Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
p.9 #1Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
Do u think the new 100-400 will be as light as new 70-200? Historically these two lenses from same generation are similar in weight across manufacturers. If the new lens weighs around 2.2LB, I'll pre-order. Hopefully Z70 is around the corner too.. Would be fantastic combo for WL.
RoamingScott wrote:
Still waiting for the 100-400 II, that is the obvious lens I have been wanting and still want.
This 120-300 looks AWESOME for working pros who can pay down the price quickly.
RoamingScott wrote:
Still waiting for the 100-400 II, that is the obvious lens I have been wanting and still want.
This 120-300 looks AWESOME for working pros who can pay down the price quickly.
Oct 29, 2026 at 12:19 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.9 #2Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
Jemini wrote:
Do u think the new 100-400 will be as light as new 70-200? Historically these two lenses from same generation are similar in weight across manufacturers. If the new lens weighs around 2.2LB, I'll pre-order. Hopefully Z70 is around the corner too.. Would be fantastic combo for WL.
This 120-300 looks AWESOME for working pros who can pay down the price quickly.
I think they have a few design directions they can go. Part of me wants it internally zooming. The other part of me really values how small it packs away today.
I'd rather them do something more akin to Sony's 70-200/4 Macro, I think. ULTRA light and compact, but externally zooming.
Do u think the new 100-400 will be as light as new 70-200? Historically these two lenses from same generation are similar in weight across manufacturers. If the new lens weighs around 2.2LB, I'll pre-order. Hopefully Z70 is around the corner too.. Would be fantastic combo for WL.
RoamingScott wrote
Still waiting for the 100-400 II, that is the obvious lens I have been wanting and still want.This 120-300 looks AWESOME for working pros who can pay down the price quickly.
I think they have a few design directions they can go. Part of me wants it internally zooming. The other part of me really values how small it packs away today.
I'd rather them do something more akin to Sony's 70-200/4 Macro, I think. ULTRA light and compact, but externally zooming.
Oct 29, 2026 at 12:31 PM
p.9 #3Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
Alan Parker wrote:
Can't even find a EU price here
Probably means it'll be very high! €16999 perhaps?
Close to 16.000 euros in Eastern Europe, as in other EU countries.
Can't even find a EU price here
Probably means it'll be very high! €16999 perhaps?
Close to 16.000 euros in Eastern Europe, as in other EU countries.
Oct 29, 2026 at 12:45 PM
p.9 #4Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
Weight: 96.5 oz. (2735 g) vs 104 oz. (2950 g) for Nikon Z 400mm 2.8 TC
Oct 29, 2026 at 01:35 PM
p.9 #5Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
CameraCanada lists it as In Stock. Probably an error.
But for $19,999 if you are interested maybe give them a ring.
https://www.cameracanada.com/products/productDetail.aspx?pid=20135
But for $19,999 if you are interested maybe give them a ring.
https://www.cameracanada.com/products/productDetail.aspx?pid=20135
Oct 29, 2026 at 02:32 PM
p.9 #6Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
ilkka_nissila wrote:
However, the 120-300/2.8 is mostly a sports lens, and sports photographers likely don't need TCs as often, and with 45 MP cameras they can alternatively crop and still get quite good image quality. I don't genuinely believe the TC adds quite as much value in this case. Of course, some mammal photographers will want a lens like this. But I still feel it's a hard sell with the added cost.
I do very little (zero) nature/wildlife photography but have been involved in sports photography for decades. As with any photographic genre, 'sports photography' is not homogeneous. At a given major event, there will be dozens of photographers and there will be a multitude of client end uses, deadline and coverage requirements, etc.
