
Nikon's 300mm F/2 - brudgers
http://www.company7.com/library/nikon/Nikon_0300f2.html
======
brenden2
That's a remarkable lens. One thing that I think has been lost in photography
today thanks to the smartphone is the value of high quality lenses. You simply
can't replace great optics with software (at least, not yet).

I've got a few higher end cameras, and my favourite is probably my Leica Q2.
It has a fixed prime lens (28mm), and the photos are just astounding.

~~~
zip1234
Still have a Nikon D70 from ~2004 that has only about 6 megapixels but will
take better photos than any phone made today even using lenses that were made
in the 1970s. It is hard to describe to people without showing them but the
sharpness of photos is amazing with high quality lenses.

~~~
geerlingguy
I still shot (for still life images, mostly, with external flash) with a D60
until I upgraded that to an used, beat-up D700.

You can definitely get much better images if you have a good lens, and on
older cameras good lighting or very good form. But more modern smartphone
lenses and software are plenty good for certain types of photography (and
especially video).

I shoot less and less with my D750 and D700 (in non-studio / non-low-light-
event situations), and more and more with my iPhone, because of the
convenience and portability.

But there are definitely types of pictures that can't be taken without good
glass and a larger sensor size. No software can simulate the physics that
makes a longer focal length make a great portrait. (You just can't stuff that
quality of glass into such a small lens, and the sensor can't physically
gather enough photons to compete.)

~~~
rconti
Agreed. I bring all my travel photos into Lightroom which I subsequently edit
on a 5k display.

Today I travel with an iPhone 11 Pro and a Fuji X-T2. In the past it's been
whatever current-gen iPhone and pocket cameras like the Sony RX-100Mk3, Canon
S110, Canon S95, and DSLRs like a Nikon D3000 and D50.

It used to be, the photos looked better on the phone after shooting them, just
because the screen was so much better, but once imported to the computer, the
iPhone photos looked like an oil painting even compared to a upper midrange
P+S pocket camera, let alone a DSLR. It wasn't even close.

These days, between the XT-2 and the iPhone 11 Pro, it's hard to tell which is
which. Sometimes the iPhone looks better as-shot because of the image
processing presets. Other times it's the Fuji. At 1:1 on a 5k display it's
just not as obvious as it was when the pixels were blown up more.

Even in good light, yes, the sharpness on the Fuji is better, but not by leaps
and bounds. Not in a way that would be immediately obvious to anyone walking
by the computer as it used to be.

I've never bought high-end glass, and frankly, some of my earlier DSLR photos
are pretty bad compared to what my iPhone returns these days.

~~~
ISL
Rent some high-end glass sometime when you're bored. It is enlightening both
in its capability and when realizing that a lot of consumer glass is
wonderful, especially at ~f/8 (here's looking at you, nifty-fifty).

------
Scene_Cast2
One thing to watch out for, with tele lenses, is the weight.

I personally really like Nikon's 300mm f/4 PF. They use a Phase Fresnel
element (which, if you're a lens geek, is quite cool). In return for giving up
a couple of stops of light, the lens is actually hand-holdable! (In fact, it's
lighter than their top of the line 70-200 f/2.8 zoom)

~~~
emptybits
One approach to saving weight while increasing telephoto reach is to use a
smaller sensor. e.g. that Nikon 300mm f/2 lens can be mounted to a modern
Micro Four Thirds camera (e.g. Olympus or Panasonic) for 600mm of equivalent
reach while retaining the f/2 light gathering ability and unmodified optics.
Adapters are very inexpensive (e.g. Voigtländer) compared to the cost of
lenses like this or good quality bodies.

The other path to doubling reach would be a 2x teleconverter which would
reduce light gathering to f/4 and introduce glass elements that won't do image
quality any favours.

Small sensor downside: high ISO ability. Probably two stops lost, but with
modern MFT sensors you can still shoot up to ISO 6400 with great results.

Small sensor downside _or_ upside, depending on your needs: deeper depth of
field (twice the depth of field, in this case, which is still pretty amazing
for 600mm!)

