It would be great to see this lens included as a sharpness reference when reviewing new Z lenses in this range, as it appears the sharpness holds up quite well and there is no equivalent lens at this focal length for the Z platform as of yet. Your reviews are terrific and much appreciated!
Robert
March 19, 2024 9:31 am
Came across this review by chance. I bought this lens as an affordable option for my switch to mirrorless as my Sigma 300mm f2.8 did not work with my Z6ii. I was staggered how light it was and use it mainly on a monopod for football. I have been able to shoot at no lower than 1/1000 at f4 in floodlight stadiums. The results are just great.
Volodia Putin
April 23, 2022 4:25 pm
TCs are useless .D810 or D850 instead. So 60% of review is wasting time ;)
jap
February 1, 2022 10:45 am
Hello Nasim, I have been mostly an Olympus guy for decades mostly due to the compact size of the bodies and lenses. (My hands are biologically small so compact bodies and lenses are so much more comfortable to handle.) However, with Nikon moving to mirrorless systems and their Z format being essentially as compact as Olympus systems with the added bonus of the bigger 135mm format as opposed to the 4:3 standard, I have been crash studying Nikon’s Z mirrorless format and, particularly, the S lenses.
As I viewed the Z lens roadmaps over the last few years, what has been extremely conspicuous by their absence is Nikon’s plans for 200mm and 300mm S lenses. Seeing this review on the F format 300mm f/4 PF lens, does it seem reasonable that Nikon may be working on PF versions of the F format 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 lenses? The heaviest lens I ever owned was the old Olympus Zuiko 180mm f/2 lens, which was 67.02 ounces. However, it balanced so sweetly with my camera bodies it never seemed that heavy or awkward. Both the F 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 lenses are north of six pounds! Certainly, PF versions of those lenses should drop the weight considerably.
I am seriously hoping Nikon ports versions of the F 28mm f/1.4E and 105mm f/1.4E lenses to the Z format. It would also be sweet to see a new world’s first – a 135mm f/1.4 lens, whether in a conventional of PF design.
Is there any news you are allowed to share along these lines, or am I condemned to sit & wait & see? (I have not actually bought into the Z format system as yet, but I have already mapped out potential complete systems I would buy. At 63 years of age, I have a very good feel for the types of lenses I love!)
With kindest regards,
John (aka jap)
Jeff
October 4, 2020 3:25 pm
The article is older than I thought but wouldn’t the lens be great it it was available in the z-mount? I believe that is the system nikon is what they are trying to get people to buy into. I doubt that this lens will cause anyone to move to nikon from another brand.
Mark
July 29, 2020 1:44 pm
Nasim, Would it be possible to update the lens comparison section with a look at the newer 70-300 AF-P FF frame lens? That lens is great for the money and a nice compact size, but I think a lot of beginner wildlife photographers would be comparing those two lenses. For about twice the money you get an F4 prime lens. I wonder if the extra stop and the potential IQ difference is worth it.
Many thanks
Mark
Michael
June 19, 2020 6:46 am
Just one comment I own the 500-200 and the 300 mm pf. I am using both lenses on a Z50. I have to say that the 300 mm pf copy that I have delivers the best images I have ever seen. With the 1.7 times converter attached it surpasses the already good 500-200 at 500 mm and that at a minimal focal distance of 1.4 m with an imaging ratio of 1:2.5, which makes it also great for some macro work on larger insects and snakes. Given the fact that it is much better to hold for longer time due to its light weight it is also the preferred choice for videos.
Maybe Nikon did improve on its quality control. My images are sharp to the edges with slight improvements when stopping down.
Hi Michael. I would like to see some of your photography and maybe ask you some questions about your experience with your gear. Not sure how to contact you from here though
Tom Moffatt
January 24, 2019 8:46 pm
Good points. But one personally I have found the lens sharp-sharp over most of the field, but to me there is an extra miracle – it is so light that even in my 70s I do not hesitate to carry it around, and it works wonderfully well hand-held for birds, even wide open. I have the older 300 f4, and the one before that. They stay in their cases. The 300 PF is just too good, at least in the real world. – Tom Moffatt
Agreed. I have the 300 PF too and from a practical handling perspective, it is amazing. Particularly for birding with a 1.4tc attached. I just think it would be useful to actually know where the mid-field, and corner areas are precisely, given that the tests show other lenses are quite a lot better. I am guessing mid-field is about as wide as anyone really need consider; corner sharpness is basically irrelevant, except for pure landscape work.
Burghclerebilly
January 24, 2019 4:35 pm
I’m getting a bit long in the tooth regarding lens reviews nowadays, and would suggest three basic questions should be checked by the experts at PL if possible, as it is not beyond the wit of lens manufacturers to claim amazing performance by altering the essential specs, since few consumers check them.
(I) Is it actually a 300mm lens? It would be useful to confirm that the angle of view is appropriate, or at least consistent with other top line 300mm lenses.
(ii) Is it actually F4? I don’t mean measure the aperture, but more specifically, what is the T-stop achieved given that surely the Fresnel element eats light.
(iii) We see that this PF lens performs well in the centre, but actually worse than the old 300 AF-S in the mid and corner frame. It also performs no better than the 80-400 and 200-500 away from the centre. So a key added piece of information would be where is the falloff in performance? Is just the central 10% good (which would be a problem) or are the findings that the central 75% of the frame is good, which would be more acceptable.
Michael Cox
January 7, 2019 5:09 pm
An excellent full featured review! The one thing I didn’t see, which I noted in Ken Rockwell’s opinionated review, is that this lens, having the electromagnetic diaghragm, will NOT work on my F6 except wide open at f/4. Might want to add that.
It would be great to see this lens included as a sharpness reference when reviewing new Z lenses in this range, as it appears the sharpness holds up quite well and there is no equivalent lens at this focal length for the Z platform as of yet. Your reviews are terrific and much appreciated!
Came across this review by chance. I bought this lens as an affordable option for my switch to mirrorless as my Sigma 300mm f2.8 did not work with my Z6ii. I was staggered how light it was and use it mainly on a monopod for football. I have been able to shoot at no lower than 1/1000 at f4 in floodlight stadiums. The results are just great.
TCs are useless .D810 or D850 instead. So 60% of review is wasting time ;)
Hello Nasim, I have been mostly an Olympus guy for decades mostly due to the compact size of the bodies and lenses. (My hands are biologically small so compact bodies and lenses are so much more comfortable to handle.) However, with Nikon moving to mirrorless systems and their Z format being essentially as compact as Olympus systems with the added bonus of the bigger 135mm format as opposed to the 4:3 standard, I have been crash studying Nikon’s Z mirrorless format and, particularly, the S lenses.
As I viewed the Z lens roadmaps over the last few years, what has been extremely conspicuous by their absence is Nikon’s plans for 200mm and 300mm S lenses. Seeing this review on the F format 300mm f/4 PF lens, does it seem reasonable that Nikon may be working on PF versions of the F format 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 lenses? The heaviest lens I ever owned was the old Olympus Zuiko 180mm f/2 lens, which was 67.02 ounces. However, it balanced so sweetly with my camera bodies it never seemed that heavy or awkward. Both the F 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 lenses are north of six pounds! Certainly, PF versions of those lenses should drop the weight considerably.
I am seriously hoping Nikon ports versions of the F 28mm f/1.4E and 105mm f/1.4E lenses to the Z format. It would also be sweet to see a new world’s first – a 135mm f/1.4 lens, whether in a conventional of PF design.
Is there any news you are allowed to share along these lines, or am I condemned to sit & wait & see? (I have not actually bought into the Z format system as yet, but I have already mapped out potential complete systems I would buy. At 63 years of age, I have a very good feel for the types of lenses I love!)
With kindest regards,
John (aka jap)
The article is older than I thought but wouldn’t the lens be great it it was available in the z-mount? I believe that is the system nikon is what they are trying to get people to buy into. I doubt that this lens will cause anyone to move to nikon from another brand.
Nasim, Would it be possible to update the lens comparison section with a look at the newer 70-300 AF-P FF frame lens? That lens is great for the money and a nice compact size, but I think a lot of beginner wildlife photographers would be comparing those two lenses. For about twice the money you get an F4 prime lens. I wonder if the extra stop and the potential IQ difference is worth it.
Many thanks
Mark
Just one comment I own the 500-200 and the 300 mm pf. I am using both lenses on a Z50. I have to say that the 300 mm pf copy that I have delivers the best images I have ever seen. With the 1.7 times converter attached it surpasses the already good 500-200 at 500 mm and that at a minimal focal distance of 1.4 m with an imaging ratio of 1:2.5, which makes it also great for some macro work on larger insects and snakes. Given the fact that it is much better to hold for longer time due to its light weight it is also the preferred choice for videos.
Maybe Nikon did improve on its quality control. My images are sharp to the edges with slight improvements when stopping down.
Hi Michael. I would like to see some of your photography and maybe ask you some questions about your experience with your gear. Not sure how to contact you from here though
Good points. But one personally I have found the lens sharp-sharp over most of the field, but to me there is an extra miracle – it is so light that even in my 70s I do not hesitate to carry it around, and it works wonderfully well hand-held for birds, even wide open. I have the older 300 f4, and the one before that. They stay in their cases. The 300 PF is just too good, at least in the real world.
– Tom Moffatt
Agreed. I have the 300 PF too and from a practical handling perspective, it is amazing. Particularly for birding with a 1.4tc attached. I just think it would be useful to actually know where the mid-field, and corner areas are precisely, given that the tests show other lenses are quite a lot better. I am guessing mid-field is about as wide as anyone really need consider; corner sharpness is basically irrelevant, except for pure landscape work.
I’m getting a bit long in the tooth regarding lens reviews nowadays, and would suggest three basic questions should be checked by the experts at PL if possible, as it is not beyond the wit of lens manufacturers to claim amazing performance by altering the essential specs, since few consumers check them.
(I) Is it actually a 300mm lens? It would be useful to confirm that the angle of view is appropriate, or at least consistent with other top line 300mm lenses.
(ii) Is it actually F4? I don’t mean measure the aperture, but more specifically, what is the T-stop achieved given that surely the Fresnel element eats light.
(iii) We see that this PF lens performs well in the centre, but actually worse than the old 300 AF-S in the mid and corner frame. It also performs no better than the 80-400 and 200-500 away from the centre. So a key added piece of information would be where is the falloff in performance? Is just the central 10% good (which would be a problem) or are the findings that the central 75% of the frame is good, which would be more acceptable.
An excellent full featured review! The one thing I didn’t see, which I noted in Ken Rockwell’s opinionated review, is that this lens, having the electromagnetic diaghragm, will NOT work on my F6 except wide open at f/4. Might want to add that.