If so, what should the aperture be?
Personally I don't have a need for 300 F/2.8 either w/ or w/o a TC. With a TC, it would get me to 420 F4 which is very similar to the 400 F/4.5. And a 300 F/2.8 is only 1 stop faster than a 70-200 F/2.8 w/ TC. Granted it will be sharper but probably considerably heavier. Plus there is a 180-400 F/4 which is marvelous lens but a stop slower and possibly heavier with the FTZ than the mythical 300 F/2.8
For years I shot a 500 F/4 and it was my bread and butter lens. 600 F/4 have slimmed down now (even the 600 TC) so the possible weight savings would not be THAT large. If Nikon made a 500 F/4 without a TC, I think that most people would shun it. So I don't see much of market niche for this lens.
I don't see Z 300 or 500 PF though I guess Nikon could complete the set. I hope that Nikon will make a 600 PF F/5.6. Even then it might be a hard choice between 600 F/5.6 PF and 400 F/4.5 + TC (F/6.3).
So much more rambling - any thoughts?
Personally I don't have a need for 300 F/2.8 either w/ or w/o a TC. With a TC, it would get me to 420 F4 which is very similar to the 400 F/4.5. And a 300 F/2.8 is only 1 stop faster than a 70-200 F/2.8 w/ TC. Granted it will be sharper but probably considerably heavier. Plus there is a 180-400 F/4 which is marvelous lens but a stop slower and possibly heavier with the FTZ than the mythical 300 F/2.8
For years I shot a 500 F/4 and it was my bread and butter lens. 600 F/4 have slimmed down now (even the 600 TC) so the possible weight savings would not be THAT large. If Nikon made a 500 F/4 without a TC, I think that most people would shun it. So I don't see much of market niche for this lens.
I don't see Z 300 or 500 PF though I guess Nikon could complete the set. I hope that Nikon will make a 600 PF F/5.6. Even then it might be a hard choice between 600 F/5.6 PF and 400 F/4.5 + TC (F/6.3).
So much more rambling - any thoughts?