Nikon 300mm test

[puddleduck]

Hi folks

Having just got back to my 2006 lens configuation I thought I'd just re-test a few of the lenses to see if my opinions were still valid.

Nikkor 70-200 with TC-14E, Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S, Nikkor 70-300 VR (borrowed)
​

In a nutshell - the 300mm f/4 AF-S trounces both of the other two for wide open sharpness at 300mm (280mm in the case of the 70-200 VR). The Nikkor 70-300 VR is suprisingly good actually (f/5.6) so 1 stop slower than the Pro lenses.

Very glad to have the 300mm f/4 AF-S back. I'd probably still not bother about a TC for the 70-200 VR, although this does improve a lot stopped down to f/5.6, but given a TC costs almost as much as the 70-300 VR, I do wonder - if you need 300mm, its just better to get a 70-300 VR rather than put a TC on the 70-200 VR, given the cost of the TC?

I don't plan to show crops as my test target is a street sign over the road so it kinda reveals where I live.. but anyhow thats how it is folks. For 300mm, the f/4 is only beaten by the eye wateringly expensive (but lovely) 300mm f/2.8s!

 

[welly]

Is it wrong to have a stirring in my pants from looking at those lenses?

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Where did you source the 300 f/4 Andy? and If you don't mind me asking how much was it?

 

[puddleduck]

Where did you source the 300 f/4 Andy? and If you don't mind me asking how much was it?

I got both the 70-200 VR and the 300mm f/4 AF-S from here.

Don't mind you asking - £585 inc.

A little more than I wanted to pay (I sold my previous one as I wasn't using it for quite a lot less.. Krazy_Horse who also posts here has it now :bonk

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I got both the 70-200 VR and the 300mm f/4 AF-S from here.

Don't mind you asking - £585 inc.

A little more than I wanted to pay (I sold my previous one as I wasn't using it for quite a lot less.. Krazy_Horse who also posts here has it now :bonk

Cheers Andy,

That's a great price considering the scarcity of them these days, I'm debating buying one at the mo.

I regularly borrow a 300 AFS 2.8 from a good friend of mine but it's not quite the same having to beg, borrow and steal.

We shall see.

Thanks again for the details mate

T.

 

[puddleduck]

Yeah.. the first one I bought in 2007 cost me about £730, you could get them Imported from HK for about £550 for quite a while (personally I don't do Grey Imports), but you can't find them anywhere now.

I did move from a 300mm f/4 AF-S to a 300mm f/2.8 VR and then back to a 300mm f/4 AF-S again, the 300mm VR while lovely, doesn't really suit me well for travel / hiking due to the size.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Yeah.. the first one I bought in 2007 cost me about £730, you could get them Imported from HK for about £550 for quite a while (personally I don't do Grey Imports), but you can't find them anywhere now.

I did move from a 300mm f/4 AF-S to a 300mm f/2.8 VR and then back to a 300mm f/4 AF-S again, the 300mm VR while lovely, doesn't really suit me well for travel / hiking due to the size.

I don't do greys either and I know precisely what you mean about the 2.8's weight! I'm strongly considering the f/4 in future.

 

[fracster]

Glad you got sorted Andy, the 300 is a cracking lens.....

 

[Wail]

I am glad you got your lenses / toys sorted; and I take your word on the sharpness.

However, can I please ask ... how fast is the 300 f/4 vs. the 70-200VR with the 1.4TC? Is it as fast, faster, or slower to acquire focusing .. especially on a moving subject (like birds in flights, or a fast rodent / squirrel)?

Also, how much sharper is it? I mean, do you notice the sharpness right off, or do you need to do a bit of pixel-peeping?

I like the fact that you continually state the 300 f/4 to be sharper than the 70-200VR. This makes it a better buy, for wildlife and sports, as it is a whole lot cheaper; but the 70-200VR is a bit more versatile.

For the price you've paid for the 300 f/4, I really have to envy you for that.

 

[ppp]

Do you happen to know how it compares to the 120-300 sigma?