Do I need a 300mm f/4 PF?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

G

Gongster

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I don't read much about the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6g ED lens. I own one of these and I quite like it. However, I use it quite sparingly, usually on a tripod in a hide or from my truck window rested on a bean bag.
I recently bought an 18-300mm f3.5-5.6 to use as my 'walkabout lens', the 80-400 is just too heavy for me to lug about all day. I soon discovered that the 18-300 is 'Jack of all trades, definitely Master of none.' At 300mm the 80-400 is noticeably sharper and keener to acquire a focus.
I'm now of a mind to buy the 300mm PF, have that more or less permanently attached for birds and other wildlife and carry a smaller lens for landscapes.
So this is really a long-winded way of asking if the 300 PF is appreciably sharper than the 80-400 and should I get one (I think I know the answer but just need to justify it to Senior Management! :) )
I still have my 18-105 kit lens ,which has actually been OK, 10-20mm Sigma, 50mm Nikon and 105mm Sigma macro so I have most bases covered.
My body is the D7100, I'd quite like a D500 but that will be subject of another thread!!

Thoughts please.
Thanks, Mike.
 
Member's gallery
Hi Mike, I bought the 80-400 with a D500 as I had lost heart in my 7Dii on a 100-400 Canon . But I felt that I had jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.
The Nikon gear sat on a shelf for a long time while I persevered with the 7dii.
Nikon then brought our the pf’s.
I bit the bullet traded in the virtually new 80-400 and got the 300 pf and 1.4 convertor.
Bingo ! the combination was an absolute pleasure to use, although I lost a lot of dosh in the process I felt vilified and have not looked back.
I m sure you will have no regrets in getting the 300pf it’s so light, beautifully sharp and takes a convertor very well, giving 420mm f5.6 where I mainly used both my zooms.
 
Member's gallery
Robin said:
Hi Mike, I bought the 80-400 with a D500 as I had lost heart in my 7Dii on a 100-400 Canon . But I felt that I had jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.
The Nikon gear sat on a shelf for a long time while I persevered with the 7dii.
Nikon then brought our the pf’s.
I bit the bullet traded in the virtually new 80-400 and got the 300 pf and 1.4 convertor.
Bingo ! the combination was an absolute pleasure to use, although I lost a lot of dosh in the process I felt vilified and have not looked back.
I m sure you will have no regrets in getting the 300pf it’s so light, beautifully sharp and takes a convertor very well, giving 420mm f5.6 where I mainly used both my zooms.
Click to expand...
Thanks Robin, I think that's the answer I'm looking for! :)
 
Member's gallery
If you find yourself zooming frequently, the 300PF may not be the best choice. However, as a (mostly) prime shooter, I have to say, I really like mine. I can't find the images now, but I'm sure I compared that lens to the 80-400 at one point (apparently just for my own curiosity since I didn't publish anything), and remember the 300PF is absolutely sharper than the 80-400 @ 300mm. I think it was also a bit better with the TC @420mm than the 80-400 @ 400mm - although I think I had a really good copy of that 80-400.

Overall, if you need the focal length, that little lens is a joy to use. In fact, I just posted this on instagram today - taken with that lens and a D5.
fish-eagle-in-flight.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I was in the same situation (with the 200-500 instead of the 80-400mm). I always like to have a camera on me, as I go spontaneously on walks or hikes, sometimes for a hours at a time. The 200-500 was ok for a targeted 2 hour hike, but not for unplanned walks or longer hikes. So I tried the 11-16 wide lens + 70-200 f4 Combo.. weight was ok, but the reach of 200mm wasn't enough. So I went for the 300 pf (after hearing Feedback on this Forum). Never been happier!

It is ridiculously light and small, great IQ, has short focus distance for Macro shots, and offers good reach for deer, fox, and big birds (red kite, herons, storks) at f4. Now I am waiting for black Friday to buy the TC 14e iii to have better reach for smaller birds (robins, tits, etc).

In short, the 300 pf is IMO the most versatile prime telefoto lens you can buy.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
If you find yourself zooming frequently, the 300PF may not be the best choice. However, as a (mostly) prime shooter, I have to say, I really like mine. I can't find the images now, but I'm sure I compared that lens to the 80-400 at one point (apparently just for my own curiosity since I didn't publish anything), and remember the 300PF is absolutely sharper than the 80-400 @ 300mm. I think it was also a bit better with the TC @420mm than the 80-400 @ 400mm - although I think I had a really good copy of that 80-400.

Overall, if you need the focal length, that little lens is a joy to use. In fact, I just posted this on instagram today - taken with that lens and a D5.
View attachment 10283
Click to expand...
Looking at this image Steve, I can’t help but think you have done this photography thing before 😉
 
Member's gallery
The 300 PF is the apt example of mistaken belief/decision that focal length coverage is the main factor on which to build one's lens system. Thus one only has to cover 300mm with a single lens (eg mid-telephoto zoom, or a 300 f2.8). This prime is unique for many reasons, now widely known. I also have the 80-400 G, which delivers well within its constraints.... BUT. The 300 PF's macro abilities are very useful for flowers, large inverts and smaller vertebrates. If necessary get the set of Kenko ext rings. It is one of the E Nikkors one should twin with the latest TC14 III (ie vII works but vIII seems to add that little more crispness). Also many of us get more than decent IQ with TC17 II.

With/without a TC, this dinky lens also works really well on a Z MILC.

No single word does the 300 PF full justice, but Versatility encapsulates its many uses. Uniqueness is another.

Bear in mind a VR issue afflicted some copies in an early batch soon after its release. This is a factor to remember if buying Used. This was only reported on some DSLRs with the 300 f4 PF, and the factory should have fixed this in copies with serial numbers above 205101. Nikon also released a FW fix. I also remember more than one of the first/rushed reviews of the 300 PF made a few lab-rats who underrated this look a little foolish, in trying to judge this lens solely on bench data (eg N-Photo Magazine, DC World)

For the record, here's an interview with the designers: https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/688994.html
And from my database, a few more reviews including Steve's:
http://backcountrygallery.com/nikon-200-500-vs-300pf-review-and-comparison/

https://backcountrygallery.com/comparison-test-crop-camera-vs-1-4x-teleconverter-full-frame/

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2017_all.html
https://www.lenstip.com/431.11-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_300_mm_f_4E_PF_ED_VR_Summary.html

http://www.truetoad.com/Reviews/nikon-300mm-f4-pf-review-hands-on

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/1005-nikkorafs3004pfvrff

http://www.richardpeters.co.uk/blog...m-f4-pf-review-the-death-of-super-telephotos/

http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/ni...ime-lens-reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-af-s-vr.html
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I had the 80-400... I liked it very much.. better lens than people think... changed for the 300PF. Nor so happy at that time, sold my 300PF. some years later, I exchanged a lens and get a new 300PF... yes... and realized that my fist one was a bad one. The new one is noticeably sharper... and now, I have the 500PF. I like it very much... but do not use my 300PF anymore! I keep it for travel for now. Great kit with the Nikon Z. But the D850 and the 500PF is still my go to outside!
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
I'm asking the same question about the 500mm PF, even though I already have a 500mm f4. So far, the I've got no answer save yes while arguing with myself over it. I just have to get my wallet to not say no...

W
Click to expand...

Be hard on convincing your wallet :D. It's the same here. I have the 500 f4 G and 500 PF and I love them both - for totally different reasons. As I stated in another thread the 500 PF was the me-to-myself incentive after half a year of hard work abroad in Ireland and it was travelling that I had in mind when taking this decision. Imagine a 24-70 f28 plus 300 PF plus 500PF combined with one FX and one DX body giving you an equivalent of 24 to 750mm with excellent IQ fitting in the hand luggage !

At least on my bodies I don't really see a big difference in IQ between the small and the big 500 apart from the implications of the 500PF being f5.6, which means that using a TC is really not an option if you need fast and accurate AF with all AF points working, and you loose a stop of subject isloation due to DOF. But I am sure that the experience of shooting a 500 with this level of mobility and agility will give you a lot of good arguments against your wallet :D.

That said, regarding IQ I am probably not a good benchgmark because I am shooting between 16 and 24 MPixels on FX format, so D850 shooters might think different about the 500PF IQ and resolution bigger glass ... but there should be one at least one of these guys around here with @Steve being on of them.
 
Member's gallery
Icarus said:
You can'!t really go wrong with 300 PF and a 1.4 x converter for a walk around combo.
Click to expand...
Ziggy said:
Yeah, I used one with a 1.4 TC on a D500 and they could render plumage as sweet as.
It wasn't long enough for my needs so I sold it and still regret it.
Click to expand...

Yup, exactly. You have to have a bit of luck because some combinations of the 300 PF with a TC cause some CA, like @Steve mentioned in his comparison 500PF versus 300PF + TC14.
And it really varies ! I have two TC-14E II. One is for the 500 f4 G, the other one for the 300PF, so that I can have a 700 f5.6 on the tripod plus a 420 f5.6 with a second body on my laps. With the the TC I use for the 30PF normally, everything is fine, the one I use for the 500 f4 produces visible CA with the 300PF.

But yes ! PF lenses seem to be made for hiking, not matter if you go short and light or you want to take a long tour having to carry your normal backpack plus the photo bag on the other side ... When I am going for a walk I often have the other gear in the backpack and either the 300PF combo is hanging of my neck or the 500PF combo is hooked in the belt with its tripod foot...
 
Member's gallery
Woodpecker said:
That said, regarding IQ I am probably not a good benchgmark because I am shooting between 16 and 24 MPixels on FX format, so D850 shooters might think different about the 500PF IQ and resolution bigger glass ... but there should be one at least one of these guys around here with @Steve being on of them.
Click to expand...

I've tested the 500 PF against my 600 F/4 and it's close enough not to care. :) For me, the big consideration is size / weight / F/stop.
 
