• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

New Nikon 300mm f/2.8 is a zoom! (1 Viewer)

marcsantacurz

Well-known member
Announced with the d6 is a 120-300mm f/2.8E FL. Hopefully we'll see some big weight savings. The venerable 300mm f/2.8G has been around for a long time at 6.4 lb / 2900 g. The current (oldish) Canon is 5.3 lb / 2.4 kg, so hopefully Nikon will drop like 2 lb / 1kg.

Marc
 

JPAC

Well-known member
What does SR mean in Nikkor AF-S 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR? It looks right which is a good thing. No built in TC. Hasn't Sigma had this lens for years? Is there a rear filter slot? . So many questions, looks like Nikon has tried to make it a talking point. The existing 300 f2.8 RRP is £6,000 GBP, wonder what this will cost? Be interesting to compare actual image quality between this and my 300mm AF-I from 1996., £3636 then, equivalent to ~£7,000 today.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Quite surprising - so Nikon waits for ever to FLerise and lighten the 300 f2.8, and then comes out with this strange concoction?? :cat:

I wonder if they can get near 2.27kg or less for this thing ?

Can anyone that covers events in an amateur or Pro capacity, tell me exactly what this type of focal range would be used for ?



Chosun :gh:
 

Vespobuteo

Well-known member
What does SR mean in Nikkor AF-S 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR? It looks right which is a good thing. No built in TC. Hasn't Sigma had this lens for years? Is there a rear filter slot? . So many questions, looks like Nikon has tried to make it a talking point. The existing 300 f2.8 RRP is £6,000 GBP, wonder what this will cost? Be interesting to compare actual image quality between this and my 300mm AF-I from 1996., £3636 then, equivalent to ~£7,000 today.

R means Reduction or Resistance is my guess.

Either SR means it works together with IBIS in the D6 or something with superior environmental seals against water and dust etc.
 

Vespobuteo

Well-known member
Announced with the d6 is a 120-300mm f/2.8E FL. Hopefully we'll see some big weight savings. The venerable 300mm f/2.8G has been around for a long time at 6.4 lb / 2900 g. The current (oldish) Canon is 5.3 lb / 2.4 kg, so hopefully Nikon will drop like 2 lb / 1kg.

Marc

1.9 kg for a 120-300/2.8 zoom is very optimistic. The sigma 120-300/2.8 is around 2.9 kg but it's rather old on the other hand.

Perhaps closer to 2.5 kg is more realistic?

Wonder if it will have mechanical focus or focus-by-wire, the latter might save some weight.

Or they might use the new type of lens construction that is in the Sony and Canons, with smaller lens elements closer to the focal plane.

Removing the protective lens element would save some weight also, canon and Sony don't have them.
 
Last edited:

marcsantacurz

Well-known member
1.9 kg for a 120-300/2.8 zoom is very optimistic. The sigma 120-300/2.8 is around 2.9 kg but it's rather old on the other hand.

Perhaps closer to 2.5 kg is more realistic?

Wonder if it will have mechanical focus or focus-by-wire, the latter might save some weight.

Or they might use the new type of lens construction that is in the Sony and Canons, with smaller lens elements closer to the focal plane.

Removing the protective lens element would save some weight also, canon and Sony don't have them.

The old Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS II is 2.4kg. I assume Nikon is going to try to get down to at least 2.2kg, but 2.0kg is a much nicer target!

The Sony 300mm f/2.8 G SSM II is 5.2 lb / 2340 g, so again I think 2.2kg is a desirable target.

Marc
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
A long time ago I used a film camera, so what currently is called full frame. I had a birding lens, but my secondmost favorite lens was a 70-210. I guess 120-300 is the result of the inflation of lenses that has happened in the meantime;)

Niels
 

marcsantacurz

Well-known member
I suspect Nikon wanted to add a kicker to the 300 f/2.8 G VR II successor. As long as it is as stunningly sharp as the current 300/2.8, it's a way to differentiate.

For shooting some sports on smaller courts, the 120-300 will help a lot when you are down towards one end of the court.
 

The BulbMogul

Well-known member
Surely will not be for the budget friendly snapper that is for sure. 8500.00 to 10,000.00 will be my guess on price for this new zoom... when are they taking orders is the question for me..?
 

JPAC

Well-known member
Still not sure about this. Nikon have increased the refraction of the blue part of the spectrum but that part is already refracted the most. So that's three elements just for CA correction.

It would be interesting to compare it to my 300 2.8 that I've had since 1996.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Still not sure about this. Nikon have increased the refraction of the blue part of the spectrum but that part is already refracted the most. So that's three elements just for CA correction.

It would be interesting to compare it to my 300 2.8 that I've had since 1996.
Just one SR element according to the lens diagram.




Chosun :gh:
 

JPAC

Well-known member
Ah, four then, two fluorites, one ED and one SR. All for CA correction. I remember when the Nikon 135mm f2 came out with no special glass, Nikon said it didn't need it. It'll be interesting to see how it behaves with the TCs.
 

marcsantacurz

Well-known member
I think the thing they are trying to do is to get a zoom to the same optical level as a prime. If you need a zoom, say for field sports, then this might be just the ticket and give you the same results across the zoom range as a prime (I'm speaking hypothetically here, have not seen any actual tests). At least, I guess that's the selling point.

Personally, I'd be happier with a 2kg - 2.5kg lens (like the Canon 300/2.8 IS II).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top