nikon 100 - 300 mm zoom lens 1:5.6

[jerry_venable_jr]

Has anyone had any experiences with this lens. I recently bought one but havnt

had the time to try it out lately. Just curious of its capabilities... thanks!

[walterh]

It is an "OK" lens for general use but because of the low price it may be of high lens/money ratio :-)

 

It is of high interest as an addition (did I mention NAS yet ?) in the near to macro range. I can fully confirm the referenced link - I have used the lens in biological field work of amphibia where distances of 3m - 50 cm were common (with diopter). Using a real macro setup resulted in very sharp images of rear legs of leaping frogs :-P

 

The only reason I stopped using this lens is that it dissappeared faster in the water (some frogs tend to live near water^^) than I could grab it. I was able to get it out of the pond to prevent pollution but it was the end of the lens. This is one reason why I do not always recommend to take the most expensive lenses with you - unless you only take pictures in your living room. There are some cheap lenses out there that are capable of producing great results but may be specialists.

[vivek iyer]

<i>This is one reason why I do not always recommend to take the most expensive lenses with you - unless you only take pictures in your living room.</i>

<p>

I guess I should keep most of my lenses in the boxes?!<p>

<i>There are some cheap lenses out there that are capable of producing great results but may be specialists.</i>

<p>

I would have asked what sort of lenses these are. But, I see the caveat. So, I rather not! :-)

[graham_line]

Had one for a while but sold it on. The focal length range seemed ideal but the 5.6 aperture blacks out K screen focusing aids, and there was no tripod mount on the lens. Nice and sharp, though. Some experimentation with focusing screens is probably in order.

[yoni_perlmutter]

I used one years ago (borrowed) on an F3.

 

Very good optically, built well, good wide open, and nowadays

very inexpensive.

 

I never liked the lens/camera "fit" of the 100-300. It never

felt right to me on the F3 (the only camera I ever tried it with).

 

Were it not the fact that it felt awkward to me I would be using

it still as the "long zoom" in a 3-lens travel kit.

 

It may feel entirely different to you and/or it may feel better

married to a camera other than an F3. Dunno.

 

Good luck with it.

[gman]

I purchased one for my wife but she really did not like it due to the fact that it is rather big and bulky. Good quality lens though! I used it a few times just to try it out. They are pretty cheap so not a bad lens just to have around.

[neil_parker]

I agree with the last few comments. I owned one previously and it was a wonderfully sharp

lens, well made like all older MF Nikkors. The constant aperture is a plus for manual

exposure cameras. But it was a bit of a disaster for me handling-wise.

 

I could never focus it fast enough or accurately enough in any action situation, tons of

fuzzy pics when I tried to use it for a foot race I covered. No tripod mount, and hand-

holding was just plain clumsy, because it's very front heavy and the only way to grasp it is

by the one-touch zoom ring. It was impossibly clunky to hold on any body without a

motor/grip, and barely tolerable on my FM2/MD12 combo.

 

I replaced it with a 180 f2.8, which resolved all these problems.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>I could never focus it fast enough or accurately

enough in any action situation, tons of fuzzy pics when I tried

to use it for a foot race I covered. --Neil Parker<br>

</em><br>

Just guessing but does this lens have a long throw on the focus

ring? I have an 80~200/4.0 AIS Nikkor and the throw is about 270

degree (three quarters turn) which make the 80~200/4.0 AIS quite

easy to focus accurately but very difficult to focus rapidly

particularly on a moving subject. The hand position may need to

be changed to continue focusing and this guarantees a lost shot

if the subject is in motion.<br>

<br>

If the zoom range is right the 75~150/3.5 Series-E is much easier

to focus on moving subjects. The 80~200/2.8D ED (with collar) is

a better choice for a manual focus camera than the 80~200/4.0 AIS

if the size and weight of the AF lenses is not too much.<br>

<br>

Obviously these lenses are quite short of 300mm but perhaps the

handling considerations are similar for the 80~200/4.0 AIS and

100~300/5.6 AIS. At 300mm and only f/5.6 I cant see the 100~300/5.6

AIS as a general purpose telephoto zoom. I can accept a 400/5.6

lens as the size, weight and especially the cost of faster 400mm

lenses is considerable.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[neil_parker]

Dave, its been a couple of years or so and I don't recall the focus throw, but that may well

have contributed to the problem. But for me the 5.6 aperture, causing split prism

blackout, and dim overall focussing, was the real roadblock. When using MF, especially in

an action situation or low light, I very much depend on a split prism. This has worked well

for me in races and concerts, as long as I am using a faster prime. This was a case of using

the wrong tool for the job.

 

Also my eyes aren't what they were 30 years ago when I got my first SLR. It's like learning

photography all over now with a DSLR and an AFS lens.

[jerry_venable_jr]

Thanks for all of your comments, ill be able to tell how it is as soon as i find the correct converter to fit it on my camera. I have a promaster camera and the lens doesnt fit it. Does anyone happen to know what brand is promaster compatible? I only bought the lens because it came with a bag that I purchased from somebody that didnt know the value of it.

[neil_parker]

Promaster camera? Never heard of such a thing. I've seen promaster lenses and they were

bottom of the barrel quality-wise.

 

Toss it and buy a used nikon would be my best advice :). It's unlikely you will be able to

adapt a nikon lens to it. And this zoom is probably worth more than the camera and a bag

full of promaster lenses.

[jerry_venable_jr]

Yeah I got the camera 6 years ago for photography in high school and its taken really great pics so ive continued using it. Ive been thinking about getting a better name camera but its hard to throw out one thats taken so many good pics already. I suppose if a good deal came up i would but i got rent to pay now so the promaster 2500pk stays. Thanks for all your comments, any idea on what someone would pay for a lens like this?

[jerry_venable_jr]

Lens is up for sale and i wont refuse any offer i think reasonable or will trade for a pentax K mount lens of same size.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>But for me the 5.6 aperture, causing split prism

blackout, and dim overall focussing, was the real roadblock.

-- Neil Parker<br>

</em><br>

There are two possible solutions to this problem: the R screen

and the U screen. The R screen is like an E screen with a spit

image rangefinder designed for f/3.5 to f/5.6 lenses. I think the

A and K screens are designed for f/2.0 to f/3.5 and acceptable

for f/1.4 to f/4.0. This is my general feeling and not an official

Nikon specification. The U screen has a Fresnel lens designed to

gather light more efficiently from longer focal length lenses,

100 or 200mm and up depending on the camera. The viewfinder is

much brighter and some cameras require focus screen

compensation. The F4 requires removing the prism and a tool

such as a TV tuning tool. A special tool was supplied with the F4s/F4.

The F5 uses custom function 18. The R screen is available for the

Nikon F through F3 and can be adapted for the F4 and F5. The U

screen is available for the F through F6.<br>

<br>

F/5.6 is pretty slow for a 300mm lens, too slow for a general

purpose lens at least for me. I don't like using a lens slower

than f/4.0 with a split image rangefinder. The slowest I can live

with if I must is f/4.5.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.