Will Nikon introduce 300 F/2.8 and 500 F/4?

[RichF]

Now that Nikon has introduced the 400 F/2.8 and 600 F/4 both with built-in TCs, will they (eventually add, though these are not on the road map) 300 F/2.8 and 500 F/4

If they do, would you like to see these lenses with or without a built-in TC?

The built-in TC is an obvious advantage in that it gives us 2 focal lengths (300 & 420mm and 500 and 700mm) but it comes at a cost - both monetarily and weight-wise (and perhaps even in the length of the lens). The weight saving might be around an additional pound (0.5 KG) on top of the 500+ grams that the 600 TC Z already lost. Plus the price might be closer to $12,000 versus around $ US 14-15,000

which would you like to see?

 

[fcotterill]

fyi - the commentary on the possible telephotos going forward. The TC combination is possible as so many sports and wildlife photographers are prepared to pay the prices! However, it's Nikon will continue to restrict these designs to top S line exotics

The 600mm f/4 Finally Appears | Thom Hogan

Nikon announces the 600mm f/4 for the Z-mount

www.zsystemuser.com

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Rich -- we "meer" shooters have no clue what Nikon will release next.
Many simply want the to 2-3k small body version of the Z9, many want the Nikon Z-200-600 and even more want a flock of short primes and f/4 version of zooms (yet another 70-200)
AND YES folk are still going on about wanting D500 and D850 replacements -- meaning a 30+MP DX robust probody body and a 60+MP small probody (bigger than a Z6/Z7) will the Z9++ tech and no overheating etc.....
We have just entered November and now we have the big lens out the way - we will no doubt see at least one more Tamron lens (possibly 70-180/2.8) -- but will we see the other lenses on the road map launched this year (Nikon said by the end of 2023/4) and/or any new bodies.
Thom Hogan has started to refer to a Z9ii and claimed the Z9 was launched before it was ready. Well I disagree.
I hope the Lawsuit with RED has no impact on the timing of Nikon's camera releases.
I hope Nikon is now able to deliver new products to those who don't want the Z9 or super teles -- bur time will tell.

 

[John Navitsky]

i need a modern s-line 300mm 2.8 in my life. i would greatly prefer one with a built in tc.

that said, for what i do, i'd have a preference for something like the 120-300 2.8. tbh, i keep thinking about the 120-300 even though it isn't z-mount.

i'm bummed none of these are on the roadmap.

i'm very curious to see what nikon is going to do in the fast 300mm range

 

[Wes Peterson]

i need a modern s-line 300mm 2.8 in my life. i would greatly prefer one with a built in tc.

that said, for what i do, i'd have a preference for something like the 120-300 2.8. tbh, i keep thinking about the 120-300 even though it isn't z-mount.

i'm bummed none of these are on the roadmap.

i'm very curious to see what nikon is going to do in the fast 300mm range

I cant imagine being disappointed in the 120-300 other than the weight. Id say you could buy that today and be perfectly happy with it for a long time.

 

[John Navitsky]

I cant imagine being disappointed in the 120-300 other than the weight. Id say you could buy that today and be perfectly happy with it for a long time.

yah, agree, i'm sure i wouldn't be disappointed. but i also wonder what they might have in store, like maybe a 120-300 TC

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

yah, agree, i'm sure i wouldn't be disappointed. but i also wonder what they might have in store, like maybe a 120-300 TC

Nikon is still selling the Extra-Ordinary -- priced and performing:
-- AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR; and
-- AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR
but more super long ultra lenses will just irritate the masses.

 

[DRM]

Frankly, I would be more interested in either of those with an internal TC than the 400 f/2.8 TC and the 600 f/4 TC because 1) I like the 300/420 and 500/700 sizes and focal lengths better than the 400/560 and 600/840 versions and 2) I would assume they would be significantly less expensive than the 400 and 600 versions, around $7500 for a Z 300 TC and $12,500 for a Z 500 TC. I like the idea of a Z 500 f/4 TC now that you’ve mentioned it. Haha

 

[Griffym]

I use an old but lovely 500F4G (sometimes I add the TC 1.4II) on the Z9. The focal length has a nice look. I am not sure I would be willing to drop the sort of money a Z 500 TC (500 F4 or 700 F5.6) for the improvement in quality.

In favour of upgrading would be: The ability to switch back and forth and reduction in weight would probably have the most appeal. I would love to see a reduction in minimum focus distances as well. Improvements in focus speed and reduction in size would also be nice.

The question is however, if the system you have is meeting almost all your needs, do you need to change?

At the moment I see a much larger improvement in the shorter focal lengths with the Z series. I have always wanted a decent zoom with more reach than the 70-200. I think the 100-400 is something I would enjoy more than upgraded 500. The Z 100-400 is close in price to the 70-200 and covers a wider range of focal lengths but is almost as compact. I think a long prime and a zoom with the reach of a 400 would be a useful combination to have.
I know I should upgrade my old Z 70-200 but that is not a high priority. I prefer to invest in lenses that offer me a different set of opportunities.

 

[tickle_my_nikon]

Nikon is still selling the Extra-Ordinary -- priced and performing:
-- AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR; and
-- AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR
but more super long ultra lenses will just irritate the masses.

I wouldn't call the 120-300mm extraordinary. It's sharp at the long end, and reasonably sharp at the short end. Everywhere in between it's not sharp at all.

You guys seem more like salesman than realists on a $10,000 item with obvious flaws.

 

[Griffym]

Really? That may be your view. The only person I know who uses it professionally says it is a brilliantly sharp lens. She has a very keen eye for lenses which produce high quality images. I have to admit that the output from the lens I saw was very impressive.

 

[ssheipel]

Nikon is still selling the Extra-Ordinary -- priced and performing:
-- AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR; and
-- AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR
but more super long ultra lenses will just irritate the masses.

Often considered that 120-300 2.8 Tried shooting, well did shoot but it was difficult, shooting a soccer game this week (I hadn't shot sports in YEARS) with my 500 (it was on the camera) and was dreaming of that 120-300 lens LOL

 

[tickle_my_nikon]

Really? That may be your view. The only person I know who uses it professionally says it is a brilliantly sharp lens. She has a very keen eye for lenses which produce high quality images. I have to admit that the output from the lens I saw was very impressive.

It wasn't just soft but noticeably soft. To be fair I only used it once, but wasn't impressed. Certainly wouldn't refer to it as a "extraordinary" at that price range, with that performance. Don't take my word for it:

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

 

[fcotterill]

I wouldn't call the 120-300mm extraordinary. It's sharp at the long end, and reasonably sharp at the short end. Everywhere in between it's not sharp at all.

You guys seem more like salesman than realists on a $10,000 item with obvious flaws.

Empirical evidence countering the results of Lenrentals and Brad Hill ?

How is this camera lens choice

I posted about a trip to costa rice earlier on this forum for camera and lens recommendations. Here is what I'm thinking of getting. Nikon D500 used like new condition $1200.00 Nikon 300mm f2.8 used ex cond $3000.00 Teleconverter latest version not priced yet Do you think this will work good in...

bcgforums.com

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Field Tests: The AF-S Nikkor 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR

Field Tests by Brad Hill - Wildlife Photographer. Field test of the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. Nikon Cameras, Nikon Lenses, Nikon Accessories.

www.naturalart.ca

 

[tickle_my_nikon]

Brad Hill never met a Nikon lens he didn't want to sell for Nikon. His opinions are the same as a car salesman.

My MTF posted is from lensrentals in the mid range of the lens. You just didn't bother to read what I wrote:

• It's sharp at the long end, and reasonably sharp at the short end. Everywhere in between it's not sharp at all.​

It's about 1-3% sharper than the 300mm 2.8 it replaces, but it's actually not better than the 300mm 2.8 VRI/II prime because the images it produces are low contrast, and flat. They don't have that "pop" rendering. That's why I don't own it. I don't require the utility.

If you require the utility then it's a better lens. Personally, I would rather shoot the 300mm 2.8 prime, and then use a 105mm 1.4 on the low end with a second body. Way better results, and you're not shooting two stops higher. Most would just use a 70-200mm, and I wager the Z version produces better results than the 120-300mm 2.8 at 200mm or less.

To repeat myself again: You guys seem more like salesman than realists on a $10,000 item with obvious flaws. Is it extraordinary? No. You're trading for the utility of it.

... and it's perfectly fine to be critical of something that is priced at $10,000.

 

[Griffym]

It wasn't just soft but noticeably soft. To be fair I only used it once, but wasn't impressed. Certainly wouldn't refer to it as a "extraordinary" at that price range, with that performance. Don't take my word for it:

View attachment 48887

Yep, I hear what this test of one sample suggests. I thank you for the information but Brad Hill’s field test was more in line with what I have thought about it.
It is an expensive alternative to the 300 prime I own already. That doesn’t mean it’s not a great lens. I would never have seen this test if you hadn’t made the comment.
I have the 300 F2.8 G VRII lens which Brad Hill describes as well. I am keeping that. I think Brad has provided lots of evidence that the 120 - 300 is special enough to described as exceptional.
I don’t know if you own the 120 - 300. While I have no particular interest in 120 - 300, I don’t believe it is reasonable to be so dismissive of Brad Hill’s test.
I can see the case for a zoom but I would prefer the Z 100 - 400, despite it being a variable aperture zoom. I have a stellar 300, so I don’t need a replacement at that focal length.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Often considered that 120-300 2.8 Tried shooting, well did shoot but it was difficult, shooting a soccer game this week (I hadn't shot sports in YEARS) with my 500 (it was on the camera) and was dreaming of that 120-300 lens LOL

