Any guess on a Z 300mm f/2.8?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Wahrsager said:
I'd be curious to see what that'd look like - probably at least as chubby as the current 120-300. I'm tempted to pick up a 120-300 for upcoming H.S. football. It'd save me some swapping for sure. Hoping for a Z version soon.
Click to expand...
The DSLR 120-300 F2.8 FL is 3.25 kgs and over twice the price of a 300 F2.8 VR II, the Sony 300 F2.8 mirror less is an amazing 1.47 kg.

The 300 2.8 VR II is 2.9 kgs selling around $2200 USD in mint condition used.

It will be very interesting as to how good the 120-300 will be in mirror less and the price.
 
Member's gallery
Let's not forget Sigma was the first to produce a 120-300 f2.8 (and I believe went through three versions of it). A Nikon Z would be out of my price range, but if either Sigma or Tamron could produce one (with light weight similar to the Sony), then I might save up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top