In my case, I'm usually on a fairly generous deadline, such as 24-48 hours, so I can shoot RAW if I want to, spend time with post production optimization to extract maximum image quality, etc. But most probably think of sports photographers as those working for news and wire services. Here speed at getting images out is paramount. It means sending directly from the camera to a remote editor. In-camera jpeg and getting as much right in-camera as possible is ideal. 45-50MP adds potentially unnecessary delays due to large file sizes, though also dependent on upload connection speed, so it's possible those cameras are set to ~24MP output a lot of times. A built-in TC provides an additional convenience. 120-300 is IMO short for field sport coverage, but 170-420 is pretty good. It's just another option to make life a bit easier. For ages the sports sideline standard was 400/2.8 and a second body with 70-200. And probably a third body with a wide angle zoom. 400/2.8 is beautiful when the subject is at the ideal distance. But sports are dynamic and often 400 will quickly become too tight, potentially cropping out desirable image content. 120-300 that reaches 420 with the pull of a lever is so much more flexible. Or use it with an external 1.4x if you need the reach and you can still extend that to ~600mm with the internal TC. Sure, there are image quality compromises but the quality will still be good enough when image content is a much higher priority than sheer technical quality.
Anyway, as a Canon shooter covering field sports, my preference was the 200-400/4 with built-in TC. Lately I've used the 100-300 primarily with a 1.4x attached and found the wider coverage has generally offset the loss of reach when paired with 45MP. It is a lighter combo and I can work with just a second camera with a wide angle zoom, totally bypassing need for the 70-200. Actually with Canon, the ideal combo is 24-105/2.8 with the 100-300, but the 30mm gap between xx-70 and 100mm is also no problem. Canon didn't include a built-in TC apparently due to design and cost considerations. I'm 50/50 about its omission because I used the 200-400's internal TC for probably 40-50% of my field sports coverage. It's a great option to have because it's immediate and you don't have to split the camera and lens apart in poor weather conditions. Or fumble with a TC in a pouch (of course caps will have already been removed in advance). For me, the Canon 100-300 loses some flexibility due to the lack of TC and for field sports, I mostly use it with the 1.4x permanently attached. This tells me that the 100-300/2.8 isn't actually the lens I want, but it still mostly does the job. Sony's interpretation, with their new 100-400/4.5, is probably closer to my ideal, though it too lacks a built-in TC. Shaving off 1/3 stop compared to the Canon and Nikon options with 1.4x TCs is fairly inconsequential and the price point in comparison is really impressive. Imagine if they release a built-in TC version for $3K more, it would still undercut Canon and Nikon. But if you need f/2.8, then it's obviously not the right lens...
Interesting choices right now in the market!
However, the 120-300/2.8 is mostly a sports lens, and sports photographers likely don't need TCs as often, and with 45 MP cameras they can alternatively crop and still get quite good image quality. I don't genuinely believe the TC adds quite as much value in this case. Of course, some mammal photographers will want a lens like this. But I still feel it's a hard sell with the added cost.
I do very little (zero) nature/wildlife photography but have been involved in sports photography for decades. As with any photographic genre, 'sports photography' is not homogeneous. At a given major event, there will be dozens of photographers and there will be a multitude of client end uses, deadline and coverage requirements, etc.
In my case, I'm usually on a fairly generous deadline, such as 24-48 hours, so I can shoot RAW if I want to, spend time with post production optimization to extract maximum image quality, etc. But most probably think of sports photographers as those working for news and wire services. Here speed at getting images out is paramount. It means sending directly from the camera to a remote editor. In-camera jpeg and getting as much right in-camera as possible is ideal. 45-50MP adds potentially unnecessary delays due to large file sizes, though also dependent on upload connection speed, so it's possible those cameras are set to ~24MP output a lot of times. A built-in TC provides an additional convenience. 120-300 is IMO short for field sport coverage, but 170-420 is pretty good. It's just another option to make life a bit easier. For ages the sports sideline standard was 400/2.8 and a second body with 70-200. And probably a third body with a wide angle zoom. 400/2.8 is beautiful when the subject is at the ideal distance. But sports are dynamic and often 400 will quickly become too tight, potentially cropping out desirable image content. 120-300 that reaches 420 with the pull of a lever is so much more flexible. Or use it with an external 1.4x if you need the reach and you can still extend that to ~600mm with the internal TC. Sure, there are image quality compromises but the quality will still be good enough when image content is a much higher priority than sheer technical quality.