~~~
falcrist
At the risk of sounding pedantic - the f-stop* roughly equates to "light per
area" or brightness, so if you're using crop factor, you need to apply it to
the f-stop as well as the focal length.

So for a given full-frame lens at a given f-stop, if you drop down to an APS-C
sensor, you're reducing the amount of light gathered by about one stop (half).
On an m43, you're obviously losing 75% of the light gathering capacity (two
stops).

Putting a 300mm f/2 lens on a micro 4/3rds body should result in images
similar to a full-frame camera with a 600mm f/4 lens.

*Obviously t-stop would be better, since it's an actual measurement of brightness.

~~~
rodgerd
Except you're not. This is a popular talking point in 35mm circles, but the
amount of light on a given area on the sensor remains unchanged, which is what
actually matters.

The smaller sensors _are_ challenged to keep their noise down, given they
typically have a smaller pixel pitch to keep up the megapickel count.

~~~
ip26
Noise is the key, as far as I can tell a FF sensor usually has at least 1 stop
more usable ISO compared to a crop of the same generation.

So to get a comparable shutter speed, assuming 1 stop less ISO, you still need
that 400mm f/2.8 on crop to match the 600mm f/4 on FF.

Humorously, they have the same front element size.

------
Sharlin
There’s also the even crazier Canon 300mm f/1.8 (yes, that’s not a typo!) [1]
Apparently only four or so copies are known to exist and there’s almost no
information on the lens available on the net.

[1] [https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-
monste...](https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-
exists/)

~~~
twic
If we're talking about crazy lenses, might as well jump straight to the Zeiss
50/0.7:

[http://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-
fam...](http://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-
famous-f0-7-lenses/)

Only ten were made. NASA bought six to send round the dark side of the moon.
Stanley Kubrick bought the other three.

~~~
falcrist
f/0.7 manual focus and no aperture.

That thing must be a royal PITA to focus...

~~~
pedrocr
Infinity focus for the moon I'm sure and special rigs for Barry Lyndon
apparently:

[http://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-
fam...](http://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-
famous-f0-7-lenses/)

I also remember reading somewhere the actors had a bad time from having to
make sure to stand still to not go out of focus. 4cm of depth of field isn't
much.

~~~
twic
One of the articles about it mentions that Kubrick directed the scene so that
the actors only moved from side to side, so they'd stay in focus.

------
sumoboy
Only $21k, [https://usedphotopro.com/nikon-nikkor-ais-300mm-f2-ed-if-
len...](https://usedphotopro.com/nikon-nikkor-ais-300mm-f2-ed-if-
lens-300-2-rare-lens-only)

------
justicezyx
Hah, I mistake it with the slower 300mm f2.8

This is my first time know this f2 version.

The price tag is very high close to 10k. And it's very heavy...

~~~
jacobush
If you haven't, look into TV broadcasting zoom lenses. Insane, heavy, turret
mounted. Cool gear. :)

~~~
eqtn
Here is a video about it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkTaMyatsTo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkTaMyatsTo)

------
ChrisMarshallNY
They did a few other “one-offs.” If you are ever in Tokyo, check out the Nikon
Museum, in their Shinagawa headquarters.

Here’s a couple of doozies:

[https://www.stuff.tv/news/just-because-they-could-
ps100000-n...](https://www.stuff.tv/news/just-because-they-could-
ps100000-nikon-fisheye-lens)

[https://petapixel.com/2016/06/22/rare-nikon-1200mm-lens-
setu...](https://petapixel.com/2016/06/22/rare-nikon-1200mm-lens-setup-3-feet-
long/)

[https://petapixel.com/2013/11/13/ultra-
rare-2000mm-f11-nikko...](https://petapixel.com/2013/11/13/ultra-
rare-2000mm-f11-nikkor-lens-ebay-25k-broken/)

