If true, the price would unfortunately be in line with my guess/prediction stated earlier in the thread (at least without the plus sign in $10K+ ). But still too expensive for me to ditch my Sigma Sport. But that is only because I rarely shoot sports and 300mm is short for most my wildlife subjects.
p.4 #4 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I've been using the 80-400 G for my grandkids soccer games but found myself wishing for something faster for those often cloudy days here in Western New York. I just picked up a mint Sigma 120-300 2.8 DG OS, the version before the Sport, for under $1000. Haven't had a chance to really try it out yet but so far so good,looking forward to soccer season. It's almost the same size and weight as my 150-600 S and built just as well. No doubt the new Nikon is going to be a fantastic lens, everything they've put out lately has been. But it'll be way too rich for me. If I was a pro shooting sports, a whole different story.
p.4 #5 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
There is a second price leak for the UK (first was China). Both convert to right around $10K USD based on current pricing of other Nikon products between the two countries. Expensive but somewhat expected based on current trends.
p.4 #6 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
arbitrage wrote:
There is a second price leak for the UK (first was China). Both convert to right around $10K USD based on current pricing of other Nikon products between the two countries. Expensive but somewhat expected based on current trends.
Makes sense Nikon will price as high as they dare to milk sales to pros for the Olympics. Anyway it's a complex as well as a fast optic - 25 elements
The 70-200 f2.8E was priced @ about $2700 when released. It's dropped quite a way since.
More pertinently, we now read there's a new glass in the Nikon optical stable. THis being SR, whatever the acronym stands for (?)
"25 elements in 19 groups, with Nikon’s ED glass and SR glass as well as ARNEO and Nano Crystal coatings.
・Nikon’s new SR glass, as well as ED glass to combat chromatic aberration. As a result, colour fringing is greatly reduced, and harder-to-control blue light (short wavelength spectrum) is thoroughly compensated for. Images are sharper than ever before and contrast is exceptional." And the 70-200 f2.8S also has SR element(s).
p.4 #7 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I posted this over at NR as I was thinking about the price of this lens:
I was thinking about the pricing on the 120-300, and I think you have to consider how it's used - and when you do, it's actually a bargain.
First, figure the target audience for this is pro sports photographers, probably shooting single digit bodies. Frequently, they need to cover the 70-200 range and 300mm - all at 2.8. So, this usually means a pair of pro bodies and the requisite lenses. $13K (or so) for two pro bodies, + $2800 for the $70-200E, $5500 for the 300 2.8 = $21,300
Or
$6500 for one pro body, $10K for the 120-300 = $16500 to cover basically the came range AND do it without taking your eye from the viewfinder.
Thankfully, I don't do sports, so my wallet is safe
p.4 #8 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
If you calculate like that, you lose one 'backup' pro body and the possibility to shoot at 70-120 mm.
Some will want that and still need at least some kind of 2nd body. Plus a lens.
Unless you have a 24-70 anyway an can get away with the gap from 70 to 120 (which isn't all that much, as long as you don't shoot there predominantly).
p.4 #9 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Kry27 wrote:
If you calculate like that, you lose one 'backup' pro body and the possibility to shoot at 70-120 mm.
Some will want that and still need at least some kind of 2nd body. Plus a lens.
Unless you have a 24-70 anyway an can get away with the gap from 70 to 120 (which isn't all that much, as long as you don't shoot there predominantly).
If you need two cameras to do the job, you have twice the chance of getting into a situation in which you need a backup. In many cases, a 2.8/24-70 and switching to DX mode will do the job, especially if you can use a "cheap" D850 or Z7 instead of a D5 for these shots.
p.4 #11 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Steve Perry wrote:
I posted this over at NR as I was thinking about the price of this lens:
I was thinking about the pricing on the 120-300, and I think you have to consider how it's used - and when you do, it's actually a bargain.
First, figure the target audience for this is pro sports photographers, probably shooting single digit bodies. Frequently, they need to cover the 70-200 range and 300mm - all at 2.8. So, this usually means a pair of pro bodies and the requisite lenses. $13K (or so) for two pro bodies, + $2800 for the $70-200E, $5500 for the 300 2.8 = $21,300
Or
$6500 for one pro body, $10K for the 120-300 = $16500 to cover basically the came range AND do it without taking your eye from the viewfinder.
Thankfully, I don't do sports, so my wallet is safe ...Show more →
I still think you'll find most sports photographers using 2-3 bodies per sport. Football you'll need to extend the 300 end. It's a great lens for basketball and indoor sports but 120 is too tight on the short end so you'd still need a second body for under the basket or a wide view. The ability to zoom out/in helps you on some shots you might have missed with a single focal length but I don't think it's going to replace multiple lenses.
p.4 #12 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Two23 wrote:
Do we know this is Z? Maybe the SR means it is S. It's possible 1 or 2 F mount could dribble out that have been under development, but one swallow does not make a summer.
