Rented 300 f4.0

[tombest]

<p>I have an issue with a lens I rented for an recent outing. I have always heard of the 300 f4.0's legendary sharpness so I was anxious to try one out for myself. I rented one of these lenses from an agency here in Florida while a friend of my rented one of the new Sigma 150-600 sport lenses (different rental company). We planned a weekend of shooting and comparing at local wetlands and was certain the 300's sharpness would trump not only the Sigma but anything else I have tried to day. Unfortunately, after over 400 unclear pictures on day one, I left it at home. I was unable to get an acceptably sharp photo. In my day-one outing, I had the lens attached to my D7000 along with a TC14E-II converter. It was all mounted to my Induro C413 tripod and a gimbal head. (I can get silly sharp photos with my 70-200 + TC14 on this tripod rig - I don't have a stability issue.) I tried different shutter speeds and apertures. Not one keeper.</p>

<p>When I went home, I rigged up a makeshift lens align jig to see if I had a back-focus issue but didn't identify a problem there. I tried it without the converter with the same results. I thought I would post a couple of shots I took that day to see if anyone can weigh in on whether this is acceptable sharpness. I have included 100% crops of converted jpegs for examination along with a shot taken a few days earlier with my 70-200 VR1 + TC14e converter and my tripod/head combo. None of the posted pics have undergone any noise reduction or sharpening of any kind. As you can see from 70-200/TC14e shot, the camera is capable of pretty fine detail. Incidentally, the Sigma 150-600 blows the Nikon 300 f4.0 away. It's a monster but it's sharp and clear. Didn't have any of the same issues with the Sigma. Any thoughts?</p>

[tombest]

<p>100% crop from that image</p><div></div>

[tombest]

<p>70-200 VR1 + TC1.4e @ ISO 400</p><div></div>

[tombest]

<p>100% crop</p><div></div>

[tombest]

<p>Hmm... cant see the images. Let's try this again.</p><div></div>

[lwg]

<p>Tom, I have shot the 300 f/4 AFS on the D7000 and D810, both of which have about the same pixel pitch. I get much better sharpness out of my lens than you show in the one shot. The TC14E does cut sharpness a bit wide open. However I replaced the tripod with one from Really Right Stuff because I found the factory one allowed a bit of shutter vibration, which was very noticeable. Maybe that's what you have going on.</p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>The images are there.<br>

The lens is the older 300 af-s f4? With the original tripod foot, that is known to be poor?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

Shutter speed?

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I have always heard of the 300 f4.0's legendary sharpness</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly which 300mm/f4 are we talking about here?</p>

<p>If we are talking about the 300mm/f4 AF-S, that lens has no VR and its standard tripod collar is very poor. I would shoot it at a minimum of 1/1000 sec and focus manually via live view for comparison purposes.</p>

<p>I have that lens and my experience is that optically, it is excellent, but besides the tripod collar, its AF is slow for an AF-S lens. Overall, the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S (also first generation) is a better lens, but the initial cost was also about 4 times as much.</p>

[tombest]

<p>Yes, the lens rented is the 300mm F4.0 AF-S and I knew of the crappy lens foot. Here is a shot of a Great Egret shot at 1/2000th of a second @ f9.5 - ISO 400 in a 100% crop. The Great Blue Heron was shot at 1/125th of a second... all using a cable release so I didn't have to touch the camera.</p><div></div>

[tombest]

<p>Image from above crop.</p><div></div>

[tombest]

<p>For some reason I can't see any of the images I have uploaded. I can't even see them on my iPad. I don't know if the uploaded images are visible and if they represent what I am experiencing with this lens. There are large blocks of space where an image should be but the screen is blank.<br>

Tom</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Tom, I can see the pictures OK and that unsharpness doesn't look characteristic of a poor lens. It looks much more like camera shake or motion blur to me. Of course it's possible for a damaged or badly assembled lens to produce directional smearing of that sort, but it's certainly not typical of any undamaged telephoto or zoom lens I've ever used. And I've used some low-end garbage!</p>

