Re: Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
ilkka_nissila wrote: Lance B wrote:
I would like a lightweight 300 f2.8 but preferably with a built in 1.4x TC.
The problem with built-in TC is that it typically increases the lens price by 2000-3000€ and the savings in lens weight of the modern technologies are partially lost if the TC has to be carried on the lens at all times.
I get it that if the 300 mm focal length is not what you want and would be often using it with a TC then it makes sense but for me the substantial extra cost and my lack of enjoyment of TCs would mean I would likely never buy such a lens if it came with a built-in TC. Also if Nikon make such a lens with built-in TC it would mean that no fast medium long lens is affordable to students of photojournalism and probably would mean a lot of freelancers would also be out of the picture with the low pay of such work these days. The pay is reported to be often the price of a bus ticket, and you only get paid at all if you get the image published.
I don't see that Nikon is particularly concerned with low paid photojournalists and freelancers, the Z lens system is going in the expensive direction if you want a fast lens of any kind. This is the same in the Canon world it seems as well and even the Sony 300 f2.8 GM is still a hefty approx. US$7,000. All lenses are hugely expensive nowadays, especially the professional fast lenses.
I also doubt that the TC cost would add 2000-3000€, the TC itself only costs around US$600 so, to incorporate it into a 300 f2.8 would not be that expensive, maybe US$1,000 to US$1,500 tops price addition. However, for these low paid photojournalists and freelancers, the 300 f2.8G VRII is readily available at a "low" US$5,500 at B&H. Then there is the 120-300 f2.8 on sale for US$6,650 at B&H. But, isn't a zoom a compromise also? A compromise basically the same as a TC added? In fact I would argue that a zoom is a worse compromise than a TC.
As for me, I won't be often shooting a 300 f2.8 with TC engaged, I would be shooting it at 300 f2.8 and sometimes with the TC engaged. I dearly want a 300 f2.8 bare as well as it being switchable, to be more versatile. I had the 300 f2.8G VRII and loved it and I wish I hadn't needed to sell it, but I needed the cash to fund my purchase of the 400 f2.8E FL VR. However, I wouldn't buy the 300 f2.8G VRII now as it is too heavy to be used as an adjunct to my Z 600 TC. The fact is, it was almost indistinguishable using the 1.4x TCII/III but the point is, you don't have to use it, but it is damned handy if you do need it.
Re: Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
ilkka_nissila wrote: Lance B wrote:
I would like a lightweight 300 f2.8 but preferably with a built in 1.4x TC.
The problem with built-in TC is that it typically increases the lens price by 2000-3000€ and the savings in lens weight of the modern technologies are partially lost if the TC has to be carried on the lens at all times.
I get it that if the 300 mm focal length is not what you want and would be often using it with a TC then it makes sense but for me the substantial extra cost and my lack of enjoyment of TCs would mean I would likely never buy such a lens if it came with a built-in TC. Also if Nikon make such a lens with built-in TC it would mean that no fast medium long lens is affordable to students of photojournalism and probably would mean a lot of freelancers would also be out of the picture with the low pay of such work these days. The pay is reported to be often the price of a bus ticket, and you only get paid at all if you get the image published.
I don't see that Nikon is particularly concerned with low paid photojournalists and freelancers, the Z lens system is going in the expensive direction if you want a fast lens of any kind. This is the same in the Canon world it seems as well and even the Sony is still a hefty approx. US$7,000. All lenses are hugely expensive nowadays, especially the professional fast lenses.
I also doubt that the TC cost would add 2000-3000€, the TC itself only costs around US$600 so, to incorporate it into a 300 f2.8 would not be that expensive, maybe US$1,000 to US$1,500 tops price addition. However, for these low paid photojournalists and freelancers, the 300 f2.8G VRII is readily available at a "low" US$5,500 at B&H. Then there is the 120-300 f2.8 on sale for US$6,650 at B&H. But, isn't a zoom a compromise also? A compromise basically the same as a TC added? In fact I would argue that a zoom is a worse compromise than a TC.
As for me, I won't be often shooting a 300 f2.8 with TC engaged, I would be shooting it at 300 f2.8 and sometimes with the TC engaged. I dearly want a 300 f2.8 bare as well as it being switchable, to be more versatile. I had the 300 f2.8G VRII and loved it and I wish I hadn't needed to sell it, but I needed the cash to fund my purchase of the 400 f2.8E FL VR. However, I wouldn't buy the 300 f2.8G VRII now as it is too heavy to be used as an adjunct to my Z 600 TC. The fact is, it was almost indistinguishable using the 1.4x TCII/III but the point is, you don't have to use it, but it is damned handy if you do need it.
Jan 23, 2026 at 05:42 PM
Previous versions of Lance B's message #16973039 « Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element? »
