• 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)

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Marc, I think that was exactly the aim, a zoom with prime IQ, and the MTF charts (for what they are worth) would indicate a large amount of success in that.

But 3.25kg ??? C'mon ! they've seriously dropped the ball there ..... imho.




Chosun :gh:
 

horukuru

Here I Come !
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:

I do rugby with my 300mm 2.8 VR and also 70-200mm 2.8 VR. Plus trail running too. With this new lens, I can eliminate the 70-200mm coz I seldom used the 70mm.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
I do rugby with my 300mm 2.8 VR and also 70-200mm 2.8 VR. Plus trail running too. With this new lens, I can eliminate the 70-200mm coz I seldom used the 70mm.
Thanks for that. :t:

It would also seem ideal for court sports - basketball, volleyball, netball, tennis etc, as well as motorsports (where you can get close to the track - grandstands, hairpins etc), as well as theatres, concerts etc.

I imagine that mostly you would want to shoot that type of stuff handheld? - but there's no way I would want to hand hold that beast !




Chosun :gh:
 

horukuru

Here I Come !
Thanks for that. :t:

It would also seem ideal for court sports - basketball, volleyball, netball, tennis etc, as well as motorsports (where you can get close to the track - grandstands, hairpins etc), as well as theatres, concerts etc.

I imagine that mostly you would want to shoot that type of stuff handheld? - but there's no way I would want to hand hold that beast !




Chosun :gh:

I used on monopod. But nowadays, mostly on heavy duty Optech USA lens strap because rugby allows me to move around the field. Not like soccer.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
SR stands for ..... !

"SR (short wavelength refracting) to reduce longitudinal chromatic aberration" ...... according to an article in DPReview on the new Z mount 70-200 f2.8 S.




Chosun :gh:
 

JPAC

Well-known member
NR posted photos of the new lens vs the old, the reason it weighs so much is that it is much larger and longer.
 

seaspirit

Well-known member
NR posted photos of the new lens vs the old, the reason it weighs so much is that it is much larger and longer.

It is a zoom lens and the "old" one is a prime. Of course its heavier and bigger than the 300 f2.8, that's not unexpected. Just put the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 next to a 300 mm prime and you will see a similar picture.
 
Last edited:

seaspirit

Well-known member
But 3.25kg ??? C'mon ! they've seriously dropped the ball there ..... imho.

I guess this is the ball one needs to play with ......
Looking at Sigma's 120-300 2.8 with a similar weight this seems to be the weight to bear if one needs/wants a well built fast 120-300 mm lens.
Obviously a 300 mm prime is a fair bit less, but one can't compare a prime and a zoom lens in this category as construction requirements are quite different.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
I guess this is the ball one needs to play with ......
Looking at Sigma's 120-300 2.8 with a similar weight this seems to be the weight to bear if one needs/wants a well built fast 120-300 mm lens.
Obviously a 300 mm prime is a fair bit less, but one can't compare a prime and a zoom lens in this category as construction requirements are quite different.
The MTF chart of this new Nikon looks superb at the long end, but still it's 10% heavier than the older Sigma 120-300 /f2.8 (itself no lightweight) and over 3x the price !

In comparison to that Sigma here's how they stack up:
Sigma - 23 elements (2FLD) / 18 groups, 1.5m cf, 2.95kg, 124mm dia × 291mm L
Nikon - 25 elements (2FL) /19 groups, 2m cf, 3.25kg, 128mm dia × 304mm L

It's a heck of a cost to pay (both in terms of $ and weight) for a bit more sharpness across the frame at 300mm, and better CA correction.

If Nikon brought this in at 2.5kg, I think discussion turns to the high image and build quality and commensurate price ......

At ~2kg I think it would've caused a sensation ! :king: o:D

As it is, I suppose there might be the odd giant ex-NFL /NBA, player turned Pro photographer on some fully funded generous payroll somewhere who might purchase one ........ :cat:





Chosun :gh:
 

seaspirit

Well-known member
The MTF chart of this new Nikon looks superb at the long end, but still it's 10% heavier than the older Sigma 120-300 /f2.8 (itself no lightweight) and over 3x the price !


The current Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sport lists with just under 3.4kg, so the Nikon is in the same ball park. Price wise the gap is similar to other Sigma vs Nikon/Canon stuff



In comparison to that Sigma here's how they stack up:
Sigma - 23 elements (2FLD) / 18 groups, 1.5m cf, 2.95kg, 124mm dia × 291mm L
Nikon - 25 elements (2FL) /19 groups, 2m cf, 3.25kg, 128mm dia × 304mm L

It's a heck of a cost to pay (both in terms of $ and weight) for a bit more sharpness across the frame at 300mm, and better CA correction.

If Nikon brought this in at 2.5kg, I think discussion turns to the high image and build quality and commensurate price ......

At ~2kg I think it would've caused a sensation ! :king: o:D

The weight will be determined by the construction requirements for such a lens, lots of lenses and a lot of them are large diameter. Unless a lighter material for lenses is invented that can deliver the image quality, or fresnel elements are used the weight is not going to be lower.

As it is, I suppose there might be the odd giant ex-NFL /NBA, player turned Pro photographer on some fully funded generous payroll somewhere who might purchase one ........ :cat:





Chosun :gh:


UH
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Uh ..... unless your going to post a photo of the Siggy sitting on some scales and tipping them at the weight you quoted, then my figures stand (as per the Sigma website:- https://sigmaphoto.com.au/products/zsw120300exdg/sigma-120-300mm-f-2-8-dg-os-hsm-sports-lens :)

The Sigma site also lists close focus as 1.5m - 2.5m with minimum focus distance at 200mm focal length, so slight correction there.

