Re: 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.
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 (once 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 replace my 70-200 & 200-400. This would have allowed for more efficient transport and fewer body changes.
Re: 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.
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 the 200-400 on my shoulder on a tripod in addition to 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 (once 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 replace my 70-200 & 200-400. This would have allowed for more efficient transport and fewer body changes.
Re: 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.
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 descent to a 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 the 200-400 on my shoulder on a tripod in addition to 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 (once 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 replace my 70-200 & 200-400. This would have allowed for more efficient transport and fewer body changes.
Re: 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.
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 a US near a 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 descent to a 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 the 200-400 on my shoulder on a tripod in addition to 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 (once 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 replace my 70-200 & 200-400. This would have allowed for more efficient transport and fewer body changes.
Re: 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.
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 a US near a 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 descent to a 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 the 200-400 on my shoulder on a tripod in addition to 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 (once 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 replace my 70-200 & 200-400. This would have allowed for more efficient transport and fewer body changes.
cheers,
bruce
May 02, 2020 at 09:59 AM
Previous versions of OwlsEyes's message #15216704 « AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming »
