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

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).

Member's gallery
The 500 PF is a big step up in AF and sharpness from the Tammy 150-600 in my experience. If you can stand the hit to your pocketbook, I highly recommend the 500 PF.

That said, if you want light weight and very good sharpness and are okay with the shorter focal length, the 300 PF is a really sweet little lens.
 
Member's gallery
In conclusion.. i went to B & * and traded in my d7500 , tammy 150-600 g2, and a tammy 18-400 and spent an hour looking and shooting a few 500 pf's and a couple of 300 pF's all used. I liked the 300, but knew Id be glued to the TC's most of time. So I went with the Nikon 500 F5.6 PF. The speed of the AF blew me away, compared to only the lenes ive ever shot, the tammy's.
Maybe I'll get a light weight 300 later or a nikon zoom to paddle, hike and ski with!!
 
Member's gallery
I recently bought a used Nikon 300mm PF from MPB and was dismayed to find that my Sigma 150-600 at 500mm provided better IQ than the Nikon. I have focus tuned both lenses using FoCal but there is no improvement using the 300 PF. From various reviews (including those above) I had assumed that the Nikon 300 PF would perform a lot better - is that a realistic assumption? I suspect that I have a bad copy of the lens which means that it's going back to MPB asap but would welcome any shared experiences - the image on the left is using the Sigma zoom at 500mm at about 3 feet further away at f5.6 and ISO900 and that on the right is the Nikon 300 PF at f4 ISO 320 - shutter speeds same and single focus point on the head. These are just test shots of course.
screenshot.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
300pf should be (a lot) sharper. Hard to tell from uploaded images, but some questions / points
  • what was your shutter speed and was the robin restless?
  • in the original file can you tell whether the camera focussed on twigs / branches in both cases, with the 300pf example happening to have a twig further from the focal plane of the subject than in the Sigma example, this rendering it more blurry than the Sigma example
  • both examples look more blurry on here than I would expect
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
BorderBirder said:
300pf should be (a lot) sharper. Hard to tell from uploaded images, but some questions / points
  • what was your shutter speed and was the robin restless?
  • in the original file can you tell whether the camera focussed on twigs / branches in both cases, with the 300pf example happening to have a twig further from the focal plane of the subject than in the Sigma example, this rendering it more out blurry?
  • both examples look more blurry on here than I would expect
Click to expand...
Thanks - maybe a downsized them a bit too much!

According to NX Studio in the Sigma shot (left) the focus point is right on the eye, in the Nikon 300PF (right) it is just below the eye - bird was stationary and both shoot at 1/2000th. Shot handheld, elbows supported on garden table.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
That right hand shot sure looks like it has a front focus issue with the branch below the bird being crisper than the eye and breast.

You may well have a bad copy of the 300mm PF as that's not even close to the results I'd expect for that lens.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I did repeated recalibrations on my D850 using Focal and the final, repeatable setting was -6. Even at the resolution posted there is a marked reduction in quality from the left image to the right. I thought that the 300PF would be a lot better than my Sigma even though I have had superb results with it.
 
Member's gallery
tigger4t said:
Thanks, I did repeated recalibrations on my D850 using Focal and the final, repeatable setting was -6. Even at the resolution posted there is a marked reduction in quality from the left image to the right. I thought that the 300PF would be a lot better than my Sigma even though I have had superb results with it.
Click to expand...
I'd try some tests on a static object while you manually focus the lens to remove any issues with AF calibration. But based on what you've posted I'd suspect the lens was dropped at some point and one or more internal elements aren't properly aligned or it has something like a lens mount issue such that the focus plane isn't perpendicular to the lens axis.

I might do the manual focus test suggested above to see if the lens is even capable of rendering a sharp image across the entire frame but I'd also be thinking about returning the lens if you're still in the return period.

A working copy of this lens should be tack sharp when properly focused.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
I'd try some tests on a static object while you manually focus the lens to remove any issues with AF calibration. But based on what you've posted I'd suspect the lens was dropped at some point and one or more internal elements aren't properly aligned or it has something like a lens mount issue such that the focus plane isn't perpendicular to the lens axis.

I might do the manual focus test suggested above to see if the lens is even capable of rendering a sharp image across the entire frame but I'd also be thinking about returning the lens if you're still in the return period.

A working copy of this lens should be tack sharp when properly focused.
Click to expand...
Many thanks - I wouldn't describe any of the static shots of the FoCal target as 'tack sharp' and all focus points during the test were well below the average for the same body-lens combination. Not just below average but below by a significant margin so I think you're right, the lens have been dropped at some point - unfortunately the budget won't stretch to a new one but I've never had a problem with lenses from MPB before so it'll being going back to them next week I guess.
 
Member's gallery
tigger4t said:
I recently bought a used Nikon 300mm PF from MPB and was dismayed to find that my Sigma 150-600 at 500mm provided better IQ than the Nikon. I have focus tuned both lenses using FoCal but there is no improvement using the 300 PF. From various reviews (including those above) I had assumed that the Nikon 300 PF would perform a lot better - is that a realistic assumption? I suspect that I have a bad copy of the lens which means that it's going back to MPB asap but would welcome any shared experiences - the image on the left is using the Sigma zoom at 500mm at about 3 feet further away at f5.6 and ISO900 and that on the right is the Nikon 300 PF at f4 ISO 320 - shutter speeds same and single focus point on the head. These are just test shots of course.View attachment 58693
Click to expand...
The 300 PF should be much sharper - I'm guessing that its been dropped or something ... 🦘
 
Member's gallery
The shutter/VR interference issue has been officially fixed by Nikon. There also was a service advisory for older copies.
Some say that there still is a minor issue.
However, it also depends on the camera model.
The D850 has a low vibration shutter design, so there is less risk of shutter shock/VR interference. It works much better with my 500PF (which has the same issue as the 300PF but Nikon refuses to acknowledge it) than the D750 did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top