300mm Lens

[CMoore]

I am only interested in Canon and Nikon, but it is probably a similar story with all brands.......so fell free to share your experience with whatever you shoot in 300mm.

The price jump from 300/4.0 to 300/2,8 is gigantic.
Have you Gals/Guys been pretty happy with your 300/4.0 lens.?
thank you

 

[StepheKoontz]

Not only the price jump, the size! Also know though those 300mm f2.8 lenses have some of the best optics avail at the time they were made. It was their flagship lens.

I shoot nikon and had the "screwdriver" AF-D 300mm f4. I later got a 70-200 f2.8 VRII lens with the matching 1.4TC and honestly saw no real difference between the older 300mm f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 with the 1.4TC so I sold the 300mm. The 70-200 with a matching 1.4TC is REALLY good option. There really isn't a great TC to use with the AF-D lens. I'm not sure which version of the 300mm f4 you are considering.

 

[CMoore]

Not only the price jump, the size! Also know though those 300mm f2.8 lenses have some of the best optics avail at the time they were made. It was their flagship lens.

I shoot nikon and had the "screwdriver" AF-D 300mm f4. I later got a 70-200 f2.8 VRII lens with the matching 1.4TC and honestly saw no real difference between the older 300mm f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 with the 1.4TC so I sold the 300mm. The 70-200 with a matching 1.4TC is REALLY good option. There really isn't a great TC to use with the AF-D lens. I'm not sure which version of the 300mm f4 you are considering.

Hey Stephe....... sorry, i am not familiar with what Canon or Nikon made over the years.
All i can say is that it would be manual focus.

 

[jimjm]

I've had the Nikkor 300/4.5 ED (AI) manual focus lens, and it was excellent. Has a rotating tripod mount, which is handy. I actually did a lot of sports photography with that lens.
If I was looking for another one, I'd consider the 300/4.5 IF ED (AI or AIS), which are a bit smaller and lighter, but also excellent.
I just don't use long lenses enough to justify the size & cost of a 2.8 lens. Maybe if I was doing wildlife photography.
Haven't used any Canon FD lenses in 300mm.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Hey Stephe....... sorry, i am not familiar with what Canon or Nikon made over the years.
All i can say is that it would be manual focus.

I owned a nikon 300mm f2.8 IF/ED and it was optically amazing. I will say trying to manually focus one of those super fast tele lenses wide open, especially if hand held and/or moving subjects, isn't easy. Not knowing what you are shooting and/or what film you want to use, it's hard to say if the extra stop of light is worth it. I can say high shutter speeds are your friend when using a 300mm lens. The only other manual focus 300mm lens I have used is the Olympus 300mm f4.5 and it also is optically good, but not as good as the 300mm f2.8 nikkor. As I said, those super fast tele lenses are their flagship models and they spared no expense making them. If you are planning to shoot sports or wildlife on film, I would seriously consider an F5 and a 70-200 f2.8 VRII/1.4 converter. Having VR and autofocus for these uses is a game changer. Otherwise, expect a low keeper rate and burning a lot of film.

 

[narsuitus]

...so fell free to share your experience with whatever you shoot in 300mm.

For my Pentax Spotmatics, I have 200mm and 300mm lenses.

For my Nikons, I have 180mm, 400mm and 500mm Nikon lenses but no 300mm.

I find 300mm too short for birds and too long for portraits.

However, if I shot more sports, I would probably need a 300/2.8 for my full-frame or a 200/2 for my APS-c.

 

[CMoore]

I owned a nikon 300mm f2.8 IF/ED and it was optically amazing. I will say trying to manually focus one of those super fast tele lenses wide open, especially if hand held and/or moving subjects, isn't easy. Not knowing what you are shooting and/or what film you want to use, it's hard to say if the extra stop of light is worth it. I can say high shutter speeds are your friend when using a 300mm lens. The only other manual focus 300mm lens I have used is the Olympus 300mm f4.5 and it also is optically good, but not as good as the 300mm f2.8 nikkor. As I said, those super fast tele lenses are their flagship models and they spared no expense making them. If you are planning to shoot sports or wildlife on film, I would seriously consider an F5 and a 70-200 f2.8 VRII/1.4 converter. Having VR and autofocus for these uses is a game changer. Otherwise, expect a low keeper rate and burning a lot of film.

Oh-Man.......not enough info given.

I am strictly an amateur.
I shoot FP4 and HP5 and Kodak Colorplus-200.

