p.3 #1 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Thern wrote:
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.
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.
While it's doubtful we'll see an FTZ/TC combo from Nikon, I wonder if that might open the door for a 3rd party to create one, granted 3rd party TC's don't seem to perform as well (or at all) with Nikon lenses, companies like Sigma and Tamron have sure been upping their game of late with the quality of their products.
p.3 #2 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I can't see this lens being under $6K USD. The 2011 Canon 300 f/2.8 IS II is $6K....prices of new super telephotos have gone up and up since then. This one adds the zoom feature....I think $6K is best case scenario.
The Sony A-mount 300 f/2.8 is $7.5K but that probably isn't a good benchmark as that was a build to order, low production lens along with their overpriced 500 f/4. And the current Nikon 300 f/2.8 is $5400.
Sep 05, 2019 at 11:15 AM
CrazyCanuk Offline • [X]
p.3 #3 · 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.
Yes, when Nikon comes out with a real sports/wildlife Z camera (the Z6/7 are not), the FTZ adapter will make the use of F-Mount super-telephotos a non-issue on Z bodies. F-Mount lenses work perfectly on Z-Mount bodies.
For me, the issue with Z cameras (regardless of lens used) isn't the FTZ Adapter, it's the lag in the EVF versus OVF. There are many advantages to an EVF, but I consider it to be an impediment to fast-frame shooting.
It is perhaps here were the DSLR will continue to maintain its relevance, due to the OVF being better-suited to fast-frame shooting.
p.3 #4 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
CrazyCanuk wrote:
Yes, when Nikon comes out with a real sports/wildlife Z camera (the Z6/7 are not), the FTZ adapter will make the use of F-Mount super-telephotos a non-issue on Z bodies. F-Mount lenses work perfectly on Z-Mount bodies.
For me, the issue with Z cameras (regardless of lens used) isn't the FTZ Adapter, it's the lag in the EVF versus OVF. There are many advantages to an EVF, but I consider it to be an impediment to fast-frame shooting.
It is perhaps here were the DSLR will continue to maintain its relevance, due to the OVF being better-suited to fast-frame shooting.
I've only had my Z6 for a few days now, but I think I understand what you are saying. When I shot in H* mode the EVF would hesitate or stutter which gave a very different feel from traditional DSLR. Granted I do not shoot a lot in this mode but sometimes do especially when I'm doing ballerina photos and the like where I want to make sure I don't miss the perfect extension. But I am pretty amazed at how refined the Z6 is for a first generation body, coming from a D750 it is entirely workable for me so far. Maybe if I did BIF or fast action sports I might want something better, but for my style of shooting I think it's going to work out just great. I've had 300's and 80-400's in the past, and someday I'd like to get something longer, this 120-300 could be just the ticket if the price is right.
p.3 #5 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
from what i'm gathering it seems to be a matter of just how one would use this particular lens. well I have a great deal of satisfaction using it. the Sig S performs exactly as I need it to. mine was and is tack sharp out of the box.
p.3 #7 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
This to me is more innovative and interesting than a single Z mount lens released so far (the announced-but-not-released NOCT looks to be the first exception).
Really excited for this. Any time I've tried out a 70-200/2.8 I've (a) used it at 200 the whole time while wishing it was 250-300ish and (b) whenever I did try to use the wide end just wished it was larger aperture. A 120-300/2.8 plus an 80-100mm large aperture prime is to me a much better combination. Obviously I'm not someone who worries about traveling light
I'm really curious whether it's positioned above or below the old 200-400/4. It's probably a less challenging focal range but it's a stop faster! I think it's safe to say, though, that it's positioned below the new 180-400/4 since that is $3 trillion and comes with the built-in TCs.
p.3 #8 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
CrazyCanuk wrote:
Yes, when Nikon comes out with a real sports/wildlife Z camera (the Z6/7 are not), the FTZ adapter will make the use of F-Mount super-telephotos a non-issue on Z bodies. F-Mount lenses work perfectly on Z-Mount bodies.
For me, the issue with Z cameras (regardless of lens used) isn't the FTZ Adapter, it's the lag in the EVF versus OVF. There are many advantages to an EVF, but I consider it to be an impediment to fast-frame shooting.
It is perhaps here were the DSLR will continue to maintain its relevance, due to the OVF being better-suited to fast-frame shooting.
I haven't shot it but many say the Sony A9 might be an even better option than any DSLR for fast action. While it does have an EVF, it offers faster frame rates than any DSLR and has zero blackout. Those are two things that some might prefer over the OVF in an SLR cam.
p.3 #10 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Kry27 wrote:
How's the lag?
