Nikkor 300mm observations -- can't beat a prime lens

[wayne_cornell2]

Back when I was shooting a Nikon F in the 1970s, I had a 300mm F4.5

Nikkor I really loved. Recently, when I acquired an F3HP I started

looking for another 300mm. Initially, I looked at the newer ai

models but then stumbled across one of the earlier versions like my

previous 300mm that had been ai'd. Managed to pick it up for $70

including shipping! Just got back a test roll and am impressed.

First, the lens has great contrast--something I had forgotten after

using zoom lenses. It's also sharper than any zoom of that focal

length I have encountered. The only drawback is the lens is heavy

and bulky--but for what I paid for it, I can put up with heavy and

bulky.

When I got back into photography about four years ago I went zoom

and AF crazy for awhile. But given the bargains out there my zooms

are now spending their time on the shelf, replaced by Nikkor primes

of various focal lengths. The 20- and 30-year-old primes aren't as

handy but even a modern zoom can't match them for picture quality.

[dan_brown4]

I was ready to pop-in that the current AFS 300/4 is a dandy MF lens too, but then I saw

the price you gave! Wow! $70, and you cannot go wrong.

[mark_chappell]

Interesting. I had a 300/4.5 in the early 70s and my impression then (and now, from

looking at old slides) was that it was rather mediocre. IIRC, Rorslett also didn't think a lot of

that lens, for what it's worth. In fact, my rather subjective impression was that this old

prime was barely (or maybe, not even) as good as the 80-400 VR at 300 mm.

 

Sample variation?

[erickpro]

If you look at really good lenses, even AIS are still very expensive. $70 USD for your lens kind of tells me that it may be good but not as good as I'd like.

 

Also, you never said which zooms you used, did you use the lower end or higher end. You need to compare that as well.

[wayne_cornell2]

The lens I received is a later model and from what I remember my original lens didn't have as much contrast.

My zooms include the 25-120 and a 35-135 -- probably not rated at the top of the list but both very decent performers.

Yes, I could have spent more money on zooms or a more recent 300mm. But most of my work now is strictly hobby and I really can't justify spending a lot more money to gain a little bit of sharpness. I try to keep my wants, versus actual needs, in perspective.

[erickpro]

"I try to keep my wants, versus actual needs, in perspective"

 

I understand you but to me that is HARD to do. Sometimes it even hurts.

 

I didn't need a Powerbook G4 but I really wanted it and went and bought it. I needed some lights and I had to wait.

[douglas_green1]

well, I just picked up a 55mm f3.5 Micro-Nikkor-P that had been home AI'd (accurately) for under $30. This is one of the sharpest of the Early Nikkor lenses. My 300mm f4.5 Nikkor H is pretty good. Mine cost me $79 on the bay, plus $8 more for shipping in mint- condition, and I AI'd it myself. So you beat mine by $17.

 

There are multiple versions of the early 300mm f4.5 Nikkor lens. Some are 5 element, and some are six element. My understanding is, the 5 element lens is pretty lousy, the 6-element version (Nikkor H) is pretty good, albeit not anywhere near the quality of the later 300mm f4.

 

Recently, I've bought a bunch of these early Nikkor (and other) glass for a budding photo-student relative. Here's what I bought him, and the prices I paid:

 

Vivitar 28mm f2.5 ($10 plus shipping)

 

35mm Nikkor-S f2.8 ($22 plus shipping)

 

55mm Micro-Nikkor-P f3.5 ($27 plus shipping)

 

135mm f3.5 Nikkor-Q f3.5 ($19 plus shipping)

 

200mm f4 Nikkor-Q f4.0 ($21 plus shipping)

 

 

The 28mm Vivitar and the Micro Nikkor were from the same seller, so shipping was consolidated. His camera is a Nikon F2 Photomic that he paid $140 + shipping for in Excellent fully working condition

 

That's a Nikon F2 and 5 top-notch prime lenses for well under $300. A pretty darn impressive outfit to learn on for that amount of cash, if I may say so myself.

