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

[TheLost]

I posted this info in another thread.. but i thought i'd bring it into its own..

WOW... this lens looks to be more then i expected!!

Weight: 1.6lb
Length: 5.8"
VR (4.5 stops)
Modern AF system (hopefully speed)

For comparison:
Old 300 f/4
Weight: 3.2lb
Length: 8.8"
No VR

70-200 f/4 (newish model)
Weight: 1.9lb
Length: 7"
(Same VR?)

70-200 f/2.8 VR2
Weight: 3.3lb
Length: 8.7"
Older VR

I cant wait to see the reviews of this new 300mm f/4!!

 

[Braineack]

The size/weight alone is pretty awesome; doesn't even require a collar. Could easily get this into venues that don't allow "pro" lenses longer than 8".

 

[ruifo]

A very promising and tempting lens...
I'm interested and hoping for a better price on refurbished and used options, in the future.

 

[jsecordphoto]

Yeah pretty excited to see some reviews on this thing...so light and small! Curious to see how it will work with TCs too

 

[ruifo]

Here's more comparatives between the old 300 f4 and the new one:
The new Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens vs. the old Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED version | Nikon Rumors

Question: does it come with a tripod collar, or we'd need to buy it separately?

 

[Braineack]

separate.

 

[D-B-J]

For 2k? No way. That's excessive. I'll save and get a sigma 120-300 2.8 before I spend 2k on a 300 f4...

 

[Braineack]

isn't that $3600?

the MTF charts suggest the 300 f/4 is much better at 300mm than the Sigma 120-300 2.8.


300 f/4:

sigma 120-300 2.8:

Sigma appears to have better bokeh qualities.

 

[JTPhotography]

I don't get this lens and why it would be attractive to someone at that price.

 

[photoguy99]

That's.. really short.

 

[ruifo]

separate.

Tks for the reply.
So that makes it even more expensive than the current $2K price...

 

[photoguy99]

It's clearly a bit of a specialist lens. It's a completely badass design, for people who want 300mm is an insanely small package.

 

[astroNikon]

The size/weight alone is pretty awesome; doesn't even require a collar. Could easily get this into venues that don't allow "pro" lenses longer than 8".

yeah my 300/4 is kinda a tank. This new lens looks to be a lightweight plasticy high quality replacement. Interesting on the VR stops improvement

 

[TheLost]

It all will come down to quality..

Having owned Sigmas 70-200 f/2.8's (OS & non-OS HMSII) i find Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8's better (sharper, better build quality, more reliable focus).. For me, its worth spending $2,400 vs. $1200 fo rthe sigma.

If the 300m f/4 lives up to the quality of Nikon's latest lenses... This could be an AMAZING daytime field sports lens for people like me.

I don't get this lens and why it would be attractive to someone at that price.

Your absolutly right.. for example, I don't need a $1900 Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 so i don't see why anybody else would need one either!!!! Nikon should just make Lenses that i alone NEED!!!

 

[Braineack]

separate.

Tks for the reply.
So that makes it even more expensive than the current $2K price...

but will you need it? it's about the same size as the 24-70 but lighter.