p.2 #2 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The Nikon 180-400 is somewhat heavier than the Nikon 200-400/4, despite the use of FL so there doesn't seem as much weight loss to be gained in zooms than primes. Yes, I get the built in TC adds weight but still, in the primes, the weight reductions have been substantial. I suspect a larger part of the weight of the primes is in the front elements and so FL made a bigger difference, whereas a zoom has a huge number of elements and less to be gained by making the front elements lighter.
The 70-200/2.8 FL is only 7% lighter than its immediate predecessor. ...Show more →
All true, but these were released/designed before they knew the new Canon lightweight 400 (3.85kg down to 2.84kg!) and 600 (3.92kg down to 3.05kg) lenses were being released - also the lightweight Sony 400 f2.8. These two new Canons are quite a bit lighter then their predecessors and thus Nikon will have to take note and make all their future lenses much lighter. The current Canon 300 f2.8 IS II is 2.4kg but it hasn't had the update yet that will probably see it down to possibly 2kg if it's longer siblings are anything to go by. We are waiting on a new 300 f2.8E FL VR lens from Nikon and it will *have* to ha e a significant weight reduction for people to but it and sell their current 300 f2.8G VRII so it will have to match the Canon version that will probably be about 2kg. So, if the new 300 f2.8E FL VR is down to the 2kg mark then the 120-300 f2.8 needs to be at no more than 2.5kg for it to be an enticement to buy instead of the 300 prime. There has to be a reason to buy this lenses other than the zoom range, otherwise the weight penalty is too high. The other thing to consider is that maybe Nikon will not release a 300 f2.8E FL VR and corral people into the zoom?
p.2 #3 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Lance B wrote:
The other thing to consider is that maybe Nikon will not release a 300 f2.8E FL VR and corral people into the zoom?
Lance, I think this lens will be the "300/2.8" for the F mount. The next 300/2.8 prime will be on the Z mount, in 3-5 years. By then there will be enough Z mount pro bodies out there to make it worthwhile for Nikon to release a supertele prime.
p.2 #6 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Lance B wrote:
Both Canon and Sony have really trimmed tele lens weights, I think they can do under 2.5kg for this lens
I expect next gen 300 f/2.8 to come in close to 2kg, Canon is already at 2.3kg, the 120-300 zoom would still be much heavier than the prime, but possibly they could do 2.5kg. Sigma really needs to lift it's game on lens weight their 500 f/4 is their only decently light lens, but still trails the others and we haven't even seen next gen 500 f/4's announced yet. I suspect they'll drop to 2.5kg too. Nikon's 300 f/2.8 is way past needing an update just for weight alone.
p.2 #7 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I expect next gen 300 f/2.8 to come in close to 2kg, Canon is already at 2.3kg, the 120-300 zoom would still be much heavier than the prime, but possibly they could do 2.5kg. Sigma really needs to lift it's game on lens weight their 500 f/4 is their only decently light lens, but still trails the others and we haven't even seen next gen 500 f/4's announced yet. I suspect they'll drop to 2.5kg too. Nikon's 300 f/2.8 is way past needing an update just for weight alone.
Agreed. Apart from the fact that they probably can make it 2.5kg or under, I think they *need* to do it, otherwise people will shy away from buying it as it will be too heavy when compared to other options especially if they do come out with a 300 f2.8E FL VR at 2kg which it will have to be if they want to match Canon.
p.2 #8 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I said in the other thread I'm going to buy this new 120-300 since it's exactly what I want to replace the 70-200E.
I'm quite sure the Nikon will be built like the 180-400 without any compromise and the best technology Nikon is able to deliver.
Combined with the D5 or new D6 this should be a superb combo for indoor shooting.
On top of this it withholds (at least some) F-mount shooters from switching brands.
So it's a smart move to release this lens before the upcoming Olympics.
SR is very intriguing might be an acronym for Strontium (SR) titanate glass (higher dispersion than diamond) or Single Ring phase-contrast, Super Resolution, Super Rare, I don't have a clue, just blabbering
p.2 #9 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Thern wrote:
I said in the other thread I'm going to buy this new 120-300 since it's exactly what I want to replace the 70-200E.
I'm quite sure the Nikon will be built like the 180-400 without any compromise and the best technology Nikon is able to deliver.
Combined with the D5 or new D6 this should be a superb combo for indoor shooting.
On top of this it withholds (at least some) F-mount shooters from switching brands.
So it's a smart move to release this lens before the upcoming Olympics.
SR is very intriguing might be an acronym for Strontium (SR) titanate glass (higher dispersion than diamond) or Single Ring phase-contrast, Super Resolution, Super Rare, I don't have a clue, just blabbering ...Show more →
Agree with your points,and Lance's that the weight of this zoom will be a big factor in its reception. The 180-400 f4E TC weighs 3500g with 128mm O.D by 362.5 mm long. The TC adds an extra 8 elements (plus metal housing) to the 19 = 27 total. 8 of these are ED + 1 fluorite. The 200-400 f4 VR has 24 total; and the 300 f2.8G has 11 in total, 3 are ED. Telephoto zooms use more elements than primes: e.g 22 elements in 70-200 f2.8E FL (1 Fluorite & 6 ED); 20 elements in 80-400 G (4 are ED).
A 300 f2.8 cannot be narrower than 107.2mm, and the G ED-IF prime measures 124 OD by 267.5mm. The 120-300 looks like it's an IF lens thus a fixed overall length. If it of similar width, then a crude estimate can apply a ratio off the photo = 267mm approx length.
The widest lens elements push up the weight (especially at the anterior end), so replacing these with less-dense materials is one of the key innovations to lighten net mass. And so do use of space age alloys in the chassis.
A Strontium titanate element sounds intriguing, but my $0.02c, I wager SR = Super-Refractive: perhaps their new ceramic complementing Nikon's Super Extra-Low Dispersion glass, used in the 200 f2G and 80-400 G (and perhaps other Nikkors).
p.2 #11 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
It's likely Nikon aim to have this lens (and D6) prominently on show at the Summer Olympics. And being just up the road, they will not need a cargo plane to fly the spare inventory around the planet as they did in 2016 and 2018 https://petapixel.com/2016/08/12/peek-inside-nikons-gear-room-rio-olympics/
p.2 #12 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I'm not sure this lens is for me, but I do think Nikon did the right thing by releasing this 120-300 -- a brand new lens for them -- rather than just updating the excellent 300/2.8VRII to just to save a pound or so. I mean optically, all of the current superteles are about as good as they're going to ever get, and spending a lot of money designing and manufacturing supertele replacements only to save a pound or two will do nothing to help Nikon win the real war, which revolves around camera technology. If Nikon is going to continue to release more f-mount lenses, they need to be unique ... like a 600/5.6PF for example. That being said, I would like to see the 200/2 updated...that is a lens that I think I might buy if it was better designed for handling and much lighter.
Sep 05, 2019 at 06:40 AM
CrazyCanuk Offline • [X]
p.2 #13 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Gary Irwin wrote:
I'm not sure this lens is for me, but I do think Nikon did the right thing by releasing this 120-300 -- a brand new lens for them -- rather than just updating the excellent 300/2.8VRII to just to save a pound or so. I mean optically, all of the current superteles are about as good as they're going to ever get, and spending a lot of money designing and manufacturing supertele replacements only to save a pound or two will do nothing to help Nikon win the real war, which revolves around camera technology.
Completely agree with this.
Being better trumps being 'lighter' ... especially in the high-dollar, premium lens categories.
Let us not forget, too, that Nikon is already the leader in the realm of "excellent + light" with their PF glass, where Nikon offers excellence at a lighter weight than any other manufacturer.
With the desire for lightness + quality already delivered via the PF line, I would prefer to see Nikon's FL ED glass remain known for its better balance + the best optical quality possible, and I expect this 120-300 lens will deliver in this regard also.
Gary Irwin wrote:
If Nikon is going to continue to release more f-mount lenses, they need to be unique ... like a 600/5.6PF for example. That being said, I would like to see the 200/2 updated...that is a lens that I think I might buy if it was better designed for handling and much lighter.
Completely agree again.
Rather than "trying to be light, too" and following Canon and Sony, I would rather see Nikon come out with a 200 f/1.8E FL ED and a 300 f/2E FL ED, beating the others in optical quality, while offering enhanced creative potential via faster aperture.
This type of enhancement would justify an eye-watering cost, especially if Nikon can keep them fairly light. They don't have to be "the lightest" so long as they are the fastest and best option.
p.2 #14 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Gary Irwin wrote:
I'm not sure this lens is for me, but I do think Nikon did the right thing by releasing this 120-300 -- a brand new lens for them -- rather than just updating the excellent 300/2.8VRII to just to save a pound or so. I mean optically, all of the current superteles are about as good as they're going to ever get, and spending a lot of money designing and manufacturing supertele replacements only to save a pound or two will do nothing to help Nikon win the real war, which revolves around camera technology. If Nikon is going to continue to release more f-mount lenses, they need to be unique ... like a 600/5.6PF for example. That being said, I would like to see the 200/2 updated...that is a lens that I think I might buy if it was better designed for handling and much lighter. ...Show more →
I'm sure the 'war' is not over regarding lenses.
About as good as it gets may be so for current materials, coatings and designs and current technology, but I'm sure there will be an ongoing demand and strive for even better lenses with better resolving power, less CA, faster and more accurate AF to name a few.
On top of this handling, balance and heft are aspects which might be heavily changed by revolutionairy changes in design. (look at DO, Fluorite, phase fresnell tech)
I wouldn't bet on 'it's about as good as it's gets'
Unique is certainly good if the targetted userbase wants that, one can even ask more money then.