Stephen

Most of the folk I "saw" using these lenses were agency pros using rented equipment or gear provided by their bureaus -- I have not heard of any individual pro shooter who owned one. Now the Z 100-400 OR Z70-200/2.8 with TC has pretty much filled this slot -- I used both at a Hawk shoot in April - one on each Z9 - and they both worked well, really well. Far lighter/easier to use/carry and far far cheaper. BUT-- this all depends on the light in the venue/ground. I heard that a couple of shooters who travelled with indoor sports used the longer F-mount f/2.8 zooms rather than a 400/2.8 -- now nothing would make me part with my Z400/2.8TC.

I fervently hope that Nikon is able to deliver what they have already launched AND follows up with all the other lenses on the road map BEFORE launching other specialist lenses like the OP is asking for.
AND yes this is a little two-faced from me since I placed a pre-order for the new Z600/4 TC, when I already use both the 400/2.8TC and 800/6.3PF. But since I only bought the 800 as a stop gap and will probably sell it shortly after the new lens arrives. I don't need to do anything before my early African season shoot in Feb/March.
Please Nikon deliver some of the shorter primes for working pros. AND since Canon just launched it's 135/1.8, which looks fantastic, please release the Z-mount version of this soon too. I would hope to see a Z105/1.2 or 1.5 and a Z20/1.2 and Z14/1.8 added first. Oh and some kind of longer focal length wide aperture macro -- a 150 or 200mm f/2.8 would be ideal -- I bought an IRIX CINE 150mm t/3.0 MACRO, which worked really well and am just going through a adaption of it for use on a Cambo Actus View Camera -- If I can work out how to support the weight of this lens on the actus lens plate - which takes Z-glass.

I am not unique in that the only Dx lens I owned when I had the D500 was a small ultra wide angle. I used FX/FF glass on my D500 and it was grand. But similarly - I am not seeking ultra light/small gear - I know many who do and shifted to Fuji and OM1 years ago when micro 4/3rds and APS-C became popular with pro-level performance but in tiny packages. What I am waiting for is for Nikon to come off the fence on its DX/APS-C thinking -- including successors for the Z50 and YES D500.

 

[fcotterill]

Brad Hill never met a Nikon lens he didn't want to sell for Nikon. His opinions are the same as a car salesman.

My MTF posted is from lensrentals in the mid range of the lens. You just didn't bother to read what I wrote:

• It's sharp at the long end, and reasonably sharp at the short end. Everywhere in between it's not sharp at all.​

It's about 1-3% sharper than the 300mm 2.8 it replaces, but it's actually not better than the 300mm 2.8 VRI/II prime because the images it produces are low contrast, and flat. They don't have that "pop" rendering. That's why I don't own it. I don't require the utility.

If you require the utility then it's a better lens. Personally, I would rather shoot the 300mm 2.8 prime, and then use a 105mm 1.4 on the low end with a second body. Way better results, and you're not shooting two stops higher. Most would just use a 70-200mm, and I wager the Z version produces better results than the 120-300mm 2.8 at 200mm or less.

To repeat myself again: You guys seem more like salesman than realists on a $10,000 item with obvious flaws. Is it extraordinary? No. You're trading for the utility of it.

... and it's perfectly fine to be critical of something that is priced at $10,000.

I read your post, which is why I shared the links to empirical evidence. It's further enlightening to read Roger's conclusions on the 120-300 f2.8E SR:
"First, like every law, Roger’s Law that Zooms Are Never as Good as Primes has at least one very expensive exception. At one of its focal lengths. This zoom is ‘prime good’ at 300mm.

Second, we learned that the Nikkor AF-S 120-300mm f/2.8 lens is spectacularly good optically, particularly at the long end, which is probably the most important place to be spectacularly good optically.... "

The images shared by Brad Hill of wildlife and landscapes confirm this zoom is exceptional, together with the 70-200 f2.8E FL and 180-400 f4E TC14. I own both these but cannot justify a 120-300.

