Nikon’s lack of a Z 70-300mm lens

[Larry S]

That is an option….however anytime I would be using the 70-300mm, it would be at the same time I’m using my 500mm F/4 which is already utilizing my FTZ adapter. I’m really not keen on buying a second FTZ, but it is something to consider.

I have this assembly handy so I put it together for “show & tell”… The “f” mount 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 AF-P is actually lighter than you would expect. Probably noticeably less than the Z 70-200 2.8S. Not knowing what body you intended to use as the backup, I put it on the Z8. Felt nimble enough to me for use as you have explained…
Here’s the rig… This is one of the last lenses Nikon developed for DSLRs and has the “stepper motor” (whatever that is) which is quick & quiet. That’s my understanding of the “P” designation. A Ken Rockwell review of this lense gives it very high marks. As the “Z” 70-300mm is nowhere in sight this could be an economical alternative while we all wait…. and you could pick one up for a couple hundred bucks on the used market…just a thought (it’s Christmas morning and I’m bored )

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Ado Wolf]

I’d like to see another 70-300 option as well but the difference between the 70-300 5.6 of the Nikon and 6.3 of the 55-250 doesn’t make a difference. It sounds like you might need an F/4 or faster option.

F5.6 vs F6.3 is a minor differences, true.
But the 50-250 is a DX only lens, where as the 70-300 is an FX lens.. I would like an FX lens with that range particularly on my Z6 that doesn’t offer much cropping possibility due to the 24 MP files.

 

[Ado Wolf]

I have this assembly handy so I put it together for “show & tell”… The “f” mount 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 AF-P is actually lighter than you would expect.

My only gripe with the 70-300 AFP is that it creeps and the lens has no lock otherwise that is my current set up to fit my FX Z cameras wegen I want to travel light.

 

[Lance B]

Another option is the Z 70-180 f2.8 and use a TC when required. The 70-180 f2.8 is only 795gms and 83.5mm x 151mm.

 

[Wade Abadie]

After hours of research while sitting around my in-laws over Christmas….I am leaning heavily toward the Tamron 50-400mm. I really think it’s going to provide exactly what I’m looking for, with the added benefit of being a seemingly excellent “semi-macro” lens for insects, frogs, and other small close critters.

However all of this is currently a moot point since I don’t have a second camera body right now. Hopefully this coming year will allow me to add either a Z6 III or possibly a second Z8 to my kit, along with the Tamron 50-400mm.

 

[Mark_Laidlaw]

Consider adapting the AF-P 70-300. It'll be a little long, and will feel a bit cheezy, but it's optically actually pretty good, way better than it should be.

 

[rjb138]

As others have pointed out, you might have to make do with the AF-P on an FTZii. Total length, iirc, about 7" and weight about 28.4 oz which is within the range of Z alternatives (chart above) I have this AF-P 70-300/FTZii combo, but so far I have been using the 50-250 kit lens (with my Z50ii) and am pleased with the results (and size/weight).

 

[Roy]

Is anyone else here disappointed that Nikon has not released a Z series 70-300mm zoom lens? I am hoping they release one soon (or something comparable).

I would really like a lightweight mid-range zoom for using alongside my 500mm f/4 to capture more environmental or “animalscape” photos of wildlife. When I was using DSLR gear, I always had a 70-300mm for this purpose and it served me well. I know that Tamron has a 70-300mm for Z mount, but I’m not sure it is quite up to par since it is lacking VR and doesn’t seem to have much in the way of weather sealing.

I know many here love the Z 100-400mm and I know it’s a superb lens, it’s just a tad heavier and more expensive than what I have in mind as a side-kick to my 500mm prime. I have looked hard at the Tamron 50-400mm as well, and am really tempted to give it a try.

I just wish Nikon would release a Z 70-300mm lens with VR and decent weather sealing for around $1,000. I can’t imagine it not being a big seller.

On a related note, I know Nikon has the 28-400mm F/4-F8 which is certainly a versatile zoom range. I just worry about being forced into F/8 at the long end for anything having to do with wildlife.

Sorry for the rant. Just had to vent my frustrations a little.

The AFS 70-300 was a good lens but I dont miss it as much as a tilt/shift 14mm or a fisheye ..

 

[mjais]

I also miss a very light 4.5-5.6/70-300. For landscapes, I often go out with the 2.8/14-24, 4/24-120 and 100-400. Especially when hiking longer distances, a lighter, 70-300mm lens instead of the 100-400 would be a good compromise when I am pretty sure 300mm is all I need. Also for flying would a lighter lens be nice.
It should be an S lens and as good as the 100-400 and maybe less than 800grams if technically possible. Ideally also with a maximum magnification ratio of at least 0.35, better 0.5, like the Sony 4/70-200.

