Nikon 300mm 4.0 or 400mm 5.6?

[snegron]

I have been considering these two lenses, Nikon 300mm 4.0 AF-D and the manual focus 400mm 5.6 ED-IF AIS. I would like to hear from anyone who has had experiences with these two lenses. I plan to shoot mostly wildlife. I am looking for the sharpest, best built, most reliable of the two.

One is autofocus, the other is manual focus. I plan to use it mostly with my F3HP (probably with my d@#l D200 as well as it can meter with manual focus lenses). I might experiment using it on my F100, but for the most part it will probably live attatched to my F3HP. The prices on the used market are in the same ballpark, a bit more for the 400. Any suggestions?


Almost forgot to add, I have had bad experiences with the construction of Nikon autofocus lenses. Either the little switches on the barrel that control AF?M function break, the spring that controls the diafragm located near the lensmount pops, or the lens just falls apart. The reason I am considering the 300 AF is that according to the specs, it was built very tough and is supposed to feel and perform like a traditional manual focus lens. The only reason I have been debating between the two is that the 400 seems slow at 5.6.

 

[Donald Miller]

A good friend some twenty years ago shot a great deal of wildlife in Colorado when I live there. He shot Nikon and used a 600 mm F4. It took a strong back just to carry the lens but it produced some incredible images. Bighorn sheep will not normally allow you to get close enough with the lens lengths that you mentioned.

My thoughts are that a 300 mm is a great length for sports photography...although the 2.8 is the preferred aperture at that length...the 400 is more in keeping with the wildlife photography if you want to limit yourself to that length.

 

[Paul Howell]

I had the 300 AI 4.5 which I thought was a good performer, the 2.8 came out after I left the wire so I have no direct experiance, but if you can afford the upgrade I would go the faster lens. I agree with Donald that the 200 and 300 mm are most useful for sports, but I found the 400 is not quite long enough for wildlife, a 500 or 600 always worked better for me. I owned a 300 but rented either the 500 or 600 on the rare occassions I needed a lens that long, or used my M42 with a Pentex body. I suggest the 300mm 2.8 with a matching 1.4 or 1.7 telecoverter.

 

[snegron]

Thanks for the feedback. I would like the 300mm 2.8, but it is out of my price range for now. I have also been thinking about a teleconverter for my 80-200mm 2.8. It would probably be a benifit by not having the added weight of another lens.

 

[nyoung]

My two cents worth, I currently own and shoot the 300 4.0 AF-S and use an old TC 14B which gives me a manual 420 5.6. I like it and shoot it on F3HP and F5. I've used the 300 4.5 AIs and the 300 4.5 ED-IF (best ever manual focus lens for focus/size/weight). They are slow as compared to the 2.8s but the old Wildlife Photographer magazine I used to see occassionally had lots of great photos made from blinds with 1.4 and 2x converters on the 300 4s.
That said, if I get to make my 60 day Alaska trip this summer, I will buy a 300 2.8 and maybe the manual 400 for the trip with plans of selling them when I get back to Texas.

 

[Richard Mendales]

I have both lenses and have excellent results from both. The 300 is great for medium-sized, not very shy animals, and also makes a surprisingly good portrait lens because of its ability to isolate the subject. The 400 is amazingly light for a lens of that focal length, is extraordinarily sharp, and has just enough extra reach to be useful for photographing birds. It balances extremely well with my F3s, F2s, and FTN, and is the only 400 I would handhold, although I prefer to use a monopod.

 

[ehparis]

I use a 300mm f4.5 non-AI lens on my Nikon F and F3 cameras. It cost me $50.00 + shipping on eBay and has pristine glass. It makes relatively sharp photos with the bigger issue being camera shake.

One comment I'd like to make is that use of a monopod or tripod is about as important as any other facet of using a 300mm or 400mm lens. Trying to handhold them, IMO, is not possible for the average user.

 

[nyoung]

double that bit about the tri/mono pod

If you can shoot from a blind, and that includes shooting out the kitchen window to get the hummingbirds at the feeders, I use both the tripod and the monopod if I'm shooting 300+ and have the time and space. Put the tripod on the lens bracket then use the monopod to support the camera body that's hanging off the lens. This works especially well for heavy cameras like the F5 or anything else with a motor drive attached.

 

[MartinB]

Experience with 300 AF-D

I have the 300 AF-D (and never used the 400) that I bought used. It was very beat up (was told it was used by a PJ in Bosnia). The dents in the hood indicate it has taken a good hit or two. The only thing not working on it is the little switch that locks the aperture at f22 for use on a body that sets aperture. The lens continues to take very sharp photos so considering the beating it has taken, I would consider this a very rugged lens.
I use it on my F3, F5 and D70 so it is used both as manual aperture/focus as well as auto and seems to work well either way. Autofocus on the F5 is snappy and I would think it good too on your F100. I also use the 300 with a 1.4 teleconverter and as long as it is stopped down 1 stop, it is good. I find it a light lens compared to a 300 2.8. Finally, I don't think the difference in focal length between the 300 and 400 is too significant for most subjects - you really have to go to a 500 or longer. You may want to look at the closest focusing distance for small subject matter, or use an extension tube.

Martin

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For birds I use a 400/4.5 for flight shots and a 600/4.5 on a tripod. I've occasionally used a 300/4.0 for larger birds I could get really close to in places where they are accustomed to humans or in feeder/blind situations, but in general, 35mm bird photography starts at 400mm. I recently sold the 300mm.

 

[Tonglen]

I use a 300 f/4 AF-S regulary at work and find it excellent for most uses. Light, quick to operate and a pleasant change to lug around compared to the pool 300 f/2.8 AF-S. The f/4 can be a hindrance if you're in a lot of low light situations. Most times I end up having to strobe those anyway. Except the courtroom I haven't used the 400 f/5.6 AIS, but have used the 400 f/3.5 AIS and 400 f/2.8 AF-S. You might want to look at a used 400 f/3.5 if you need the extra reach-it's fairly quick to operate and has clean, contrasty signature something like the older 180 f/2.8 AIS. I've seen one go for less than $1k on that auction site.