The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The pocket sized 300mm

BlinkingEye

New member
300/4 at that size, IF it is sharp wide open will be a done deal for many of us. In my case, it could mean I sell my (excellent) Sigma 120-300/2.8 -- love the Sigma IQ, even with converters, but it's HUGE at 300/2.8 proportions.
As a 30+ year Nikkor/Nikon super-tele shooter and owner of the current and previous 300mm primes I feel a need to step into the fray on this thread. I know many of you want this for a portrait lens, but I am largely a wildlife shooter.

Jack, brings the point, a big "IF".

The currently available 300/4 is tack sharp. Nikon will have to do amazing things to beat that.

What the lens brings is an electronic aperture - something the video crowd has been asking for.

Also the PF lens element is interesting and it will be interesting to see how Nikon implements it. Other companies have tried/used this technology to limited (better) results and have eventually dropped it.

Of course it has VR and that will be good for handholding for birds in flight, as will the great weight reduction.

With that said I rarely use the VR on super-teles now because they are usually tripod-mounted or mono-pod-mounted. About the only time I use VR is if the wind is really blowing while in the Everglades, Rocky Mountain National Park, Yellowstone and the like.

The VR makes sense for the video crowd, too.

Of course I want one, but I am in no hurry because I already have a 300/4. Iwill wait for comparative clarity and sharpness reports. In a sentence, I am skeptical.
 

BlinkingEye

New member
Canon still make their two DO lenses, a 70-300 and the rather expensive 400mm f/4.
Interesting as I did not know about the 400/4 lens. I stand somewhat corrected. Two lenses out of how many models in the market is hardly a glowing testimony for the technology. None the less thanks for the info. Even old coots like me can learn something.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
What I find very interesting is that Canon claim somewhat over 30% weight savings with the 400mm, while the Nikkor is around 50% lighter than its predecessor. The Nikkor seems to be a much more radical design. All the more interesting to try it out then :)
 
D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
The samples with the bare lens on the D810 do look promising. I'm not a fan of TC's, and those images are good, but don't have the same "bite" as the bare lens.

Joe
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Agree Joe, but the 600 combo looked pretty darn good for a 600. The 1.7 not so much.
 

fotophil

Member
Canon has a diffraction optics designed 400mm f/4 DO lens that I have used for almost ten years in hand held bird flight photography. The lens is relatively short and light weight and is easily hand held so the new Nikon 300mm f/4 PF diffraction optics lens is very promising. The Canon DO lens does have a slight boken issue with the back ground as shown in the attached images. I love the lens for it's size and so the boken effect is not a deal breaker for me. The boken effect is not nearly as pronounced as the donut highlights associated with mirror lenses.

The Nikon design is different from the old Canon DO lens and there may well be no boken issue at all. Canon has recently redesigned their 400mm DO lens and the new design may also be free of the issue.
 

jsf

Active member
I am supposed to get the new 300mm today. So if I do, I will shoot a couple of sample shots and compare it against my existing 300mm f/4 which is one heck of a lens, so we will see.
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member

+ 1

That's exactly the direct comparison I'm interested in.

Which version shows the best subject isolation and the most three-dimensional rendering of the focused subject ?

That quality is far more important to me than size and weight, personally I'm not all that focused on the current "reduction-of-size-and-weight" trend that seems to have caught a substantial part of the market.
 

jsf

Active member
300mm test Between the new PF on the left and the old ED on the right. In looking at the few files I shot on the tripod at a variety of f/stops. I couldn't see any appreciable difference. These are all 100% crops shot at about 100 feet/30 Meters. Because the neighbor shifted slightly when I was doing the old lens, there is more a plane of focus on her sweatshirt. So overall the old lens looks sharper. But when I checked all of the files, I just couldn't match the plane of the new lens to the old lens. I did some hand held shots and the VR does of course make a difference. But I have to say the old 300mm is a remarkable lens, it deserves all of its reputation. The focus is slower on the old (screw type) AF than the new SWM AF, but that is no surprise. The shortness and lightness of the lens is quite nice.
 

Swissblad

Well-known member
Thanks - I'm really interested in the close focus capability - 1.4m vs 2.4m for the old 300mm (which indeed was a good lens), and what the out of focus areas look like - i.e. if the PF lens has a peculiar effect - like that of a mirror lens.
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member

Thank you, jsf.
Do you think you could at some point make a more controlled side-by-side comparison of the two lenses on a tripod, where you shoot some subject plus some background at a distance to the subject (in order to illustrate the subject-isolation ability, the three-dimensionality and the Out-Of-Focus rendering) ?
I think the exposure values of your initial test shots are too different to really illustrate the performance difference (if any) of the two lenses, and at f/11 I believe diffraction already starts to kick in on a 36 Mp sensor in 24x36mm format.


...



But the fact that you own both lenses makes a very valuable opportunity to illustrate the difference between them, so it would be highly appreciated if at some point you could find the time to make a controlled comparison on tripod, and if possible at both f/4, f/5.6 and f/8.
Thank you in advance, and I hope it is not too much to ask for, otherwise please forgive me for being so shamelessly demanding :eek:

Addendum:
Self-timer delay of a couple of seconds, plus Exposure delay of a couple of seconds, is also useful to rule out any shake from the tripod and the shutter when you trip the shutter.
It's in MENU >> Custom Settings >> C3 >> Self-timer >> 2 sec
And in MENU >> Custom Settings >> D4 >> Exposure delay >> 2 sec
But all that is of course up to you and your habits when testing.
 

JohnBrew

Active member
I must say this new lens has impressive specs, but my existing 300/4 is fairly new and still a pretty awesome lens. I only rarely use it - for birding and surfing and then on a gimbal mount.
I, too, would like to see more head-to-head testing. The new lens with less elements seems to mirror the construction of the 1.8G's versus the 1.4G's.
Less is more?
 
Last edited:
Top