Options for 300mm - 300/4.5 ED-IF?

<p>Currently I have a 70-300AFS VR that is just OK at 300mm (consistent with all reports on this lens). The closest lenses on either side that I have are 80-200/2.8 AF-S, 180/2.8 ED AF, 200/4 AIS, and 400/5.6 AIS.<br>

So I was wanting something <em><strong>compact</strong> </em> , but with better sharpness than my 70-300 at 300mm. Does anyone have both the 70-300 AFS VR and the 300/4.5 ED-IF? If so how do they compare for sharpness/contrast at 300mm?<br>

I have an opportunity to buy an EX- copy of a 300/4.5 ED-IF AIS for $275, but if it's not sharper than my 70-300VR it's not worth it.<br>

I've tried my 180/2.8 ED AF and 200/4 AIS with the TC14A and, although quite good, they have some corner problems until stopped down to f/8 or f/11. I also have the Kenko 1.4x TC (the latest one) that I could use on the 200/4 or 180/2.8, but these don't quite get me to 300mm.</p>

<p>Any thoughts on the 300/4.5 ED-IF AIS compared to the 70-300AFS VR? The use would be for landscapes (not for sports or the kids or anything that moves even remotely fast).<br>

Thanks - John</p>

 

<p>I once owned the previous AI version of the AIS 300mm f4.5 ED-IF AF which was pretty sharp even at f4.5. A colleague of mine used to borrow my lens occasionally which inspired her to purchase the newer AIS version you are contemplating buying. She was not happy with the performance of the new lens and ended up selling it and buying an AI version like mine. You will have to stop down to f8 to get sharp images with the lens you are contemplating according to the experience of my former colleague.</p>

<p>I do not have the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens you want to compare with the AIS 300mm f4.5 ED-IF AF, but you are the first owner of this lens, to my knowledge, to confirm on photo.net what I have read about the Nikon 70-300mm VR just being mediocre at 300mm. Lots of photo.net photographers who own the Nikon 70-300mm VR seem to be exceptionally pleased with it's 300mm sharpness. I would venture to say that if you are discerning enough to not be happy with the 300mm performance of your Nikon 70-300mm VR lens, you would not be happy with performance of the AIS 300mm f4.5 ED-IF AF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I once owned the previous AI version of the AIS 300mm f4.5 ED-IF AF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robert - Thanks for the reply<br>

Do you mean you owned the 300/4.5 ED-IF AI (or AIS) or the 300/4.5 ED AI? The 300/4.5 ED AI (there was not AIS version) is reported to be one of the best ever 300mm lenses out there - but unfortunately not many were made.<br>

Yes the 70-300AFS VR is really excellent from 70-250mm, but then gets quite soft at 300mm (but still very usable for small prints).</p>

<p>If someone has both I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison say at f/8.<br>

Thanks - John</p>

<p>I had the AI 300mm f4.5 ED. If I had known it would become a classic, I would have kept it. But, who knew over 30 years ago. :-)</p>

<p>I can't imagine the 300/4.5 ED IF being anything but significantly sharper than a 180/2.8, 80-200/2.8, or 200/4 with 1.4x, or 70-300 VR at 300. Yes the 300/4.5 ED is supposed to be even better but hard to find over the past 4 years. Your 400/5.6 ED may give you at least some indication since it's image quality is likely in the same realm as the 300/4.5 ED IF. Good price by the way. </p>

<p>Yes, the newest lenses always get the biggest hype don't they. From those who have not laid out all the cash to have VR it seems the original Nikon AF-D 70-300/4-5.6 ED (at around $100 USD), is sharper.</p>

<p>I haven't tried the Nikkor 300/4.5 ED-IF, but own the 300/4.5 AI ED non-IF and it's one of the sharpest lenses I've tried at 300mm. I have compared it against several Nikkor zooms at 300mm - the 80-400 VR, two or three variations of the 70-300 - and the 300/4.5 AI ED easily beats 'em wide open and one stop down from wide open. Stopping down to the usual mid-aperture sweet spot tends to negate differences, and the 80-400 VR is very good at 300mm f/8.</p>

<p>The 300/4.5 AI ED beat the pants off the earlier Nikkor 300mm f/4.5 non-ED primes, which were more comparable to something like those popular 500mm f/8 T-mount preset "girlwatcher" lenses - not bad, but not very good wide open, flat and lacking in contrast and prone to CA. The 300/4.5 AI ED is in a whole nuther class above the earlier 300/4.5 Nikkors. It's also equal to the 300/4 AF Nikkor wide open and stopped down. The 300/4 AF Nikkor I tested was a beater, almost worn out from heavy use, so it might not have been representative of the lot, but it was very good optically.</p>

<p>The 300/4.5 AI ED is sharp enough wide open for crisp photos of the moon or any other stationary subject, altho' the tricky bit is critical focusing due to shallow DOF. I'll usually stop down to f/5.6 when photographing moving subjects to give myself a little wiggle room for minor focusing error. Stopping down from wide open primarily improves apparent "sharpness" by improving contrast more significantly than improving resolution. CA hasn't been a problem, even on digital.</p>

<p>Incidentally, while the 300/4.5 AI ED non-IF may be more difficult to find than the ED-IF, I wouldn't consider it more desirable. There were fewer of them made but that shouldn't make it a collectors item. The long focus throw is very slow, so it may not be as well suited to action photography, altho' I've used it successfully for small bird photography on or near the ground, including hummingbirds at feeders. My efforts at shooting birds in flight have been much less successful. It's also been useful for photographing some outdoor sports in daylight, but it's too slow for nighttime school football or any indoor sports photography. Zone focusing - pre-focusing on the anticipating spot of peak action - helps offset the slow focus throw.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From those who have not laid out all the cash to have VR it seems the original Nikon AF-D 70-300/4-5.6 ED (at around $100 USD), is sharper.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, you make this statement quite often, and nobody ever seems to agree. Those who have had both lenses, and all tests on the common websites, indicate the VR version is in fact much better. </p>

<p>For a a little more money you can have the 300MM ED AF F4 (not AFS). This is a excellent lens.<br>

Anthony</p>

<p>Wouter, I guess you have read one half of the reviews and I have read the other half. I don't want consumers spending a lot of money on a lens thinking it is for the glass when in fact it is for the VR function, especially if most of their photography is not of still subjects in very dim light.</p>

 

 

<p></p>

 

 

 

<p >Currently I have two 300 Nikkors, one is an earlier model H F4.5 one of the most handsome lenses made by Nikon, optically it is soft at any aperture, it becomes just barely acceptable at F16 for landscapes, I do not do sports , birds or any action photography.</p>

<p >The other one is ED F4.5, very sharp. </p>

<p >Nikon produced 300 & 400 ED lenses for a short time and quickly switched to EDIF. The ED versions have less elements resulting in better contrast and are generally sharper than multi element EDIF’s. Also ED lenses are fixed focal length lenses where the EDIF change their focal length continuously to reach focus, the big tradeoff with moving element lenses in general is eventual loss of perfect alignment of the moving parts resulting in lesser performance, good reason to avoid used beat up EDIF’s if you expect good performance.</p>

<p>I replaced my manual focus AI 300mm f4.5 ED with an AF Nikon 300mm f4 ED-IF after purchasing a Nikon F4s body. At the time, I was very impressed with the AF speed of the lens. My AF 300mm f4 ED-IF was not as sharp as the AI 300mm f4.5 wide open, but stopped down to about 4.5-5.6, it is pretty sharp. For my purposes, the quickness of auto focus was worth parting with the slightly sharper, wide open, AI 300mm f4.5 ED. I still have this AF 300mm f4 ED-IF version. I haven't used it for so long, I think it's time to pass it on to someone else.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For a a little more money you can have the 300MM ED AF F4 (not AFS). This is a excellent lens.<br /> Anthony</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I can get the 300/4.5 ED-IF AIS for $275 + shipping. The 300/4 AF-D lenses that I've seen go for at least twice this if not more. Plus I'm looking for something lighter and more compact. Used AF-S lenses are going for over $1K at the moment (should have snatched up one at $900 when I had the chance).<br>

It also takes 72mm filters.<br>

Well, the seller has a return with no questions asked policy so I may give it a go. I'll report back.<br>

- John</p>

<p>The AIS 300mm f4.5 ED-IF might satisfy you if you are using apertures from f8-f16.</p>

<p>$275 USD seems pretty reasonable for a 300/4.5 AI ED-IF in good condition. I paid somewhere between $200-$250 for my copy of the 300/4.5 AI ED non-IF about five years ago and it was well worthwhile. And <a href="http://www.fortworthcamera.com/">the store</a> gave me plenty of time to shoot it using my own D2H, while comparing it with other similar lenses in the shop, so I knew it was a winner. As little as I use any tele longer than 100mm, it's more than paid for itself. If I did more action oriented photography I'd definitely go for the AF or AFS but I don't do much of that stuff anymore.</p>

<p>I just took some test shots (classic brick wall) with my D300 using my 180/2.8 and 200/4 both with a TC14A (252mm and 280mm focal lengths) and compared them to my 70-300VR at 280mm.<br>

The 200/4 + TC14A was just as sharp as the 70-300 IN THE CENTER, but on the border or far corners the 70-300VR was all over the place and noticeably less sharp. Both the 200/4 and TC14A continue to amaze me.<br>

So, would one think that a 300/4.5 ED-IF prime would be sharper than a 200/4 + TC14A combination? Right?<br>

I also found a mint copy of the 300/4.5 ED-IF for $350 including shipping - the $275 EX- copy did not include shipping, but did have the ability to return for a refund - so there is probably a $50 difference. Go for the mint version? I've been given a sample photo from a D700 and it looks fine (some CA, but it all went away in NX2) as far as I can tell. How it will fare on the more demanding pixel pitch D300 - don't know.<br>

Suggestions?<br>

Thanks - John<br>

BTW - I also tested the Kenko 1.4x DG 300 Pro and a TC16A. The Kenko was a close second to the TC14A, but was mechanically inferior (OK, but not very good). The TC16A had terrible corners at all apertures even though the center was excellent and was mechanically stellar.</p>

<p>The 300mm 4.5 EDIF has a rear element that is inset very far from the back lens mount and not easy to clean without disassembling the lens. Check the condition of the back element before accepting any copy of that lens to see how much dust has accumulated on it. I bought a lens with that problem and discovered that problem late after taking a significant number of photos with lower contrast than I wanted. I eventually had it professionally cleaned, and that changed the "bargain" price I had paid for it.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>I am curious as to how an image taken with your Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AFS cropped to match the same image area taken with your Nikon 70-300mm VR would compair, as far as IQ.</p>

<p>I ask because of the meanderings of <a href="00VQSi">this thread</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=992102">Robert Hooper</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Jan 11, 2010; 12:52 p.m.</p>

 

<p>John,<br>

I am curious as to how an image taken with your Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AFS cropped to match the same image area taken with your Nikon 70-300mm VR would compair, as far as IQ.</p>

 

 

<p>I ask because of the meanderings of <a rel="nofollow" href="00VQSi">this thread</a> .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good question Robert - I have not done this directly. In the past I have compared the 70-300VR to the 80-200/2.8 AF-D and 80-200/2.8 AFS at 200mm and the 70-300VR was every bit as good at f/8 (again at 200mm) in the center of the image.<br>

I just dug out some test shots done last spring where I had the 80-200AFS + TC14A at 280mm and the 70-300AFS at 300mm. They are extremely close at f/8, <em><strong>BUT</strong> </em> this is at the center of the image. The problems with the 70-300 are at the borders, edges, and corners where it starts to get very much less sharp and inconsistent (i.e., not all the corners have the same level of sharpness). Contrast also seems to suffer a bit. I'm sure if I used the most recent TC14EIII the images from the 80-200AFS would be even better - although 200mm it not it's most strong focal length either.<br>

Now, don't get me wrong, I've taken a lot of really great images with the 70-300VR, but these were casual images of people where the center sharpness was way more important than the edges, borders, or corners. I'm a total fan of this lens. But it has limitations at the 250-300mm end of things that bring out it's flaws for more critical images. I may send it in to Nikon to see if they can get the IQ more even across the frame. I really can't imaging those corners on a FX body.<br>

The 70-300AFS is part of my proposed 3 lens DX travel trinity - Tokina 11-16/2.8 + Nikon 16-85AFS + 70-300AFS. 11mm to 300mm covered in three lenses with outstanding IQ for the most part across the board. Already have the 16-85AFS and the Tokina will be bought after PMA to see if they are coming out with an AFS version.<br>

- John<br>

Oh, BTW this morning I purchased the mint copy for $325 incl. shipping, etc.. The owner came down a bit more in price so I decided to jump on it.</p>

 

