< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon 100-300mm f/4 full frame lens patent

Nikon filed patent 201293548 in Japan for a Nikon 100-300mm f/4 full frame lens:

  • Patent release date: May 17th, 2012
  • Patent filing date: October 27th, 2010
  • Focal length: 102 - 294mm
  • Aperture: 4.1
  • Angle of view: 8.2 - 24.1 deg
  • Lens length: 282.43mm
  • Image height: 21.6mm
  • Lens design: 22 elements in 16 groups, 4 ED elements

FYI: few months ago Sigma discontinued their 100-300mm f/4 EX DG APO HSM lens.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses, Nikon Patents and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • quintana

    I love this focal length range. Already had the Sigma 100-300/4 but the performance could definitely have been better, especially above 200mm.

    IF the Nikon 100-300/4 really comes and the 300mm will be useful wide open I will definitely buy one, regardless if it has VR or not.

  • Chris

    Looks like not everybody did read all the specs. This is going to be a heavy and large lens (much bigger than 70-200 or 300/4). Further, although newly released lenses seem to outperform older lenses, it will be hard to beat the 300 f/4 due to much more glass added. Wished for a lens like this as well, but realised my dreams regarding size and weight where unrealistic. Hope they update the 300/4 soon.

    • Richard

      “Hope they update the 300/4 soon.”

      +1

      • plug

        +1

    • tony

      If they come out with this lens, they’ll probably do away with the 300mm f4 and just release a 400mm 5.6 or something and this could replace the 80-400mm also. Maybe not the second part but who knows. I don’t see why they would produce a 30mm f4 prime though when that lens is covered by this one. It’s the same as the 14-24mm 2.8 and the 14mm 2.8. No need for an upgrade to the prime since the zoom covers its focal length and has excellent performance.

      • Chris

        True. They already have pro lenses in that range that some (like me) can not justify or afford. 400/5.6 would be interesting, but for me 300/4 + TC 14 is more versatile. I personally do not want a heavier and longer lens. If I look at the construction image / glass elements, I wish they would make this lens extendable to reduce size while carrying around. An additional glass at the back would be nice too.

    • Jake

      Strange, they already have a 300/f4 AF-S.

      I’m more interested in a 180/f2.8 AF-S or maybe a 400/f3.5 AF-S or a dreamy 135/f2 AF-S.

      • iamlucky13

        I’m actually hoping for a 135mm F/2.8, without the defocus control.

        Nothing against that F/2 DC. It’s just out of my price range and pretty hefty.

        I’d love to have a simple, lightweight, and inexpensive telephoto prime for hiking with. Paired with a TC, it would be very flexible. I’ve got an old manual focus version, and it’s wonderfully light, but no AF, prone to flare, has a bit of chromatic aberration, and the demands of the days of dad’s shooting sports with 400 ASA film being relatively simple, not even as sharp as my 70-300.

        Unfortunately, I know a 135mm F/2.8 is probably one of the last lenses on Nikon’s radar.

        • Dr Motmot

          Didn’t Nikon recently take out a patent for a 135mm f1.8?

  • jon

    Interesting lens. Could be a great combo when paired with a teleconverter. My 80-400VR showing age and I do want a new version. Wonder how big & heavy a 100-300 would be and of course would it be under $2000?

    • iamlucky13

      Longer focal length than the 70-200, but smaller max F-number – I bet it will be about the same price and a similar weight.

      Based on past patents, you might ultimately have the luxury of choosing between the 80-400 replacement, or this 100-300.

  • Steve Jones

    This lens doesn’t make sense to me. They already have a 70-300 and 300 4.0. Why not a 100-400 4.0 0r a 150-500 4.0-5.6 Both seem more usable ranges to me

    • Mike

      200-400 f/4 is a $4000 lens. And huge. What do you think 100-400 f/4 lens would look like and cost? 70-300 is f5.6 at 300 btw. Not quite the same.

  • Vin

    If you shoot sports or wild life and; or weddings and fashion, location work or even parties this is a very universal lens. You can keep it on a camera around your neck or shoulder for a long time. For weddings or events where you are “the” photographer just throw on the fill flash for some good added light at distance, brighten up the faces. For sports & wild life you need the reach more 200-600mm so if you get there with TC or DX or both. Makes for good lens, even if you have a 2.8 on your mono-pod this still makes for a good lens on the run to where the action is.

  • Pablo Ricasso

    I used to use the tokina 100 – 300 f 4 and it was so good that I doubted the sigma lens to be any better. In any event, it was said to be better than the nikon 80- 200 on a 1.4x and I found it to match my good 300 f 4.5 ed. But the sigma kind of shredded the tokina, so now I have the tokina AND the sigma. Even so, I’m already rubbing my proverbial hands in anticipation of this new lens without fearing the potential loss of resale value of my existing arsenal.