 

[ssheipel]

Stephen

Most of the folk I "saw" using these lenses were agency pros using rented equipment or gear provided by their bureaus -- I have not heard of any individual pro shooter who owned one. Now the Z 100-400 OR Z70-200/2.8 with TC has pretty much filled this slot -- I used both at a Hawk shoot in April - one on each Z9 - and they both worked well, really well. Far lighter/easier to use/carry and far far cheaper. BUT-- this all depends on the light in the venue/ground. I heard that a couple of shooters who travelled with indoor sports used the longer F-mount f/2.8 zooms rather than a 400/2.8 -- now nothing would make me part with my Z400/2.8TC.

I fervently hope that Nikon is able to deliver what they have already launched AND follows up with all the other lenses on the road map BEFORE launching other specialist lenses like the OP is asking for.
AND yes this is a little two-faced from me since I placed a pre-order for the new Z600/4 TC, when I already use both the 400/2.8TC and 800/6.3PF. But since I only bought the 800 as a stop gap and will probably sell it shortly after the new lens arrives. I don't need to do anything before my early African season shoot in Feb/March.
Please Nikon deliver some of the shorter primes for working pros. AND since Canon just launched it's 135/1.8, which looks fantastic, please release the Z-mount version of this soon too. I would hope to see a Z105/1.2 or 1.5 and a Z20/1.2 and Z14/1.8 added first. Oh and some kind of longer focal length wide aperture macro -- a 150 or 200mm f/2.8 would be ideal -- I bought an IRIX CINE 150mm t/3.0 MACRO, which worked really well and am just going through a adaption of it for use on a Cambo Actus View Camera -- If I can work out how to support the weight of this lens on the actus lens plate - which takes Z-glass.

I am not unique in that the only Dx lens I owned when I had the D500 was a small ultra wide angle. I used FX/FF glass on my D500 and it was grand. But similarly - I am not seeking ultra light/small gear - I know many who do and shifted to Fuji and OM1 years ago when micro 4/3rds and APS-C became popular with pro-level performance but in tiny packages. What I am waiting for is for Nikon to come off the fence on its DX/APS-C thinking -- including successors for the Z50 and YES D500.

Yah, it was the zoom range that had me think of the lens; don't think I ever read a thing about it I talked to my camera store guy today and I'm going to sleep on it but in the morning will almost certainly cancel my 800 pf and order the the new 600.... Thanks for the details on your use -- helpful. And yes there IS that 400 2.8 (also now ether ware but for a select few for awhile).... I gotta retire some day soon so really should stop spending money, especially on lenses that in a couple of years I won't be able to lift Cheers!

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Yah, it was the zoom range that had me think of the lens; don't think I ever read a thing about it I talked to my camera store guy today and I'm going to sleep on it but in the morning will almost certainly cancel my 800 pf and order the the new 600.... Thanks for the details on your use -- helpful. And yes there IS that 400 2.8 (also now ether ware but for a select few for awhile).... I gotta retire some day soon so really should stop spending money, especially on lenses that in a couple of years I won't be able to lift Cheers!

Hi —I retired and am spending more on Nikon AND Hasselblad gear AND Profoto as well than I did when I was working 24x7

 

[ssheipel]

Hi —I retired and am spending more on Nikon AND Hasselblad gear AND Profoto as well than I did when I was working 24x7

My pension will pay for rent and food, so I'm stocking up on toys now

 

[Kuau]

I wouldn't call the 120-300mm extraordinary. It's sharp at the long end, and reasonably sharp at the short end. Everywhere in between it's not sharp at all.

You guys seem more like salesman than realists on a $10,000 item with obvious flaws.

My 120-300/2.8 is extremely sharp at all focal lengths I would suggest you send yours into Nikon for service. My dream would be a new Z mount 120-300/2.8

 

[Activert]

I would love to see a prime 300 mm 2.8 with Tc, something similar to the their f mount 300 mm f2.8. I loved it and I used a lot. specially If you need something longer than 200 mm and shorter than 600 mm.

 

[Owney]

yah, agree, i'm sure i wouldn't be disappointed. but i also wonder what they might have in store, like maybe a 120-300 TC

Z 120-300 f/2.8 would be so awesome for sports.

 

[arbitrage]

I'm not sure....
Canon...hasn't released a 300/2.8 or 500/4 since 2011 or so. Two newer 400/2.8 and 600/4 versions have been released since that generation.
Sony...hasn't released 300/2.8 or 500/4 since A-mount. Only 400/2.8 and 600/4 in E-mount
Nikon...no 500/4 since 2015. 120-300/2.8 seemed to be the 300VR replacement in F-mount.

That seems to suggest to me that 300/2.8 and 500/4 sell a lot less than 400 and 600. Especially looking at Canon's history as I would have expected them to do MkIII DSLR versions and RF versions. But no.