Nikon 300mm AF-S F/4 PF ED VR lens review

[RonE1958]

I recently upgraded from a nikon D7500 to a D850. I'm still using my tamron 150-600g2. I never shot with a prime lens and was thinking of a getting a nikon 300 to start. I like the idea of the light weight PF model, but I read a lot of mixed reviews. I often carry my camera while kayaking, x/c skiing, hiking and biking so I thought the light weight PF would work for me. I also like shooting flight shots. I like the idea of a teleconverter as well,.
Is it worth purchasing a used 300 PF or do they all have VR problems.
Thanks Ron

 

[wildlifr]

They have an issue where the VR reacts to the shutter/mirror slap on DSLRs. This results in the slightest blur for many shots below about 1/250s or so with VR on, but not with VR off. Some people swear the issue doesn't exist, but I've tested it extensively and I'm sure it does. IMO, people who say it doesn't just aren't testing properly. Mine was back to Nikon twice and it wasn't corrected. The firmware that Nikon updated the lens with was supposed to fix the issue, but didn't. To corroborate this, the same lens on the Z9 doesn't show the issue. It's still a great lens for it's sharpness and weight/size, works great with the 1.4TC and was my primary wildlife lens with the TC until I bought the 400 f/4.5. The VR is definitely useful for slower shutter speeds than you would otherwise achieve with a 300mm f/4, just not as slow as it should.

 

[Viseguy]

I have the 300 and 500, both stellar IMHO. Very sharp. I was under the impression only the early production models of the 300 exhibited the above noted issues. Mine does not.

 

[DRwyoming]

Is it worth purchasing a used 300 PF or do they all have VR problems.

The 300mm PF bare or with a TC attached is one of my three favorite lenses (the other two being the 600mm f/4 and 500m PF). I personally have never experienced the VR issues that cropped up in some of the early reviews. I'm sure if you do structured VR tests across a range of shutter speeds it's a real phenomenon but in practical terms I've never found it to be an issue and haven't lost shots due to the VR performance in the 300mm PF.

Personally I find it a great lens for light weight walking around but 300mm is a bit short for a lot of BIF work unless the birds are large and relatively close so I often have a 1.4x TC mounted to that lens when out in the field. The good news is it takes a TC very, very well. I've shot it a bit with a 2x TC which works pretty well on Nikon's mirrorless cameras but something I prefer to avoid on DSLRs as even the D6 loses a lot of AF performance when you mount a wide open f/8 lens which is what you end up with the 300mm f/4 PF plus a 2x TC mounted. Still the image quality is very good to my eyes even with the 2x TC if you can achieve focus.

One great thing about the 300mm PF is its incredibly short minimum focusing distance which makes it a very handy lens for pseudo macro work like Butterflies, Amphibians and Reptiles as well as certain floral shots where you get close, fill the frame but aren't at actual 1:1 reproduction ratio macro scaling. Add a TC and it's an amazing close work lens as it's focuses several feet closer than even Nikon's high end 300mm f/2.8 lenses. I've also had a blast with this lens for backyard bird shots where I'll just sit quietly out on the porch and watch the birds hop around the yard where they'll often come in much closer than they would out in the wild. The close focusing on this lens gets shots in those situations that my bigger glass couldn't as they simply don't focus at such short distances.

Personally I think Nikon nailed it with the 300mm PF and it's big brother the 500mm PF (and of course the newer 800mm PF Z lens).

