advertisement


Nikon 300mm f4 PF

ron

Tweaker
I wanted a light alternative to go with my 300mm f2.8 mainly whilst out walking. Anyway thought I'd try the 300mm f4 PF , I've had it a week now and must admit its not bad at all and goes well with my D500.
Focus speed isn't as fast as the f2.8 and its not quite as sharp but for the price difference I wouldn't expect it to be . It works well wide open with and without the TC

300mm f4 PF , 300mm f2.8

IMG_3348 by leo kirkbride, on Flickr

D500 + 300mm f/4 PF

_DSC6778_openWith-Edit-2 D500 300mm f4 PF by leo kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC6566_openWith-Edit-2 D500 300mm f4 PF by leo kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC6377_openWith-Edit D500 300mm f4 PF by leo kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC6529_openWith-Edit D500 300mm f4 PF by leo kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC6565_openWith-Edit-2 D500 300mm f4 PF by leo kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC6530_openWith-Edit-2 D500 300mm f4 PF by leo kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC6954_openWith-Edit D500 300mm f4 PF by leo kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC5586_openWith D500 300mm f4 PF by leo kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC5086_openWith by leo kirkbride, on Flickr

300mm f4 PF + TC-14e iii

_DSC5002_openWith by leo kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC4626_openWith-Edit by leo kirkbride, on Flickr
 
Well those look lovely, and i'm not sure if I had the f/4 i'd even contemplate the f/2.8 version if you can get these results with it!
 
Those photographs with the F4 are very sharp indeed. I'm in a quandary. Canon 300mm F4 vs 300mm F2.8. Even s/h the smaller is a quarter of the price of the 2.8. But for floodlit sports, the 2.8 is essential. I could always hire one. Thanks for the uploads Ron.
 
Thanks guys, must admit its much better than I thought and was expecting to send it back. I still can't believe how light it is, 750g compared to the 3kg f2.8. I managed to go as low as 1/20 with the VR which is handy for low light .

This isn't exactly a great shot but heres using the TC-14e iii Teleconverter wide open 420mm at f5.6 , second pic is obviously cropped

_DSC40891_openWith by leo kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC4089_openWith by leo kirkbride, on Flickr
 
Those photographs with the F4 are very sharp indeed. I'm in a quandary. Canon 300mm F4 vs 300mm F2.8. Even s/h the smaller is a quarter of the price of the 2.8. But for floodlit sports, the 2.8 is essential. I could always hire one. Thanks for the uploads Ron.

The fast focus speed in lower light is one of the reasons I'm keeping the f2.8 . The little f4 accuracy is still very good , it just takes a little longer to lock and this is small birds under tree cover . For bigger brighter objects it shouldn't have any problems .
The only other difference I found is longer distance objects using the TC, the IQ with the f2.8 holds up much better.
For normal shots the smaller cheaper lens is hard to beat imo. It beats my 80-400G zoom with or without TC's and it's lighter too
 
Excellent pictures, Ron.

The new lens isn't too shabby either.

Joe
 
Unless you need an additional f-stop of light, I can't see going to the f/2.8 version of the 300mm if this is what the f/4 lens is capable of.

Wow.

Joe
 
Unless you need an additional f-stop of light, I can't see going to the f/2.8 version of the 300mm if this is what the f/4 lens is capable of.

Wow.

Joe

Apart from the 'look at the size of my lens' factor, neither can i.

Nikon have produced a gem of lens there.
 
Just checked the specs of the various 300mm Nikkors. The 300mm f/4 PF focuses the closest of the bunch.

Not quite a macro, but with a reproduction ratio of ~0.25x it's pretty damn close.

Joe
 


advertisement


Back
Top