New Nikkor 300mm f4 VR Announced

[NorthernFocus]

Finally! An upgrade to the venerable 300 f4 has been rumored for at least three years. Judging by the specs it may be well worth the wait. The old version was almost 9in(225mm) long and weighed 50oz(1.4kg). The new version will only be 6in.(150mm) long and weigh about half as much as the old one. They both take a 77mm filter. The MTF chart compares favorably as well.

I sold my old one a while back and have regretted it many times. It paired beautifully with the D7100. I've nearly given up on the upgrade and gotten a 300mm 2.8 several times when I've seen used ones. Now I'm glad I didn't. The size of the new one just blows me away. I thought it was a typo on NR but visited the Nikon site and that's what they've published. Paired with a D7100 and a 1.4x TC in the bag, that will be an awesome wildlife kit for travel.

The release is supposed to be next month so used prices of the old version will likely start to drop soon. For those who can't drop $2k on the new one and can live without the VR, the old version is already and will be even more so one of the best value for the dollar lenses out there.

[IzzieK]

Thanks for the info. I will look for the old version...wait it drops a bit or more if I can..

[NorthernFocus]

Izzie, I'd look for used ones advertised with a third party tripod foot(i.e. Kirk or RRS). The factory supplied foot is widely reported as the week link of that lens. It will also pair nicely with the D810.

Speaking of tripod feet, I just noticed that similar to the 70-200 f4, the new 300 f4 will not have the foot supplied with it. The foot will be sold separately as an accessory. Honestly as small as the lens is if being used on a FF body the foot isn't even necessary. It is only slightly longer and not as heavy as the 24-70 f2.8.

[IzzieK]

Dan what do you think of the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5/6 APO DG Macro Lens. I was looking at it a while ago in B&H. Then researched it and had good ratings so far....

[Dave Humphries]

Dan what do you think of the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5/6 APO DG Macro Lens.

Hi Izzie,

I bought a Sigma zoom (18-250mm) back in 2009, it eventually got returned to shop and I swapped/upgraded to a Nikon lens (18-200mm). I have only bought Nikon lenses ever since.

The problem was AF 'front focussing' - on my D5000, which didn't have any AF micro-adjust to help 'neutralise' the issue.

FWIW

[NorthernFocus]

I don't know anything about that particular lens, Izzie. As you can see from some of my posts I used to own a Sigma 100-300 f4 and loved it. That was one of their best lenses historically. I've read and heard a lot about inconsistent quality from Sigma. Whether by luck or whatever the few I've owned have been good lenses. I've had the 100-300, 17-50 f2.8 (optically fine but returned for other reasons), and the 105 macro. If you want a zoom with a high end at 300 I do highly recommend the Sigma 100-300 f4. It's now out of production but used they run about the same price as the Nikon 300 f4.

[IzzieK]

Dave I have never used a third party lens before. This might be the first time if I am going to bite and buy this one so I am asking...because it has good responses about it. I am still learning my camera and not want to break the bank yet because I am going home to Australia for a visit and buying stuffs for my children and my grandchild over there since Christmas...this Santa Claus is getting poorer by the minute at this time of the year so I asked...

[IzzieK]

Thanks Dan...I might look for a used one or something...I intend to borrow some lens for my trip...have them send it over there if it is not too expensive or carry it myself on board. Not too many but the 105mm macro is very tempting and the 24-70 for general shooting. I planned to take only 3 lenses and my D810 because I will always have company most of the time on my trip. And of course my point and shoot for the airport and surrounds when I am alone. Good for street photography and safe from the security guys at LA too.

[Mike Buckley]

I can really appreciate why people would like this new lens. That's because I own a copy of the first metal version made of this lens and really enjoy using it. It was made from 1987 to 2000. I paid USD $430 for it more than two years ago and it fits my needs perfectly and relatively cheaply -- perhaps the best value in my bag.

That's despite that:

• It weighs 47 ounces (1330 grams).
• It is 9 inches (220 mm) long.
• Uses 82 mm filters (the polarizer probably cost one-third the cost of the lens!).
• Has a minimum focus of 8 feet (2.5 meters).
• To change from manual focus to auto focus and vice versa, I have to change the lens and camera switches.
• It has no VR.
• It has no focusing motor, so it auto focuses slower than an AF-S lens (not that that matters to my style of photography) and requires using manual focus when used with a camera that has no focusing motor.

My lens is a great value and its optics are probably reasonably close to the new model though lacking the great mechanics of the new one.

[NorthernFocus]

Actually the small size is the only reason I'd buy this lens now. Last year I gave up waiting and got the 80-400mm AFS. But it is even a bit heavier than the old 300f4 but my thinking was that combined with one other zoom body would be all that's necessary for a travel kit. Now I've lugged it around a bit that doesn't seem quite as attractive in practice as it did in theory.

One interesting thing for techies is that this will be Nikon's first lens with elements that employ the freznel concept. They claim that's how they made it so small. We'll see.

[ajohnw]

Canon used that sort of optics on their DO lenses. Early reviews on the 70-300mm were NVG when looked at full resolution and didn't match up to the normal lens. Unusually a main review site posted a large image to demonstrate. Despite my warnings my son recently bought one. Better than the review but the results left me wondering if the normal lens is sharper. The image was very very slightly "fuzzy" in an odd sort of way. Not so bad that I would feel I had to complain loudly. Just different. The weight and size saving is significant.