At this very moment there's still a very large userbase not interested in MILC at all, so when Nikon keeps developing and innovating on the DSLR plus F-mount ,which they said they will and looking at these announcements do, a lot of these people will keep using their obsolete DSLRs.
MILC is A future not THE future and my guess is it will be for a long time to come despite 'everybody in the know' is telling us otherwise.
p.2 #15 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
As some have said already, I see this lens as the replacement for any potential 300 f/2.8 E FL. I just can't see Nikon bringing out another 300/2.8 prime and this lens.
As mentioned above, a future 300 f/2.8 prime would more likely be in 4 years from now before the 2024 Olympics and be a Z-mount lens to go on a future Z sports body...ie the D6's replacement.
I think if they keep the weight down to even just 2.4kg then it will be light enough for the target market. I think it differentiates itself in a good way from the 300 f/2.8 primes as it will in all likelihood (based off of 180-400 and 70-200E results) have prime like IQ and AF anyways but a lot of added versatility as it will really be targeted at sports shooters.
Sep 05, 2019 at 09:07 AM
CrazyCanuk Offline • [X]
p.2 #16 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Thern wrote:
Unique is certainly good if the targetted userbase wants that, one can even ask more money then.
At this very moment there's still a very large userbase not interested in MILC at all, so when Nikon keeps developing and innovating on the DSLR plus F-mount ,which they said they will and looking at these announcements do, a lot of these people will keep using their obsolete DSLRs.
MILC is A future not THE future and my guess is it will be for a long time to come despite 'everybody in the know' is telling us otherwise.
Well said.
Also, the new Z-Mount really only offers measurable physical advantages for Nikkor optics at the widest focal lengths up only to standard focal lengths. The Z-Mount actually confers no advantage to super-telephoto optics. This gives Nikon the incentive only to concentrate Z-Mount transitions at the wider/standard focal lengths. There really is no reason to change the mount at super-telephoto lengths.
This is especially true, given that there are thousands of F-Mount shooters for every one Z-Mount shooter. Nikon would be cutting off too many potential buyers by making this lens in only Z-Mount.
With the seamless operation of the FTZ Adapter, new super telephoto lenses in the F-Mount can be purchased by all interested Nikon users, rather than a very few.
p.2 #17 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
CrazyCanuk wrote:
Well said.
Also, the new Z-Mount really only offers measurable physical advantages for Nikkor optics at the widest focal lengths up only to standard focal lengths. The Z-Mount actually confers no advantage to super-telephoto optics. This gives Nikon the incentive only to concentrate Z-Mount transitions at the wider/standard focal lengths. There really is no reason to change the mount at super-telephoto lengths.
This is especially true, given that there are thousands of F-Mount shooters for every one Z-Mount shooter. Nikon would be cutting off too many potential buyers by making this lens in only Z-Mount.
With the seamless operation of the FTZ Adapter, new super telephoto lenses in the F-Mount can be purchased by all interested Nikon users, rather than a very few....Show more →
An excellent point; however, for those who might see the 120-300 as a candidate for use with TC, the Z mount with FTZ adapter ads yet another connection so you'd have Z Body > FTZ > TC > Lens which may not be the ideal situation, but certainly usable.
p.2 #19 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
wjmeyer wrote:
An excellent point; however, for those who might see the 120-300 as a candidate for use with TC, the Z mount with FTZ adapter ads yet another connection so you'd have Z Body > FTZ > TC > Lens which may not be the ideal situation, but certainly usable.
Yup! that's one of the reasons why I said in the other thread it's a pity Nikon didn't opt for an inbuilt TC.
I love the added versatility, it's more than using a TC, no need to debate wether or not to mount it before going out, no fiddling in the field, no question where to store it, no screws coming loose, no possible play aso.
It may be a very very expensive TC but in my opinion it's worth every cent.
Efacc wrote:
I wonder if it's possible to make an FTZ teleconverter to reduce one of those connections
Should be possible at a price, but if then it would be a stellar idea to make that TC 'flickable' offcourse at an even much higher price.
p.2 #20 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
The 120-300 f/2.8 is a very usable range for many photographers and may even replace the venerable 70-200 f/2.8E (for some) if it's that good, but I don't think anyone should question whether or not this new E lens will be "that good", I'm sure it will be superb, the bigger question will be "how much". With the Sigma version coming in at $3500 I think it's safe to say the new Nikon will likely come in at $5k if not more, but maybe Nikon will surprise us like they did with the 500mm f/5.6 PF - did anyone honestly think Nikon was going to sell that lens for $3600? After a year since it was released, Nikon still cannot meet demand of this lens as it is still on backorder at most locations so for the 120-300 f/2.8E do they sell fewer lenses at a higher price or more lenses at a lower price. I would think the 120-300 f/2.8E with TC-14E III would complement the 500mm f/5.6 PF beautifully for those who desire this focal range. I would also imagine we'll be seeing a considerable number of D6/120-300 f/2.8E combos at the Olympics next year, no surprise that Nikon announced these together.