Anyway, as a Canon shooter covering field sports, my preference was the 200-400/4 with built-in TC. Lately I've used the 100-300 primarily with a 1.4x attached and found the wider coverage has generally offset the loss of reach when paired with 45MP. It is a lighter combo and I can work with just a second camera with a wide angle zoom, totally bypassing need for the 70-200. Actually with Canon, the ideal combo is 24-105/2.8 with the 100-300, but the 30mm gap between xx-70 and 100mm is also no problem. Canon didn't include a built-in TC apparently due to design and cost considerations. I'm 50/50 about its omission because I used the 200-400's internal TC for probably 40-50% of my field sports coverage. It's a great option to have because it's immediate and you don't have to split the camera and lens apart in poor weather conditions. Or fumble with a TC in a pouch (of course caps will have already been removed in advance). For me, the Canon 100-300 loses some flexibility due to the lack of TC and for field sports, I mostly use it with the 1.4x permanently attached. This tells me that the 100-300/2.8 isn't actually the lens I want, but it still mostly does the job. Sony's interpretation, with their new 100-400/4.5, is probably closer to my ideal, though it too lacks a built-in TC. Shaving off 1/3 stop compared to the Canon and Nikon options with 1.4x TCs is fairly inconsequential and the price point in comparison is really impressive. Imagine if they release a built-in TC version for $3K more, it would still undercut Canon and Nikon. But if you need f/2.8, then it's obviously not the right lens...
Interesting choices right now in the market!
Oct 29, 2026 at 02:35 PM
p.9 #7Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
Maybe I’m the peasant here, BUT I would think that if they want to sell lenses to the mirrorless crowd, they would offer something a little more affordable. And we’re still missing anything like a Z 300mm prime lens, either f4 or faster.
Oct 29, 2026 at 04:24 PM
p.9 #8Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
GeofFX wrote:
Maybe I’m the peasant here, BUT I would think that if they want to sell lenses to the mirrorless crowd, they would offer something a little more affordable. And we’re still missing anything like a Z 300mm prime lens, either f4 or faster.
No idea if you're a peasant or not, but your view is quite out of date if you think of mirrorless as a cheaper DSLR substitute aimed at the lower cost market. And Nikon do offer much more affordable options, this is a top-end lens aimed at serious professionals (and rich amateurs).
I presume they don't see enough of a market for a 300mm prime to justify making it a development priority - to me 300mm is an awkward middle ground that isn't long enough for most wildlife use, but isn't wide or versatile enough for all-round use either. What would you use a 300mm prime for?
Maybe I’m the peasant here, BUT I would think that if they want to sell lenses to the mirrorless crowd, they would offer something a little more affordable. And we’re still missing anything like a Z 300mm prime lens, either f4 or faster.
No idea if you're a peasant or not, but your view is quite out of date if you think of mirrorless as a cheaper DSLR substitute aimed at the lower cost market. And Nikon do offer much more affordable options, this is a top-end lens aimed at serious professionals (and rich amateurs).
I presume they don't see enough of a market for a 300mm prime to justify making it a development priority - to me 300mm is an awkward middle ground that isn't long enough for most wildlife use, but isn't wide or versatile enough for all-round use either. What would you use a 300mm prime for?
Oct 29, 2026 at 05:38 PM
p.9 #9Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
Given the price of the Canon offering, I figured it would be a bit less expensive, say 11K. 14K is a bit of a surprise.
Too rich for my blood. If I ever upgrade to Z I'll just use my 300 f/2.8 with the FTZ. Granted not a zoom, but I paid less than a 1/3rd the price.
Too rich for my blood. If I ever upgrade to Z I'll just use my 300 f/2.8 with the FTZ. Granted not a zoom, but I paid less than a 1/3rd the price.
Oct 29, 2026 at 05:40 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.9 #10Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
GeofFX wrote:
Maybe I’m the peasant here, BUT I would think that if they want to sell lenses to the mirrorless crowd, they would offer something a little more affordable. And we’re still missing anything like a Z 300mm prime lens, either f4 or faster.
Turns out pros and agencies are more important than consumers to Nikon, but that has been evident for years.
Maybe I’m the peasant here, BUT I would think that if they want to sell lenses to the mirrorless crowd, they would offer something a little more affordable. And we’re still missing anything like a Z 300mm prime lens, either f4 or faster.