FWIW, here's a few images from my 300mm PF, all with VR enabled:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[fcotterill]

the 300 PF is an excellent lens. Unique in weight and versatility: for macros and relatively confiding subjects and out to landscapes. It pairs well with TC14 III, and even TC17 II.
https://www.tombolphoto.com/nikon-1-7x-teleconverter/

The VR problem reported on some DSLRs with the 300 f4 PF should have been fixed in copies with serial numbers above 205101
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5...m-f4-vr-to-fix-blur-at-certain-shutter-speeds

Interview with engineers: https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/688994.html

Reviews
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr

http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/ni...ime-lens-reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-af-s-vr.html

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2017_all.html

http://backcountrygallery.com/nikon-200-500-vs-300pf-review-and-comparison/

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

Natural Art Images: Voice: Brad Hill Blog

The Blog of Brad Hill, wildlife photographer. Cameras, lenses, camera gear, field tests, conservation, photo tours, and other bits of questionable wisdom from a young-at-heart nature photographer!

www.naturalart.ca

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor/review/

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_afs_nikkor_300mm_f_4_e_pf_ed_vr_review/

 

[RonE1958]

the 300 PF is an excellent lens. Unique in weight and versatility: for macros and relatively confiding subjects and out landscapes. It pairs well with TC14 III, and even TC17 II.
https://www.tombolphoto.com/nikon-1-7x-teleconverter/

The VR problem reported on some DSLRs with the 300 f4 PF should have been fixed in copies with serial numbers above 205101
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5...m-f4-vr-to-fix-blur-at-certain-shutter-speeds

Interview with engineers: https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/688994.html

Reviews
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr

http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/ni...ime-lens-reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-af-s-vr.html

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2017_all.html

http://backcountrygallery.com/nikon-200-500-vs-300pf-review-and-comparison/

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

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor/review/

http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-af-s-vr.html

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_afs_nikkor_300mm_f_4_e_pf_ed_vr_review/

Thanks.
Great and informative responses from everyone.. excellent forum!

 

[ssheipel]

I think my 300 pf is the sharpest lens I own. For me tho, it's simply not long enough for most of my wildlife shooting. Have not used it on the Z9 (was used on my D6) it is this moment occurring to me; going to have to check the combo out. Good luck with making your decision!

 

[Erik N]

Agree with all above! Like Dave I think works surprisingly well with the 2x TC. The Bokeh is the only minus IMO.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Mdf123]

I use the 300 pf extensively while kayaking and hiking. The light weight and small size makes it very manageable even in a bouncing kayak. I use it on a Z6ii . It handles both 1.4 and 2x teleconverters very well.

 

[ricardo00]

I bought the 300mm f/4 when it first was released. As others have said, it is super lightweight and a joy to use. Just wish it could be a little longer. I have taken it on trips where I didn't want the weight of my other lenses but wanted some reach. For my wildlife photography, I haven't found the VR a problem. And often use it with either the 1.4 or the 1.7TC. Even though I now primarily use the 500mm PF or the 400mm f/4.5, I still reach for the 300mm when I am shooting something in low light and don't want to use my 6 plus pound 300mm f/2.8. A couple of pics are below:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Many other examples in my Flickr album for this lens: https://www.flickr.com/photos/60519499@N00/albums/72157648619837463

 

[RonE1958]

I use the 300 pf extensively while kayaking and hiking. The light weight and small size makes it very manageable even in a bouncing kayak. I use it on a Z6ii . It handles both 1.4 and 2x teleconverters very well.

Perfect!!!

 

[Doug Herr]

The 300mm PF bare or with a TC attached is one of my three favorite lenses (the other two being the 600mm f/4 and 500m PF). I personally have never experienced the VR issues that cropped up in some of the early reviews. I'm sure if you do structured VR tests across a range of shutter speeds it's a real phenomenon but in practical terms I've never found it to be an issue and haven't lost shots due to the VR performance in the 300mm PF.

Personally I find it a great lens for light weight walking around but 300mm is a bit short for a lot of BIF work unless the birds are large and relatively close so I often have a 1.4x TC mounted to that lens when out in the field. The good news is it takes a TC very, very well. I've shot it a bit with a 2x TC which works pretty well on Nikon's mirrorless cameras but something I prefer to avoid on DSLRs as even the D6 loses a lot of AF performance when you mount a wide open f/8 lens which is what you end up with the 300mm f/4 PF plus a 2x TC mounted. Still the image quality is very good to my eyes even with the 2x TC if you can achieve focus.

