Nikkor 300mm f/4

Msmoto

I am not certain how the $3,000 price has been calculated as I would see it closer to $2,000. This lens would not be more complicated than the new 80-400 VRIII at $2500, and in fact would be only a mm or 2 greater in diameter, quite possibly the same length, but without all the mechanics of the zoom technology.

And, if a super sharp lens would be a nice addition.

shawnino

@msmoto: I'm with you in spirit. The new 300mm f/4 should be $2000. Alas, so should the new 80-400. So should the Df. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 shows that the Nikon offering in the same class is well overpriced. I think the current lens I'm wavering on, 58mm 1.4, feels overpriced as well. There have been a couple well priced products by Nikon in recent years (28 1.8; 85 1.8) but, in my opinion, the trend is the other way.

You're a logical soul. I know there's a reason you're holding off buying a 300mm f/2.8. It's just a guess, but I think you're hoping for a Sigma Sport at a rather steep discount

So there's another thought: Until now, Sigma's been mostly playing catch-up. 35 1.4, 24-105, etc. What if Sigma decided to do a blow-the-doors-off 300 f/4 at $1750? Would anybody waiting for the Nikon keep waiting?

manhattanboy

So there's another thought: Until now, Sigma's been mostly playing catch-up. 35 1.4, 24-105, etc. What if Sigma decided to do a blow-the-doors-off 300 f/4 at $1750? Would anybody waiting for the Nikon keep waiting?

If they can price it like the current Nikon 300 f4 and make it smaller and lighter then I'll be sold instantly!
The quality of sigma long range glass is good but the lenses are big and heavy and look like bazookas when trying to take photos.

Photobug

And what is the problem with big and heavy Sigma's that look like a bazooka?

Msmoto

@shawnino

The reason I do not have a 300mm f/2.8 is that I have several pieces of real-estate for sale and when these are gone…mmmm… And, i might be grabbing a used D3s or refurb as well.

Of course, if Nikon comes through with a D400 which is worthwhile, that would be the next body.

A D800E is nice, but I have no need for all those pixels….. )

WestEndBoy

If they can price it like the current Nikon 300 f4 and make it smaller and lighter then I'll be sold instantly!
The quality of sigma long range glass is good but the lenses are big and heavy and look like bazookas when trying to take photos.

A similar price is not Nikon's typical practice on an upgrade. I would be willing to bet that if you look at the original price adjusted for inflation, it would be 50% to 100% higher than the current price. That is the likely price of a replacement and would be consistent with prior practice.

shawnino

@jshickele: I think "inflation adjustment" is a canard--or one has to at least counter balance that with improvements in technology. This cherry-picks a bit, but look at the USA prices of colour, cathode ray TV sets, 50s-90s:
http://www.tvhistory.tv/tv-prices.htm
(second column)

Admittedly this list is not exhaustive, but no matter what decade you're in, there are table-top and console sets from similar manufacturers, near 21", near $500. So as tech improved, prices were held in check. Not only that but for those who remember the stagflation of the early 70s, and the high inflation of the late 70s/early 80s, at least in N. America, the idea that colour TV prices hung in around $500 is somewhat remarkable.

To be sure, in areas where tech was much slower to improve (cf. Nader's early work such as "Unsafe At Any Speed" etc.) prices rose.

Given the progress of photography, glass-making, and so on, if the new 300 f/4 comes in above $2500, that's a naked money grab.

WestEndBoy

Yet if you look at the history, that is the pattern. KR's website tracks this pretty closely.

It is why I want to buy the 200mm F4 Macro before they replace it. The replacement will be another $1,000 and made of plastic and I see limited need for VR when I will usually use a tripod.

shawnino

Good call on the 200 f/4 micro--I love mine. Useful working distance and reproduction ratio, great colour rendition, psychotically sharp, brick-solid build. Not the 200 f/2 by any stretch, but underrated as a "regular" lens... very versatile. Slow AF, but I couldn't care less for its primary purpose.

Msmoto

If one looks at the example of the 80-400 price increase, and remember the new model has no relationship to the old except for the focal length, a new 300mm f/4 with VRIII should come in about $2200.

