Test of the new
Nikon AF-S VR 300mm 4.0E PF ED
Oh no, pixelpeeping again!
First impressions:
The lens is really small for a 300 mm
lens, similar to the 70-200 f4 in lenght but a little bit wider at
the end. Total weight is about 850 gramms with lenshood and caps.
Handling is good on a D800. Smooth and fast autofocus, VR seems to
work well, I would say about three stops in real use.
Pictures are sharp and contrasty,
specular highlights nothing to worry so far.
The first test shots showed me, that
sharpness is best wide open and gets a little bit less at f5,6 which
is quite unusuall, at f8 it improves again and also at f11 it is
excelent.
stability issues:
Use of a tripod ring: I bought a cheap
chinese ring for 15.-€ via amazon.de.
On a sturdy tripod from Really Right
Stuff with a Markins Ball Head I did not get sharp pictures at
criticial times like 1/30 sec, although the tripod rings fits good
and can be tightened well, so there is no wobbling around. With the
lens alone you do not need such a ring, as the lens is
lightweight enough to fix the camera directly on the ball head (I do
this via a RRS L clamp). With the TC´s the whole setup gets fragile
and more weight an lenght is added. For action shots a tripod clamp
with a gimbal head is a good thing and for this even the cheap
chinese one do work well, because you need fast shutterspeeds anyway.
But for static work beyond 200 mm with
long exposures you do need a very sturdy tripod and maybe the
expensive clamps from Nikon, RRS or Kirk do make a difference? My
solution is to fix the camera and the clamp on the lens with the
panorama rail from RRS together. Then my vibration issues are gone,
but this setup is only good for horizontal orientation.
I tested the 300 mm f4 against the 300
mm f2,8 and made also some comparisons with the 70-200 f2,8 and f4
both with TC 1,4 II, Tc 2x III and also the 28-300 mm Zoom.
300 mm
To my surprise the 300 f 4 is sharper
than the 300 mm f2,8 at f4. I rerun the test with the same results.
 |
| first picture is the 300 mm f2,8 @ f4, second the 300 mm f4 @f4 |
Forgive me that I do not post greater pictures and more samples but from my experience it is very hard to judge the overall performance of a lens from a few testshots published on a webpage. So I give you my findings as a start for own testing.
300 mm with Tc 1,4x II
The winner is again the 300 f4 at f4.
Stopped down to f8 the lenses do get equal.
300 mm with TC 2x III
The winner is the 300 f2,8 at f8 where
it is very good.
Upsampling of the very good picture
made with the 300 f4 and the 1,4 Tc gets at least the same quality as
the picture with the Tc 2x.
Macro is possible with a 1,4 TC II and
a small 12 mm Extension tube you get almost to 1:2 (half lifesize)
70-200 f2,8 and 70-200 f4 + Tc 1,4x II
The winner is the 70-200 f4 but at f5,6 both are good.
70-200 f2,8 and 70-200 f4 + Tc 2x III
Clear winner is the 70-200 f4, both
wide open and stopped down it is sharper.
I was never quite happy with the
quality of the 70-200 f2,8 and the Tc 2x III, upsampling (or cropping
if you prefer) from a picture with the Tc 1,4x was at least the same
quality.
Compared to the 300 mm f4 with Tc1,4x
the 300 mm is better, but not so much.
So for static subjects the 70-200 f4
with the Tc2x is quite usable and this combo works also quite well
for butterflies, as the f4 version does not suffer so much from focus
shortening at near distances as the f2,8 version.
The 300 mm f4 is still a little bit
sharper even wide open so you gain one stop, but nevertheless the
perfomance of the 70-200 mm f4 with Tc´s is quite impressive. Keep
in mind that AF speed is certainly better with the 300 mm f4.
The 28-300 mm Fx lens is no match for
the other lenses but does get good sharpnes at 300 mm at least when
stopped down to f8 or f11. Interesting that it does not get to real
300 mm at least at a distance of 8 meters as shown in this
comparison.
Conclusion:
A great prime lens everyone should look at. Nikon managed to make a classic lens much better and lighter and added VR too.
______________________________________________________________________________
Why use today a heavy tele lens like
the 300 mm f2,8, when digital cameras easily can be pushed beyond Iso
1600 with great results?
Two reasons remain: Af speed, because
the faster the glass the better the AF speed and second AF accuracy.
With teleconverters attached I did find often that the single middle
AF (on the eye of the teddy) was not accurate. All test pictures were
made with camera control pro and mirror pre release. I did focus with
live view and this was espacially with the Tc´s much better, not to
say spot on. But this only works with static subjects as the Live
View AF ist too slow for action shots. I was astonished how
problematic the AF accuracy is beyond 200 mm. The lenses were
calibrated with „Lens Align“, but I get more and more the
feeling, that this just makes the issue less worse, but does not
solve it. Especially in low light AF with Rc´s attached gets
problematic or inconsistent, which is to be expected, but should be
mentioned anyway.
This means that the heavy and expensive lenses have their place when you really need every bit of light you can get. In the moment you do mainly daylight photography the one stop you loose with lenses like the 70-200 f4 or 300 mm f4 is not so much a problem, as you get the same picture quality in a lighter package for a much better price. I gets complicated when you want to reach out beyond 400 mm with Teleconverters. And 600 mm is hard to handle no matter what lens you use.
I find the 300 mm f4 a good supplement to my 70-200 f4. Certainly the Nikon 80-400 would be an alternative if you want to avoid changing of lenses or a second body. It depends on shooting style and where you want to use your lenses.
But from my experience it is better today to travel as light as possible, as flight regulations get more strict every year. And for the 3300.-€ less (the 300 mm f2,8 costs 5300.-€ in Europe) you can invest in local guides, special photo trips and in more travelling time which normally brings you also more good pictures. I think Joe Mc Nally once said to a question of "How do I make good pictures? - Put something interesting in front of your lens!"
Dont get me wrong, I do like my 300 mm f2.8 but I do not use it as often as I should because of the extra weight. Luckily I had my car nearby when we encountert this wild lynx at Abisko National Park in Sweden and could make some great pictures:
This means that the heavy and expensive lenses have their place when you really need every bit of light you can get. In the moment you do mainly daylight photography the one stop you loose with lenses like the 70-200 f4 or 300 mm f4 is not so much a problem, as you get the same picture quality in a lighter package for a much better price. I gets complicated when you want to reach out beyond 400 mm with Teleconverters. And 600 mm is hard to handle no matter what lens you use.
I find the 300 mm f4 a good supplement to my 70-200 f4. Certainly the Nikon 80-400 would be an alternative if you want to avoid changing of lenses or a second body. It depends on shooting style and where you want to use your lenses.
But from my experience it is better today to travel as light as possible, as flight regulations get more strict every year. And for the 3300.-€ less (the 300 mm f2,8 costs 5300.-€ in Europe) you can invest in local guides, special photo trips and in more travelling time which normally brings you also more good pictures. I think Joe Mc Nally once said to a question of "How do I make good pictures? - Put something interesting in front of your lens!"
Dont get me wrong, I do like my 300 mm f2.8 but I do not use it as often as I should because of the extra weight. Luckily I had my car nearby when we encountert this wild lynx at Abisko National Park in Sweden and could make some great pictures:
 |
| Lynx with Nikon D800 and 300 mm f2.8 and Tc2x III, RRS Tripod |
See also my review at "Nikonrumors": http://nikonrumors.com/2015/03/15/nikon-af-s-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr-lens-review.aspx/
