|
|
---XR---
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Oct 30, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 497
|
|
Review Date: Mar 17, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
lightweight (hand holdable), takes well with 1.4x., close focus distance, super sharp, quick AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
none.
|
|
the best aspect is the weight/size, because of it it can be handheld and with the good AF tracking BIF or other wildlife is an absoulute ease. the shots are sharp, i don't even mind cropping down on the 4.1 MP D2H, which is definetly a compliment. takes the 1.4 without losss in IQ and small in AF.
|
|
 Mar 17, 2010
|
|
MichaelErlewin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 13, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 85
|
|
Review Date: Oct 26, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Bought it for use with the D3x for macro. More below.
|
|
Cons:
|
None for my use.
|
|
I had no real interest in this lens until I got a Nikon D3x. And the reason I did was as follows:
The telephoto lenses that I have (like the 70-200 2.8) don’t really have a close focus that approaches macro distances.
However, the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S has a VERY short close focus (five feet) for its size and that made it interesting and usable with the D3x for macro work. Using this lens, I can get close (but not too close) to, let’s say, a bullfrog out in the middle of a pond. If I took this picture with my D700, I would have a nice shot of a frog in a pond, but not one that could be cropped or blown up enough just to use the image of the frog as an enlarged photo..
The D3x changes all of this. Using this lens with the D3x, I can capture a shot of the bullfrog, crop it later, and end up with a really large image of just the frog.
Furthermore, using the 1.4 and 1.7 teleconverters, I can really zero in on small objects (like bees, hornets, etc.) in the same manner, with quite good clarity. Something is always lost (at least light) with tubes or converters, but I can live with that in some cases, although usually I use this lens with no supplemental devices.
So, the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S for me is a different way to approach macro photography. I wish more telephotos had a shorter close focus.
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009
|
|
Johnny McClung
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 4, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 45
|
|
Review Date: Jul 20, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,399.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Razor sharp wide open. Performs as well as, if not better than, my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR. Works just as sharp with Nikon's 1.4 TC. Light weight, solid build, pro glass, no compromises.
|
|
Cons:
|
Tripod collar not as smooth as 70-200 VR when rotating. No rubber seal at lens mount.
|
|
For the money, this has to be the best purchase I have made regarding long lenses. I previously used a 1.7 TC with my 70-200 VR and was not satisfied. I also owned and used the Nikon 80-400 VR for a while, but always felt like I wanted sharper, more special pics for my birding photography. I finally decided to get the 300mm f/4 AF-S when I saw it in stock at B&H. I actually ended up buying the import version in the grey/white color since it was the only one in stock. Last weekend I shot some of the best birding photos I have ever shot in terms of sharpness and clarity, and this was while using the 1.4 TC the entire time. You really do get what you pay for.. but I feel like I got a little more. When your other lenses are pro glass, you really can't compromise on your long glass. That's why I finally decided to go for it. For the money, there is no better combo, the 300mm f/4 + Nikon's 1.4 TC ... trust me, I have tried many options, and this is the best.
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2009
|
|
fdevyatkin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 11, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 1891
|
|
Review Date: Jun 22, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Quick accurate focus, beautiful bokeh and isolation, great color and contrast, not too heavy for a 300mm, sturdy build, takes 1.4TC without loss of IQ
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
I shoot birds in flight or perched, with and without the Kenko Pro 1.4X TC. I also use it for baseball, portraits and even a little macro (it has a nice short focusing distance). Since I mounted this on my D700 everyone has raved detail and focus, color rendition and bokeh. If the $$$ of the 300 2.8VR is a little high, you won't go wrong with this jewel.
I was considering the Sigmas 50-500, 150-500 100-300F/4 and the 120-300F/2.8. The image quality on the 500mm was not as good as the Nikon with a TC, and the 100-300F/4 lost a fair amount of quality as it approached 300mm (between 100-200mm it was stellar) and the 120-300 2.8 was more expensive and prone to QC issues.
In retrospect, I made the right decision with the Nikon.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2009
|
|
Dirk Hiemstra
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast and well built.
|
|
Cons:
|
No Vr.
|
|
The only way to go to a "normal" 400mm is this tele + TC 1.4. It is a shame Nikon does not have a affordable 400mm 5.6 AF-S. Thought I should go the Sigma route but honestly, the 300 AFS + TC is the only way if you want to have excellent image quality. Should have bought this years ago. Wow !
|
|
|
Jan 9, 2009
|
|
albertino
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 23, 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Nitidezza ottima-contrasto ottimo-nessuna distorsione-leggero nel suo genere
|
|
Cons:
|
nessuno
|
|
Provengo da Canon e possiedo,ma in vendita, il 300mm 2,8 is-
non mi sembra in termini di nitidezza questo meraviglioso vetro abbia molto da invidiare al suo concorrente a parte l'epertura f4 e la stabilizzazione.
