Re: Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Light weight super telephoto lenses are anything but niche. Premium super telephoto has a big market for hobbies - see 500/600 PF. I have seen so many anecdotes of people switching from 600 f4 to the 300 GM just for the savings (and minimal loss in sharpness). That lens will come down to be one of the wildlife lenses of all time.
The Z 120-300 if made with refractive optics would be at least twice the weight of the 300mm GM. If made with PF, it would have other compromises. Not saying the Z 120-300 with or without TC will be great, but given the sizable weight difference, its use case is vastly difference.
70-200 f2.8 is not the reason why camera companies don’t make 200mm f2 anymore. By your logic, no one would be making a 135mm f2. 200mm focal length doesn’t have great uses - too long for portrait and too short for wildlife.
bernardl wrote: fnzmf25 wrote:
Inspired by this post, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1915421/1, it seems like some folks suggest Sony’s extreme aspherical element is the reason why Sony is able to make such lightweight lenses - I’m thinking of the 300 GM. Is this true? Does Nikon have any similar technology (disregarding PF)?
Just compare the new Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 mk II to the new Sony 24-70mm f2.8 mk II... the Nikon is lighter despite featuring an intrinsically bulkier fixed zoom design essential for video work and has 14 elements only vs 20 on this Sony.
The current master of lens design and production is Nikon.
Nikon has not yet released their Z mount lens covering 300mm f2.8 but odds are they will go for a much more flexible 100-300mm f2.8 rather than a fixed 300mm f2.8. And I would totally support such a decision. A fixed 300mm f2.8 is super niche in 2026, just like nobody uses anymore fixed 200mm f2.8 since 70-200mm f2.8 lenses have started to dominate 20 years ago.
Cheers,
Bernard
Jan 20, 2026 at 07:29 AM
Previous versions of fnzmf25's message #16970749 « Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element? »