<p>Well, I got the 300/4.5 ED-IF AIS a couple of days ago and initial comparisons between it and my 70-300VR were not all that favorable. I got inconsistent results from the 300/4.5 (i.e., f/5.6 would be sharp, then f/8 wouldn't, then f/11 would look better).<br>

So today I did a much better job with my long lens technique. The 70-300VR seems less sensitive to poor long lens technique I think because the lens+body is mounted to the tripod via the body where most of the vibration is being generated. The 300/3.4 has the mount collar on it, so any shake from the camera is manifested greatly.<br>

Anyways I shot with my D300, RAW, MLU, remote actuation and a weighted-down tripod. This time I made sure to wait at least 2 seconds after the mirror flipped up to activate the shutter. My results were much more consistent.<br>

The results:<br>

In general the 300/4.5 ED-IF was a bit sharper than the 70-300VR. The center at f/8 or f/11 was just a bit sharper, the far corners and borders COULD be sharper than the 70-300VR. The 70-300VR has consistency problems - the upper left corner tends to be the best while the lower right corner tends to be the worst, but sometimes it's reversed.<br>

With careful focusing using live view I could get the 300/4.5 to be noticeably sharper than the 70-300VR in its best corner. The center seemed to be a bit more contrasty on the 300/4.5 and a bit sharper. The difference in sharpness was most obvious at 100% viewing - much less so at less than %100.<br>

The biggest issue I had with the 300/4.5 was getting the focus just right - it was tough even with live view. And, as I indicated, long lens technique seemed to be much more critical with this lens.<br>

I'm still evaluating the 300/4.5 - it has some dust inside and the rear element needs a good cleaning - especially around it's periphery. It also sometimes appears as though it has a decentering issue as the left side is not quite as sharp as the right side.<br>

Anyone want to guess what one of the Nikon Authorized repair centers want to clean and adjust the lens for centering? If it's $100-$200 I may do it, but if it's much more than $200 it may not be worth it (my 80-200 AFS cost me $350 to get an internal cleaning and a check-up, but it's a lot more complicated inside).<br>

I'll need to take another run at my 400/5.6 AIS with better technique to see how much sharper I can make it be.<br>

I'd love to have the 300/4.5 ED, 300/4.5 ED-IF, 300/4 ED-IF AF, and the 300/4 AFS side-by-side for a comparison - anyone in Seattle have some of these so we could meet and have a lens shoot-off?<br>

- John</p>

<p>Technique is critical when evaluating long lenses. Unless all vibration is minimized you're not evaluating optical sharpness. You're evaluating blur, which will vary from shot to shot as long as any part of the whole - lens or body - is unsupported.</p>

<p>I don't know if any tripod makers still offer these doodads, but years ago Bogen/Manfrotto and Slik offered long lens supports to facilitate supporting both the camera body and the lens. Some folks will use two tripods or a tripod and monopod (I've done that - huge pain in the neck but it works). Others will custom make their own long lens supports to ensure both lens and body are supported and as free as possible of vibration. If you hunt around Bjorn Rorslett's site you'll find some examples.</p>

<p>When I tested my 300/4.5 AI ED non-IF on the D2H I used two tripods - one for the body, one for the lens - on sandy loam soil and used a sandbag over the top of the lens to minimize vibration. It was a huge pain in the neck. But it satisfied me that the lens was indeed very sharp wide open, with very good resolution and some loss of contrast due to internal flare, compared with it stopped down to f/5.6.</p>

<p>Before going to that extreme I'd been unable to achieve any consistency with either just the lens or just the body on a tripod. Using sandbags alone was easier for minimizing vibration but made it impossible to align each shot precisely because any movement to adjust the focus or aperture ring on the lens or control dials on the camera body would cause the framing to shift slightly. But if you're not concerned about precise shot-to-shot alignment, using sandbags along to support the camera and lens may be easier than tripods and long lens supports.</p>

<p>Well, after comparing the 300/4.5 ED-IF AIS to my 70-300VR I'm considering selling the 300/4.5 due to the performance gains being not that much over the 70-300VR for the potential pain of carrying around a dedicated 300mm prime - someone here said that I'd be soon looking at the 300/4 AF or AFS and they are right. I'm also going to look at my 80-200/2.8 AFS as my 300-400mm range lens with the new TC20EIII and hopefully new 1.4 and 1.7 TC's from Nikon (hopefully to come out soon).<br>

I'll let you know what I do.<br>

John</p>