Turns out pros and agencies are more important than consumers to Nikon, but that has been evident for years.
Oct 29, 2026 at 05:47 PM
|
p.9 #11Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Turns out pros and agencies are more important than consumers to Nikon, but that has been evident for years.
I think you're off the mark here. Nikon has plenty of gear that is targeted to consumers.
The 120-300 f2.8TC, 400 f2.8TC, and 600 f4TC are special-purpose lenses for professional photographers and serious hobbyists who have the cash to burn. I'd rather Nikon decide to build lenses like these and the 58mm f0.95 rather than choose not to because they are too expensive for the mass market.
As I see it, Nikon has been a very consumer friendly company with affordable options like:
-Z30, Z50II, ZFc, Z5, and Z5iiC. They have produced lenses to support these consumer-based products and one could buy one "good" lens like the 28-400 and have a one-camera, one-body system.
- In the middle Nikon has the Z5ii, Z6iii, Zf, Z7ii, and ZR. With the non-S f/2.8 zoom-trio, the f/1.8S series lenses, the 14-30S, 24-70S, and 24-120S, they cater to the hobbiest and so-called prosumer group. Add in the 100-400, 400 f4.5, 600PF, and 800PF and one can shoot anything. These are consumer-priced lenses for their focal lengths.
- Finally, they have the pro gear and this stuff needs to be made if they want professional photographers to use their equipment. Furthermore, gear like the Z9/Z8 120-300TC, 400TC, 600TC, f/1.2 primes, Plena, 70-200 f2.8 ii, etc... are aspirational cameras and lenses. When consumers see this stuff in their line-up, they see themselves as part of a "professional" system. I know that the the latter was in important to me in 1978 when I tried to buy a Nikon FM.
cheers,
bruce
GeofFX wrote
Maybe I’m the peasant here, BUT I would think that if they want to sell lenses to the mirrorless crowd, they would offer something a little more affordable. And we’re still missing anything like a Z 300mm prime lens, either f4 or faster.I think you're off the mark here. Nikon has plenty of gear that is targeted to consumers.
The 120-300 f2.8TC, 400 f2.8TC, and 600 f4TC are special-purpose lenses for professional photographers and serious hobbyists who have the cash to burn. I'd rather Nikon decide to build lenses like these and the 58mm f0.95 rather than choose not to because they are too expensive for the mass market.
As I see it, Nikon has been a very consumer friendly company with affordable options like:
-Z30, Z50II, ZFc, Z5, and Z5iiC. They have produced lenses to support these consumer-based products and one could buy one "good" lens like the 28-400 and have a one-camera, one-body system.
- In the middle Nikon has the Z5ii, Z6iii, Zf, Z7ii, and ZR. With the non-S f/2.8 zoom-trio, the f/1.8S series lenses, the 14-30S, 24-70S, and 24-120S, they cater to the hobbiest and so-called prosumer group. Add in the 100-400, 400 f4.5, 600PF, and 800PF and one can shoot anything. These are consumer-priced lenses for their focal lengths.
- Finally, they have the pro gear and this stuff needs to be made if they want professional photographers to use their equipment. Furthermore, gear like the Z9/Z8 120-300TC, 400TC, 600TC, f/1.2 primes, Plena, 70-200 f2.8 ii, etc... are aspirational cameras and lenses. When consumers see this stuff in their line-up, they see themselves as part of a "professional" system. I know that the the latter was in important to me in 1978 when I tried to buy a Nikon FM.
cheers,
bruce
Oct 29, 2026 at 08:05 PM
p.9 #12Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Turns out pros and agencies are more important than consumers to Nikon, but that has been evident for years.
I could see that sentiment towards Canon but as Bruce points out, Nikon has been very generous towards the mid-range gear in all the PF lenses from F and Z mount.
I wish the other two would push the bar like Nikon has for the TC lenses. Yeah, the price point on this latest lens is getting a bit ridiculous but I'd probably be considering it if I shot Nikon still.
Of the big three, I'd probably give Nikon the nod to prioritizing the consumers over the pros/agencies. Canon and Sony seem way more geared towards pleasing that market. Canon has just lost the plot in the past few years when making consumer products at least geared towards my interests.
GeofFX wrote
Maybe I’m the peasant here, BUT I would think that if they want to sell lenses to the mirrorless crowd, they would offer something a little more affordable. And we’re still missing anything like a Z 300mm prime lens, either f4 or faster.I could see that sentiment towards Canon but as Bruce points out, Nikon has been very generous towards the mid-range gear in all the PF lenses from F and Z mount.
I wish the other two would push the bar like Nikon has for the TC lenses. Yeah, the price point on this latest lens is getting a bit ridiculous but I'd probably be considering it if I shot Nikon still.
Of the big three, I'd probably give Nikon the nod to prioritizing the consumers over the pros/agencies. Canon and Sony seem way more geared towards pleasing that market. Canon has just lost the plot in the past few years when making consumer products at least geared towards my interests.
Oct 30, 2026 at 03:37 AM
p.9 #13Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
Great lens, no doubt. While I know there are those that can afford it, the pricing is getting a little silly.
Oct 30, 2026 at 05:09 AM
p.9 #14Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
It would be a much more interesting lens for me if the TC was the 2.0 instead of the 1.4.
Extending the reach out to 600 would make it good “one lens option” for me.
Extending the reach out to 600 would make it good “one lens option” for me.
Oct 30, 2026 at 08:20 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.9 #15Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
Turns out pros and agencies are more important than consumers to Nikon, but that has been evident for years.I could see that sentiment towards Canon but as Bruce points out, Nikon has been very generous towards the mid-range gear in all the PF lenses from F and Z mount.
I wish the other two would push the bar like Nikon has for the TC lenses. Yeah, the price point on this latest lens is getting a bit ridiculous but I'd probably be considering it if I shot Nikon still.
Of the big three, I'd probably give Nikon the nod to prioritizing the consumers over the pros/agencies. Canon and Sony seem way more geared towards pleasing that market. Canon has just...Show more →
I think you and Bruce are looking more at the longer zoom and prime end of the market vs the entire ecosystem. To me, it's obvious that Sony values the midrange consumer more than Nikon does, and there are a lot more compelling first party $1000 to $2000 lenses on Sony than on Nikon, and even more third party that are officially supported by Sony where Nikon simply will not work with them (cough SIGMA cough).
Not sure why you both claim I'm off the mark and then say that Nikon has the most aspirational pro lineup of the 3 when it comes to the TC lenses. That's what I'm saying too.
I think we can all agree that Canon just flat out sucks
RoamingScott wrote
GeofFX wrote
Maybe I’m the peasant here, BUT I would think that if they want to sell lenses to the mirrorless crowd, they would offer something a little more affordable. And we’re still missing anything like a Z 300mm prime lens, either f4 or faster.I wish the other two would push the bar like Nikon has for the TC lenses. Yeah, the price point on this latest lens is getting a bit ridiculous but I'd probably be considering it if I shot Nikon still.
Of the big three, I'd probably give Nikon the nod to prioritizing the consumers over the pros/agencies. Canon and Sony seem way more geared towards pleasing that market. Canon has just...Show more →
I think you and Bruce are looking more at the longer zoom and prime end of the market vs the entire ecosystem. To me, it's obvious that Sony values the midrange consumer more than Nikon does, and there are a lot more compelling first party $1000 to $2000 lenses on Sony than on Nikon, and even more third party that are officially supported by Sony where Nikon simply will not work with them (cough SIGMA cough).
Not sure why you both claim I'm off the mark and then say that Nikon has the most aspirational pro lineup of the 3 when it comes to the TC lenses. That's what I'm saying too.
I think we can all agree that Canon just flat out sucks
Oct 30, 2026 at 08:25 AM
p.9 #16Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
Turns out pros and agencies are more important than consumers to Nikon, but that has been evident for years.I could see that sentiment towards Canon but as Bruce points out, Nikon has been very generous towards the mid-range gear in all the PF lenses from F and Z mount.
I wish the other two would push the bar like Nikon has for the TC lenses. Yeah, the price point on this latest lens is getting a bit ridiculous but I'd probably be considering it if I shot Nikon still.