 

[rjb138]

I also miss a very light 4.5-5.6/70-300. For landscapes, I often go out with the 2.8/14-24, 4/24-120 and 100-400. Especially when hiking longer distances, a lighter, 70-300mm lens instead of the 100-400 would be a good compromise when I am pretty sure 300mm is all I need. Also for flying would a lighter lens be nice.
It should be an S lens and as good as the 100-400 and maybe less than 800grams if technically possible. Ideally also with a maximum magnification ratio of at least 0.35, better 0.5, like the Sony 4/70-200.

Thom Hogan in his end of year "what's still missing" article noted "At f/4 we’re missing a telephoto zoom option (e.g. 70-200mm, but also 100-300mm, which is what I’d prefer at this point)."

An f/4 (or 4.5-5.6) 100-300 under 800g. Maybe? The 28-400 f/4-8 is only 725g. My AF-P 70-300 is only 680g - with the FTZii, it is just a tad over 800g.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Someone said they wondered why Tamron had not done a z mount 70-300 G2 a couple of probable reasons: As noted above Tamron brought out the Z mount 50-400 and and Tamron makes a lot of lenses and components or licenses patents to Nikon and Nikon controls the license to use some features of the Z lens mount and Tamron does not go head to head with Nikon in the Z world at this time. They did not in the DSLR days until their marketing/sales agreements expired and that is when they released the G2's that were as good or better than those from Nikon. Nikon and Tamron know what their current sales/marketing agreements are but I sure do not .

 

[rjb138]

Went back to Hogan's "Z Travel lens" recommendations; he has updated it to "Z-Mount Travel Lens Combos (2024 Edition)"

Interestlingly the Tamron 70-300 is NOT on it. in the end - "my original 2018 recommendation still stands: use the 24-70mm f/4 with the 70-300mm AF-P on an FTZ adapter."

 

[Lee R]

Went back to Hogan's "Z Travel lens" recommendations; he has updated it to "Z-Mount Travel Lens Combos (2024 Edition)"

Interestlingly the Tamron 70-300 is NOT on it. in the end - "my original 2018 recommendation still stands: use the 24-70mm f/4 with the 70-300mm AF-P on an FTZ adapter."

In his review he mentions he can't give a blanket recommendation due to lack of VR for DX body's like the Z50/50ii, that probably carries over to those recommendations.

 

[Ken Miracle]

In his review he mentions he can't give a blanket recommendation due to lack of VR for DX body's like the Z50/50ii, that probably carries over to those recommendations.

My wife had the Tamron 70-300 on her Z50 and later used it on her Z7II when she sold the Z50 ... it worked better for her on the Z7II with that form of IBIS. She now uses the Nikon Z 28-400 f/4-f/8 from all indications made by Tamron. She sold the Tamron 70-300.

 

[ricardo00]

I have this assembly handy so I put it together for “show & tell”… The “f” mount 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 AF-P is actually lighter than you would expect. Probably noticeably less than the Z 70-200 2.8S. Not knowing what body you intended to use as the backup, I put it on the Z8. Felt nimble enough to me for use as you have explained…
Here’s the rig… This is one of the last lenses Nikon developed for DSLRs and has the “stepper motor” (whatever that is) which is quick & quiet. That’s my understanding of the “P” designation. A Ken Rockwell review of this lense gives it very high marks. As the “Z” 70-300mm is nowhere in sight this could be an economical alternative while we all wait…. and you could pick one up for a couple hundred bucks on the used market…just a thought (it’s Christmas morning and I’m bored )

I have the f mount 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 AF-P and use it on my Z9 and Z8. I rented the Z 100-400mm to see if there was an added benefit to the image stabilization when doing handheld video and didn't see any. Also find the 70-300mm is much lighter than the 100-400mm and can allow one to zoom out more. So have stuck with the f mount 70-300mm when I need this focal length. To be honest, since I so rarely use this focal length, not sure I would buy a Z mount version if Nikon brought one out. So for me, the lack of the Z mount 70-300mm has not been a problem. A higher priority for me would be for Nikon to bring out a super lightweight 300mm f/2.8 like Sony!

 

[maranoblet]

It is a glaring omission in my view but the Nikon 70-180 is an excellent stop gap, it can be used with the 1.4x tc or you can crop if you have the megapixels (or both to get rid of the softer corners).

I always prefer to own Nikon glass (I know the 70-180 is a little bit Tamrony!) However, I think there could be an instant purchase if Tamron releases their 50-300 lens in Z mount. That really does look good.

The Tamron 50-400 whilst being a very good lens, is too nose heavy on a tripod which means you need the collar. That makes it not far off the weight of the 100-400 and not in the same class as the 70-300 medium tele. The Nikon 28-400 at f8 is a no go for me in the gloomy North of England!

The current Tamron zmount 70-300 is too much of a cheap build for me, though some say it is optically quite good at the long end. No VR may bother some.