p.5 #2 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
arbitrage wrote:
I totally missed the weight of this thing...7.2lbs...WTF?....I can buy a 600/4 or 400/2.8 that weighs almost a pound less....
How do you take 120mm, 200mm or 300mm focal length shots with the 600/4 or 400/2.8? By stitching?
If you look at past high-end zooms, they are always heavier than primes with equivalent aperture and maximum focal length.
For example,
Canon 200-400/4 weights 3620g, the 400/4 weights 2100 g (yes, I'm aware the latter is DO but the manufacturer is free to use whatever optical design works best for each lens).
p.5 #3 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
ilkka_nissila wrote:
How do you take 120mm, 200mm or 300mm focal length shots with the 600/4 or 400/2.8? By stitching?
If you look at past high-end zooms, they are always heavier than primes with equivalent aperture and maximum focal length.
For example,
Canon 200-400/4 weights 3620g, the 400/4 weights 2100 g (yes, I'm aware the latter is DO but the manufacturer is free to use whatever optical design works best for each lens).
I agree that a zoom going to the same end focal length and front element is going to be heavier than the same prime. I still expected a brand new lens in 2020 to be lighter than a lens with almost 50% larger front element though.
If that is the best they could do then that is the best they could do. For me though the weight is a big turnoff for a 300mm lens in an age of much lighter super telephoto lenses.
Of course we haven't seen any 300 f/2.8 prime made since 2011 design by Canon so we really have nothing to compare that focal length to.
p.5 #4 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Well, it contains 25 elements whereas the current Nikon 300/2.8 prime has 11 elements. Those elements and mechanics that move them weigh something, even with FL elements being lighter than glass. I hope Nikon will release an FL 300mm f/2.8 prime some time in the near future. But I guess this zoom puts that off by a few years.
Nikon do have a lightweight 300mm f/4 lens as you know, and that is what I have. The PF 300/4 however doesn't quite have the contrast and "pop" of the 300/2.8 especially when shot in backlit conditions.
For me the weight is not as big a turnoff as the cost of the new lens. I can handle a 3.25kg lens, though I would not handle something much heavier than that with pleasure.
p.5 #5 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
arbitrage wrote:
I agree that a zoom going to the same end focal length and front element is going to be heavier than the same prime. I still expected a brand new lens in 2020 to be lighter than a lens with almost 50% larger front element though.
If that is the best they could do then that is the best they could do. For me though the weight is a big turnoff for a 300mm lens in an age of much lighter super telephoto lenses.
Of course we haven't seen any 300 f/2.8 prime made since 2011 design by Canon so we really have nothing to compare that focal length to....Show more →
---------------------------------------------
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Well, it contains 25 elements whereas the current Nikon 300/2.8 prime has 11 elements. Those elements and mechanics that move them weigh something, even with FL elements being lighter than glass. I hope Nikon will release an FL 300mm f/2.8 prime some time in the near future. But I guess this zoom puts that off by a few years.
Nikon do have a lightweight 300mm f/4 lens as you know, and that is what I have. The PF 300/4 however doesn't quite have the contrast and "pop" of the 300/2.8 especially when shot in backlit conditions.
For me the weight is not as big a turnoff as the cost of the new lens. I can handle a 3.25kg lens, though I would not handle something much heavier than that with pleasure. ...Show more →
As Thom is pointing out with the D780, not cameras, but Nikon needs to persuade new users to buy their latest and greatest lenses, and/or persuade upgraders to buy new. The spec and price of this 120-300 will have a few staying with a 70-200 f2.8E FL + TC14 III. This combo will suffice for many of us,especially at shorter subject distances (or a 70-300 AFP FX). A more direct comparison of how to sell more telephotos new is the excellent, versatile 300 f2.8G VR II that weighs a hefty 2.9kg. It's a lens of its era, sure but remains a great investment even today. A FL E upgrade - all the better with SR glass - at a similar price of £5000 would likely sell in healthy numbers, especially if it works as well with TCs as the G model. And pointless to argue that ARNEO + a single SR element justifies £9000 even if it is a zoom.
And they could feasibly get out a 300 f2.8E FL SR weighing well under 2.5kg more like close to 2kg. Canon has pruned down the weight of their latest & fast 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 to 2.84kg (163 x 343mm) and 3.05 kg respectively. The industry trend is for lighter telephotos for air travel and allied uses. Weight is a massive factor to pack a 600 f4 + 120-300 f2.8 with all the other gear - whether to sports events or safari, and especially on smaller planes, and packed on the skeleton of a matured/aging hominid ;-)
....Certainly, optical acuity is the one uppermost factor of a top tier telephoto, but Nikon nailed this fair & square with the G models of their exotics, with less mass in the primes. But oh no not Nikon.... perhaps less with the 180-400 f4 but full on with the flagship 120-300 f2.8 stays in low-range and reverses into the 1990s.