I have some friends that are into auto racing.
My longest lens is 200. I have never hald-held more than a 200.
It comes up a bit short sometimes as a spectator at the track.

I was thinking that a 300......4.0 but not 2.8....would still be "manageable" for hand-holding . But i have tripods, i could always do that if hand-holding a 300 does not work out well.
Outside on... "sunny days" ...even with 200 ASA i should be OK for shutter speeds at f/5.6 or f/8.0.

 

[mshchem]

Oh-Man.......not enough info given.

I am strictly an amateur.
I shoot FP4 and HP5 and Kodak Colorplus-200.

I have some friends that are into auto racing.
My longest lens is 200. I have never hald-held more than a 200.
It comes up a bit short sometimes as a spectator at the track.

I was thinking that a 300......4.0 but not 2.8....would still be "manageable" for hand-holding . But i have tripods, i could always do that if hand-holding a 300 does not work out well.
Outside on... "sunny days" ...even with 200 ASA i should be OK for shutter speeds at f/5.6 or f/8.0.

Consider a Nikon 300mm f4 ED AF. This is the first 300 f4 auto focus lens Nikon made. Built like a full blown pro lens, drop in 39mm filters. Works great in manual focus these can be bought in nearly mint condition on Ebay, from Japan dealers, for 300 bucks. It's not going to go down in value, will work with the cheap Nikon SLR film cameras. Bright sun 1000th at F8 with 200 speed film. This is old school Nikon before they built stuff in China, Thailand.

 

[CMoore]

.....will work with the cheap Nikon SLR film cameras......

Wait a minute..!!!!!

I never even considered AF. I guess i assumed they would not be that great in MF mode.
My wife does have a Nikon (film) 35mm AF SLR of some type. So the lens could do double duty i suppose.
Anyway.......thanks for the suggestion, i will take a look.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have 300 in several mounts, a 300 5.6 Pentax M42, somewhat slow but very sharp at F8 to 11, Petri 300 4.5 is the sharpest 300 I have too bad in a Petri mount. A Minolta 4.0 G, sharp , good contrast, really fast AF, but quite a bit lighter than the 2.8 which I considered but didn't want the extra weight and big jump in price. When I did shoot Nikon MF I rented a 300 2.8 on occasion, great lens. As far as Canon, does not get better than L glass. Others that are good depending on the version are Sigma. Unless you think yu will be shooting in dim light or like the narrow depth of field I tend towards the 4.0.

 

[jimjm]

If you're looking to shoot sports, I'd go with AF - it'll make life a lot easier. A lens/body that are VR-compatible is even better.
Any Nikon AF lens that has an aperture ring will function and meter correctly with most manual-focus film bodies. Older pre-AI bodies with a metering prong would be the exception.
The F100 and F5 bodies are still pretty cheap these days, with fast autofocus and plenty of bells and whistles. I'm using an F100 with a 70-300 VR lens for bike racing, and it's been great.

 

[Ariston]

This is not really allowed here and probably isn't what you want, but you can get a digital camera with higher ISO capabilities for a lot less money and more than make up for that one stop of light while saving money and weight.

 

[mshchem]

This is not really allowed here and probably isn't what you want, but you can get a digital camera with higher ISO capabilities for a lot less money and more than make up for that one stop of light while saving money and weight.

Truth

 

[Light Capture]

Nikon AF-S 300mm f4 is excellent. Used several examples. Focus is able to keep up with very fast oncoming cars or wildlife. At first it seems like it's focusing slowly but it doesn't hunt and tracks almost everything.
If performance at close distances is important, this is one of the best lenses out there. None of the 70-200 versions come close here. Some of them are horrible at minimum focusing distance. 300mm works well even with extension tubes at higher magnifications.

Image quality is also superb at normal shooting distances and infinity. Basically, I haven't found situation where this lens fails.

I didn't try the latest PF version (aperture can't be stopped down on any film cameras) or older AF lens or any of the 2.8 versions.

 

[Paul Howell]

Nikon N90S are inexpensive, coupled with a S or D 300F4, not as fast as a recent G or E, but fast enough for most work.

 

[film_man]

The longest I've had was a Nikon 180/2.8 AIS. Manual focus and handheld was a bit of a pain. I also had a Sigma 180/3.5 macro which was much much better even with the relative slow AF it has. If I was to get anything longer I'd rather get f/4 and stabilised than f/2.8. Manual focus? Well unless you're shooting landscapes what's the point. Yes yes I know Real Men (TM) with moustaches and jeans jackets used to manual focus a 500/4 hand held standing on one leg but I'm pretty sure they are all shooting digital with VR/IS and 12328376483 auto focus points today.