WestEndBoy

$2200? Ah, now I see. I forgot how "cheap" this lens is. Somehow I expected that it was a $2,000 plus change lens.

PB_PM

If one looks at the example of the 80-400 price increase, and remember the new model has no relationship to the old except for the focal length, a new 300mm f/4 with VRIII should come in about $2200.

The old 80-400mm VR and current 300mm F4 were similarly priced on release, so there is no reason not to believe an updated 300mm F4 VR would not cost as much, or more than the new 80-400mm VR.

manhattanboy

If they price it like the 80-400 then it better be a DO lens that is super short in length. A one stop advantage doesn't equall the loss of zoom and an extra 100mm , especially if the 300 is longer and heavier.

PB_PM

Hate to break it to you, but the current 300mm F4 is sharper, even with a 1.4x TC than the new 80-400mm VRII. I'd take a fixed telephoto prime over a variable zoom any day of the week (If money were not an issue).

WestEndBoy

Agreed with PB-PM, if you look at my kit below in my signature, there is only one zoom because it is the best prime you can by at 14mm. That 28 - 200 I have only used once since I bought my D800. I am sure that my 50mm 1.4G has better image quality than a 24-70mm zoom at 50mm and it is much faster.

manhattanboy

The prime is sharper than the zoom, but if its bigger and heavy and more difficult to use, then its a matter of personal preference I guess. I personally would trade a little softness for a smaller, lighter setup that would give me a picture versus me being too lazy to use the large 10 inch prime when I really need it. Its really the size and bigness of the current lens that are the major detriments for me... if they only made it smaller and lighter....

PB_PM

Then stick to point and shoot super zooms. High quality SLR lenses are large, there is no magic formula to make them smaller.

framer

The current ones about $1400 add $300 for upgrades that all VR's worth IMHO.

$2G+ too much for a 300mm f4.

manhattanboy

@PB_PM
they could if they made a DO version, technically it would reduce the size if nothing else.
And I have a point and shoot superzoom, but its too slow and there is no optical view finder so it stays at home.

WestEndBoy

@PB_PM
they could if they made a DO version, technically it would reduce the size if nothing else.
And I have a point and shoot superzoom, but its too slow and there is no optical view finder so it stays at home.

What is a "DO Version"?

dissent

- drums fingers on desk top -

Any time you want to make the announcement of the new 300/4, Nikon, I'm all ears ...

- drums fingers on desk top -

Ade

@PB_PM
they could if they made a DO version, technically it would reduce the size if nothing else.
And I have a point and shoot superzoom, but its too slow and there is no optical view finder so it stays at home.

What is a "DO Version"?

Lenses made using Diffractive Optical Elements (DOE). Normal lenses work using refraction, while DO elements work using diffraction. Both types of lenses can be combined to control aberrations (especially chromatic aberration) with fewer elements than of a conventional design, reducing both size and weight while maintaining or improving optical performance.

Nikon mainly uses DOE only on industrial lenses, while Canon has a couple lenses with DO elements.

Nikon has recent 300 f/4 patents showing DO elements:

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/09/12/another-nikon-patent-for-a-300mm-f4-lens-with-diffractive-optical-element-doe.aspx/

Msmoto

And, if the DOE 300mm f/4 is introduced with its advanced design, this may come close to the $3,000 range. It would of course be a stunning lens optically if all works as Nikon would hope. And, it would no doubt rival the current 300mm f/2.8 in sharpness.

Nik0n2011

i'd say 2200-2600 eu
(up and downs)

you can later imagine all the expensive primes up there getting refreshes, smaller and lighter (maybe with higher prices)
the 300f4 might be the first of the refresh ?(as it was the last)

Scuderia1

Question for "old" 300 f/4 owners: has anyone had issues with the apertures ring in the lens not staying open to f/4 while you are "viewing" your subjects? I've recentky noticed that my lens will be "wide open" and will go dark on me after An inconsistent number of shots. It's like the aperture ring is going from "4" to "32."

Any permanent fixes?