Kent in SD
Not Z mount. Z mount all have a different design, black lenses. Anything gold, like this is F mount. It'll work with the FTZ adapter, but its not Z native.
p.4 #14 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
The SR lens elements and ARNEO coatings et al have been released in a top quality F-Nikkor. This ranks as an event of note for Nikon in its legendary history of superb optics.
But there be problems. Now we also know the 120-300 f2.8E FL SR weighs in at a hefty 3.25g kg. It won't worry sports shooters or more sedentary wildlife photographers but this weight is considerable.
This is besides the not unexpected stiff introduction price..... Moreover this zoom has to use a 122mm filter?! Here be brutal evidence that Nikon fails to listen let alone check in with core needs of its clients. Why oh Why discard the internal rear filter that's become an unspoken standard on Nikon's exotic telephotos? Okay it was 52mm on G primes then 40.5mm started with the 400 f2.8E. The rear internal filter is so so much simpler to swop in and out, let alone adjust the CPL
For wildlife in the tropics a CPL is mandatory, and also I suspect for many shooting in harsh light outdoors eg water sports / reflection from racing cars etc. The lack of an internal CPL option in the 500 PF is the only gripe I have with this revolutionary telephoto. This is besides the errant club foot that can go awol and the shoddy tripod collar) but many of us hardly ever lock this light lens on to a tripod.
This makes the newest lighter Canon fast 400 and 600 primes all the more attractive. (Nikon support has also abseiled in Africa, which is the other sour factor some of us are having to weigh up). So here's assuming Z action cameras mature (which Nikon has to action urgently), 3rd party lenses will become a wise recourse.... While the new Nikkor zoom is undoubtedly a superb optic, it's yet again an example of Nikon reversing away from trends to lighten telephotos. It is probably better balanced than the outstanding 300 f2.8G VRII.
Nevertheless, Canon and also Sony demonstrated the advances in honeycombed Mg bodies for telephotos. A pity Nikon R&D is stuck in the 1990s on this one.
p.4 #15 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
chambeshi wrote:
The SR lens elements and ARNEO coatings et al have been released in a top quality F-Nikkor. This ranks as an event of note for Nikon in its legendary history of superb optics.
But there be problems. Now we also know the 120-300 f2.8E FL SR weighs in at a hefty 3.25g kg. It won't worry sports shooters or more sedentary wildlife photographers but this weight is considerable.
This is besides the not unexpected stiff introduction price..... Moreover this zoom has to use a 122mm filter?! Here be brutal evidence that Nikon fails to listen let alone check in with core needs of its clients. Why oh Why discard the internal rear filter that's become an unspoken standard on Nikon's exotic telephotos? Okay it was 52mm on G primes then 40.5mm started with the 400 f2.8E. The rear internal filter is so so much simpler to swop in and out, let alone adjust the CPL
For wildlife in the tropics a CPL is mandatory, and also I suspect for many shooting in harsh light outdoors eg water sports / reflection from racing cars etc. The lack of an internal CPL option in the 500 PF is the only gripe I have with this revolutionary telephoto. This is besides the errant club foot that can go awol and the shoddy tripod collar) but many of us hardly ever lock this light lens on to a tripod.
This makes the newest lighter Canon fast 400 and 600 primes all the more attractive. (Nikon support has also abseiled in Africa, which is the other sour factor some of us are having to weigh up). So here's assuming Z action cameras mature (which Nikon has to action urgently), 3rd party lenses will become a wise recourse.... While the new Nikkor zoom is undoubtedly a superb optic, it's yet again an example of Nikon reversing away from trends to lighten telephotos. It is probably better balanced than the outstanding 300 f2.8G VRII.
Nevertheless, Canon and also Sony demonstrated the advances in honeycombed Mg bodies for telephotos. A pity Nikon R&D is stuck in the 1990s on this one....Show more →
Offcourse is anybody entitled to assess 'gear' against his/her own needs and someone using filters will see this as a disadvantage, but like so many other stuff, this particular lens is not targetted at the vast majority of wildlife shooters.
Sportsshooters do not/selden use these (personally never saw one using anything else but the standard 'mandatory' dropin filter)
Looking at the target group I distinguish between indoor and outdoor shooters.
The indoorshooter is served better with a fast shorter zoom, the outdoorshooter with more FL where loosing a full stop doesn't count that much.
Most outdoor sportsshooters I know are using a 400 F/2.8 , some a 180-400/200-400 and a 70-200 F/2.8, most indoorshooters a (120-)300 F/2.8 and 70-200 F/2.8
Guess the new 120-300 will serve the latter very well.
I expect it to be as good prolly better than the 180-400 and it will be a very nice substitute for my 70-200 which is often a bit too short.
There could be just one possible dealbreaker (which won't happen) and that would be a 40Mp+ D6 with at least the same high ISO performance like the D5.
Nonetheless (a saying overhere) if you bother about its pricetag it's prolly not meant for you.
Sure it will be superior in every regard but price/performance and the much cheaper Sigma will be a very strong contender for its (WAY) better price/performance.
