Nikon New AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR

Golf007sd

@WestEndFoto: Agreed. Looking forward in seeing how they implement it on the 500 & 600 f/4's as well.

Gareth

Am I the only one wondering if Nikon can make a:

AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2E FL PF ED VR?

Yes it would be very expensive, but imagine how useful it would be at the Olympics!

NSXTypeR

Am I the only one wondering if Nikon can make a:

AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2E FL PF ED VR?

Yes it would be very expensive, but imagine how useful it would be at the Olympics!

If you're willing to manually focus...

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/

They did make one.

http://regex.info/blog/2011-07-24/1826

Photobug

I think this is a monster win for Nikon. Frankly, given the cost of the 80-400 when it was revamped, I'm pleasantly surprised that it came in at $2,000.

I had honestly expected the new 300mm F4 to be in the range of $2200 to $2400. I and many others are elated with the 1999.99 price point. By the time you add a lens collar and filter your around $2300.

Gareth

NSXTypeR, I know they made one. That's why I think they should make a new one with all the new tech. It would be an amazing lens.

haroldp

A 300 F2 is bout the same glass as a 600 F4.

.... H

snakebunk

@WestEndFoto: Why not pf elements in pro lenses? Are they not as good as florite? I think you may be correct, but I wonder. It would be great to have a 500/4 that is much smaller than the current one.

WestEndFoto

Snakebunk, if you look at the current 400, it is much lighter than the old one, so they are achieving that

It seems that the Phase Fresnel design does not control flare well and possibly some other issues that while satisfactory in an enthusiast lens, will not be satisfactory in a pro lens. Fluorite seems to be a money no object solution while Phase Fresnel seems like a brilliant compromise between cost and quality.

There are only three lenses with these designs in the Nikon lineup however, so my assumptions may be premature. Somehow I suspect not though.....

Personally, I am eagerly anticipating the next 200 f2 iteration.

Golf007sd

Photobug

Again Ali, thanks for the hands on post from CES. Good overviews. The 300 PF lens sure looks like a winner. Bet we go into a big back order situation by March.

Golf007sd

@Photobug: I do not believe that their will be any major issue in getting this lens. Not to many photographers, need 300mm for their type of usage.

Photobug

@Golf007sd - I hope your right. My money doesn't become available until February plus I want to wait fo the DxO Mark test results. I just am so happy they announced it last week and not after I bought the old model. I have a feeling that the sharpness will match the current lens and the smaller size is going to allow a lot more hand holding for general shots. I would have been royalty upset if I bought the old one and a few months later the new 300 PF introduced.

snakebunk

@WestEndFoto: Thank you for your answer.

Snowleopard

With the weight savings using PF elements, I am wondering if they could produce a 600 F/1.4 at an acceptable weight. A 70-200 F/0.95 would be nice also.

WestEndFoto

You would be more than doubling the weight even with the weight savings.

PB_PM

Not to mention that the depth of field at 600mm is extremely thin, even at F4. If it had a F1.4 aperture you'd be lucky to get anything in focus at all.

Photobug

How about a 70-200mm F4 PF or even a 2.8. The 80-400mm PF would be terrific too. Lets think long on potential applications. Yea, I said "long" on purpose. LoL.

mikealruskov

I need a longer lens than my 135mm for shooting motosports and I can't decide between the Nikon 300mm f/4E or the Sigma 150-600mm f/5.6-6.3. I feel like the 300mm is the better choice since it's a much larger aperture and potentially sharper, plus I could always throw a teleconverter onto it. Any thoughts?

haroldp

@Snowleopard:

Even with flourite, and fresnel, a 600/1.4 would need an objective and aperture diameter if at least 17.35 inches. Even if light in weigh (which it would not be), it could not be practically hand held, current support equipment like gimbal heads could not accommodate it.

Current lenses of the 40/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6 etc are approaching the point of scale where reflective (mirror) technology starts to replace refractive (glass).

.... H

Elvishefer

@mikealruskov - for me, the decision between prime and zoom for event shooting would come down to how often I could control my position relative to the cars/bikes/trucks/whatever so that 300 mm or 300 mm with a TC would be an ideal focal length for framing/composition. A zoom offers so much more versatility in that respect, and 600 mm is flat out more reach than 300 mm. At f/6.3 however, you'd need a body that could handle the ISOs required to keep the shutter speed up.

As always, the context of how you're going to shoot, and your other gear, all comes into play when advising you on the lens choice. I'm instinctively sure (but have no practical experience to prove) that the 300 mm prime would provide higher IQ than the zoom... but great IQ isn't as important as having a lens that is versatile enough to allow you to get a shot in the first place.

Have fun kicking around the decision. That's half the fun, imo.

spraynpray

4 stops of VR. Wow!

We need an emoticon with a tongue hanging out.

Msmoto

Four stops from VR.....great for static subjects. And, I think VR may be of use when panning as it "locks" the small "vertical" lines when panning horizontally. But, in unpredictable movement of subjects, VR does not do much as best I can understand.

But, this lens is so sharp, it has got to be a winner. Maybe even something I might want in my kit.

Being a prime shooter, simply as a result of a long history before zooms...LOL....I find zooming with my feet works. Of interest is that when doing some particular venues, especially folks who may not know the photographer, moving in closer or moving back can result in a less comfortable state fro the subject, and for this, a nice zoom can reduce this negative subject/photographer interaction.

I suspect this new 300mm with a TC-14EIII should be a super combo....Testing anyone????

manhattanboy

@mikealruskov - for me, the decision between prime and zoom for event shooting would come down to how often I could control my position relative to the cars/bikes/trucks/whatever so that 300 mm or 300 mm with a TC would be an ideal focal length for framing/composition. A zoom offers so much more versatility in that respect, and 600 mm is flat out more reach than 300 mm. At f/6.3 however, you'd need a body that could handle the ISOs required to keep the shutter speed up.

^^^ This is spot on.

We need an emoticon with a tongue hanging out.

:P

Golf007sd

@Elvishefer: I agree. +1

Rmologic

Hi All I tried the new 300 F4 lens with the 7100 with and without + grip and a TC-20 in the booth today. Wow was it light and sharp. with out the grip and TC it was less front heavy by a bit from my 70-300. Very nice feel. I very much liked the feel of the D750's new grip and thumb rest. A good improvement from my 7100. IMHO. Cheers