Member's gallery
Woodpecker said:
Yup, exactly. You have to have a bit of luck because some combinations of the 300 PF with a TC cause some CA, like @Steve mentioned in his comparison 500PF versus 300PF + TC14.
And it really varies ! I have two TC-14E II. One is for the 500 f4 G, the other one for the 300PF, so that I can have a 700 f5.6 on the tripod plus a 420 f5.6 with a second body on my laps. With the the TC I use for the 30PF normally, everything is fine, the one I use for the 500 f4 produces visible CA with the 300PF.

But yes ! PF lenses seem to be made for hiking, not matter if you go short and light or you want to take a long tour having to carry your normal backpack plus the photo bag on the other side ... When I am going for a walk I often have the other gear in the backpack and either the 300PF combo is hanging of my neck or the 500PF combo is hooked in the belt with its tripod foot...
Click to expand...
Re CA with 300 PF, when it does happen it, for me, has been easily corrected in PS.
 
Member's gallery
I have both the 300 PF and 80-400. I believe the 300 is both sharper and better at acquiring and holding focus. It also pairs well with a 1.4TC. If you photograph from a blind, at zoos or wildlife preserves or in other settings where you can get close to the subjects, or if you want to hike for hours in search of subjects this lens is terrific. Easy to carry and shoot hand-held. It comes with a lens collar and foot but I really don’t know why. I took mine off and it stays in the box.
 
Member's gallery
Gongster said:
I don't read much about the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6g ED lens. I own one of these and I quite like it. However, I use it quite sparingly, usually on a tripod in a hide or from my truck window rested on a bean bag.
I recently bought an 18-300mm f3.5-5.6 to use as my 'walkabout lens', the 80-400 is just too heavy for me to lug about all day. I soon discovered that the 18-300 is 'Jack of all trades, definitely Master of none.' At 300mm the 80-400 is noticeably sharper and keener to acquire a focus.
I'm now of a mind to buy the 300mm PF, have that more or less permanently attached for birds and other wildlife and carry a smaller lens for landscapes.
So this is really a long-winded way of asking if the 300 PF is appreciably sharper than the 80-400 and should I get one (I think I know the answer but just need to justify it to Senior Management! :) )
I still have my 18-105 kit lens ,which has actually been OK, 10-20mm Sigma, 50mm Nikon and 105mm Sigma macro so I have most bases covered.
My body is the D7100, I'd quite like a D500 but that will be subject of another thread!!

Thoughts please.
Thanks, Mike.
Click to expand...
I am not familiar with the 80-400 lens but I will say that the 300PF is a great lens. That being said, after enjoying the 300PF for a year I doubled down and purchased the 500PF and I could not be happier that I purchased it. The 300 is great but the 500 outshines it in every way. Yes, it costs a bit more but is still an absolute steal for a 500mm lens. It is not much heavier nor larger than the 300 and is very easy to handle and hike around with. Since you photograph birds and wildlife I would suggest that if possible save the money you would spend on the 300pf and add/save a bit more to buy the 500PF. I do not think you would regret the decision.
 
Member's gallery
I have seen a few writers here suggesting the 300 PF isn't long enough for smaller birds and the 500 PF is the one to get. Here in Canada it's $2000 more than the 300 PF, a not insignificant amount of money. So I'm thinking of the 300 PF with the TC14iii which would give me 420 and the same f stop as the 500 PF. I am using a Nikon D780 which I love. My question here is whether there is a huge advantage in the 500 PF compared to the 300 PF with TC and cropping a little? I am not aiming for award winning photos, just ones that appear sharp on my computer and TV
 
Member's gallery
jhallettbc said:
I have seen a few writers here suggesting the 300 PF isn't long enough for smaller birds and the 500 PF is the one to get. Here in Canada it's $2000 more than the 300 PF, a not insignificant amount of money. So I'm thinking of the 300 PF with the TC14iii which would give me 420 and the same f stop as the 500 PF. I am using a Nikon D780 which I love. My question here is whether there is a huge advantage in the 500 PF compared to the 300 PF with TC and cropping a little? I am not aiming for award winning photos, just ones that appear sharp on my computer and TV
Click to expand...
The 300mm PF with or without the TC-14 iii is a very good lens and is as you say a very cost effective approach compared to the 500mm PF. Sure, the extra focal length of the 500mm PF is very nice but it's substantially more expensive. Bottom line, there's not a 'huge advantage' to the 500mm PF compared to the 300mm PF plus TC-14 iii and if necessary some cropping. Sure there are many situations where we want more lens for hard to approach wildlife but the difference between 420mm f/5.6 and 500mm f/5.6 isn't night and day. I'd definitely recommend the 300mm PF plus TC combo for someone that can't quite justify the price tag of the 500mm PF or a longer lens.

FWIW, here's an image captured with the 300mm PF plus TC-14 iii mounted on a D500 body from earlier this spring. This was just out by some local ponds while walking the dog, the point being this wasn't working from a blind or another situation that allowed me to get super close but with a lot of birds flying around it wasn't that hard to fill the frame with the 420mm combo on a crop body camera.

_5007057-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top