Like allways to each his own, no absolute thruth here and I can certainly see why one wouldn't pay a lot more for a overall somewhat better lens.
p.4 #16 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
chambeshi wrote:
The SR lens elements and ARNEO coatings et al have been released in a top quality F-Nikkor. This ranks as an event of note for Nikon in its legendary history of superb optics.
Maybe the photographic community should first use it and evaluate the results rather than call it a legend before it has arrived in the market? Legend = "a story coming down from the past". Past has first to accumulate.
Now we also know the 120-300 f2.8E FL SR weighs in at a hefty 3.25g kg.
This is as I thought it would be. The 300/2.8 is 2.9kg so a zoom would be expected to be heavier. FL didn't make the 180-400 lighter than the 200-400, there is no reason it would make a huge difference here. But it is quite possible it will be less front-heavy.
Both PF and FL seem to allow primes to be made with greater reduction in weight than zooms, which seem to stay heavy.
It won't worry sports shooters or more sedentary wildlife photographers but this weight is considerable.
I am quite sure many sports photographers suffer from back, knee, neck etc. problems from carrying way too much gear too often. But the 120-300 is lighter than 70-200/2.8 + 300/2.8 so maybe it can help in some situations. An FL 300/2.8 prime would be possible to make lighter as Canon have shown.
Moreover this zoom has to use a 122mm filter?! Here be brutal evidence that Nikon fails to listen let alone check in with core needs of its clients.
I am sure they listen to those clients they are targeting this lens with. The rear part of the lens seems to be full of curved elements so there may not have been enough space to place a rear filter or it may have interfered with the optical design.
The lack of an internal CPL option in the 500 PF is the only gripe I have with this revolutionary telephoto. This is besides the errant club foot that can go awol and the shoddy tripod collar) but many of us hardly ever lock this light lens on to a tripod.
I have heard of problems with the tripod attachment of the 500 PF when it has been misused as a carrying handle or hook. As a tripod mount, I find it to be excellent, no vibration to speak of on a proper tripod, which is a refreshing change from other lightweight Nikon teles in the AF-S era. Personally I use the 500 PF on tripod often, as it allows me to rest my hands while waiting for the action, and I can do more controlled pans with less unwanted shake in the process, and use shutter speeds that are problematic in hand-held use and get good results.
While the new Nikkor zoom is undoubtedly a superb optic, it's yet again an example of Nikon reversing away from trends to lighten telephotos. It is probably better balanced than the outstanding 300 f2.8G VRII.
Which other example do you have in mind ("yet again")? The previous telephoto Nikon made is the 500 PF which is quite lightweight. It is easier to make a prime lens lighter weight, apparently, as they are simpler optics with fewer elements so there is more room for reduction.
Nevertheless, Canon and also Sony demonstrated the advances in honeycombed Mg bodies for telephotos. A pity Nikon R&D is stuck in the 1990s on this one.
I quite doubt that Nikon are using the same materials and construction today as they used in the 1990s.
p.4 #17 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I know this lens is complex, but how in baby-Jesus can they charge nearly twice what the excellent 300 f2.8 primes cost? Must be a hungry market of people who super-duper need a 120-300 lens that doesn't break or suck at AF (I'm looking at you Sigma - and the trashy lens I bought from you years ago).
p.4 #18 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
It sounds like an awesome lens, and pro photographers will probably love it, but I was taken back with the price too.
Reality is there is probably a market for two versions of this lens. One that has every feature possible for pros, the lens Nikon just rebased, and a lower tier model for high end amateurs. I have to think if Sigma can make a good 120-300mm f2.8 for 3,600 Nikon could make an even better one in the 5-7k range.
p.4 #19 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Ridiculous price for what you get. If it had some miraculous weight reduction compared to the Sigma, or just something else that made it stand apart, I'd understand about $7500 or so...but $9500? Not sure I'm understanding Nikon's expected path back to profitability when they pull stuff like this. Perhaps its just to be able to maximize the mass purchases from upcoming sporting events like the Olympics etc? As far as I see it, they just completly priced out most enthusiast photographers from buying the lens. Oh well...my 500PF is great and was priced reasonably.
p.4 #20 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
It's just not a lens for enthusiasts, except for Leica users disappointed by that company's lack of fast tele options. It's for people who need top reliability at the upcoming Olympics.
Frank613 wrote:
Ridiculous price for what you get. If it had some miraculous weight reduction compared to the Sigma, or just something else that made it stand apart, I'd understand about $7500 or so...but $9500? Not sure I'm understanding Nikon's expected path back to profitability when they pull stuff like this. Perhaps its just to be able to maximize the mass purchases from upcoming sporting events like the Olympics etc? As far as I see it, they just completly priced out most enthusiast photographers from buying the lens. Oh well...my 500PF is great and was priced reasonably.
(at least without the plus sign in $10K+ 
). But still too expensive for me to ditch my Sigma Sport. But that is only because I rarely shoot sports and 300mm is short for most my wildlife subjects. 