Likewise, the price differential of over 3× is also more than usual. :cat:

I'm quite well aware of what is involved in the design and manufacture of a lens. Mechanical and materials design also play a large part. Both optical train designs have been posted in this thread - so feel free to offer an estimate of the respective glass weights if you like .......

At US$9500 I'd expect this Nikon to be made of super strong ultralightweight unobtanium and pushing the light weighting boundaries, not out-porking an already porky older lens ....... :eat:

I'm regarding this as a big miss. I certainly wouldn't find it enjoyable to shoot (and I don't want to end up with guns like Arnie either) :eek!:




Chosun :gh:
 

seaspirit

Well-known member

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
US and Canadian Sigma sites show 3390 g, and so does B&H.
Put mine (Nion version) on a scale and with tripod mount and hood it comes in with just over 3900g.

3.9kg ??!!! :eek!: Jeez ! That's insane ! Is that a metal hood ?
So is yours the "Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS" .....?
Are there different versions of different weights ? (all figures I quoted were from the Australian website in reference to the above model). Interesting that it's listed at US$3099 (It's relatively higher out here - more like the pre US$500 discount price)

Regardless of the actual weights of the Sigma - Nikon should have brought their lens in at 2.5kg or less. According to Thom Hogan and the Pro's he has spoken too - there's very little interest at 3.25kg ....
You could probably buy a reasonably nice 2950lb car for that money ! o:D



Chosun :gh:
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Ok - so I'm with it all now. 3 versions of the lens. 2.6kg (non-OS), 2.95kg, and 3.4kg ....... yikes !!! https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-120-300mm-f-2.8-DG-OS-HSM-Lens.aspx

So the new Nikon slots in between the latest 2 models ..... all 3 lenses then would not be enjoyable for me to hold, being heavier than I'd like. :-C

I think it's interesting that over on DPReview it's generated the sum-total of 78 comments ......... so basically - *crickets* .......




Chosun :gh:
 

The BulbMogul

Well-known member
D6 & Nikon 120-300MM F/2.8 Zoom

Lots of chatter about this new lens and does anyone here yet have one..? Just got mine last week along with the D6 and surely a different league then that SIGAm STUFF for sure..

CFC9A4CE-F9C2-4B9A-8661-6DE85B3D4992.jpeg
 

The BulbMogul

Well-known member
Ok - so I'm with it all now. 3 versions of the lens. 2.6kg (non-OS), 2.95kg, and 3.4kg ....... yikes !!! https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-120-300mm-f-2.8-DG-OS-HSM-Lens.aspx

So the new Nikon slots in between the latest 2 models ..... all 3 lenses then would not be enjoyable for me to hold, being heavier than I'd like. :-C

I think it's interesting that over on DPReview it's generated the sum-total of 78 comments ......... so basically - *crickets* .......




Chosun :gh:

Its surely not for the budget minded ..
 

marcsantacurz

Well-known member
The 120-300/2.8 does not check boxes for me. It's heaver than the straight 300/2.8g, costs between 2x - 3x more (you can get excellent used copies of the G), and I do not need the 120 - 300 zoom range.

If weight and cost were not a consideration and I wanted two camera/lens combos for a trip, a d5/d6 on 600/4 plus a d850 on a 120-300 might be the ticket. With the d850 crop, I could get anywhere 120 - 600 out of the zoom and 600-1100 out of the prime (1.3x crop and 1.4x TC). But that's a lot of weight. Too much weight.

I'd be more likely to go with a 70-200/2.8 on the d850/Z7 and a 500 or 600 on the d5. I can crop the d850 to 2x and still come out with 10MP, so 70 - 400mm plus 600 - 1100 and save like 2kg and $$$.

I think Steve Perry uses 500/5.6 on a d850 plus a 600/4 + 1.4x TC on d5 (840mm). He does not crop much, so that's probably like 500-600 on the d850 and 840 - 1000 on the d5.

I favor the d850 over Z7 as I can use a single battery with the d5. If the Z7 had a real grip with an EN-EL18 option, then maybe.

Marc
 

The BulbMogul

Well-known member
The 120-300/2.8 does not check boxes for me. It's heaver than the straight 300/2.8g, costs between 2x - 3x more (you can get excellent used copies of the G), and I do not need the 120 - 300 zoom range.

If weight and cost were not a consideration and I wanted two camera/lens combos for a trip, a d5/d6 on 600/4 plus a d850 on a 120-300 might be the ticket. With the d850 crop, I could get anywhere 120 - 600 out of the zoom and 600-1100 out of the prime (1.3x crop and 1.4x TC). But that's a lot of weight. Too much weight.

I'd be more likely to go with a 70-200/2.8 on the d850/Z7 and a 500 or 600 on the d5. I can crop the d850 to 2x and still come out with 10MP, so 70 - 400mm plus 600 - 1100 and save like 2kg and $$$.

I think Steve Perry uses 500/5.6 on a d850 plus a 600/4 + 1.4x TC on d5 (840mm). He does not crop much, so that's probably like 500-600 on the d850 and 840 - 1000 on the d5.

I favor the d850 over Z7 as I can use a single battery with the d5. If the Z7 had a real grip with an EN-EL18 option, then maybe.

Marc

Well I had seen all this chatter about it and the D6 from everyone here before its release but not much on the way since its on the market along with the D6 for some latest and greatest... yes there is many reasons not to buy one for sure..
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top