 

[StepheKoontz]

None of the 70-200 versions come close here. Some of them are horrible at minimum focusing distance.

Just to be clear, the focus breathing on the 70-200 VRII is only seen at headshot portrait distances and mine is still sharp there. I tested my 70-200 VRII f2.8 with a 1.4x latest version TC and it was easily the equal of my 300mm f4 screwdriver lens, so I sold the 300mm.

For the OP, if you are looking for a low $$ way to get a good 300mm that will work on both older MF bodies and also with AF, that nikon screwdriver focus AF 300mm f4 might be the ticket.

 

[Light Capture]

Just to be clear, the focus breathing on the 70-200 VRII is only seen at headshot portrait distances and mine is still sharp there. I tested my 70-200 VRII f2.8 with a 1.4x latest version TC and it was easily the equal of my 300mm f4 screwdriver lens, so I sold the 300mm.

For the OP, if you are looking for a low $$ way to get a good 300mm that will work on both older MF bodies and also with AF, that nikon screwdriver focus AF 300mm f4 might be the ticket.

View attachment 266242

I was referring to image quality, not focus breathing at MFD. Results from new 70-200 f4 at MFD looked like smartphone snap.
It was super sharp at portrait distances but not at MFD. I didn't try 70-200 VRII.
OP wants to use it on cars. 70-200 f4 couldn't track cars at 50-60 km/h. It was turning focus ring faster than 300mm but actual tracking performance was bad.
AF-S 300mm can track oncoming cars with mid class body at over 200 km/h.
I absolutely loved results from AF-S 70-200 f4 but due to MFD IQ and focus speed it was returned for AF-S 300mm.
70-200 f4 has different contrast and rendering (better but still subtle).

AF-S 300 can also be used on most older bodies. It's sharp wide open and peaks between 4.5 and 5.6.
It's better than screwdriver version if internet reports are correct. Also screwdriver lens close focus is 2.5m. AF-S is 1.45m.
For my use that difference in close focus is huge.

 

[awty]

The 300 is barely long enough, need to get the 2x tele extension as well......and a holster.

 

[CMoore]

I have never used a tel-converter.
How well do those things work.?

 

[awty]

You lose a couple of stops, but ok for slow moving things like the moon.
Fits my 135mm to which is a bit faster.
Don't really use it to be honest, came with the 300mm.
Really need a tripod and mirror lock to get anything resembling sharp.
The 135mm is a far more usable lens and super sharp, just need to get closer to the action.

 

[awty]

You could get a 180mm f2.8 and a tele converter and cover both bases. The 200mm is pretty ordinary, but have heard great things about the 180mm. With a 1.5 tele you wont be missing too much.

 

[Dennis-B]

I still have both the 180mm f/2.8 AIs and the 180mm f/2.8 AF Nikkors. They're absolutely incredible for their sharpness and speed for the focal length. I also have both the 300mm f/4.5 AIs, and the 300mm f/4 AF lenses, and they're perfect for their intended purposes - wildlife, long landscapes, etc. The manual focus setting on the 180mm AF, is very handy and it focuses easily.

However, if you need the reach, I'd recommend the Nikkor 75-300mm f/4-5.6 AF. It's a great all-round lens, although a bit soft in the corners @ 300mm. I use it with my F100 and other film cameras, and also with my d****als. At 200mm it's very sharp, especially after f/5.6. It also manually focuses nicely.

 

[StepheKoontz]

You could get a 180mm f2.8 and a tele converter and cover both bases. The 200mm is pretty ordinary, but have heard great things about the 180mm. With a 1.5 tele you wont be missing too much.

Agree that the 180mm f2.8 is a deadly sharp lens.

 

[Mick Fagan]

The 180mm f/2.8 uses the TC-14A, which is designed for lenses up to 200mm. This converts the 180mm f/2.8 to a 250mm f/4 giving one extra pulling power with only one stop of light loss.

I've had my 180mm f/2.8 for something like 25 years, for around 6 months I borrowed a TC-14A with a view to purchase, but the deal fell through. Brilliant coupling, but you are getting into monopod or tripod territory and the lens does not have a tripod mount.

Mick.