<p>I have, however, seen similar results from camera shake. I've had noticeable shake up to 1/400th of a second when using my 1000mm Reflex-Nikkor on a D800, and that's with a 10lb braced tripod and sturdy 3 way pan/tilt head (Manfrotto model #028 + 029 head). The magnification of your 300mm + 1.4x TC on DX would be about the equivalent of a 600mm lens on full-frame. So IME it wouldn't be impossible to get shake, even at 1/2000th second, if the coupling between tripod and lens was poor. Especially if not using MU or Live-View.</p>

[tombest]

<p>I would have assumed that camera shake would have resulted in some sort of linear movement that I could detect, but that's not what I am seeing. And if this is the result of the OEM lens foot, then the foot is horrible indeed. It's funny that the Sigma 150-600 sport on the same tripod setup (albeit with the Sigma foot) shows none of the lack of clarity - with or without the OS on. And to find balance on that lens @ 600mm the lens foot was almost off the mounting plate of the head. It was attached to a 6" mounting plate that needed to be almost at the front of the mount in order to balance leaving the actual lens foot mostly rearward of the mount.<br>

One last shot and then I'll leave this alone. The next two shots are of a Blue Winged Teal flapping its wings. This was shot at 1/3000th of a second. I cannot detect any sharpness anywhere in this photo. I don't see linear shake and the shutter was fast enough to freeze droplets of water in mid-flight. It could have been a really nice capture but is totally unusable. 1st the whole picture and then a 100% crop. Thanks,</p>

<p>Tom</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Tom, please take a look at my image with that exact combo: D7000 + 300mm/f4 AF-S posted to the following thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aYAI<br /> This is the image: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00a/00aYPT-477757584.jpg</p>

<p>If you would like to evaluate the optics of a lens, I would suggest:</p>

<ul>

<li>Use a fast shutter speed, e.g. 1/1000 or preferably even faster</li>

<li>Based ISO on the DSLR</li>

<li>Tripod</li>

<li>I typically use 1-second shutter delay, instead of cable release</li>

<li>Use live view to focus manually, no AF</li>

<li>Find a static subject with lots of details, no animals, birds, flower/plant macro that can vibrate like crazy in the wind</li>

</ul>

<p>A rental lens is probably not the best option also, especially an old one. People tend not to take good care of them.</p>

[tombest]

<p>crop</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Tom, I see motion blur in the teal crop. See the water droplets around the team's head? They are all like short lines, not dots. Whatever shutter speed you might have used; it seems to be too slow.</p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>I did some testing with AF-S 300 f4 with 1.4 teleconverter. I found out that I had to tune even the RRS foot as the base was not totally even. There was a slight rocking chair function built in. It took some time to find that out. I have currently added a removable support in the front part too. The setup is currently rock solid as they say.<br /> Somebody tested (in another thread) a similar setup as yours and found out that 1 second delay was not enough. The problem comes from the poor collar and foot that do not damp the mirror slap. So when using faster speeds supporting the lens by hand might lead to better results.<br /> An easy test: put your rig up and use the live view. Enlarge to a resonable amount and then slightly tap the rig with your finger. See what happens in the live view image ;-)<br /> It is also possible that your rented unit was not in its best condition.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>With the original tripod foot, I had more luck hand-held than tripod mounted (even with a plastic cork slammed between foot and lens to dampen things a bit); it's a great lens, but the tripod collar is really poor, and only once replaced you start to notice how poor. I've got the Kirk replacement, and that works fine. As Shun said, AF action is not overly fast, but optically it is a very capable lens.<br>

That said, a rental lens - you can't really know how it has been used and how good the rental company can test their lens(es) at varying distances, so it's not impossible the lens you rented was not top-notch.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>FWIW, I did a lot of research on what exactly causes camera shake on a tripod. That was back in my film use days. Among the conclusions I came to was that balancing the lens and camera around the tripod mount was one of the worst things you could do. The resultant see-saw mode of vibration means that there's no natural vibration damping in the system due to gravity. Far better IME to have the system either lens or camera heavy. Lens-heavy is probably easier to achieve. And relying on one point of mounting isn't the best. Spreading the support via a simple high-density foam block takes some strain off the camera mount and adds damping.</p>