Of the big three, I'd probably give Nikon the nod to prioritizing the consumers over the pros/agencies. Canon and Sony seem way more geared towards pleasing that market. Canon has just...Show more →
I was seriously considering shooting Nikon again solely for this lens but at $14k it a no go for me... especially when you consider right now the 400TC on rebate is over $1,300 less.
RoamingScott wrote
GeofFX wrote
Maybe I’m the peasant here, BUT I would think that if they want to sell lenses to the mirrorless crowd, they would offer something a little more affordable. And we’re still missing anything like a Z 300mm prime lens, either f4 or faster.I wish the other two would push the bar like Nikon has for the TC lenses. Yeah, the price point on this latest lens is getting a bit ridiculous but I'd probably be considering it if I shot Nikon still.
Of the big three, I'd probably give Nikon the nod to prioritizing the consumers over the pros/agencies. Canon and Sony seem way more geared towards pleasing that market. Canon has just...Show more →
I was seriously considering shooting Nikon again solely for this lens but at $14k it a no go for me... especially when you consider right now the 400TC on rebate is over $1,300 less.
Oct 30, 2026 at 10:24 AM
p.9 #17Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
But there are plenty of affordable Z mount lenses on the market. So what exactly are you even trying to say here?
GeofFX wrote:
Maybe I’m the peasant here, BUT I would think that if they want to sell lenses to the mirrorless crowd, they would offer something a little more affordable. And we’re still missing anything like a Z 300mm prime lens, either f4 or faster.
GeofFX wrote:
Maybe I’m the peasant here, BUT I would think that if they want to sell lenses to the mirrorless crowd, they would offer something a little more affordable. And we’re still missing anything like a Z 300mm prime lens, either f4 or faster.
Oct 30, 2026 at 10:35 AM
p.9 #18Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
Douglas C wrote:
It would be a much more interesting lens for me if the TC was the 2.0 instead of the 1.4.
Extending the reach out to 600 would make it good “one lens option” for me.
In my view, this makes absolutely no sense.
I agree with Steve Perry’s conclusion regarding this lens: who on earth would buy a $14,000 lens to "cripple" it frequently to a 600mm f/5.6 by using a 2x teleconverter?
This is not to say that one couldn't—depending on the situation—extend the lens to 600mm f/5.6 using a 2.0x teleconverter; however, that should remain the exception, and an external teleconverter is sufficient for such cases.
For this lens, an integrated solution only makes sense if it’s a 1.4x teleconverter.
Ultimately, this lens is primarily designed for sporting events, and much less so for wildlife photography—a field where even 420mm, with switched in teleconverter engaged, is usually too short.
from minute 7:45: on teleconverters
Regardless of how excellent the base lens may be, adding a 2x teleconverter—no matter how well-designed or optimized for that specific optical construction—effectively strips the lens of the very thing for which you paid the price of a small car.
While it might make sense in certain specific situations—which is exactly what external 2x teleconverters are for—anyone who frequently needs 600mm can find better (@ 600mm) and more affordable solutions.
Options like the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S, the 600mm f/4 TC VR S, or even the 600mm f/6.3 PF come to mind.
If Nikon had paired this exorbitantly expensive $14,000 lens—which they sensibly combined with a 1.4x teleconverter—with a 2.0x teleconverter instead, I would have questioned their professional judgment.
You’re not just compromising the optical quality—for which you’re shelling out 14k—but the autofocus consistency suffers as well.
What you’re left with is a lens that will perform barely any better than a 600mm f/6.3 PF.
An integrated 1.4x teleconverter keeps all of this within very reasonable limits and, furthermore, aligns perfectly with the primary intended use of this lens.
You don’t buy this lens to frequently cover 600mm, but rather the range from 120mm to 420mm—which is, in fact, optimal for the specific purpose for which this lens is designed.
Edited on Oct 30, 2026 at 11:12 AM · View previous versions
It would be a much more interesting lens for me if the TC was the 2.0 instead of the 1.4.
Extending the reach out to 600 would make it good “one lens option” for me.
In my view, this makes absolutely no sense.
