Dave: Some interspersed comments:
> Today's purchase is a nice little secondhand F*300mm f/4.5 lens. Congratulations. You picked up a really fine lens. > The previous owner had modified the tripod shoe a bit as he > thought it stuck out too far, so he had it shortened both in > height and length. Looking at the photo on Boz's site it does > look a bit like overkill. Perhaps you can post a photo of the modified mount? > I really like the handling of this lens; it seems less front-heavy > than the A*300mm f/4, and it focusses a lot closer. It definitely is less front heavy than the M*/A* 300/4 (that 77mm front element of the M*/A* lens ~has~ to weigh more than the 67mm front of the F* lens, of course). (However, the M*/A* lens actually weighs less in total than does the F* lens.) And the closer focusing (2m instead of 4m) is indeed a plus. However, The F* 300/4.5 is also larger (longer by about 3cm) than the M*/A* 300/4 - it's not a huge difference, but it's enough so that the A* (focused at infinity) does fit neatly in my camera bag, while the F* is simply too long (too tall) to fit (although "your mileage may vary") (and it's heavier to lug around, too). And, despite the smaller front element in the F*, it is just as wide as is the M*/A* (due, of course, to the extra girth of the built-in hood - I'm assuming that this is not true with the FA* lens). (By the way, and not too surprisingly, the lengths of the M*/A* 300/4 and the IF-style F* 300/4.5 end up being almost exactly the same when focused close.) Of course, the F* lens looks nothing like the A* lens, and, subjectively speaking, I still prefer the looks of the A* (or, even better, the M*) 300/4 over either of the 300/4.5's (but "your mileage may vary"). > The tripod shoe is well worth having. Indeed. As huge as the shoe is (especially compared to the nice A* 200/4 Macro tripod mount that can replace it), it is still nice to have. I would say that the tripod shoe is the main reason why the F* 300/4.5 still often sells for close to what the FA* 300/4.5 does. > The built-in hood is quite interesting: you unscrew it, slide it > out, then screw it into place. It actually makes sense; it seems > a bit better than the bayonet-fitting hoods of the FA* lenses. It is better, in my opinion, than both the bayonet hood of the FA* and the sliding "mini-hoods" of the M*/A* (even though it took me a while to figure out how to fully use it - I had trouble securing it while extended at first - doh! - <g>). By the way, the separate screw-in accessory hood for the M* 300/4 (which obviously also fits the A* 300/4) is definitely worth having - it's not only longer than the M*/A*'s sliding hood, it's also a lot more secure in use. > I don't like the MF/AF selection; you have to change the setting > on both the lens and the body. Also you don't slide the whole > focus ring: there is a separate ring at the camera end of the > focus ring. I'm too used to the FA* lenses which disengage the > body automatically when you set the lens to manual (and the > clutch mechanism is much nicer in general). Owning mostly manual focus lenses (and only one FA lens, the FA* 85/1.4), I don't have any already-learned habits to break - <g>. I do wish that the gear train was disabled when using the clutch set for manual focusing (as it is, I understand, in the FA* 300/4.5), but I don't find the "whirring" feeling of the F* 300/4.5 to be as objectionable as on many of the "clutchless" autofocus lenses I have tried. > Now if I end up liking this lens I may have to sell the beloved A* > 300mm f/4 due to lack of use :( Well, I plan on keeping both the A* 300/4 and the F* 300/4.5. The F* is ultimately a sharper lens (as much as I hate to admit it - <g>), with a very effective hood, with pretty good manual focus feel, and with a solid if bulky tripod mount. However, it is also a bit slower, which is sometimes significant, and it is less portable due to its extra length. Fred
