I got lucky on an old stock copy, but other than that... it seems prices have gone up on this one since the last time I bought a copy 4 years ago. Makes sense as its perfect on my Z9. Best luck!
JadedWriter wrote:
Can this lens crater in price already please?
So few of them made I believe.....I was guessing that this wouldn't go down in price until a Z version becomes available and that will be a few years out in all likelihood.
I agree. The highest production # I’ve seen for this lens was in the mid 5,000s.
My 300mm 2.8G VRII on the other hand was produced in the mid 15,000’s.
urbanwild wrote:
So few of them made I believe.....I was guessing that this wouldn't go down in price until a Z version becomes available and that will be a few years out in all likelihood.
JadedWriter wrote:
I guess the lens is so niche that so few of them were made, yet I'd probably buy this over a 300 2.8.
Nikon generally sells three times as many 300mm 2.8's as they do their 200mm f/2 or 400mm f/2.8 models. It seemed to be a sought after lens. They produced 12,000 copies of the current optics of the 200mm F/2. It's not exactly a rare lens.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Have both but loved the 200 w/ twice X TC III for wildlife....
I always found the 200mm F2 soft with teleconverters particularly compared to a 400mm f/2.8 wide open. The 300mm 2.8 handles 600mm at f/6.3 like a champ. Hardly any image quality loss.
Probably because it's a hyper versatile lens. The 300 would be great for sports and portraits, just comes up short for birds unless it's on a D500...still a tad short, but it's better than nothing. InternetGenius wrote:
Nikon generally sells three times as many 300mm 2.8's as they do their 200mm f/2 or 400mm f/2.8 models. It seemed to be a sought after lens. They produced 12,000 copies of the current optics of the 200mm F/2. It's not exactly a rare lens.
I always found the 200mm F2 soft with teleconverters particularly compared to a 400mm f/2.8 wide open. The 300mm 2.8 handles 600mm at f/6.3 like a champ. Hardly any image quality loss.
JadedWriter wrote:
Probably because it's a hyper versatile lens. The 300 would be great for sports and portraits, just comes up short for birds unless it's on a D500...still a tad short, but it's better than nothing.
It is generally considered short for sports. 400mm is considered the optimal focal length for most outdoor sports.
Nikon's current optical plan with the 120-300mm f/2.8 and 400mm 2.8 S/Z with teleconverter mostly replace the need for a dedicated 300mm f/2.8 in their mind unless they wanted to release a lens in the four pound range.
I imagine they won't replace it with a Z version.
Ironically, Nikon hasn't really been able to upgrade any of these super telephotos optically. They've only managed to change their utility, and lower weight (at a cost to optical performance in some cases).
I personally think any of the G lenses are a bargain right now on F Mount.
Ok, so basically the 300 was a basketball lens? Also explains why nobody bothered to make a 300 2.8 on mirrorless (barring Fuji). They basically rethought their lenses and obsoleted it in a way because in a way professionally it just makes no sense. InternetGenius wrote:
It is generally considered short for sports. 400mm is considered the optimal focal length for most outdoor sports.
Nikon's current optical plan with the 120-300mm f/2.8 and 400mm 2.8 S/Z with teleconverter mostly replace the need for a dedicated 300mm f/2.8 in their mind unless they wanted to release a lens in the four pound range.
I imagine they won't replace it with a Z version.
Ironically, Nikon hasn't really been able to upgrade any of these super telephotos optically. They've only managed to change their utility, and lower weight (at a cost to optical performance in some cases).
I personally think any of the G lenses are a bargain right now on F Mount....Show more →
I would classify it as a Paparazzi lens. You get a 50% magnification at the same weight as the 200mm f/2. The 400mm f/2.8 from the same era (2008) weighs just over ten pounds. You're only getting a 33% magnification, and a 50%+ weight increase.
Indoor sports shooting? 200mm f/2 wins with the extra stop.
All of the camera companies are now leaning toward removing weight from the lens. The optical designs are all suffering for it. There's no difference in sharpness at 45 megapixels on the 400mm 2.8 between the G lens, and the new Z lens. Slight corner improvement only on the Z. The FL/E lens is actually less sharp in the center than the G. They just removed weight.
If they make a newer 200mm f/2 it will probably not be the same as the current optical design. They might not even be able to improve it. The VRII has far worse color rendering, and vignetting than the VR1 at f/2.
JadedWriter wrote:
Ok, so basically the 300 was a basketball lens? Also explains why nobody bothered to make a 300 2.8 on mirrorless (barring Fuji). They basically rethought their lenses and obsoleted it in a way because in a way professionally it just makes no sense.
I would love to know your source on the 200mm production. I have one of the last copies produced and it’s in the mid 5,000s. I’d agree with your number if you were including the VRI lens.
InternetGenius wrote:
Nikon generally sells three times as many 300mm 2.8's as they do their 200mm f/2 or 400mm f/2.8 models. It seemed to be a sought after lens. They produced 12,000 copies of the current optics of the 200mm F/2. It's not exactly a rare lens.
I always found the 200mm F2 soft with teleconverters particularly compared to a 400mm f/2.8 wide open. The 300mm 2.8 handles 600mm at f/6.3 like a champ. Hardly any image quality loss.
Well this is interesting to know. I guess everything is just optical tradeoffs and optical physics really haven't improved all that much at the telephoto end. InternetGenius wrote:
I would classify it as a Paparazzi lens. You get a 50% magnification at the same weight as the 200mm f/2. The 400mm f/2.8 from the same era (2008) weighs just over ten pounds. You're only getting a 33% magnification, and a 50%+ weight increase.
Indoor sports shooting? 200mm f/2 wins with the extra stop.
All of the camera companies are now leaning toward removing weight from the lens. The optical designs are all suffering for it. There's no difference in sharpness at 45 megapixels on the 400mm 2.8 between the G lens, and the new Z lens. Slight corner improvement only on the Z. The FL/E lens is actually less sharp in the center than the G. They just removed weight.
If they make a newer 200mm f/2 it will probably not be the same as the current optical design. They might not even be able to improve it. The VRII has far worse color rendering, and vignetting than the VR1 at f/2.
