Can't wait for your review.
Me too ...
Working on it, right now. However, just noticed that I haven't done the bokeh shots, yet (will do immediately), and there will also be a section around this:
![[Image: flare01s.jpg]](http://www.opticallimits.com/images/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_afs_300_4_pf_vr_d3x/flare01s.jpg)
![[Image: flare02s.jpg]](http://www.opticallimits.com/images/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_afs_300_4_pf_vr_d3x/flare02s.jpg)
These are scaled down whole images, not crops...
-- Markus
Huh, the flare looks familiar - the Canon DOs had that as well.
Although I have never seen those halos before. Sort of ... impressive. :ph34r:
Quote:Huh, the flare looks familiar - the Canon DOs had that as well.
Although I have never seen those halos before. Sort of ... impressive. :ph34r:
The old 400mm Do had that, the new DO lens Canon uses gets rid of it. We read about it (both the Nikkor issue and the Canon solution) when they both were announced at about the same time.
Rare halos must be one reason for the price of this lens. Toooooooo baaaad, you don't test the VR. It's exotic behaviour is the next reason. But still, after learning a couple of "doing this or that is asking for problems"-issues, I still like it's weight.
I'm curious too, because I don't know what I could have done if this lens were announced before my decision to switch to Sony. I could have bought it, because it must be - flares aparts, let's see your review - excellent for wildlife, hand-held; and a recent buy in the Nikon side could have disrupted my strategy.
Wildlife with only 300/4? It's not too bad, but a lot of comparisons came to the conclusion, the old version was equally good, just heavier. For sure, the old version had better contact to the tripod collar. This I explicitely tested: Using the collar will cause more shutter shock issues than mounting the D810 directly on a tripod. Same results I also found with the latest version of 70-200/4