 

[tombest]

<p>Shun, You have detail in your picture that I was not able to attain. When I look at Maria's hat, there are stitching lines in the underside of the bill that are clearly clean.<br>

So, I just took the lens outside and handheld a few shots and am able to be at peace with this whole thing. I was able to get some handheld shots that had detail and were properly focused. Wow. The foot <em>IS</em> that bad. I guess there are dynamics at work that even shutter speeds and a sturdy tripod can't rectify. I would have never guessed. Nikon really missed the mark on this one. And if the lens really is a high ISO - high shutter speed, handheld only lens, I wish I had known before spending the money to try one out. It was on my short list of lenses to buy but with its current cost plus a foot, I would have to think about the PF version. <br>

I was really spoiled using the Sigma, though. It's sharp and the zoom range for wildlife is perfect, especially here in S Florida where we can get pretty close to the birds. It's a chunk to carry around with 8+ pounds of tripod attached to it but the images were worth it.<br>

Thanks for all the responses and the encouragement to take it off the tripod. You guys are good.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[NetR]

<p>Rodeo Joe - thanks for your observation about NOT balancing the lens and camera on the tripod. Your explanation makes good sense to me.<br>

Interesting discussion guys.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The Nikon tripod collar that comes with AF-S 300/4D varies in rigidness (and dimensions) depending on when the lens was made. I have a recent one and the collar that came with it is ok; I can't seem to persuade it to produce compromised sharpness even at typically difficult shutter speeds, but I some years ago used to have an early version of the lens and the tripod collar that came with it back then (early 2000's) was truly bad. Various manufacturers make replacement collars for the lens. I would just factor a possible replacement collar into the price of the lens. With a proper collar however it is capable of consistently excellent results especially at the near to intermediate distance range. I never was too happy about the AF-S 300/4's image quality at long distances, however. The PF version is reported to be sharper at long distances (but in some tests its corner sharpness in the near range is not as good as that of the D version, and overall the contrast may be a bit lower). You may want to go through some reviews that compare the PF version with the older lens to figure out which one is better for you. The autofocus is very fast and decisive on the PF version, and that together with the light weight and compact size are the main advantages of the new lens. I wouldn't go into saying that either of them is really better than the other when it comes to image quality across the board - it just depends on distance, which part of the frame you are evaluating and subjective preferences as to what "looks good" and what does not. Note that some of us have experienced strange VR behaviour with the PF lens where the intermediate shutter speeds around 1/160s produce worse sharpness than slow speeds such as 1/60s or so, so if you plan on using VR at these speeds with the PF lens you should at least check the lens for this if you get one, to be sure it works correctly. Of course the AF-S D version of this lens has no VR and hence also no strange VR behaviour. ;-) </p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nikon has never been able to make a really good removable tripod collar. The worst are probably the ones on the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S and 300mm/f4 AF-S. After those, the ones on the two 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR are no longer completely removable; only the foot is removable. However, if you have a chance to use the Sigma 70-200mm/f2.8 OS, you know it is possible to have a smooth removable collar.</p>

<p>My 300mm/f4 AF-S was an early sample from 2001 or so. I went for gray market and pay something like $900. Now the newer PF announced, gray price is almost back down to that price level again, and you add another $150 or whatever for a third-party tripod collar. You need the quick release plate anyway. But regardless of tripod collar, AF speed is slow on that lens. That can be an issue if you are into birds in flight type subjects.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>You might be able to get better sharpness by shoving a somewhat springy object between the tripod foot and lens. Bjørn Rørslett has reported (<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/tripod_collar_rev02.html"><strong>link</strong></a>) obtaining significant improvement by putting his asthma inhaler in there. I've tried the same thing with a rubber cylinder and it worked reasonably well, but I ultimately decided on the replacement foot from KIrk Photo. My 300mm f/4 AF-S is quite sharp with that.</p>