Hi folks, I'm in the process of looking for a 300mm lens, and want to get the most 'bang for my buck'. I've been surfing the net looking at reviews of the various Nikon 300/4.5's and have found a lot of really useful information (David Ruether's tests, Grover Larkin's, Nicholas Nitkin's, Roland Vink's, et al) but I'm still left with some holes, especially among the earlier 300/4.5's. Specifically, can anyone comment on the optical differences between the non-AI, the AI, and the AIS 300/4.5's? There's a fairly significant difference in price (comparing used lenses in about the same condition) but I haven't been able to nail down how they compare optically, other than they are probably not as good as the various ED versions. Also, does anyone know how these compare to the 70-300 4.5-5.6 'consumer' zoom (it's ED ...). Would I be better off just biting the bullet and spending the extra $$ for one of the MF ED versions? Are there other options I'm overlooking? I'm pretty set on wanting to stay Nikon, and I'm pretty sure that 200mm wouldn't be enough reach for the things I really want a longer tele for. One last question ... does anybody have any experience with KEH's 'bargain' grade equipment? The general sense I have is that they grade pretty conservatively -- I've got no problem with worn finish/minor body dings -- but I am looking for clear glass. Background: the lens will be used on an N/F70 (I know, an NAI would have to be AI'd); won't see huge amounts of use (hence looking at used MF), will be used for taking photos of various nature kinds of things; might be used w/5T or 6T closeups, but not on tubes/bellows. May be handheld or tripod'ed depending on circumstances. Thanks for any insight! JT (who doesn't speak for Intel).