One great thing about the 300mm PF is its incredibly short minimum focusing distance which makes it a very handy lens for pseudo macro work like Butterflies, Amphibians and Reptiles as well as certain floral shots where you get close, fill the frame but aren't at actual 1:1 reproduction ratio macro scaling. Add a TC and it's an amazing close work lens as it's focuses several feet closer than even Nikon's high end 300mm f/2.8 lenses. I've also had a blast with this lens for backyard bird shots where I'll just sit quietly out on the porch and watch the birds hop around the yard where they'll often come in much closer than they would out in the wild. The close focusing on this lens gets shots in those situations that my bigger glass couldn't as they simply don't focus at such short distances.

Personally I think Nikon nailed it with the 300mm PF and it's big brother the 500mm PF (and of course the newer 800mm PF Z lens).

FWIW, here's a few images from my 300mm PF, all with VR enabled:
View attachment 52439

View attachment 52440


View attachment 52441


View attachment 52444

Your beautiful photos illustrate why I'd gladly use a Nikon just to use this lens if there were a lighter-weight body with Z9 performance, but these photos were not made in the problematic shutter speed range.

 

[RonE1958]

Wow! Crisp shots. Luv the siskin photo!

 

[DRwyoming]

Your beautiful photos illustrate why I'd gladly use a Nikon just to use this lens if there were a lighter-weight body with Z9 performance, but these photos were not made in the problematic shutter speed range.

Thanks Doug,

The shutter speed range was part of my point, in practical field use I haven't found any VR problems with that lens though I'm sure tests can be performed that demonstrate the problem. Others who shoot in different light conditions or approach their field settings differently might have different results but for my uses I haven't seen any VR issues of concern.

 

[Rogereh]

I've purchased three of the 300PF lenses. The first was bought on ebay used and gave me focus problems. I was lucky because the seller agreed to take it back even though he said it never gave him any problems. I was careful to make sure it was a good serial number but it still gave me a number of bad photos due to focus issues. So I then decided to just buy a new one ot B&H. That won worked perfect but I had some medical bills come due and reluctantly decided to return it. There was no problem with the return from B&H. I had the 500pf lens so I just continued using that. Sometimes i was just a little too close and couldn't get larger animals that were close to me in a full photo and sometimes deer would cross our backyard and I was wishing I had the 300pf f/4 back again to gather more light. So I went back to ebay and bid on several while they were in moy money range and finally snagged one within the correct serial number range. Luckily it works well and I've since switched to using it on my mirrorless Z's with good success. I mostly keep it on my older Z7 but it works equally well with my new Z6II. I think it finally found it's forever home. I mostly keep my 500PF on my D5, but occasionally slip it on a mirrorless camera. Both work well with Nikon TC's 1.4x & 1.7x.

 

[DaveF2.8]

The 300mm PF bare or with a TC attached is one of my three favorite lenses (the other two being the 600mm f/4 and 500m PF). I personally have never experienced the VR issues that cropped up in some of the early reviews. I'm sure if you do structured VR tests across a range of shutter speeds it's a real phenomenon but in practical terms I've never found it to be an issue and haven't lost shots due to the VR performance in the 300mm PF.

Personally I find it a great lens for light weight walking around but 300mm is a bit short for a lot of BIF work unless the birds are large and relatively close so I often have a 1.4x TC mounted to that lens when out in the field. The good news is it takes a TC very, very well. I've shot it a bit with a 2x TC which works pretty well on Nikon's mirrorless cameras but something I prefer to avoid on DSLRs as even the D6 loses a lot of AF performance when you mount a wide open f/8 lens which is what you end up with the 300mm f/4 PF plus a 2x TC mounted. Still the image quality is very good to my eyes even with the 2x TC if you can achieve focus.

