Matthew Brennan

<p>My experience of the f/2.8 AiS fisheye was similar - I shot a lot hand held at f/4 and f/5.6 because I got phenomenal depth of field for what I required at relatively open apertures but when I had a 14 inch print made up (@ f/8 I think it was) I found all the corners distractingly soft and mushy. The AF-D f/2.8 version was no better in my opinion.</p> <p>I now use the older AiS f/3.5 version which I find considerably better in this respect than either of the manual or auto f/2.8 versions.</p> <p>It's possible that my findings are specific to individual copies of these lenses but of the 3 I've tried I much perfer the f/3.5 despite it being a manual focus lens.</p>

<p>On Monday I went back to one my favourite places in the forest about hour's drive from my home. I'd not shot any photos at this time of year before (late winter) as was delighted to find the forest lush and dripping with moisture making the colours vibrant and the lighting and atmospherics misty and soft.</p> <p>This is Houpton Falls on the Aire River</p><div></div>

<p>I'd consider trading a slower variable aperture tele zoom (70-300) for a slightly shorter faster, constant aperture tele zoom (70-200) as an upgrade, esp. considering you are shooting with a DX body. My experience was positive when I switched from the same 70-300mm Nikkor you have to a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8.</p> <p>If you are able to focus close enough with the 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikkor for your product shots then the loss of a 105mm Micro Nikkor is not so bad. However - I have a skilled photo friend who has the well priced Tamron 150-600mm zoom - I have seen his images from this lens on the D800E. He achieves truly great crisp images and the lens produces a bokeh that I find very pleasing but he says the lens requires bright daylight to focus properly - ie under tree canopies / deep forest light conditions and on overcast days the lens often hunts for focus to the point of being quite frustrating and limiting.</p> <p>If it were me, I'd keep the 105mm Micro Nikkor and save up for the Nikkor 200-500mm which has a better variable aperture than the Tamron.</p>

<p>I've used a few 16mm fisheye Nikkors. </p> <p>The f/2.8 AiS model does take the bayonet mounted filters just like the AF-D model. </p> <p>The older f/3.5 model has a built in filter array.</p>

<p>Surely this is a poor photoshop mock up? Check out the missing lower rim section of the top left lens body (as viewed) even I can do a better job than that............ ;-)</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18273623-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="357" /></p> <blockquote> <p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 11, 2016; 05:21 p.m.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>How about a version that requires four Zeiss Otus lenses? :-)</p> </blockquote> <p>Magnificent response - has made my day!</p>

<p>I have never taken to a lens so fast as I have to my new AF-S 300mm f/4 E VR PF. I feel like Nikon made this lens just for me with clarity, subject separation and bokeh that is right up my alley as well as VR that is easily the best I've had the pleasure of using.</p> <p>This image taken hand held with D810, in very poor evening light with TC 1.4 E II fitted using VR. As a compact and uber portable tele lens the Nikkor 300/4 E is truly excellent.</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>A friend has loaned me his AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR micro lens for a try out to see if I want one myself.</p> <p>When I'm shooting close to maximum magnification I switch the lens to Manual focusing and simultaneously twist the focus ring and engage the DOF preview to determine what I want in/out focus.</p> <p>As I do this I can hear a very light feathery click inside the lens when the DOF preview is engaged and I twist the focus ring - something I've never experienced in a lens before. Is this sound just aperture blades adjusting according to focus point or something else?</p> <p>I'm only trying to determine if this is either a fault in this copy or if it's a trait for this model as I may buy one of these and will possibly inspect lenses being offered for sale.</p>

<blockquote> <p>and forget to turn VR off when things get faster.<br> Surely this is not required? It isn't for Canon.</p> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p>In the past, esp. with the 70-200mm f/2.8 I found that leaving VR switched on when the shutter was running circa 1/500th or faster actually became deleterious to nailing crisp exposures. This was close to being a 100% blanket experience. I figured my hand held shooting technique (esp. with a longer heavier lens like the 70-200) was not up to scratch - and it still may not be very good technique for what ever reason. However, VR in the two newer lenses has me using it far more and leaving it on for everything bar tripod work - something that is quite counter to my previous experience.</p> <blockquote> <p>I think it's best to think that VR in each lens can have slightly different performance characteristics. In newer lenses the VR performance tends to be better than in the early models. I don't think there is any reason to feel guilty for using VR e.g. at high speeds - if it works, it works. I use VR quite often even at 1/800s with 200mm and 300mm lenses.</p> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you Ilkka, confirmation from a higher source is greatly appreciated and most encouraging.</p> <blockquote> <p> </p> </blockquote>

<p>I have recently changed some of my main lenses in my line up and have discovered to my sheer delight that VR is now something that actually works for me. </p> <p>I have owned some lenses with VR in the past, namely the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (first version) and also the AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5 - 4.5 VR. I found VR on both of these lenses pretty lack lustre for me, using at shutter speeds of typically 1/125th sec. Put it this way - the VR in these two lenses did not help boost my 'keeper' rate and after much experimenting and reading up I simply avoided using VR.</p> <p>I now have the AF-S 70-200mm f/4 VR and the AF-S 300mm f/4 E PF VR lenses - both of which seem to have VR which works for me at 1/125th sec and considerably slower speed than that too. Early days for both these lenses but right now I'm nailing more exposures than I did before and nearly feel guilty for using VR as it seems to work for me right up to speeds of 1/500th and possibly beyond if I were to lose track of the shutter speed and forget to turn VR off when things get faster.</p> <p>This leads me to want to know how many different versions of VR has Nikon made or does each lens have slightly different VR mechanisms. Can anyone answer this?</p>

