Nikkor 300mm f4, Should I buy one?

[steven_ritchie]

I am considering buying a Nikkor 300 4 AF-S within the next couple of

months. How much difference am I going to be able to see over the 75-

300 consumer zoom? Also, if coupled with a 1.4x teleconverter will

this still produce solid images? Are there any 3rd party lenses that

are just as good? I am not quite an advanced amateur, but definitely

not a beginner, and will be using this for bird and wildlife

photography.

[mark_scheuern]

I have the previous, non-AFS version and it's a fine lens. I use mine mostly for motorsports photography, frequently with the 1.4x teleconverter. Optically, it's great and I think you'll find it a noticeable improvement over the 75-300. AF is rather slow with the non-AFS lens and nonexistant with the teleconverter, which, while not much of an issue with me since I mostly manually focus anyway, no doubt the AF-S is considerably quicker. AF with the teleconverter might be a bit iffy in low-light situations (since f/5.6 is pushing it), though of course people who have actually tried it will be better able to answer your question.

[steveh552]

I bought a Sigma 70-300 and I am rather happy with it. It is identical to the "D" lens from Nikon and has a Macro switch on it. The camera shop suggested it over the Nikon "G" 70-300 I wanted to buy because of the Macro.

[markp]

I have the previous, non-AFS lens, and there is a visible difference in image quality between images produced by it versus those produced by the consumer-level 70/75-300 variable aperture zooms, as long as proper technique is used. The AFS lens is at least as good as the version I have, according to every review I've read by photographers who have used both. Writer/Nikon guru Thom Hogan has very complete reviews of both versions of the lens on his Nikon site: www.bythom.com/nikon.htm

[paul beiser]

Here is an excellent review:

 

http://www.bythom.com/300AFSlens.htm

 

I have both the 70-300 (Thom has a review on his site of this lens as well), and the 300F4 AF-S (and the 1.4 tele converter). Both are good lenses - I use the 70-300 when weight is of paramount concern (eg a long backpack), and I use the 300F4 to shoot birds, landscapes, etc. You will find that the 300F4 is superior to the 70-300 at 300mm. How superior? Probably need to check some of the web sites that review lenses. If you are going to use the lens for bird photography, the 300 F4 is better - faster focusing, more speed.

[b. edward sandifer]

Hi Steven, Two years ago I already owned a Nikon 300/2.8 AF-I

lens but also bought the 300/4 AFS lens to shoot birds

'hand-held' sometimes also with the TC1.4E teleconverter. The

image quality of this lens is top notch and I can't see many

changes in quality when the tele is used with it. It is such an

excellent and versatile lens that I eventually sold the 300/2.8 as it

was just sitting around collecting dust.

[stnoonan]

Steven,

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=491315">This photo.net classified</a> may be of interest.

 

<p>I love this lens, and it is clearly the best hand-held telephoto Nikon makes. Coupled with the the TC14E, this is a killer bird-in-flight or action combo.

 

<p><a href="http://stnphotography.com/chickadee.html">This shot</a> and <a href="http://stnphotography.com/ghor.html">the middle shot on this page</a> were made with the the combo.

[andrew_schank]

The color, contrast, and resolution on the ED Nikkor long primes is in another league from any 70 to 300 zoom I've tried--and I've shot with most of them. The better 70-300 zooms are usually decent up to 200mm or so, but fall short at the long end. Having that extra F stop on the prime makes focusing easier, and allows for higher shutter speeds if needed. You may want to consider the older 300mm f4.0 lens, which can be had for under $500 these days. I have been very impressed with the image quality thta lens is capable, even at f4.0. Works very well with tele-coverters as well. Built like a tank.