One of Nikon's most successful lenses - in many respects a "Sigma blocker" - is the 200-500 f5.6E.
19 elements in 12 groups (including 3 ED elements). It weighs 2.3kg @ 108 mm dia by 267.5mm - 2kg with no tripod collar. Many owners can handhold this lens for enough time to grab more than burst - and it's priced < £1000. As importantly, I've heard of no reported problems with the build of this "consumer" telephoto zoom, and many do much time in tropical Africa.
If Nikon had pitched a 100-300 f2.8E FL SR ... the new lens coatings et al.... at £5000 then this would persuade upgraders and new owners. But this zoom needs even more innovation to sell i.e. using similar innovations to Canon (also Sony) to trim off at least 1 pound in weight - better 1.5 Ibs to ~2.6kg. And let's not forget the means to use the rear internal CPL. The more features in a lens =more options is all for the better - to widen the market with a suite of attractive features. Even if some of these features are unneeded in some's photographer's comfort zone.
His two criticisms mirror mine: weight and cost ($12,399 CDN )
However his conclusion contradicts mine: he is buying one, I'm not even considering buying one
p.5 #10 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
rick_reno wrote:
if I wanted a 120-300, and I don’t this is the time I’d try a Sigma lens.
I have the Sigma 120-300 OS Sport and it is plenty sharp even with the 1.4 TC. I'd love to get the Nikon version as I am sure it will be a fantastic lens, but 10K is a bit much.
p.5 #11 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
arbitrage wrote:
I totally missed the weight of this thing...7.2lbs...WTF?....I can buy a 600/4 or 400/2.8 that weighs almost a pound less....
Indeed, the weight and the price of this lens are it's two biggest negatives, by far. As for the weight, I can only surmise this lens had been in the planning stages for some time, and being based on "traditional" optical designs Nikon didn't have the time or resources to redesign it. Since Nikon knows the days of being able to sell new f-mount lenses are dwindling fast, they had to get it out now or never, along a few remaining DSLRs on the drawing board. I expect any new light-weight superteles will be designed for the Z mount with the exception, perhaps, of a 600/5.6PF. No doubt this lens will be a fantastic performer, but I can't see it selling well since there are decent but less expensive options in this focal range. The only way this lens could sell reasonably well is if Nikon cuts the price by a lot. Unlike the 180-400, this lens just isn't that unique and can be covered by other lens combinations.
p.5 #12 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
The MTF for the Nikon 120-300mm zoom at 30lpmm at 300mm f/2.8 is between 0.9 and 1.0, whereas with the 300mm f/2.8G II it is between 0.8 and 1.0, so it seems the new lens should theoretically at least give somewhat sharper/higher-contrast rendering of detail than the prime. The Sigma 120-300 MTF at 300mm f/2.8 varies between 0.6 and 1.0.
So, it seems at the 300mm setting, the new Nikon zoom is superior to existing zooms of similar range as well as 300mm primes. I don't see how this would not be considered unique. We know from the 70-200 FL how much improvement there has been in Nikon telezoom image quality, this seems to be further improved from that.
Of course, it is expensive and few will buy it as a result of the pricing, but I want to always encourage manufacturers to pursue better image quality, better autofocus, etc.
It does use Nikon's latest optical materials (FL and SR) - but it's a fast high-quality telephoto zoom and those have never been light weight without compromise to the image quality. Canon's 200-400/4 isn't light weight, either. Canon's 70-200/2.8 RF is lighter weight than previous lenses of this type but it's 160mm at minimum focus whereas Nikon's 70-200/2.8 S is 200mm at minimum focus, so of course the Canon lens can be lighter since it allows the focal length to drop by 20%.
There are really no examples of high-quality, wide aperture, long telephoto zoom lenses that are lightweight. The weight reduction techniques that have been introduced in recent years to telephoto lenses have all been shown to be effective in prime lenses, but there are no examples illustrating comparable weight loss in high-quality zoom lenses.
p.5 #13 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Max Power wrote:
That’s the first thing I thought of when I saw the price. I understand who the lens is targeted for, but is it three times better than the Sigma?
I'd rather buy a Rolex. Holds its value better and is a full pound lighter.
p.5 #15 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I have been interested in the 120-300 f/2.8 focal length since attending a wildlife trip with Brad Hill in 2017. At that time he was using mostly Sigma glass (Sigma 24-70, 120-300, & 500 f4 Sport). The f2.8 aperture at 300mm provides a great bokeh for isolation when you can approach subjects. Paired w/ a D500 the lens behaves like 450mm @f4 when shot at f/2.8... overall, a very nice focal length for those who prefer to shoot mammals and wildlife landscapes.
