p.7 #1 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
keeps RRS, Kirk and so on in business. in addition i have seen the results from one or 2 lens makers who have. i'll stick with the specialists as for the most part they think about it at a higher level and use better materials
p.7 #2 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
trenchmonkey wrote:
$10 grand and still no AS compatible foot?!
I have AS plates from Kirk, they are probably generic enough to fit a new lens that I might want. I don't want to buy a custom plate for each lens any more, it's just too expensive.
The major camera manufacturers may think it's too risky to choose which style of quick-release system the customer is entitled to use with their lens. They might get sued by manufacturers of non-AS-compatible heads for exerting their dominance and providing an unfair competitive advantage to AS compatible heads.
p.7 #3 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I have AS plates from Kirk, they are probably generic enough to fit a new lens that I might want. I don't want to buy a custom plate for each lens any more, it's just too expensive.
actually they wouldn't get sued as they would have a tough time proving so called dominance and its just as easy to slap any other plate onto a AS type plate. the AS type plate really doesn't change a thing.
for the most part you have choices and the additional minor and i do mean minor cost over the $9000+ is laughable.
using the $3100 (at this time) Sigma as a reference. they built theirs as a complete unified structure. and none of the specialists were going to create a whole new setup (original is removable) so RRS just adapted another plate to it as do others. is been on since i got the lens years ago and it cost a whole $55.
p.7 #6 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
sjms wrote:
actually they wouldn't get sued as they would have a tough time proving so called dominance
Not Nikon but Canon, Nikon and Sony together dominate the ILC market. All of them are avoiding making this choice of which QR plate to use by providing a built-in solution.
I am not making this up, Nikon have said in interviews that this is the reason they are not supplying built-in QR plates. It would be considered an anti-competitive move.
and its just as easy to slap any other plate onto a AS type plate. the AS type plate really doesn't change a thing.
It does make AS compatible heads more appealing (and thus more competitive in the market) if lenses and cameras are supplied with built-in dovetails.
Nevertheless, there are signs that the major tripod manufacturers that used to hold out with their proprietary plates (Manfrotto, Gitzo etc.) are designing some of their new heads with Arca-Swiss compatible QR systems so the market might move towards this as a standard, even if Arca-Swiss themselves make some heads that are not compatible with their old "classic" standard. Once the market is dominated by this one solution (if it gets to that) then the camera manufacturers may also pick it up.
p.7 #7 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
are they now?
references please?
sigma does manufacture a AS assembly for the 150-600 it is the TS-81 at $238
and i believe there is another lens maker coming out too
i guess less fear from some.
somtimes its "adapt or fail"
integrating it into a camera body is not a smart move. it actually increases the overall size af certain areas of said body
the last questions, doesn't each camera manufacturer provide only their own proprietary lens mount on their bodies? isn't that a "method" of said dominance?
well, if people aren't complaining about the price of such things yet (yeh right) i just quess they won't notice if its integrated into the lens pricing either. me, i prefer to choose my own "poison".
p.7 #8 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Lightsearcher wrote:
I had the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and not was an amazing lens, extremely sharp even with the TC2.0 but it was heavy and that was the reason I sold it.
p.7 #9 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Brad Hill updated his news of his testing, promising comparative results on field testing in abut 2 weeks. He's just listed the lenses he's comparing at respective focal lengths.
p.7 #10 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I really love this focal length range and think it might be a sweet lens for a nature shooter who uses a 500PF as their long lens.
I think that I have a unique mindset when I shoot. I abhor leaving lenses home and like to take a simple kit that covers most of my shooting range. At the moment, I have a 14-30, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400, & 500PF. These are all great lenses, but impossible for me to carry as a kit for more than a mile hike.
For my type of shooting and the bodies I use, a 120-300 f/2.8 could replace my 70-200 and 200-400. Were I to this, I could go anywhere with a single bag and meet my shooting needs. Sadly, at $10000, I am S.O.L.... as such, it does not matter how good the Nikon lens is, because it is twice the price of anything I would be willing to spend.
... Because of the Nikon's pricing, I am pondering a trade for the Sigma 120-300 Sport in order to create a one bag shooting kit... note, I've been thinking of doing this ever since I traveled with Brad Hill on his marine tour in 2017... this decision has been on a super-slow simmer
cheers,
bruce
p.7 #11 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
While this will be an excellent lens for sports, it will be interesting to see how many are using this lens in sports venues a year from now when it's in circulation. Although it looks like a great lens, I won't be one of them. Most sports photographers (with the exception of those shooting for media organizations and use pool equipment) keep their equipment for a long time. There are a few who like to follow trends but they are the exception. They know what equipment they need to cover each event and plan accordingly.
I have the 70-200e, 300 VRII and the 200-400. I can decide which of the two long lenses to bring depending on the venue and get what I need. Rarely do I need both at the same time. Also, the Nikon 120-300 is unlikely to be available used for some time. Good copies of the 300 and 200-400 and other long lenses can be purchased at a good discount on the used market.
p.7 #12 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Spectro wrote:
While this will be an excellent lens for sports, it will be interesting to see how many are using this lens in sports venues a year from now when it's in circulation. Although it looks like a great lens, I won't be one of them. Most sports photographers (with the exception of those shooting for media organizations and use pool equipment) keep their equipment for a long time. There are a few who like to follow trends but they are the exception. They know what equipment they need to cover each event and plan accordingly.
I have the 70-200e, 300 VRII and the 200-400. I can decide which of the two long lenses to bring depending on the venue and get what I need. Rarely do I need both at the same time. Also, the Nikon 120-300 is unlikely to be available used for some time. Good copies of the 300 and 200-400 and other long lenses can be purchased at a good discount on the used market....Show more →
Sport shooters have a little more flexibility with gear decisions than do some nature photographers. For those who can transport gear in a vehicle, use a roller bag, or walk 100 meters to a staging location, gear mass and size is irrelevant. Because I don't live in FL/TX etc... where boardwalk photography is a short trip from the vehicle, mobility and weight is super important to me. Furthermore, I don't live where shooting from a vehicle represents more than 10% of my work. Were I to live in East or South Africa or near a US national park, I wouldn't care about having multiple long lenses. In Minnesota, much of my shooting begins with my feet or a canoe/kayak. During the winter, I work from snow shoes or on icy bodies of water. Here, the assortment of lenses and bodies can be a barrier to successful photography.
Case in point... today I did my mile hike to a secluded pond. I generally leave my 200-400 home because I have a steep climb to get to the trail head and then a long descent to the pond. It is around a mile each way with some bush-whacking and mudding required to get to my natural blind by the beaver lodge. For some unknown reason, I decided to carry a tripod-mounted 200-400 on my shoulder with the rest of the gear in my F-Stop bag. Last week I left the 200-400 home and shot w/ the 70-200 and 500 lenses. While the climb in was grueling, it totally paid off. I spent about an hour photographing a river otter (only the 2nd time at this location). The 200-400 was perfect for the Z6 as it allowed me to add a bit of video to hundreds of stills I made w/ my other gear. In this case, a 120-300 f/2.8 could have replaced my 70-200 & 200-400. This would have allowed for more efficient transport and fewer body changes.
p.7 #13 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Well, you can just choose to have fewer options and work within the limitations of those. I often just carry the 500 when I am shooting wildlife. A beautiful landscape presents itself in gorgeous light? Tough luck.
p.7 #14 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
I agree with both of the above. I do use a roller bag for arenas and stadiums but also often haul it onto transit if that is the most efficient route to and from the event compared to traffic so sometimes hauling up and down stairs at both ends plus the arena may be involved. Not totally non-physical. If shooting alpine ski racing I’m hauling a backpack full of gear onto chair lifts and skiing with it to the shooting locations. In this case I will definitely limit the amount of gear I carry to necessary for the event.
Every genre of photography involves decision making regarding what makes the most sense for the situation. Often when shooting for myself I will grab one of my favorite primes and get what I can with it. It can be somewhat liberating.
p.7 #17 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
LensRentals dissection and testing
An impressive optic
"The lens is well built in the old, classic Nikon F way. Obviously, we don’t think that’s pretty, and it’s not fun to work on. But it’s been an effective method of manufacturing for decades. The moving parts are solid, the chassis and assembly are solid, the weather resistance is as good as anything, maybe better."
MTF testing of a single copy against Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 at 300mm: "...the Nikkor is significantly better than the Sigma. The Sigma, BTW, is a really good lens, so the Nikkor is just awesome...the Nikkor is significantly better than the Sigma. The Sigma, BTW, is a really good lens, so the Nikkor is just awesome...Again, I want to remind you this is just one lens. Whether other copies will behave this way, I have no clue yet. This one is great at 300mm, not so great at 200mm, and really good at 120mm, although not quite as good as at 300mm."
p.7 #18 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
chambeshi wrote:
LensRentals dissection and testing
An impressive optic
"The lens is well built in the old, classic Nikon F way. Obviously, we don’t think that’s pretty, and it’s not fun to work on. But it’s been an effective method of manufacturing for decades. The moving parts are solid, the chassis and assembly are solid, the weather resistance is as good as anything, maybe better."
MTF testing of a single copy against Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 at 300mm: "...the Nikkor is significantly better than the Sigma. The Sigma, BTW, is a really good lens, so the Nikkor is just awesome...the Nikkor is significantly better than the Sigma. The Sigma, BTW, is a really good lens, so the Nikkor is just awesome...Again, I want to remind you this is just one lens. Whether other copies will behave this way, I have no clue yet. This one is great at 300mm, not so great at 200mm, and really good at 120mm, although not quite as good as at 300mm."
p.7 #19 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
The main issue that is going to hold this lens back is weight. The lens is quite heavy for what it is. Looks like Nikon were not able to deploy any light weight technologies even at the price point. Optics and AF are flawless no doubt about it but today you also need lightweight if you asking for 10 grand. it weighs almost a lb more than the sony 400 f/2.8!
p.7 #20 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
While heavy, the Nikon 120-300 is lighter weight than Sigma's 120-300/2.8 Sport and higher MTF as well. I don't see how it can be criticised as "heavy for what it is" since a lighter-weight and better-performing lens of its type has not been made by anyone yet. Heavy? Yes. Heavy for what it is? No.
For many sports photographers it can replace the combination of 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 with one lens, reducing missed shots (while switching between lenses or cameras and lenses) and bag weight. Sports events where I go to typically last around six hours (figure skating), and I can't recall ever having seen anyone hand-hold a 300/2.8 at those events. Thus the slight increase in weight in use on the monopod is likely a small issue compared to the saved weight in the bag, and the additional shots that the photographer can provide by having the 200-300mm range covered and not having to swap lenses in the heat of the action.
However, now there are no sports events, and that'll certainly hold back sales of this lens. It will be interesting to see what happens as the sports season in the fall opens, whether they will have an audience, and what kind of surges in the epidemic may result if they do.
A beautiful landscape presents itself in gorgeous light? Tough luck. 