User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  4
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Nikon 300mm F4

  1. #1
    Member ASD14's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Nikon 300mm F4

    Hi guys,

    Just wondering if anyone has anymore news or dates on when Nikon will bring out the 300mm F/4 VRIII.. I am after a nice, telephoto lens for wildlife on my D7100, but don't want the current one as I like the idea of VR, for when low light shooting.. I have look around on Nikon rumors, but cant seem to find much info really.


    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It is one of the true mysteries of life ASD14.

    Going by the lack of any rumours and that Nikon have released the revamped 80-400 reasonably recently ( with a healthy profit margin built in ) the hopes of a new 300 F/4 might be a bit on the slim side.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  3. #3
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,169
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rumours of the impending AF-S version of the 80-400 VR started about the year 2006. Lens became reality in about 2013.

    As I recall, rumours of a new 300/4 with VR started about 2009 .... extrapolate this into a real world Nikon product and I reckon you'll see one in 2016(or thereabouts).

    Nikon really have about 3 or 4 old type lenses that really require urgent attention too(i.e updating to modern versions)

    They are, this 300/4 to a new model with VR .. the 105 and 135 f/2 DC lenses .. hopefully to f/1.8's and VR if possible too .... and the 200/4 Micro to AF-S VR fluorite and Super ED lens elements.

    So.. taking all this into account, and Nikon's ability to throw us all a curve ball and release some strange lens that a very limited market exists for ... I reckon you'll see an AF-S 15mm f/4 Micro VRIII in about 2016 firstly, then the 300/4 VRIII in about 2018.

    Sigma, Tamron and Tokina will all have introduced their own versions of such a lens between 2015 and 2016 .. some may even be f/3.5(just for the hell of it) all with fluorite lenses, and each with their respective image stabilization systems, and connectivity to a PC to tweak the lens to your liking .. all for 1/2 the price of the Nikon version.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  4. #4
    Member
    Threadstarter
    ASD14's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Fair enough mate!! Well that's a real shame, because for me, I've got rather limited choices at the moment, and especially considering I cant afford any of the their true wildlife primes plus the fact there WAY to big and heavy to lug around the mountains for a few days... I guess the old 70-300VR may have to do for now. :S

    Cheers.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2011
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ASD14 View Post
    Hi guys,

    Just wondering if anyone has anymore news or dates on when Nikon will bring out the 300mm F/4 VRIII.. I am after a nice, telephoto lens for wildlife on my D7100, but don't want the current one as I like the idea of VR, for when low light shooting.. I have look around on Nikon rumors, but cant seem to find much info really.


    Thanks in advance.
    IF you can live with a max aperture of 5.6 and the price is within your budget, I'd highly recommend the new 80-400G.

  6. #6
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,169
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Another 'alternative' at a much lower price would be the Tamron 150-600mm recently released.

    At 300mm, it will(or should) give more than acceptable results, but of course has the advantage of allowing further reach up to 600mm!

    At 300mm it's aperture value is something like f/5.6 .. hence lower light will require one stop more ISO by comparison.

  7. #7
    Member
    Threadstarter
    ASD14's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cheers guys.. I have considered the big 150-600 tamron, but its just way too big and heavy for my personal needs (hiking the mountains), and the new 80-400G is my dream but the $3K pricetag is just way over my budget plus there getting up there in size and weight.

    I REALLY hope they bring out a new 300 F4 with VRIII, would be a stella lens...
    Last edited by ASD14; 29-09-2014 at 2:33pm.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2011
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ASD14 View Post
    Cheers guys.. I have considered the big 150-600 tamron, but its just way too big and heavy for my personal needs (hiking the mountains), and the new 80-400G is my dream but the $3K pricetag is just way over my budget plus there getting up there in size and weight.

    I REALLY hope they bring out a new 300 F4 with VRIII, would be a stella lens...
    The 80-400G is 8mm wider, 20mm shorter, and only 150g heavier than the 300/f4; if it's out of your budget then fair enough but by any other reasonable measure it's a match for the prime.
    Shane

  9. #9
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by shaneando View Post
    The 80-400G is 8mm wider, 20mm shorter, and only 150g heavier than the 300/f4; if it's out of your budget then fair enough but by any other reasonable measure it's a match for the prime.
    The 80-400 was one lens that was severely in need of an update and when the new one arrived it delivered what was needed other than gaining weight, if and when a new 300 F/4 appears I think it could reasonably expected to deliver significant advances on the "ancient" specifications it has and they would probably include a weight reduction due to newer composite materials along with improved optical quality and "modern day" VR.

    At the moment it is all pure speculation about how a new version would be but I reckon in all certainty the price will increase substantially to "modern day" levels as well.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2011
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I @ M View Post
    The 80-400 was one lens that was severely in need of an update and when the new one arrived it delivered what was needed other than gaining weight, if and when a new 300 F/4 appears I think it could reasonably expected to deliver significant advances on the "ancient" specifications it has and they would probably include a weight reduction due to newer composite materials along with improved optical quality and "modern day" VR.

    At the moment it is all pure speculation about how a new version would be but I reckon in all certainty the price will increase substantially to "modern day" levels as well.
    Yeah I don't think the arrival of an updated 300 f/4 will make this decision any easier. As you say it will undoubtedly be more expensive than the current version, but almost as certain (based on recent Nikon updates like the 80-400) is that the optical quality will be better. I think weight/size will be a wash, or maybe even slightly bigger. VR will add some weight, and the only telephoto lenses recently that have gotten lighter are the ones that have included fluorite elements, but then you are talking some serious price increases as well.

