), but is easily removed on PP.</p>

<p>After reading, I`d think that both lenses are very close in performance.</p>

<p>Grrr, too late for editing.</p>

<p>BTW, <em>to the best of my knowledge</em>, there isn`t an AF-<strong>D</strong> version of this lens but a plain AF and an AF-<strong>S</strong> (also <strong>D</strong>). As you have noticed, that french site rates the AF, the unexistent AFD and the AFS. Funny that the unexistent lens has lower performance wide open. I certainly don`t trust on this kind of massive tests.</p>

<p>As <em>verwoerd.com</em> says, the use of a teleconverter could make the AF version more interesting. I also find very satisfying the use of my 300/4.5 with the PN-11. Just my 2 cents.</p>

<p>Hi John</p>

<p>I use a copy of the Nikkor 300mm AIS 4.5 IF ED. I've got to say that for me, as an amateur, this lens is simply outstanding at all apertures. It is sharp close up wide open, but seems to prefer being stopped down for distance shots. It is an extremely versatile lens - I've used it with the PN-11, TC-14B and even the TC200 and got perfectly useabale shots on slide film. Why it seems to get berated when even John Shaw makes such good use of one is mystery to me? The other resson why I did not get the AF version is that I have heard that the tripod mount on the AF versions is vastly inferior to the older AIS version - the AF version is not as strong and steady. The AIS version is superb on a tripod, photographing the right sort of subject. Again, check out John Shaws' books - lots of pictures taken by this lens in the field.<br>

Regards,</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>My experience with the EDIF: Certainly has CA. Mine is average wide open and only so-so for close focus on small objects. However, it excels out near infinity when stopped down a little bit. It has become my most-used landscape lens. Kind of looks like, judging from the range of responses, you need to test the lens yourself.</p>