Enter Nikon's announcement... I figured with my 500PF, I'd be up for a splurge purchase. While I wouldn't be an early adopter, I thought if the price came in around $7000 US I would spend 2020 saving and buy it in 2021.
As everyone has already stated... the price is the real barrier. I could live with the extra mass, as the lens would replace my current 200-400 and 70-200FL (lenses I would have to sell to get my $7000 expense to a bit less than $4000), but at $10000 I just don't see how the lens really adds more value to me than what I already shoot.
Were I a sports shooter, this could be the "one" lens in the kit, but that's not me.
Final point... were Nikon to develop an alternative optic w/ the type of improvements we see in modern zooms... let's say a 100-300 f/4 or f/4.5 (fixed aperture), I would happily spend up to $3600 on that lens in a New York minute.
There are loads of photographers looking for ways to pair down the size of their long lenses to facilitate hiking and air-travel.
p.5 #16 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Jemini wrote:
IMHO big mistake not adding 1.4 tc.
If we go by the 180-400, adding an internal TC was a fail. There are many reports that engaging the internal TC significantly compromises IQ. I even recall one post where someone said they got better results just using an external TC. Something went seriously wrong somewhere with this idea.
p.5 #17 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Gary Irwin wrote:
If we go by the 180-400, adding an internal TC was a fail. There are many reports that engaging the internal TC significantly compromises IQ. I even recall one post where someone said they got better results just using an external TC. Something went seriously wrong somewhere with this idea.
I have seen a few people report that but others like Brad Hill have raved about the IQ after engaging the internal TC. I'm not sure where such a large disparity comes from in opinions on the effectiveness of the TC....I really can't see there being that significant of QC issues from Nikon in producing a low volume, high priced lens
When I owned the Canon 200-400/1.4EXT I found that using an external TC was maybe slightly better than the built-in TC but they were so close I would use the internal any time I thought 560mm was enough for my shooting. However, I also used that lens at 784mm a fair amount (internal and external 1.4s). In that situation I used the external on the lens and then would flip in the internal when I wanted more than 560mm. So I was happy that both TCs acted similar to each other so I could use the lens in both those ways. I haven't read much on how the Nikon does with external and internal together.
p.5 #18 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
arbitrage wrote:
I have seen a few people report that but others like Brad Hill have raved about the IQ after engaging the internal TC. I'm not sure where such a large disparity comes from in opinions on the effectiveness of the TC....I really can't see there being that significant of QC issues from Nikon in producing a low volume, high priced lens
When I owned the Canon 200-400/1.4EXT I found that using an external TC was maybe slightly better than the built-in TC but they were so close I would use the internal any time I thought 560mm was enough for my shooting. However, I also used that lens at 784mm a fair amount (internal and external 1.4s). In that situation I used the external on the lens and then would flip in the internal when I wanted more than 560mm. So I was happy that both TCs acted similar to each other so I could use the lens in both those ways. I haven't read much on how the Nikon does with external and internal together....Show more →
I wonder if the negative impacts associated with the built in TC are more noticeable when shooting some subjects compared to others. Bird photographers are detail hogs (no offense intended ). They are looking to see the barbules in feathers as well as the details in the eye ring. Brad shoots marine mammals and bears... that's his "jam," and the optical acuity required to resolve fur and mammalian eyes is less extreme than the optical quality need to capture feather detail.
I have thought about this a lot, as many people do not find the venerable Nikon 200-400 f4 super sharp, yet it seems more than sharp enough for much of what I shoot (midwestern mammals and large birds).
In addition, when Brad does is head to head comparisons, they are done from a tripod w/ live view, and a cable release. Under these strict conditions, he see the best the lens can do. As we all know, when the action gets going and we depend on AFC algorithms, lenses underperform relative to their bench tests... Since mammal photography is more forgiving than bird photography, the 180-400 + TC probably looks better than great to Brad when he is chasing bears, seals, or whales in the field.
On the other hand, I could be completely wrong and we are seeing differences associated with sample variation.
p.5 #20 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
arbitrage wrote:
I have seen a few people report that but others like Brad Hill have raved about the IQ after engaging the internal TC. I'm not sure where such a large disparity comes from in opinions on the effectiveness of the TC....I really can't see there being that significant of QC issues from Nikon in producing a low volume, high priced lens
I haven't read Brads review recently, but I do recall him acknowledging the IQ takes a hit with the TC engaged, which isn't unreasonable. The problem is that he primarily shoots the D5. Anything looks good with the D5. Suggest going back to review Steve Perry's initial tests. Also check out all the MTF test charts. Finally try searching for user experiences. There is a trend.
)
