Nikon 300 2.8d Ed Af-i Lens??

[daveja]

Anyone have any experience with this lens on a D700 or D3 body? Is the af that much slower than the newer AF-S versions? Thanks in advance...

Dave

 

[sambo.]

i used one extensivly on an F90x, F4 and F5 if that helps.

the af was a lot better than me manually spinning an AiS 300/2.8 under dodgy lighting at soccer matches. manually, if i nailed 20 frames on a 36 shot roll sharp, i was pretty happy. with AF-D, that went to 30+

IMHO and hazily recalling the days of yore: under good light, the AF is ~90%'ish the speed of an AF-S. under not so good light, it slips to ~80%'ish.

i gotta say, i'm not actually a fan of the 300/2.8 as a lens. i find 300 is just that tad too long for portraits and a tad too short for sport.

my $0.02.

 

[carauction]

Anyone have any experience with this lens on a D700 or D3 body? I have a chance to buy one in E+ condition for about $2000. Is the af that much slower than the newer AF-S versions? Thanks in advance...

Dave

I had a few of the AF-I series 300's for my D3. It is a nicely built lens, like a tank. Shortest of the 300 AF lenses. Has a different, and many say better optical formula than the newer AF-S lenses. I think there is copy variation, but I did find the AF-I to be sharper than my 300mm AF-S version I. I think the AF-I autofocus is very close to speed and acquisition of the AF-S series...maybe slightly behind. It is said that parts for the focus motor cannot be had anymore, so careful on that. Although, the EX+ copies that I had seemed excellent in that department. I did return a rough copy though, that definitely showed signs of more wear on the AF motor.

If I had to do it all over again, and did not want to spend on the newer VR version, I think I would search for a primo copy of the AF-S II version. However, I am of the opinion from my own shooting, and studying many images shot with the AF-I version, it is sharper than the AF-S I or II. Probably very close in sharpness to the newer VR versions. I believe from experience with Nikon techs, that the AF-S version II, is best mechanically of these older lenses to work on. Mike Mac and Raygun shoot with the version II on the sports forum.

At $2000.00 for a very decent copy of the AF-I, I think you are in the ballpark. Just check over carefully.

Mike

BTW, I sold a near mint copy of the AF-I about a year ago on Ebay for $2500...but it was seriously well kept.

 

[daveja]

i used one extensivly on an F90x, F4 and F5 if that helps.

the af was a lot better than me manually spinning an AiS 300/2.8 under dodgy lighting at soccer matches. manually, if i nailed 20 frames on a 36 shot roll sharp, i was pretty happy. with AF-D, that went to 30+

IMHO and hazily recalling the days of yore: under good light, the AF is ~90%'ish the speed of an AF-S. under not so good light, it slips to ~80%'ish.

i gotta say, i'm not actually a fan of the 300/2.8 as a lens. i find 300 is just that tad too long for portraits and a tad too short for sport.

my $0.02.

Thanks, I would rather have a 400 for sure but I can live with my other lenses for portrait stuff and if this copy is as nice as it seems I hope it will play nice with my TC14 to get me 420 f/4 for day shooting...we'll see... Thanks again

 

[daveja]

I had a few of the AF-I series 300's for my D3. It is a nicely built lens, like a tank. Shortest of the 300 AF lenses. Has a different, and many say better optical formula than the newer AF-S lenses. I think there is copy variation, but I did find the AF-I to be sharper than my 300mm AF-S version I. I think the AF-I autofocus is very close to speed and acquisition of the AF-S series...maybe slightly behind. It is said that parts for the focus motor cannot be had anymore, so careful on that. Although, the EX+ copies that I had seemed excellent in that department. I did return a rough copy though, that definitely showed signs of more wear on the AF motor.

If I had to do it all over again, and did not want to spend on the newer VR version, I think I would search for a primo copy of the AF-S II version. However, I am of the opinion from my own shooting, and studying many images shot with the AF-I version, it is sharper than the AF-S I or II. Probably very close in sharpness to the newer VR versions. I believe from experience with Nikon techs, that the AF-S version II, is best mechanically of these older lenses to work on. Mike Mac and Raygun shoot with the version II on the sports forum.

At $2000.00 for a very decent copy of the AF-I, I think you are in the ballpark. Just check over carefully.

Mike

BTW, I sold a near mint copy of the AF-I about a year ago on Ebay for $2500...but it was seriously well kept.

Thanks for the great input. This one is rated E+ from Adorama so hopefully it is nice and clean as they indicate. Nice to know I can give it a good go before I decide it's a keeper or not. What would be the signs of possible af motor issues? Noise? Thanks

 

[vinman]

My only issue with the AF-I lenses would be where it came from. If this is a well kept, one owner, occasional use lens - I'd jump on it. Can Adorama verify the lens' history? If it looks ok, but was a press lens or a pro sports shooter's, you may be getting an expensive bit of AF glass that will soon be MF.

Regarding AF-I lenses in general, I REALLY want a 400/2.8. I'd jump on a decent AF-I model in a second if I could be assured the above conditions were met. AF-I focus performance isn't very far off AF-S performance. The key difference is the AF-S is a more robust design - ie. lasts longer under heavy use...

 

[carauction]

Thanks for the great input. This one is rated E+ from Adorama so hopefully it is nice and clean as they indicate. Nice to know I can give it a good go before I decide it's a keeper or not. What would be the signs of possible af motor issues? Noise? Thanks

The AF-I is noisy in general as compared to AF-S. The motor of the rough copy that I returned, sounded louder and a bit tardy in snappiness, as compared to nicer copies. I have dealt with Adorama for used and refurb. before, as anywhere with used...be careful.

Mike

 

[daveja]

The AF-I is noisy in general as compared to AF-S. The motor of the rough copy that I returned, sounded louder and a bit tardy in snappiness, as compared to nicer copies. I have dealt with Adorama for used and refurb. before, as anywhere with used...be careful.

Mike

Thanks, I did talk to someone in their used department and he was able to tell me only that they bought it from an individual and that they bought 3 lenses from him at the same time, including and older 600mm 5.6...all in pristine condition. He said they go through them very carefully and would not rate it E+ unless it fully checked out. 15 day return policy and a 90 day warranty so better than private sale in this case I think...

 

[daveja]

The AF-I is noisy in general as compared to AF-S. The motor of the rough copy that I returned, sounded louder and a bit tardy in snappiness, as compared to nicer copies. I have dealt with Adorama for used and refurb. before, as anywhere with used...be careful.

Mike

Got the lens, it looks beautiful. Need to test it out now. There is a dial on the lens for A M/A and M...Assuming the M is for manual focus? Whet are the other two settings? Any help appreciated...

 

[truronion]

Well done enjoy.

 

[carauction]

Got the lens, it looks beautiful. Need to test it out now. There is a dial on the lens for A M/A and M...Assuming the M is for manual focus? Whet are the other two settings? Any help appreciated...

Good luck.

A-straight Auto focus, MF ring does not engage. I forgt about M/A, think it is same as A/M...Autofocus with manual override.

Did it come with the beautiful case and keys?

Mike