I agree with Steve Perry’s conclusion regarding this lens: who on earth would buy a $14,000 lens to "cripple" it frequently to a 600mm f/5.6 by using a 2x teleconverter?
This is not to say that one couldn't—depending on the situation—extend the lens to 600mm f/5.6 using a 2.0x teleconverter; however, that should remain the exception, and an external teleconverter is sufficient for such cases.
For this lens, an integrated solution only makes sense if it’s a 1.4x teleconverter.
Ultimately, this lens is primarily designed for sporting events, and much less so for wildlife photography—a field where even 420mm, with switched in teleconverter engaged, is usually too short.
from minute 7:45: on teleconverters
Regardless of how excellent the base lens may be, adding a 2x teleconverter—no matter how well-designed or optimized for that specific optical construction—effectively strips the lens of the very thing for which you paid the price of a small car.
While it might make sense in certain specific situations—which is exactly what external 2x teleconverters are for—anyone who frequently needs 600mm can find better (@ 600mm) and more affordable solutions.
Options like the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S, the 600mm f/4 TC VR S, or even the 600mm f/6.3 PF come to mind.
If Nikon had paired this exorbitantly expensive $14,000 lens—which they sensibly combined with a 1.4x teleconverter—with a 2.0x teleconverter instead, I would have questioned their professional judgment.
You’re not just compromising the optical quality—for which you’re shelling out 14k—but the autofocus consistency suffers as well.
What you’re left with is a lens that will perform barely any better than a 600mm f/6.3 PF.
An integrated 1.4x teleconverter keeps all of this within very reasonable limits and, furthermore, aligns perfectly with the primary intended use of this lens.
You don’t buy this lens to frequently cover 600mm, but rather the range from 120mm to 420mm—which is, in fact, optimal for the specific purpose for which this lens is designed.
Edited on Oct 30, 2026 at 11:12 AM · View previous versions
Oct 30, 2026 at 10:57 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.9 #19Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
robert_in_ca wrote:
Turns out pros and agencies are more important than consumers to Nikon, but that has been evident for years.I could see that sentiment towards Canon but as Bruce points out, Nikon has been very generous towards the mid-range gear in all the PF lenses from F and Z mount.
I wish the other two would push the bar like Nikon has for the TC lenses. Yeah, the price point on this latest lens is getting a bit ridiculous but I'd probably be considering it if I shot Nikon still.
Of the big three, I'd probably give Nikon the nod to prioritizing the consumers over the pros/agencies. Canon and Sony seem way more geared towards pleasing that market. Canon has just lost the plot in the past few years when making consumer products at least geared towards my interests.I was seriously considering shooting Nikon again solely for this lens but at $14k it a no go for me... especially when you consider right now the 400TC on rebate is over $1,300 less.
That's about as apples and oranges as it gets, is it not? Isn't there an inherent monetary value to gain the full zoom range with and without the TC applied over just a prime?
arbitrage wrote
RoamingScott wrote
GeofFX wrote
Maybe I’m the peasant here, BUT I would think that if they want to sell lenses to the mirrorless crowd, they would offer something a little more affordable. And we’re still missing anything like a Z 300mm prime lens, either f4 or faster.I wish the other two would push the bar like Nikon has for the TC lenses. Yeah, the price point on this latest lens is getting a bit ridiculous but I'd probably be considering it if I shot Nikon still.
Of the big three, I'd probably give Nikon the nod to prioritizing the consumers over the pros/agencies. Canon and Sony seem way more geared towards pleasing that market. Canon has just lost the plot in the past few years when making consumer products at least geared towards my interests.
That's about as apples and oranges as it gets, is it not? Isn't there an inherent monetary value to gain the full zoom range with and without the TC applied over just a prime?
Oct 30, 2026 at 11:00 AM
p.9 #20Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
I ordered (NPS Professional Platinum priority request) it so I'll let you all know how it looks + post some sample images.
I might let go of the 400/2.8S TC or the 600/4S TC. But definitely going to sell my 800/6.3S.
I might let go of the 400/2.8S TC or the 600/4S TC. But definitely going to sell my 800/6.3S.
Oct 30, 2026 at 11:19 AM