[wayne_cornell2]

This is probably heresy but my favorite longer zoom is a 70-210 F4 Kiron I picked up for $25 in mint condition. Like the 300mm Nikkor, however, it's really heavy. I wouldn't mount my FM of F3 on a tripod with the Kiron hanging off of it. Mine has the zoom lock and I believe the version without the lock is somewhat lighter. The only reason I don't sell the 24-120 and 35-135 AF Nikkors is there may come a time when AF interests me again.

[jeff bishop]

$70. for a 300mm f/4.5 Nikkor is pretty much par for the course. I ai my lenses myself (ok, I notch them). The process is easy enough.

 

The nice thing? There is a LOT of great non-ai glass out there at dirt-cheap prices. How do I know this? I've got a bag full of lenses.

 

The old lenses are sometimes a little slower than their modern counterparts. For those shooting wide open all the time, this could be an issue. I'm generally stopped down quite a bit, thus in my case it makes no difference whatsoever.

 

My biggest surprise was the lowly 135mm "Q" lens. These can be had for next to nothing. Contrary to all the negative things written of them, I find mine to be sharp as a tack with nice contrast. If I put a Soft fx/3 filter on it, I can only tell the difference between this and the 105mm AIS by the size of the subject in the frame.

 

An example...<div></div>

[wayne_cornell2]

Jeff: That's a fantastic shot! Thanks for the example.

[watermelon]

Missed it, but just saw a 300 f/4.5 go on ebay for GBP 16! And the seller lived near me so not even any postage.

[ken_kartes]

I just bought a Nikon FT3 and have thought of the 300mm 4.5 but wasn't sure of how it would shoot. It seems some like it and some don't. What would the next 300mm be up the scale?

[tri-x1]

Just a quick shot off my first roll with 300 4.5. Fuji 400 -- shot facing into the sun with the temp around 90 degrees.<div></div>

[tri-x1]

Secone shot with 300 mm f4.5<div></div>

[User_502260]

I have three of those lenses. The ones I don't have are the 35/2.8 Nikkor and the 135/3.5 Nikkor. Instead I have a 35mm f/1.9 Vivitar and a 135mm f/2.3 Vivitar Series 1. It seems that people in the Nikon forum don't like the 35/2.8 Nikkor very much. A friend in high school had one and got very good results with it. I thought about getting a 135/3.5 Nikkor but got a 105/2.5 Nikkor P instead. The 300mm f/4.5 H lens goes for pretty low prices but I think I will look for either a late model non-AI or an ED-IF.

[david_h._hartman]

All of the 300/4.5 Nikkors need to be stopped down to f/8.0

with the exception of the 300/4.5 ED (non-IF). The least Id

recommend in a 300/4.5 is the 300/4.5 ED-IF AI or AIS. The 300/4.5

ED-IF is a really sweet handling lens but as noted it needs to be

stopped down. Today I cant see buying a long telephoto that

doesnt perform flawlessly wide open unless the budget is

very constrained.

[todd_phillips1]

I found a mint 300 4.5 AIS at an amateur photo show and bought it for $50 (including a Tiffen filter and generic soft case.

 

That said, I'd have to agree with Dave H. Wide open, the chromes look very flat and void of contrast (not even close to a dust FILLED 105 AIS that I have (beat up and dust filled for $10...glass perfect).

But stopped down to F:8, it's a winner.

 

No, it's not a AF F:4 (which I also had and it was great!) but it will work in a pinch. And for the price....

[tri-x1]

I have a 35mm f2,8 ai Nikkor that I probably use more than any other lens. Even 30 years ago the 35mm was my favorite focal length. I always have felt that for most purposes the 35mm is a more "normal" lens than a 50mm--more depth of field without having to worry much about distortion

[hique]

Rorslet rates highly one version of the MF 300mm. I guess it's the Ai ED non-IF.

[lex_jenkins]

He rates the IF version highly as well. I'd have bought it if I hadn't found the non-IF version first. The AI ED non-IF version is excellent but a bit slow to focus due to the long focus throw. Great for fine tuning focus but a bit slower for following action. It's a tossup.