Leggero e facilmente conducibile me ne sono innamorato subito.
Non posso fare altro che consigliarlo fortemente
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2008
|
|
Carl Feather
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 26, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 344
|
|
Review Date: Oct 21, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, light weight, close focusing, fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
No VR.
|
|
I had the older version of this lens and sold it because I just didn't use it that much. After almost 10 years, I decided to revisit the focal length to round out my digital outfit. I debated on the purchase for months, and finally found a used gray-color lens for $950 with the Kirk collar.
I am very impressed with this lens and its image quality. The build is superb and much lighter than I thought it would be. I find it more comfortable to shoot with than the 70-200 it complements.
The images are sharp from f/4 on and both close and far away. I shot images of deer and the whiskers on them are sharp and clear. The lens is very handholdable thanks to the D700 and D300 high ISO abilities. The Kirk collar sweetens tripod performance and is worth the money.
AF is fast and all I could want. The only thing I miss on it is VR.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008
|
|
Avi B
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Dec 7, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5325
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Sharp. Sharp. Close focus ability (5'). Versatile lightweight (in comparison to f/2.8 glass) lens. Poor man's wildlife lens (with or w/o appropriate TCs).
|
|
Cons:
|
The built in hood seems flimsy. No VR... Giving it a 10 overall in spite of these "problems".
|
|
In spite of no VR and crappy supplied collar, this is a great buy. One of the best values in the Nikon lens lineup if you need long glass.
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2008
|
|
penghai
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: May 21, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 456
|
|
Review Date: Mar 11, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very very sharp, solid build, and creamy boken. accurate focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy and big, no VR
|
|
I have shooted SLRs and DSLRs for many years. I have used many great lenses: Canon 300 f2.8 IS, Canon 200 f2.8, Canon 135 f2.0, Canon 400 f5.6, Sigma 150, Canon 100 macro, ....even my recent Nikon 70-200 VR and Tamron 180 macro. I used to think "creamy" is just an adjective many used to describe a blurry background. It's until the first time I put this lens on my tripod with my camera to take a first shoot with it. I don't believe the "creamy" background I saw over the view finder. It's really "creamy" and simply beautiful.
The lens has a very fine MF ring, even though it AF fine. It's built like a tank and is heavy (heavier than the excellent Canon 400 f5.6).
It's probably one of the old generation of Nikon lenses that it still has an aperture ring so it can be used with Nikon extension tubes like PN-11, PK-13,...
IQ is excellent. Focus dead-on on my D300. Color is great too.
The used copy I bought comes with a Kirk replacement tripod collar. The tripod collar is very solid.
The only cons I can think of:
1. Kind heavy due to its excellent built. It goes with my tripod most of the time.
2. I really wish it has VR.
I'd highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2008
|
|
PJ Fish
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Nov 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Err Nikon 300mm F 4 IF ED -82 mm front (non AFS)this is >creme de la creme> as the french says..it IS a true Nikon classic.Strong made, Good range ,perfect pics ,easy to handle and carry and fast speed even w .the Non AFs model which i recomand.
|
|
Cons:
|
That it is no longer made(the IF ED model Errr*LOL)
i little irritating to find 82 mm filters but search and youll find them.
|
|
This is a review for the Nikon 300 mm F4 IF ED(non afs)mainly;
My true workhorse for sports and PJ work alike,it makes wonderfull pictures and is very snappy on my Nikon DSLRs(such as D1H and D70s) the files is so clean nice and well colours is super.
I personally find that the old model is a better investment and find that is certainly much better made.
Go and buy it used and enjoy..
|
|
|
Nov 3, 2007
|
|
Toon de Smit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 9, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Contrast, sharpness!, hood, minimum focussing distance
|
|
Cons:
|
I replaced the collar with Kirk’s
|
|
I recently started to use this lens for Macro.
In combination with the PN-11 extension tube and the D200. And with a solid tripod and use of MLU. With the lens plus tubes you can keep a safe distance which is nice while approaching dragonsflies and damselflies.
I have to say that after some practice the results are really great. It is as if you use a supertele (I own the Sigma 300-800) for macro. Pictures are intimate.
See for yourself:
http://www.pbase.com/toondesmit/image/84706591
http://www.pbase.com/toondesmit/image/84505124
http://www.pbase.com/toondesmit/image/83697534
Why use a dedicated macro??
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2007
|
|
tanglefoot47
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 11120
|
|
Review Date: Apr 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great colors, fast enough for me, built in hood
|
|
Cons:
|
Like everyone else the tripod collar but no big deal I bought the Kirk collar
|
|
Lovely lens I it has become one of my favorites. I am now getting some of the best zoo shots I ever have.
Mike
|
|
|
Apr 7, 2007
|
|
|
