What happened to the 300mm?

[DougC]

Nikon hasn’t mentioned either an f2.8 or f4 in the Z lineup. There are lots of used, mint condition 300 PF’s on the B&S forum (including mine) for about 40% below a new one. Seems odd to me that what was once a piece of standard equipment for both nature and sports photographers is now ignored and/or lost in the shuffle. Your thoughts?

 

[DaveR]

I was thinking the exact same thing the other day. I thought the lack of a 300mm in the Z lens roadmap strange. Perhaps the fact that are lots of used, mint condition ones for sale points to a drop in popularity.

 

[NorthernFocus]

It is interesting that it's not on the roadmap. As far as order of releasing things for the long glass it seems they are releasing the Z lenses that are not duplicates of F glass first, 400 TC, 800 PF, and 100-400. Maybe they still have a lot of f mount 300mm 2.8 in inventory.

 

[arbitrage]

Nikon seemed to replace the 300/2.8 with the 120-300/2.8 in the F mount lineup and that was fairly recent.

Adding to the mystery of lack of 300s we have Sony with no 300 and I’ve never even seen a rumor for one. Then we have Canon who never updated their 300/2.8 IS II to a Mk III when the 400/2.8 was updated (the 300 and 400 mark II were released simultaneously) and they have no mention of an RF version yet.

 

[John Navitsky]

i feel z lens development comes down to prioritization. seems like they are kind of using an approach of skipping 200mm. ie, 200mm, 400mm, 600mm, 800mm. maybe once they are done they might circle back.

 

[StefanSC]

Seems odd to me that what was once a piece of standard equipment for both nature and sports photographers is now ignored and/or lost in the shuffle. Your thoughts?

TLDR:

There are so many alternative options for most of the uses of a 300mm lens compared to 10 years ago that this focal length, as a prime lens, doesn't make sense.

The long version:

I don't have much to do with sports photography but my educated guess would be that between sensors becoming more adept at high ISO's making 180-400mm f4 type lenses more appealing, sensors having more megapixels, making cropping from 70-200 f2.8 lenses more useful and lenses like the 120-300 f2.8 being made, the 300mm f2.8 prime kind of lost it's relevancy. If made today, it would need some major USP to sell in significant quantities. So I guess right now the 300mm f2.8s are not a priority for any manufacturer.

WRT to the 300mm f4 and nature photography:
Back when I was shooting the D300 and got my 300mm f4 AF-S, the options available on the market at a reasonable price were the 300mm f4 lens, a Sigma 100-300mm f4 lens that had iffy AF and a plethora of Sigma 120-400/150-500/50-500 zooms that were sub-standard from an image quality point of view (and AF was terrible). So the 300mm f4 lens was kind of a no-brainer.

These days, we have the 150-600mm zooms from Tamron and Sigma (and they are much better optically than the lenses that came before and their AF issues have been pretty much solved), we have the 200-500mm f5.6 in Nikon land, the Canon 100-400/500L, the Sony 200-600mm, all solid performers with much more reach than the 300mm f4.

And since moving to FF, many have ended up using the TC14 on the 300mm to get back some of that "reach" they lost... And that shaved something off the sharpness of the 300mm f4.

The 300mm f4 PF might have a selling point due to it's small size and weight, but even there, when you factor in TC, you are nearing 500mm PF price points and you can have something like Sigma/Tamron 100-400mm for much less money and not a lot more weight...

 

[NorthernFocus]

The 300mm 2.8 was my favorite but least used lens. Awesome bit of glass and reasonable size/weight. But when I reviewed my files I have very few images taken with it. Finally sold it last month after collecting dust for years.

 

[John Navitsky]

what i'm really sore about, is no fast 105 or 135 on the roadmap

 

[eaj101]

I still have my AIS 300mm f/2.8 from film days. I still like it but always seem to pick up a different lens when I go shooting. It's not light, but between focus peaking and IBIS it's actually fairly usable on a Z body.

For a long time the 300 f/2.8 was the aspired-to long lens. The 400 f/3.5 was scarce, and when the 500 f/4P was introduced it took over as the top dog. But a lot of photographers kept the 300 with the TC-14 and TC-301 teleconverters (such as myself). Optically, I still prefer it to the 300PF. Nice close focus. Beautiful OOF too.

I agree that the 300 now kind of falls into a gray space of not-really-long-enough and not-really-short-enough and with the apparent fading of DX becomes less interesting. I'm probably going to put my 300PF and 300 AIS, plus teleconverters, up for sale. End of an era

 

[DavidT]

It's a good question. I am not sure as it is missing from all the makers and not on road maps. I wonder how many they sold in the past vs say the 400f2.8. I had the Nikon and like others I didn't use it much but when I did it was amazing! However if a new one was released I am not sure I would buy one unless it was a zoom like the 120-300 but at that price I think I would buy the 400f2.8.

 

[StefanSC]

As a side-note, I did find an usage for my 300mm f4 AF-S when I got a longer lens and I don't see myself parting with it any time soon...

I use it to take close-up shots of insects that are skittish or warmed up.

I must say, it does have a certain look, especially with the flattened perspective and I don't think many other teles can pull off the look.

For example (all shot with the Nikon 300mm f4D AF-S):

 

[John Navitsky]

As a side-note, I did find an usage for my 300mm f4 AF-S when I got a longer lens and I don't see myself parting with it any time soon...

I use it to take close-up shots of insects that are skittish or warmed up. I must say, it does have a certain look, especially with the flattened perspective and I don't think many other teles can pull off the look.

fwiw, the 100-400 also does a decent job in this role. this is nothing fancy, i'm not a macro guy. just a quick hand held snap with the 100-400 @100mm, 1/125s, f4.5, iso 2000

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

 

[StefanSC]

That's the Z 100-400?

 

[MartyD]

I do a lot of sports photography and the 300 f2.8 was alway on my radar but they fill a pretty specific slot. They are at the long end for most indoor sports and at the short end for most outdoor sports. I keep looking for a good used 300 f2.8 but when they come up they don't last very long. Most of the pros I see now carry a 120-300 f2.8 or the 400 f2.8, a little too pricy for me but if I was making my living shooting sports they would be the practical lens choices. I don't think the focal lenght was very popular with any lens manufacturer.

 

[John Navitsky]

That's the Z 100-400?

yes

 

[John Navitsky]

Most of the pros I see now carry a 120-300 f2.8 or the 400 f2.8, a little too pricy for me but if I was making my living shooting sports they would be the practical lens choices.

if they ever came out with a 100-400 (or similar) f2.8 z lens, it might be the first "exotic" (in my terms) lens i ever got :-D

 

[MartyD]

if they ever came out with a 100-400 (or similar) f2.8 z lens, it might be the first "exotic" (in my terms) lens i ever got :-D

Wouldn't that be fun! That would be a sports photographers dream! Cost $25,000+, weight?

 

[Ductape]

I really like my 300 2.8 VR and use it for outdoor family functions, and hiking in the woods (with an assortment of TC's). Just picked up a 500pf and curious to see if the 300 2.8 ends up at the back of the drawer never used. First day I was playing with my 500 pf, I was seeking out the neighborhood owls at dusk ,and wishing I had more aperture like the 300 offers.

Everything is gives and takes.

 

[O]

Nikon hasn’t mentioned either an f2.8 or f4 in the Z lineup. There are lots of used, mint condition 300 PF’s on the B&S forum (including mine) for about 40% below a new one. Seems odd to me that what was once a piece of standard equipment for both nature and sports photographers is now ignored and/or lost in the shuffle. Your thoughts?

Its an interesting subject, we hang on to our 300 2.8 VR II for to long, it sits on the shelf as the most least used, its for many big an heavy.
We then question is it worth keeping as its not used that often, we then research for the alternatives lighter faster sharper and find there are either compromises and much higher costs.
So what to do ?

I find with my 300 2.8 VR II, every time i do take it out i simply say i have got to keep this lens its just so good, it has this very special look especially at F2.8.
I needs less iso by far, it certainly dose all i need even with the Z9 at 20 fps.

It makes my D3X look stunning as it dose the D850 or any other camera i put on it.

I find Unless you use the lens at F2.8 then yes get rid of it as it dose the same as any other high quality lenses, i only use it at F2.8 for everything other than landscapes. I do sports action, portraiture nature, modeling shots, botanical work, wild life, it dose so much so well, it has this look at F2.8 that is just pleasing, the back grounds are superb, it pops the subject beautifully above all naturally, it has great colour, contrast, speed, super low light performance.

It is optically better than the 300 F4. Its the same as the 400 2.8 VR some say there is a difference other say their the same..........

Are there better lenses out there, i imagine so but yet have to find them, warrant the difference in performance, ask is it worth it for the cost difference, and determine is it that newer lenses are just better in the lab than the field.

Pros using the a 120-300 f2.8 or the 400 f2.8 is interesting, i have been told but yet to accept that the 120-300 F2.8 is as good or slightly better better than the 300 2.8 VR II.

120-300 for double the price ! and more weight ?

I think the 120-300 for sports action replaces the 70-200 range is a little short for sports action the 120-300 is a more suitable range.

I cant justify spending the money on a 120-300 2.8 i would rather rent it.
One is a zoom one is a prime....dose that really matter.

 

[Roy]

Nikon hasn’t mentioned either an f2.8 or f4 in the Z lineup. There are lots of used, mint condition 300 PF’s on the B&S forum (including mine) for about 40% below a new one. Seems odd to me that what was once a piece of standard equipment for both nature and sports photographers is now ignored and/or lost in the shuffle. Your thoughts?

I haven't seen a 300mm in the Z lineup but there is a second smaller 400mm

 

[BrianSmall]

Nikon hasn’t mentioned either an f2.8 or f4 in the Z lineup. There are lots of used, mint condition 300 PF’s on the B&S forum (including mine) for about 40% below a new one. Seems odd to me that what was once a piece of standard equipment for both nature and sports photographers is now ignored and/or lost in the shuffle. Your thoughts?

What's the "B & S" forum?

 

[eaj101]

Its an interesting subject, we hang on to our 300 2.8 VR II for to long, it sits on the shelf as the most least used, its for many big an heavy.
We then question is it worth keeping as its not used that often, we then research for the alternatives lighter faster sharper and find there are either compromises and much higher costs.
So what to do ?

I find with my 300 2.8 VR II, every time i do take it out i simply say i have got to keep this lens its just so good, it has this very special look especially at F2.8.
I needs less iso by far, it certainly dose all i need even with the Z9 at 20 fps.

It makes my D3X look stunning as it dose the D850 or any other camera i put on it.

I find Unless you use the lens at F2.8 then yes get rid of it as it dose the same as any other high quality lenses, i only use it at F2.8 for everything other than landscapes. I do sports action, portraiture nature, modeling shots, botanical work, wild life, it dose so much so well, it has this look at F2.8 that is just pleasing, the back grounds are superb, it pops the subject beautifully above all naturally, it has great colour, contrast, speed, super low light performance.

It is optically better than the 300 F4. Its the same as the 400 2.8 VR some say there is a difference other say their the same..........

Are there better lenses out there, i imagine so but yet have to find them, warrant the difference in performance, ask is it worth it for the cost difference, and determine is it that newer lenses are just better in the lab than the field.

Pros using the a 120-300 f2.8 or the 400 f2.8 is interesting, i have been told but yet to accept that the 120-300 F2.8 is as good or slightly better better than the 300 2.8 VR II.

120-300 for double the price ! and more weight ?

I think the 120-300 for sports action replaces the 70-200 range is a little short for sports action the 120-300 is a more suitable range.

I cant justify spending the money on a 120-300 2.8 i would rather rent it.
One is a zoom one is a prime....dose that really matter.

I understand. The reason I keep my manual focus 300mm f/2.8 is that every time I use it I come away with a few wonderful frames. Of the two 300s I have, I'm more likely to sell the 300PF, which is weird

 

[Roy]

I understand. The reason I keep my manual focus 300mm f/2.8 is that every time I use it I come away with a few wonderful frames. Of the two 300s I have, I'm more likely to sell the 300PF, which is weird

All 300mm Nikkors are outstanding - It seems I have 4 of them.
Although I'm addicted to fast glass - Probably my favourite is the 300mm f4 afs lens - small light and cheap.

 

[DougC]

What's the "B & S" forum?

Buy and Sell. Specifically on fredmiranda.com and unofficially on this forum.

 

[Doug Herr]

All 300mm Nikkors are outstanding - It seems I have 4 of them.

Not if you go waaaay back in history to the first one, the f/4.5 Nikkor-P. If you like lateral chromatic aberration this is your lens.