Purchase Nikon's 70-300 mm lens?

DaveyJ

I myself, owning a fleet of 70-300s have taken some amazing shots with that lens. They have been published a number of times. Some border on action and landscape. However I do not think of it as a landscape lens, so I can see your target is different than mine. IF I wanted a tripod ring I sure could have one fabricated. Again my guess is when the lens get revamped it will still have not no tripod collar.....also I find that the lens is not as suited to landscapes as it is to wildlife, action shots. We are lucky that Nikon makes it. I wonder if the 200-500 would be a better lens for you? However I do get the point that a compression shot from near and far....if the subjects are all in focus makes an ideal landscape shot. An example of this is shoot and mountain and lake, I'd a wide lens is used the mountain is going to be pretty small, and the foreground lake quite dominant. Also a problem is the depth of field required to pull this off! I used to do quite a few photos like that with long medium and large format lenses by swinging and tilting the lens and body as did Ansel Adams. This all requires the right scene, the right lighting, and the right photographer. Perhaps a new 70-300 Nikkor will be able to do it! I would say that this is more tripod country than handheld. Most of my best shots with the four 70-300s were handheld and required fast and very lucky shooting.....no time to set up a tripod to say the very least. I do know that lens is very good on a D7200 and the D90 is nowhere near as capable with any lens, let alone that one. Still own my D90.....and D70, and D100 all no more than momentos. No 70-300 is retired. All they need is the right time and place.

esquilo

Today I have only two tele lenses: Nikon 70-300 and Sigma 150-500. I plan to replace both, but I don't know with what. The options so far have been Nikon 70-200/4 and Nikon 200-500 or just Nikon 80-400. But if this new 70-300 is better than the old one and cheaper than the 70-200/4, I'll go for it (and maybe the 200-500 too).

NSXTypeR

I wish Nikon had done a true replacement of the 70-300 and made it FX too, the new 70-300 DX VR is not what I expected. They also cut a stop off from the far end, which doesn't make much sense.

Also, the FX 70-300 is selling for about $500, which is only $150 or so more than the DX lens. That's not that far off, you might as well get the FX version.

Edit- I just realized they released 2 versions of the lens (and the 18-55), one with and without VR. I think that's just confusing, and people buying low end gear might be confused that they're not getting results they want.

Photobug

+1 NSXTypeR
I understand the logic for the VR and Non VR version...it's all about price point.

BVS

NSXTypeR said:

I wish Nikon had done a true replacement of the 70-300 and made it FX too, the new 70-300 DX VR is not what I expected. They also cut a stop off from the far end, which doesn't make much sense.

Isn't f/6.3 only 1/3 stop slower than f/5.6?

Also, I'm curious what the f-stop is at 200mm. If it's around f/5.6 then it makes this lens basically a 55-200 with a bit more reach if you need it.

NSXTypeR said:

Also, the FX 70-300 is selling for about $500, which is only $150 or so more than the DX lens. That's not that far off, you might as well get the FX version.

I'm pretty sure super cheap refurbs will be plentiful before long. Look at the 55-200 VRII. MSRP is $350, but refurbs are $130 or less. Heck, I might even consider picking one up if it's like $150 and the IQ isn't too bad.

BabaGanoush

Don't know about the optical quality of this new lens, but it's cheaply made and priced, so it's presumably intended for the new D3400, not the D7200 or D500. I was hoping to see a compact and fast DX version to replace the FX 70-300mm I use on my D7200, but that's not to be. I'm glad now I just bought the superb Sony 70-300mm G lens for my A6300 since I have no incentive with this release by Nikon to replace my existing FX 70-300mm lens.

manhattanboy

I don't understand why Nikon wants to produce a slow (6.3) tele zoom at 450mm equivalent without VR that most folks are going to be hand holding. If this was my first introduction to tele zooms and Nikon, I would think their cameras are garbage. I hate when companies cripple products at the low end to the point of making them almost useless. And its not just Nikon; I am also scolding you Apple and your 16gb introductory phones

NSXTypeR

@ Photobug- I get that Nikon wants to give consumers options, but in camera equipment, money speaks. $50 isn't really off by much in terms of camera equipment, you're much better off simplifying product lines and production by making everything VR to begin with.

That's just cost cutting for the sake of cost cutting.

BVS said:

NSXTypeR said:

I wish Nikon had done a true replacement of the 70-300 and made it FX too, the new 70-300 DX VR is not what I expected. They also cut a stop off from the far end, which doesn't make much sense.

Isn't f/6.3 only 1/3 stop slower than f/5.6?