One great thing about the 300mm PF is its incredibly short minimum focusing distance which makes it a very handy lens for pseudo macro work like Butterflies, Amphibians and Reptiles as well as certain floral shots where you get close, fill the frame but aren't at actual 1:1 reproduction ratio macro scaling. Add a TC and it's an amazing close work lens as it's focuses several feet closer than even Nikon's high end 300mm f/2.8 lenses. I've also had a blast with this lens for backyard bird shots where I'll just sit quietly out on the porch and watch the birds hop around the yard where they'll often come in much closer than they would out in the wild. The close focusing on this lens gets shots in those situations that my bigger glass couldn't as they simply don't focus at such short distances.

Personally I think Nikon nailed it with the 300mm PF and it's big brother the 500mm PF (and of course the newer 800mm PF Z lens).

FWIW, here's a few images from my 300mm PF, all with VR enabled:
View attachment 52439

View attachment 52440


View attachment 52441


View attachment 52444

Awesome shots!

 

[Woodyg3]

The only "issue" I've had with the VR on my 300 PF is that it just isn't as steady as the VR on my other Nikon lenses. It's good VR, not great like on my 500 PF, for instance.

As Dave said, it's great for things like butterflies and other semi-macro shots due to the close focus. I have found it to be quite sharp and fast to focus, as well. I highly recommend this lens if it is a focal length you will put to use.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Caveat I am all Z bodies and lenses now.

I had a 300pf and it was a pretty good lens ... used it on D500 and D850. When I bought a Tamron 70-200 G2 and a Tamron 1.4 Teleconverter IQ was as good or a bit better than the 300pf and much more versatile I sold the 300pf and bought a 500pf which for me being a birder was much better option.

 

[Roy]

I recently upgraded from a nikon D7500 to a D850. I'm still using my tamron 150-600g2. I never shot with a prime lens and was thinking of a getting a nikon 300 to start. I like the idea of the light weight PF model, but I read a lot of mixed reviews. I often carry my camera while kayaking, x/c skiing, hiking and biking so I thought the light weight PF would work for me. I also like shooting flight shots. I like the idea of a teleconverter as well,.
Is it worth purchasing a used 300 PF or do they all have VR problems.
Thanks Ron

The AFS 300mm f4 is heavier than my PF but its still only a little 300mm lens.
Value for money and nicer bokeh the AFS is still a fantastic lens ...

 

[RonE1958]

The AFS 300mm f4 is heavier than my PF but its still only a little 300mm lens.
Value for money and nicer bokeh the AFS is still a fantastic lens ...

Yes Roy, I've heard this before. Is the nikon AFS 300 f4 though much better then my tamron 150-600 g2. They weight is the same, so Im not seeing a benefit there. The AFS dosnt have VR ..
The 1.4 and 1.7 TC's work better on a PF , then an AFS.
Ron

 

[Roy]

Yes Roy, I've heard this before. Is the nikon AFS 300 f4 though much better then my tamron 150-600 g2. They weight is the same, so Im not seeing a benefit there. The AFS dosnt have VR ..
The 1.4 and 1.7 TC's work better on a PF , then an AFS.
Ron

I agree you wont save much weight.
But using VR is pretty debatable for BIF.
As for the TCs. - I'm not a fan but they have their uses on rare occasions ...

 

[Woodyg3]

Yes Roy, I've heard this before. Is the nikon AFS 300 f4 though much better then my tamron 150-600 g2. They weight is the same, so Im not seeing a benefit there. The AFS dosnt have VR ..
The 1.4 and 1.7 TC's work better on a PF , then an AFS.
Ron

I just looked this up and the 300 AF-S is 1.4 kilos, the 150-600 Tammy is 2 kilos. I have owned both lenses, and in my experience the 300 AF-S is quite a bit sharper than the Tamron. I used a 1.4 TC with the 300 AF-S a great deal of the time, and the results were very good. The lack of VR on the older 300 AF-S was ultimately the reason I got the 300 PF.

 

[splatbass]

They have an issue where the VR reacts to the shutter/mirror slap on DSLRs. This results in the slightest blur for many shots below about 1/250s or so with VR on, but not with VR off. Some people swear the issue doesn't exist, but I've tested it extensively and I'm sure it does. IMO, people who say it doesn't just aren't testing properly. Mine was back to Nikon twice and it wasn't corrected. The firmware that Nikon updated the lens with was supposed to fix the issue, but didn't. To corroborate this, the same lens on the Z9 doesn't show the issue. It's still a great lens for it's sharpness and weight/size, works great with the 1.4TC and was my primary wildlife lens with the TC until I bought the 400 f/4.5. The VR is definitely useful for slower shutter speeds than you would otherwise achieve with a 300mm f/4, just not as slow as it should.

I've never seen that issue on mine, possibly because I never shoot at shutter speeds that low with it. I love the lens, very sharp, small and lightweight, takes a TC very well. I've gotten some very good pics with it, especially on bigger animals like elk where you often don't need more reach than 300mm.

 

[JamesFarrell]

While I don't know all of the different kinds of shooting you like to do, I just wonder if a 300/4 PF is going to have enough reach for "flight shots" as you call them. Adding a TC14 only gets you to 420mm focal length on your D850. Moreover, you're at f/5.6 as the TC14 will cost you one stop of aperture. I owned a 300 PF for a time and my copy was great, but too short for my uses. I'm thinking that a 500 PF f/5.6 might be better, especially if you like bird shooting. They're close in cost used to what a new 300 PF is these days.

I owned a Tampon 150-600 G2 for a time. It was a nice lens with decent build. But not real sharp. Moreover, when you zoomed to 440mm you were already at f/6.3. A bit slow. And I found it hard to hand hold at long focal lengths since the front element extended so far when zoomed. Quite the trombone effect; hard to get sharp shots unless locked down on a tripod. I would think the 500 PF would be your best bet. Otherwise, the 300 f/4 PF would be excellent as long as you're OK with being limited in reach.

 

[RonE1958]

While I don't know all of the different kinds of shooting you like to do, I just wonder if a 300/4 PF is going to have enough reach for "flight shots" as you call them. Adding a TC14 only gets you to 420mm focal length on your D850. Moreover, you're at f/5.6 as the TC14 will cost you one stop of aperture. I owned a 300 PF for a time and my copy was great, but too short for my uses. I'm thinking that a 500 PF f/5.6 might be better, especially if you like bird shooting. They're close in cost used to what a new 300 PF is these days.

I owned a Tampon 150-600 G2 for a time. It was a nice lens with decent build. But not real sharp. Moreover, when you zoomed to 440mm you were already at f/6.3. A bit slow. And I found it hard to hand hold at long focal lengths since the front element extended so far when zoomed. Quite the trombone effect; hard to get sharp shots unless locked down on a tripod. I would think the 500 PF would be your best bet. Otherwise, the 300 f/4 PF would be excellent as long as you're OK with being limited in reach.

Thanks for that response James.
Yes, im interested mainly in birds.
I like shooting birds of prey in flight down to warblers bouncing thru the branches. I rarely shoot from a posted position, im usually walking, biking, hiking, kayaking, sailing or x/c skiing. Im a fairly new photographer, but long time nature and bird observer. I shot birds for years by just holding my cell over a kowa 30 x scope. Ive only had a camera for 2 years. I have a nikon D7500 and 2 tamron zooms. I finally took the jump to a more pro camera, w/the D850, but wanted to experience a prime lens feeling as you say that the tamrons were soft.
I was original thinking of the 300 AF-S, but then thought the PF would be better with the VR and more importantly the light weight, so I could carry it along w/the hobbies I like to do. Im 65 and just retired after 40 years as an outside TelCo technician, so my lower back as issues, hence heavy weight lens are tough. I have been thinking about the 500mm PF as well, maybe later, I have to get over the D850 plunge first.. I have been looking at a host of used 300 PF's on ebay for around 1k.. curious what others think of Ebay purchases
Ron