<p>I intend to use my new (just ordered) 300/4E PF in pretty much the same way I used the older 300/4 D lens - usually in bright light, with the sun over my shoulder and illuminating on the subject, photographing mostly birdlife and employing faster shutter speeds to freeze motion. Slow shutter speed VR assisted exposures may or may not become a part of what I use this lens for.</p> <p>Essentially I just like the idea of a more compact lens with much less weight than the older 300/4 and at least equal IQ for it's portability and ability to use hand held for hours on end.</p> <p>I can't wait for my lens to arrive!</p>

<p>Taken with my recent acquisition, the 70-200mm f/4 VR lens. At last, a lightweight compact tele zoom I can live with!</p> <div></div>

<p>Many thanks for all responses.</p> <p>I have conducted a review of shots in which I have used my old 300mm f/4 - nearly all are 1/800th sec and most are significantly faster speeds. This is no doubt due to the fact that I really only use the 300/4 when the sun is properly out and I feel like being outdoors for hours at at a time. <br> <br />I have taken note of the issues some experience using the D810 (this is what I will be using) and VR around 1/100th sec give or take. I feel I'd probaby be using the 70-200 /4 for suck slow shutter speeds more than the 300 prime which I really want to take advantage of as a lighter weight hand held panning lens.</p> <p>I won't buy the 300/4 E PF from a store that will not agree to allow me to return copies if I'm not satisfied with VR on my D810.</p>

<p>My beloved AF-S 300mmf/4 ED has developed the SWM squealing that these first gen. AF-S motors tend to do. It still functions as it always has, my copy has excellent IQ, however a high pitch squeal every time I go to focus is hardly the calling card of the stealthy backyard bird photographer! <br> I have a quote from a local (Melbourne, Australia) accredited Nikon repairer for an AF-S replacement repair with ball park firgure that after after shipping my lens away to the big smoke will leave me with only a little change from AU $700.</p> <p>I think I could sell my AF-S 300mmf/4 for at least AU$500 and invest that into the new 300mm f/4E PF VR. I can actually afford to do this now and spring is just around the corner...........<br> The massive weight saving over the older AF-S f/4 would make longer days in the sunshine hand holding with a D810 a genuine viable option as would travelling with it. So I'm interested!</p> <p>I recently swapped my 70-200mm f/2.8 for the f/4 version and have been truly delighted to discover that the VR on the f/4 model is so much more user friendly and do-able for me - a significant improvement over any other VR lens I have used previously.<br> Do the current 70-200mm f/4 and the 300mm f/4E PF VR share the same generation VR technology? I understand there was a defect issue with VR in the earliest released copies which is now said to be sorted by Nikon for subsequent copies.</p> <p>Reviews here and there say the new 300/4 is as sharp as the older 300/4 and also has a pleasant bokeh like the old 300/4 and similar auto focus speeds, however there is not much to read in the way of TC use. Has anyone used the new 300/4 with TC's yet....and the results?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Many thanks Joe, I have my eye on a close to mint 2nd hand copy that appears to be genuine low use and well maintained....and I know what they retail for brand new so lets see what happens.</p>

<p>Samyang 135/2 looks to produce excellent transition bokeh but a tad pricey for a MF lens (not that this has stopped me in the past........)</p> <p>I also see the Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/3.5 micro lens (then Tokina aka 'Bokina') is popular for it's Bokeh too.......</p> <p>Thanks for the tip re- infinity glass in adadpters - I don't want fancy first rate bokeh at the cost of dealing with second rate clarity and sharpness. </p>

<p><br />Which model of the 105mm f/2.8 micro are we talking about here, the current AF-S VR G model or the older AF-D model? I used the older AF-D model for some years but never bothered using AF up so close. I can't say my copy hunted for focus lock any more than maybe a dozen or more Nikkors I've used. Maybe my AF-S 300/4 hunts a bit if the light is anything but optimal but I don't recall the 105 D lens to have any AF issues on the D200, D300 or D700. </p> <p>By using AF-C mode I take it you have a subject that is moving? If so then I agree with Erik, the lens requires a bolder / more striking contrast differential to lock onto and clearly this type of subject matter is not providing that. However, if your subject is rock steady ie) properly stationery then AF-C is of no use, switch to AF-S for more reliable focus lock (or at least this is in my experience)</p> <p>Again, I'd stress that autofocus is redundant in high magnification / uber close up situations like this and you are asking a lot of any AF system when tolerances are so tight.</p>

<p>I think you are asking a lot of your AF system here. In my experience you should forget about auto focus when working in such constrained, close focusing situations and use manual focusing and DOF preview (or better still use live view if you have it) to achieve a steady focus - assuming the subject is perfectly still.</p>

<p>mmmm.... Ok, back to the drawing board on this one then.</p> <p>I'm just chasing an inexpensive bokeh fancied lens to play with. Must be other options out there.</p> <p>Many thanks!</p>

<p>Initial low light / slow shutter exposures with my new 70-200mmf/4 tell me that at last I have a lens that boasts a VR system that I actually find useful! This is a significant step forward for me.</p> <p>I can consistantly nail down acceptably sharp shots at 200mm as slow as 1/80th sec with VR! Something I could not do with VR on any lens I had prior to this one. I also expect that the decreased mass of the f/4 version is easier for me to use as a hand held option than the f/2.8 version.</p> <p>Yes - I know 1/80th sec is hardly uber slow, however, for me I regularly struggled to be consistant @ 200mm with speeds of 1/125th.</p> <p>No regrets with the 70-200mm f/4 so far. No AF fine tuning required on my copy either :-)</p>