Also, I'm curious what the f-stop is at 200mm. If it's around f/5.6 then it makes this lens basically a 55-200 with a bit more reach if you need it.

NSXTypeR said:

Also, the FX 70-300 is selling for about $500, which is only $150 or so more than the DX lens. That's not that far off, you might as well get the FX version.

I'm pretty sure super cheap refurbs will be plentiful before long. Look at the 55-200 VRII. MSRP is $350, but refurbs are $130 or less. Heck, I might even consider picking one up if it's like $150 and the IQ isn't too bad.

I was eyeballing it, I think F8 would be the next stop down. Regardless, I would prefer the long end to be as fast as possible, and I prefer all the new lenses I get to be FX compatible.

BabaGanoush said:

Don't know about the optical quality of this new lens, but it's cheaply made and priced, so it's presumably intended for the new D3400, not the D7200 or D500. I was hoping to see a compact and fast DX version to replace the FX 70-300mm I use on my D7200, but that's not to be. I'm glad now I just bought the superb Sony 70-300mm G lens for my A6300 since I have no incentive with this release by Nikon to replace my existing FX 70-300mm lens.

I too was hoping for an optically better version of the FX 70-300, I want to be as future proof as possible. I guess I should go for the 70-300 old VR now.

I'm concerned Nikon won't even update the firmware for the D7000 to work with AF-P lenses.

CaMeRaQuEsT

Looking at the MFT charts, these new AF-P 70-300mm DX lenses don't seem any sharper than the old 55-300mm, in fact they might be less sharp at similar FL and aperture settings. They seem more to be replacements for the dirt cheap, old non VR, non ED 70-300mm from the film era. They even seem to be plastic mounted!

BVS

CaMeRaQuEsT said:

They seem more to be replacements for the dirt cheap, old non VR, non ED 70-300mm from the film era. They even seem to be plastic mounted!

Or maybe they're trying to merge the 55-200 and 55-300 into one lens to simplify inventory?

Photobug

NSXTypeR Posts:
@ Photobug- I get that Nikon wants to give consumers options, but in camera equipment, money speaks. $50 isn't really off by much in terms of camera equipment, you're much better off simplifying product lines and production by making everything VR to begin with.

That's just cost cutting for the sake of cost cutting.

$50 off a camera that has been on the market 3 months is a good deal. I agree with you about "money speaks" for the consumer and from a manufacturers perspective, volume and simplifying a line is better than providing lots of options.

I expect that the November to December holiday sale will have the new D3400 kit with the new 70-300 lens at "X" dollars off. Past savings have been $150 to $200. That should bring some buyers into the stores plus the steeply discounted D3300 will be for those that want a DSLR and under $500.

CaMeRaQuEsT

BVS said:

CaMeRaQuEsT said:

They seem more to be replacements for the dirt cheap, old non VR, non ED 70-300mm from the film era. They even seem to be plastic mounted!

Or maybe they're trying to merge the 55-200 and 55-300 into one lens to simplify inventory?

Indeed, all 2-lens camera kits on nikonusa.com, apart from those including a D3200 or a D5200, have been updated to have the new AF-P kit lenses. I have the 55-200 VRII, and both its MTF charts and in actual use the little thing is uncannily sharp, it's light, compact, and parfocal for video zoom-ins and zoom-outs, needless to say I'm keeping my copy.

KnockKnock

I haven't read all the pages here, so apologies in advance if this has been mentioned, but it seems this may tip the hand for the future. Perhaps Nikon is going mirrorless DX F-mount with in-body stabilization. Those two non-VR make a good kit for any new body that has it built in.

DaveyJ

Two 70-300 DX lens just introduced by Nikon.....one with VR , one without. The price difference is $50. Obviously this is Nikon's attempt to provide DX optimized lens at a price point. Their analysis is clear.....they think the market is for light inexpensive zooms and that the stepping motor is essential in especially the D3400 which without a on board motor the 70-300 in either the VR version or not.....isn't the right lens. I think it was simpler to produce in a non VR and a VR version. For the consumer this introduces a problem in that bundling of the D3400 and D5500 were the PRIMARY target cameras not the D7200 or D500? I think that was not a very good Nikon engineering choice, but probably was the Marketing and Management final decision, not engineering. It will be interesting to see what Thom Hogan, the reviewers outside, communicate. Leaving the FX version was after all somewhat the buzz buzz call for DX lens!