No idea, never shot one. I'm sure this is well covered in reviews. I'm just saying that mirrorless and EVF might have some advantages over DSLR and OVF already.
p.3 #11 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Lance B wrote:
I saw this on Nikon Rumors and was very interested, *but* it needs to be light!! I would suppose it is F mount, which is interesting as it sort of puts to bed any talk of F mount abandonment in the near future. F mount means Nikon has two avenues of sales, Z mount only means one avenue. Did I mention it has to be light!! I am also hoping for 2kg or lighter.
I’ve always wondered why Nikon did not upgrade the 300 2.8 to FL as they did with the 400, 500 and 600 super-teles.
We know this lens will be super sharp and super fast.
The weight is the question. How much can they shed? Are we in for a big surprise? If it's possible, they can do it.
A 240-600 5.6? Will look forward to reading the tests on how this one performs with the TC20III.
p.3 #12 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
bs kite wrote:
I’ve always wondered why Nikon did not upgrade the 300 2.8 to FL as they did with the 400, 500 and 600 super-teles.
We know this lens will be super sharp and super fast.
The weight is the question. How much can they shed? Are we in for a big surprise? If it's possible, they can do it.
A 240-600 5.6? Will look forward to reading the tests on how this one performs with the TC20III.
my wild guess: $6K+ .... closer to 6 than 7
I too hope the new 120-300E paves the way to a new generation of Nikon pro lenses, but I doubt that this lens will do that. I like that Nikon is prepared to take a risk once and a while and as such it appears they may have decided to replace the standard-fare 300/2.8 pro lens with a zoom. But if it's a true pro lens, I fully expect it will be modelled after the 180-400; i.e. super sharp, very expensive, and heavy. If Nikon does decide to release a completely new lightweight class of superteles, it will be in Z mount. And that won't be anytime soon because they will need a Z body to do them justice.
p.3 #13 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Gary Irwin wrote:
I too hope the new 120-300E paves the way to a new generation of Nikon pro lenses, but I doubt that this lens will do that. I like that Nikon is prepared to take a risk once and a while and as such it appears they may have decided to replace the standard-fare 300/2.8 pro lens with a zoom. But if it's a true pro lens, I fully expect it will be modelled after the 180-400; i.e. super sharp, very expensive, and heavy. If Nikon does decide to release a completely new lightweight class of superteles, it will be in Z mount. And that won't be anytime soon because they will need a Z body to do them justice....Show more →
Thinking out aloud. I am wondering if Nikon will simply continue with pro spec F mount tele lenses like the 120-300 f2.8 etc for the DSLR users and concentrate on lighter tele lenses and the short focal lengths for the Z system at least for a number of years yet. When you think about it, if you have a DSLR and use it for nature photography and also use it for landscapes while you're out there, then it is probably just as light to use a Z6/7 + a 14-30 and 24-70 and your D850 + long F mount lenses as it would be to just throw in a 24-70 f2.8 and 14-24 or what ever to add to your F mount long lenses and D850.
p.3 #14 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Still no price info on this lens? I would really be surprised if it is priced $6-7K! If 180-400 f/4 is any indication, my guess would be $10K+, which would mean that I would have to continue enjoying my Sigma Sport 120-300:
bs kite wrote:
I’ve always wondered why Nikon did not upgrade the 300 2.8 to FL as they did with the 400, 500 and 600 super-teles.
We know this lens will be super sharp and super fast.
The weight is the question. How much can they shed? Are we in for a big surprise? If it's possible, they can do it.
A 240-600 5.6? Will look forward to reading the tests on how this one performs with the TC20III.
p.3 #15 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Lance B wrote:
Thinking out aloud. I am wondering if Nikon will simply continue with pro spec F mount tele lenses like the 120-300 f2.8 etc for the DSLR users and concentrate on lighter tele lenses and the short focal lengths for the Z system at least for a number of years yet. When you think about it, if you have a DSLR and use it for nature photography and also use it for landscapes while you're out there, then it is probably just as light to use a Z6/7 + a 14-30 and 24-70 and your D850 + long F mount lenses as it would be to just throw in a 24-70 f2.8 and 14-24 or what ever to add to your F mount long lenses and D850. ...Show more →
That sounds completely logical to me, Lance. I also doubt that Nikon has the resources to replace the current E superteles AND develop a new line for the Z cameras, though I suppose it's possible they might hedge their bets and try to compromise with a single design on f-mount using AF-P technology. But I doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the newest super-light-weights from Canon and and Sony are no sharper than Nikon's current versions using traditional optical designs rather that optimize for maximum weight savings. (I wish lenscore still tested lenses, but I guess we'll never really know.) No, my money is on a new set of Z-based superteles sometime down the road, and what we see in f-mount today is essentially what we get from Nikon until that time, more or less.