I'm assuming both technologies are the same. Canon describe it as difractive optics. They do look like fresnel types with extremely thin elements.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/...cal_element.do

Personally I am interested in trying 70-300mm on Nikon 1 with the dedicated Nikon 1 lens but only if the price comes down. I do wonder about the image stability they have built in on the other lenses though. At times I have had what looks like a double image and I have to wonder what on earth I did to get that. Things must have been dead still twice.

John
-

[ajohnw]

I can really appreciate why people would like this new lens. That's because I own a copy of the first metal version made of this lens and really enjoy using it. It was made from 1987 to 2000. I paid USD $430 for it more than two years ago and it fits my needs perfectly and relatively cheaply -- perhaps the best value in my bag.

That's despite that:

• It weighs 47 ounces (1330 grams).
• It is 9 inches (220 mm) long.
• Uses 82 mm filters (the polarizer probably cost one-third the cost of the lens!).
• Has a minimum focus of 8 feet (2.5 meters).
• To change from manual focus to auto focus and vice versa, I have to change the lens and camera switches.
• It has no VR.
• It has no focusing motor, so it auto focuses slower than an AF-S lens (not that that matters to my style of photography) and requires using manual focus when used with a camera that has no focusing motor.

My lens is a great value and its optics are probably reasonably close to the new model though lacking the great mechanics of the new one.

I feel that the slow AF on the D lens is over stated but the lack of IS is an absolute pain in the neck. High ISO can get round that but more PP is then needed.

John
-

[Dave Humphries]

A "Techie" reporting for duty sir!

One interesting thing for techies is that this will be Nikon's first lens with elements that employ the freznel concept. They claim that's how they made it so small. We'll see.

I was wondering how they had done it - but not enough to want to read about it, more for fear of then wanting one!

If so, I think the fresnel lens might give some 'interesting' bokeh on out of focus highlights, as you say Dan, we'll see

[NorthernFocus]

John, you didn't seriously extrapolate results from Canon glass to what one might suspect from Nikon, did you? Oh.... OK, I'm just slow on the uptake. Nice one...

Dave, the effects on Bokeh are exactly what I'm wondering about too.

[ajohnw]

John, you didn't seriously extrapolate results from Canon glass to what one might suspect from Nikon, did you? Oh.... OK, I'm just slow on the uptake. Nice one...

Dave, the effects on Bokeh are exactly what I'm wondering about too.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...doisff?start=1

Bottom part of the page.

They aren't really simple fresnel lenses as thickness seems to play a part too. Look at the main end of one at an angle and newton rings can be seen - or are they.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

Has Canon applied the concept to any prime lenses? Comparing zooms and primes isn't highly relevant. Zooms by their very nature are a compromise.

[ajohnw]

Has Canon applied the concept to any prime lenses? Comparing zooms and primes isn't highly relevant. Zooms by their very nature are a compromise.

Of course they did but got it right 400mm F4 not a silly little 300mm.

There are plenty of images about on the web that to me show that out of focus stuff looks a bit mushy. They are on the MK11 and from my son's lens I'd guess they have quietly upgrades the zoom but examples may vary.

An opinion
http://www.michaelfurtman.com/comparing_canon_400s.htm

And oddly a few not over processed images taken with it, one is obviously over sharpened.

https://pixelpeeper.com/lenses/?lens=736

There many others but no tests. It seems from google that the site I linked to did have some info on it but it's no longer there. Odd what? This does happen at times. I'd guess from complaints. I believe that it's generally accepted that the big gain with this style of lens is size and weight plus low chromatic distortion IT SEEMS but problems with bokeh. That is because they lack slightly in sharpness. This will get worse and worse further away from the true focus.

There are some interesting comments about the 400mm falling apart and $350 to fix each time. Faced with that I would feel that a personal visit with a base ball bat would be in order.

John
-

A note - I had the feeling that Canon made several others but if so they have been withdrawn. I originally thought that DO meant really diffraction limited but then saw the review on the zoom.
-

[rpcrowe]

Nikon has lagged behind Canon in their telephoto lineup. Canon has had the 300mm f/4L IS lens out for a long time. It replaced the 300mm f/4L non-is version (of which some folks say the IQ was better).

Anyway, I'd love to see a 300mm f/4L IS lens about the same size as the new Nikon. The Canon f/4L IS weighs less than the older model Nikon 1.19 kg vs. 1.4 kg, But it is about the same size at 8.75 inches in length.

One really nice thing about the Canon 300mm f/4L IS lens is the price. Right now it is selling new for $1349 USD from B&H in New York City. I purchased mine years ago at a really good price. The transaction was somewhat complicated, involving several items, so I cannot really say the exact amount I paid for the lens but, it was probably about $700 or thereabouts. Recent completed USA eBay auctions have been won as low as $740 and as high as $1,099 U.S. Dollars

[NorthernFocus]

A new post on NR claims that the 300 f4 lenses started shipping today, roughly five days ahead of the official release date. They also have an interesting comparison I size to the iconic 24-70mm FX lens. The 300 is 160g(almost 6oz) lighter

As much as I hate to admit, I must have one