Time will tell how the lens sell. For certain it looks like the stepping motor focus was the driver. I think this direction has merit. They are putting a lot of eggs in the connectivity Snap Bridge basket. For me as a consumer.....Snap Bridge is a boondoggle. The technology was launched prematurely and incompletely. Now they are trying to capture amateur markets that demand connectivity for blogging and sharing. Many semi pros though are not that much into sharing.....preferring sales to give away or media flooding!

Looks to me like Nikon thinks real pros will go full tilt and pay for heavy expensive glass. This 70-300 VR according to MY WISHES is a intentionally detuned lens offering. Nikon message to me....if you really care about image quality you will stop complaining about weight, price, and all that crap and buy PRO gear.....meaning lens with a $2,000 minimum price tag. This really doesn't seem to fit compared to the recent 200-500 Nikkor excitement and excellent Nikon strategy. Tragic maybe even in that the stepping motor could be omitted entirely for a D500 or a D7200. Trying to run to many trains on the same track!

The majority of Nikon Rumors folks are going to be concerned with quality first. That is smart, and if this was just about the immediate send and publish then this same buyer would just say put that on my cell phone and forget the heavy expensive camera route! The Internet Highway.....easy to become road kill in this day and age.......and the same just might apply to companies! Sometimes connectivity and innovation introduces risk. Risky Business is what this is.......I called Nikon USA to find out if the focus grids on the D3400 were any bigger.....it took 15 minutes to get that answer and I am still uncertain what focus grid size improvement was except that they are supposed to be "bigger". Obviously the connectivity was judged as far more important than the process of photography.

BabaGanoush

@DaveyJ: The pre-existing 70-300mm AF-S lens (#2161) was not what one would call a pro lens, right? It was really an enthusiast's lens. These new releases are neither in the pro class nor in the enthusiast class. It's hard to tell, but it looks to me as if they have a plastic mount. Ugh! They are most likely intended for a novice or a beginner, someone who would buy the D3400, perhaps as his first DSLR, and want this lens as his first telephoto zoom.

Would I, as an "enthusiast," spend over $2000 for a yet to be released, heavily upgraded "pro class" 70-300mm? I dunno. I spent over $2200 for my 80-400mm lens, but only because, at the time, it was the cheapest way for me to gain access to 400mm without having to pay a pro price. Unless there was something extra special about a pro quality and pro priced 70-300mm lens, I might not ever consider it. The Sony 70-300mm G lens I just bought for my A6300 is quite a decent lens, and it cost only $1200, which I think is about the right price for the comparable Nikkor lens I want for my D7200.

Now, if I should decide to buy the future Nikon D820 (!), well, then, I might be willing to spend a bit more---maybe even more than a bit more---to get the best optics I can afford. But that'd be for a camera that would qualify as more than just "enthusiast's gear."

BVS

I still think it'd be cool if Nikon made something like an 80-300 f/2.8-4 DX to pair with the 16-80.

Photobug

As anyone else noted that someone typed in a message but did not post it. Every time I hit this forum I see his post

egosbar

might wait and see what the 100-300 f4 has to offer

spraynpray

Photobug said:

As anyone else noted that someone typed in a message but did not post it. Every time I hit this forum I see his post

Eh? Maybe it is yours? Go up to your drafts and delete them then check again.

DaveyJ

As an owner of FOUR 70-300 Nikkor lens I rate it as very usable. My Nikon zooms with low f like 2.8s are all sold. They were heavy and my wife used to describe them as wrist breakers. On the other hand she used the 70-300 Nikkor (previously) lens mostly. She is a wildlife and pet artist. However my wish to see Nikon make a more pro DX 70-300 lens is apparently lost to this new detuned 70-300 two version D3400 special. Typical Nikon marketing maneuver that seems to have little account or regard for the established Nikon user base. The D500 though and the 200-500 were great windfalls for us.......and maybe that is as good as it gets. Connectivity though I think is more of a cell phone arena than camera. Nikon bet that I am wrong.

KnockKnock

I think I saw a Nikon patent for an FX 55-300mm fast-ish lens some while ago.

NSXTypeR

Does anyone know if $500 is about the lowest the 70-300 AF-S VR would normally be? I'm trying to figure out if it's a good time to buy right now.

Ironheart

Yeah, haven't seen it any lower, unless there is a rebate, then at most $25 off...

DaveyJ

I follow this a lot and have about 25 people who contemplate buying it and follow it every single month and that seems to be the best deal, but then about every sales outlet is at that number?

DaveyJ

The new DX VR 70-300 is a very good lens, see the Thom Hogan review on this new lens. Problem is it is $400 right now and for the past week it was on sale at $250 and I missed it. I will wait until it goes back on sale or I will not buy it!