p.3 #16 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I think this lens is being released instead of releasing a 300 f/2.8 E FL. That makes since as the 300/2.8 is usually used as a sports lens and I'm sure some sports would make great use of the zoom range vs a fixed 300. Therefore, I think they should have to price it similar to a 300 f/2.8 and that sits at around $6K for the 2011 Canon version. My guess is $7K for this lens but it could be up to $8K. I don't think it will be as "cheap" as $6K as the Canon pricing is 2011.
p.3 #17 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I certainly hope you are right. In case of 180-400, Nikon unfortunately did not follow that logic for their pricing given that it was replacing 200-400 at ~$7K.
arbitrage wrote:
I think this lens is being released instead of releasing a 300 f/2.8 E FL. That makes since as the 300/2.8 is usually used as a sports lens and I'm sure some sports would make great use of the zoom range vs a fixed 300. Therefore, I think they should have to price it similar to a 300 f/2.8 and that sits at around $6K for the 2011 Canon version. My guess is $7K for this lens but it could be up to $8K. I don't think it will be as "cheap" as $6K as the Canon pricing is 2011.
p.3 #18 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
The 180-400 is priced similarly to Canon's 200-400/4, so no surprise there. The built-in, hot-swappable TC increases the price.
The 120-300/2.8 won't have a built-in TC so it should be priced somewhat higher than 300/2.8 (the zoom adds both complexity and value to the user) but not at twice the price.
They still should make an FL 300/2.8 prime since the zoom will likely be very heavy compared to Canon's current 300/2.8 prime.
cambyses wrote:
I certainly hope you are right. In case of 180-400, Nikon unfortunately did not follow that logic for their pricing given that it was replacing 200-400 at ~$7K.
p.3 #19 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I think that Nikon is currently embarking on a two-tiered strategy. With the impending release of the D6 to coincide with the Olympic Games, it makes sense that they introduce a lens that showcases that body's capacity. There is little doubt that a 120-300 f/2.8 would be a very useful lens for capturing Olympic competitions.
As stated by Lance (and others), the Z-series has not proven to be a fully sports-capable camera system yet. Until Nikon figures out how to optimize AFC in a Z camera, the DSLR's are their go-to system for action. Furthermore, I hypothesize that the 120-300 has been on the "drawing board" for a long time (prior to committing to the Z-system ?). Were mirrorless not have become the trend that it has, a 120-300 f/2.8 would have been a great way to "one-up" Canon, as they were Nikon's traditional rival when it came to action photography.
p.3 #20 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
The 180-400 has been very popular (from what I've been able to gather, similar sales volume per year as the almost 50% less expensive older 200-400), which was really unexpected to me given the reduced volume of Nikon's sales in general and the high cost of the 180-400. I think the 120-300/2.8 may have been made because of the success of the 180-400; there appears to be a market for very high-end zooms and with the right product, some people are willing to part with a considerable amount of money to get it. Also their competitors don't have anything like it (except for Sigma).
At least where I live, mirrorless hasn't become a trend in professional sports photography. I have yet to spot even one A9 in use in a sports venue. The accredited shooters seem to be equipped with 70+% Canon DSLR, with Nikon DSLR the majority of the rest. There are a few Sonys, Olympus, Panasonics also but mainly used by spectators and attached to smaller-aperture lenses.
That isn't to say that mirrorless won't affect Nikon's prospects of selling 120-300/2.8's; I am sure it will to some extent. But I think the main hindering is that professional sports photographers usually don't use the latest lenses, their 300/2.8's etc. can easily be 10 years old. It's not clear that many people in this market have the money to pay so much for a new lens ... given the low compensations that are now common (basically you shoot a game and if you're published, you earn the equivalent of a movie ticket). So a lot of seasoned pros are exiting the field or have done so. The 180-400 by contrast probably appeals more to the wildlife photographer market.
Personally I find the 120-300/2.8 appealing but will look at the weight when it comes to the market. If Nikon have managed to keep the weight within 3kg and if the autofocus is like other recent high-end Nikkors then I may consider buying it. Of course price does affect any such decision as well. I would prefer a prime FL lens for lower weight. Also I'm slightly concerned about what levels of vignetting there will be in the new zoom; the 180-400 vignettes quite a lot, and while it is possible to correct such things, noise goes up as the outer areas are lifted. When shooting figure skating, 120-300 is close to a perfect range, and with 300mm prime one can often end up with clipped body parts. But one does not have to succeed perfectly in every shot. Using a zoom for fast action can be difficult as one has one parameter to constantly adjust, and with the 70-200/2.8 I often end up with too much room around the subject, as I try to keep everything within the frame, but then often there is a lot of white space that I don't want in the end.