    I believe it will still come down to this: most people I read about who use the 300 f/4 seem to also use the 1.4 TC to get what is reputedly a very reasonable quality (and price) 420mm f/5.6 option. That is almost exactly what the 80-400 is at the long end. Factor in a price rise for the new lens plus a TC and the cost difference will mostly disappear, in which case I think the decision will mostly still go to the zoom. The question then is how much better, if any, will the image quality be from the prime?

    Of course if you just need 300mm and really need the extra stop then it might be a better answer.

  11. #11
    Member
    Threadstarter
    ASD14's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    All very valid points guys.. Ok well forgetting about weight and size here for one minute, which would give better IQ and performance in lowlight and action sports.

    The new 80-400G VR or the 300F/4?? or are they going to be the same performance... IQ, Focus speed, etc etc.

    Thank you

  12. #12
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by shaneando View Post
    I think weight/size will be a wash, or maybe even slightly bigger. VR will add some weight, and the only telephoto lenses recently that have gotten lighter are the ones that have included fluorite elements, but then you are talking some serious price increases as well.
    The technology is there to make the lens quite a bit lighter, flourite elements are not the only reason for such weight drops as found in the current AF-S 400 / 2.8 E IF-ED VR compared to the AF-S 400 / 2.8 G IF-ED VR , The "old" model has only been around since August 07 and with the release of the new model in May 14 they managed to shave 820 g from it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by ASD14 View Post
    which would give better IQ and performance in lowlight and action sports.

    The new 80-400G VR or the 300F/4?? or are they going to be the same performance... IQ, Focus speed, etc etc.
    The 80 - 400 is known to be quite speedy with focus and "should" be more accurate with focus when using constant focus. The other factor is the body it is being used on. If you were to mount the lens on a D4/s you almost certainly notice faster focus than on a D7100 for example.

    Way back when I was looking for those focal lengths, I compared a Nikon 300 F/4 and a Sigma 100 - 300 F/4, the Sigma was noticeably faster than the Nikon and more accurate. The downside is that the Sigma is a positive lump to hand hold though.
    Last edited by I @ M; 13-10-2014 at 11:51am.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2011
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ASD14 View Post
    All very valid points guys.. Ok well forgetting about weight and size here for one minute, which would give better IQ and performance in lowlight and action sports.

    The new 80-400G VR or the 300F/4?? or are they going to be the same performance... IQ, Focus speed, etc etc.

    Thank you
    If 300mm focal length is enough and shutter speed is critical, then the prime will most likely be the better choice because it offers a full stop of additional light i.e. double the shutter speed.

    If you really need 400mm and intend to use the TC1.4 then the above can be dismissed and I'd say the nod would go to the 80-400. Bear in mind I've never used or held the 300 but there are comparisons of these two lenses at 400mm (300 f/4 with TC14) around on the net - the consensus seems to be that image quality is about the same, focus speed a little better on the zoom (being a much newer lens). My own experience with the 80-400 shooting in Africa on a D7100 is that the focus is very fast and accurate.

  14. #14
    Member
    Threadstarter
    ASD14's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No worries Shane, thanks for that.. Yeah ive been doing a lot of research, and it seems the 300mm F/4 is slightly sharper, but when paired with a X1.4tele, its not quite as good as the 80-400G.

    How did you find the IQ of the 80-400G + D7100 in Africa mate??? I run the same body, and shoot animals, not birds aswell.

    Cheers.
    Last edited by ASD14; 13-10-2014 at 5:51pm.

  15. #15
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,339
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ASD14 View Post
    No worries Shane, thanks for that.. Yeah ive been doing a lot of research, and it seems the 300mm F/4 is slightly sharper, but when paired with a X1.4tele, its not quite as good as the 80-400G.

    How did you find the IQ of the 80-400G + D7100 in Africa mate??? I run the same body, and shoot animals, not birds aswell.

    Cheers.
    I have the 300mm f4 and the TC14EII, and I can tell you that you will have to do some very serious pixel peeping to see any image degradation with the combo.
    Cheers
    Kev

    D600 : D7200 and too much stuff to list

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    13 May 2010
    Location
    Brisbane - South
    Posts
    120
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with Cage
    Cheers

    MajorPanic

  17. #17
    Ausphotography Addict feathers's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Oct 2013
    Location
    cooktown
    Posts
    6,259
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Buying the 300 f4 and TC this week myself,... after doing some research, think it should satisfy my needs and budget.

    Thanks for asking the question ASD14, and thanks for the answers everyone Cheers.

  18. #18
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,169
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The rumour mill is talking of an VR version of this Nikon classic lens in a few days time.
    Rumour probability is on the very high range of accuracy levels .. so you may want to wait a bit longer(if you can!).

    The rumour is even specific to the point where they 'fully name' the new lens too.

    Nikonrumours are calling it the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR the PF acronym being the odd man out here. Nikon haven't used this one before.
    They've recently used F in the lens naming, indicating Fluorite lenses .. but not PF.

    The E after the aperture listing indicates an electronically controlled aperture, so your camera has to support E type lenses.
    If you camera is fairly new/modern you will be fine.

    Nikon claims these cameras to be incompatible: D2 series, D1 series, D200, D100, D90, D80, D70 series, D3000, D60, D50, D40 series.


    If this impending new lens isn't what you want, then the other way you may benefit is that the current 300 F/4 lens may drop in price significantly as a consequence of the new lens.
    Run out sales(where dealers don't want to get stuck with old stock that will never sell .. etc)


    hope that helps.

  19. #19
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Maybe PF = pseudo flourite?

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    01 Jul 2012
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    397
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Looks to be pretty much the same size as a 24-70. Very interesting indeed...
    Cheers, Troy

    D800; AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G; AF-S 50mm 1.8G; SB-910; || 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM 'S'; APO Teleconverter 2x DG || Phantom 2; H32D Gimbal; 5.8Ghz FPV LCD GS

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •