Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 19:18:19 -0500
X-Sender: corky@serv01.net-link.net
X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
To: d_ruether@hotmail.com (Bob Neuman)
From: corkey@serv01.net-link.net (Wayne W. Anderson)
Subject: Re: AF -lenses for Nikon

>In article <4b1cap$ce2@leol.net-link.net>, corky@serv01.net-link.net
>says... (most deleted)
>>I'm a photojournalist at a medium sized daily in the midwest. i have a
>>Nikon 300mm/f4 and it's soft at f4. Dissipointing for a $900. lens.
>
>You have either a defective (it happens, even to the best :-), or
>a damaged lens. The 300mm f4 EDAF is normally a sharp lens center-to
>corner wide-open. If you are spending real money on equipment, it
>pays to check it out when it is purchased, so that defective samples
>can be exchanged (finding easily noticed defective samples is
>relatively rare with Nikon, but it does happen). Nikon is very good
>about making defectives right, BTW (they replaced two of mine, and
>worked hard to correct a third [before anyone thinks this is a large
>number, consider that that is in a period of over 25 years, and with
>one heck of a lot of Nikkor lenses!]). As part of a new "SUBJECTIVE
>Lens Evaluations (mostly Nikkors)", I hope to include a description
>of an easy, practical, and quick way to check lenses for gross
>defects.

>Nikon autofocus gear hasn't lived up to past experience. We have 7 300mm F4
>AF ED lens, all are soft at F4. I'm the staffer who is incharge of repairs.
>I've talked with our NPS rep., Angela White, and she admitts that 300 f4
>isn't one of their better lens. Our 300 f2.8, 400 F3.5 and our newest
>addition 400 f2.8 are all great wide open.>

Hi--
I would say that 7 samples is a rather good sample! I have checked only one
(in addition to seeing photos from others) - and I am still mystified
(though not as much as you, I would guess!), since the 300mm f4 I tried,
while not my favorite ED lens, did perform well enough, even wide open.
Were all 7 lenses from the same manufacturing batch (serial nos would
probably be similar - and lenses all ordered from the same source at about
the same time)? What is your standard for softness? Are the lenses a touch
below grade, or downright soft? Most Nikkors are not correct-speed wide-open
(an exposure sequence running through the aperture range will usually show
lower density on negatives shot wide open compared with the rest [aperture
inaccuracies at small stops can produce density variations, also]), which can
make a lens appear to have lower contrast (and sharpness) wide open, though
this does not sound like what is happening from what you said. Reps are not
always all-knowing, in my experience. I would try borrowing a couple more
300mm f4's from Nikon (or other source) and try them, see if they are
different. If they are, I would press Nikon for replacements. If not, I
would be very surprised - and will down grade the lens in "SLE(MN)".
BTW, I did find that both the 300mm f4 AF and 300mm f4.5 EDIF were not great
on converters at wider apertures - but neither was soft at any aperture
even on converters, just not crisp (which is why I asked about your standards
- "soft" to me means "very definitely not sharp - borders on fuzzy", whereas
a lens may not be "crisp" or "wirey", but may still look sharp to the
average person). BTW, I would say that the 400mm f3.5 and 300mm f2.8 EDIF's
were a tad better than the slower 300's wide open, but the difference was
subtle. (I hope this middle-of-the-sleepless-night blather makes sense!)
Let me know how this turns out.
David Ruether