My experience with two AF-S 300/4D's was that the autofocus was poor in tracking approaching subjects (people) and that focus keeper rate was very low in such situations, a bit better with static subjects. The optical quality was excellent in the close range, quite soft at infinity wide open. The long distance image quality was always very disappointing to me. Close range it was close to the quality of a Micro Nikkor lens.
The 300 PF is in some ways better optically (the colors are nicer in my opinion) and in some ways worse (lower contrast especially evident in dim/dull light). However, the AF performance in tracking approaching people subjects is dramatically better, and the dramatic drop of resale value of the D version is justified based on AF grounds. The 300 PF holds up sharpness in the center a bit better towards long distances wide open but not to the standards of the faster supertele primes. Stopped down the corners are also very good, much better than the 200-500 for example.
The 300/4D AF-S was a lens I didn't use in practice for many years because of lack of VR and poor AF. Before I sold it I shot several months intensely with it to find if there is any way to get good results from it, and I did achieve that, but with a very, very low keeper rate. No, it's not the shutter speed (I use very fast shutter speeds) but the AF.
Also the flare of the AF-S D is not that pleasing, lack of nano coating is apparent. The 300 PF isn't the most flare resistant lens, either; neither lens is at its best when the light is hitting the front element. However, if the light is behind the subject but outside the image area and the hood is on, the 300 PF handles this kind of backlit situations very well in my experience.
I would say that ergonomically and autofocus-wise the 300 PF is by far the better lens, but optically both lenses have advantages and disadvantages.
Interesting how people photograph with such different lighting. I would never consider direct sunlight from the direction of the photographer to be acceptable light for my subjects. People tend to squint in such light and that's a near 100% rejection rate scenario. I delete all such pics. With a lot of cloud cover, or reflecting surfaces, such diffuse frontal light can be okay. Diffuse light is great, with some directionality (sun slightly peaking between clouds) is even better, and backlight (sun behind the subjects) can be excellent. But different subjects and shooting environments may lead to different preferences regarding photographic lighting. And personal taste, as well.
My experience with two AF-S 300/4D's was that the autofocus was poor in tracking approaching subjects (people) and that focus keeper rate was very low in such situations, a bit better with static subjects. The optical quality was excellent in the close range, quite soft at infinity wide open. The long distance image quality was always very disappointing to me. Close range it was close to the quality of a Micro Nikkor lens.
The 300 PF is in some ways better optically (the colors are nicer in my opinion) and in some ways worse (lower contrast especially evident in dim/dull light). However, the AF performance in tracking approaching people subjects is dramatically better, and the dramatic drop of resale value of the D version is justified based on AF grounds. The 300 PF holds up sharpness in the center a bit better towards long distances wide open but not to the standards of the faster supertele primes. Stopped down the corners are also very good, much better than the 200-500 for example.
The 300/4D AF-S was a lens I didn't use in practice for many years because of lack of VR and poor AF. Before I sold it I shot several months intensely with it to find if there is any way to get good results from it, and I did achieve that, but with a very, very low keeper rate. No, it's not the shutter speed (I use very fast shutter speeds) but the AF.
Also the flare of the AF-S D is not that pleasing, lack of nano coating is apparent. The 300 PF isn't the most flare resistant lens, either; neither lens is at its best when the light is hitting the front element. However, if the light is behind the subject but outside the image area and the hood is on, the 300 PF handles this kind of backlit situations very well in my experience.
I would say that ergonomically and autofocus-wise the 300 PF is by far the better lens, but optically both lenses have advantages and disadvantages.
Aug 11, 2018 at 10:24 AM
Previous versions of ilkka_nissila's message #14556683 « "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread »
