Fred wrote: > Congratulations. You picked up a really fine lens.
Thanks. From the other comments I've seen, I'm sure I've made a good purchase. I think I wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't for the following reasons: 1) I already have the A*300mm f/4 but the 4m minimum focus distance is a bit of a pain. I'm also not very good at focusing long MF glass quickly enough when my subject is moving... so the auto focus is a real plus. So is the built-in tripod mount. 2) I was wishing for something slightly wider while using the FA*400mm f/5.6 last weekend. Today while using this F* 300mm lens, I've found that it fits in my bag much more easily as well. The lighter weight is another bonus. > Perhaps you can post a photo of the modified mount? I will do so as soon as I can get it near a digital camera. > 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). My small bag (Lowepro Nova 3) will fit this lens vertically, just. With a body attached it would have to lie flat. > 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. I would tend to agree with you there. There's too much weight hanging off the front of the camera otherwise. Whether thats just an academic argument is another matter. I've taken some great pics with the A* lens on a tripod, at some stupid shutter speeds. However I was more careful with my technique due to the front-heavy nature of the rig. > 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>). Yes, that's where I was starting to head with my thoughts yesterday. After using the lens a bit today I do prefer this style of hood. The FA* bayonet hoods add too much bulk and tend to be fragile (they're plastic), and a bit fiddly as you have to separate them from the lens. The built-in sliding hood of the A*300mm f/4 is not deep enough. Because of this I bought a gigantic generic brand 77mm metal hood that I found in the camera shop's big bag of secondhand hoods. This hood is 3-1/4" (83mm) long and 3-1/2" (89mm) wide at the opening. Mamiya rubber hoods for RB67 glass (the "127~250mm" hood) suit this lens as well, while making it look almost like an f/2.8 lens. The only gripe I have about the F*300mm f/4.5 hood is that I keep trying to screw it the wrong way. It is quite hard to unscrew if you've done it up too tight. > 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), It is with the FA*400/5.6 and FA*24/2 so I guess the FA*300/4.5 does the same thing. It is a very very nice feature, but I still wish these close- focussing long lenses had a distance limit switch like the big glass does. If the Z-1p can't lock (or starts focussing the wrong way), it takes a while to go through the entire range and back. Half the focus throw of this lens covers the 2-4 metre range. > 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. The F* is very nice to manually focus. In fact it feels the best of all my AF glass. I can't feel any whirring, although I can hear it if I'm focussing quickly. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