    * Anybody wondering why someone would need or want a 300 f4 zoom has never used a 300 f4 zoom.

  • Per Laursen

    I used to use Nikkor 70-300 VR and Nikkor 400 f2,8 with and without TC´s. Now my needs are full-filled better and lighter with Sigma 120-300 f2,8 with or without TC´s reaching 600 mm f5,6 (tack sharp on f 7,1). Cant wait to use it on my new D800 – if it will ever arrive….

  • Pablo Ricasso

    And for what it’s worth, the sigma is so damn good that I thought they should tweak it so as to present a 150-450 f 5.6 constant aperature version. My belief it that it would be about the same size plus or minus an ounce and a centimeter or so. Compare the size of the sigma 70-200 2.8 and the 100-300f4 if you think otherwise. Of course, there is the newer 150-500 and I hear it isn’t as bad now that they have worked the bugs out of it, but it is variable aperature, being slower than 5.6 where I want to use it and said to be needing stopped down at the long end of the range. That and it is made with a lot of plastic and I HATE plastic zooms.

    But this IS the right direction for the company. Sigma led the market starting with their 21-35 zoom that no one had matched and more recently with their 12-24 that is still unmatched below 14mm , except by their own 8-16 in aps. The newish 14-24 essentially nullifies anything anybody even thought about producing and leaves me thinking that I don’t need to shoot 12 mm anyway. And then tokina offered a much cheaper only slightly inferior 16-28 for two fifths the price just when I thought the company would disappear permanently into obscurity…

    On the other end, sigma has also pioneered focal lengths that nobody has challenged. They resurrected the hand holdable 100 – 300 f4, supplemented it with three versions of the twice as heavy 120 – 300 f2.8, added a 300 – 800 f 5.6 that is said to rival most primes including those costing more, and then gave us a crazy 200- 500 f 2.8, just to be sure that everyone recognized the fact that you would be sporting a sigma sooner or later, whether they liked it or not. These lenses are all top quality. The 100-300 f4 is probably the most useable of all these and brings the level of quality to a price point where more people can afford it. I can’t believe that they discontinued it. I’m glad that nikon saw the need for this.

  • Sven78

    This would be perfekt for me; please be releasing this objektiv soon. I often take the pictures of the elk and other wild beasts. This would be a bigt solution with a tele-conversion maker.

  • Orb Emmel

    Man that’s gonna be heavy… Nice shorter cheaper alternative to the 200-400, I guess.

    Assuming the same quality as the 300 f/4, it’s going to be more expensive (in addition to heavier and bigger), so considering my needs and means, I’d rather see an updated 300mm f/4.

    Nice lens, though.

  • Gauthier

    Could be a very interesting lens if VR and a close focus around 1m, which would be well possible regarding the range covered. I am afraid the price, size and wheight would be much more than the 300 f4. And then that both would live together in the range of lenses: the fix 300 as low cost, and the new one as update.

  • Pablo Ricasso

    Per photozone, the sigma 100-300 and the nikon 300 afs both weigh 1440 grams. The sigma is 4 mm longer and 2 mm wider. It also uses an 82 filter like the old nikon 300 rather than a 77 like the new nikon 300. It is longer, but lighter than any of the nikon xx – 200 afs zooms and a bit heavier than the old 80 – 200 macro with the rotating front element. Cost of the sigma new was less than a used nikon 300 afs. The nikon 300 appears to have a small advantage when put on a converter AND STOPPED DOWN if someone is pixel peeping. Of course, zoom lenses generally aren’t at their best when maxed out or on a converter… Amazingly, the prime seems to exhibit no advantage when used wide open on a converter. The ability to back out with the zoom and my experiences with the tokina zooms caused me to choose the sigma over the nikon. It was also helpful that I found a used copy for half of what a used copy of the nikon 300 afs costs. The other option was to buy the older nikon 300 f4 for a little less than the sigma. It also has an 82 filter and IS about 100 grams lighter. However, the lens doesn’t have afs and the minimum focus distance is twice that of the sigma. I can’t find much about it now, but remember it being said to be not that great on converters. Ken Rockwell said he likes his on a 2x, but then again Ken Rockwell likes an 18-200…

    This is the order of lenses from my experience, starting with the weakest:
    cheap 70-300
    ——
    ——
    best 70-300/ nikon slow 75-300/probably nikon 300 f4.5 non ed
    nikon manual focus 100-300 f5.6
    tokina 100-300 f4 (4.4)/ nikon 300f4.5ed
    nikon 3oo f4/ sigma 100-300f4afs
    nikon 3oo f4afs
    —–
    —–
    —–
    the worst nikon 300 2.8 available
    the best nikon 300 2.8/probably the 300 f2
    nikon has eclipsed their primes in the past with zoom lenses and is continuing along that path. I sold my slower 35, 105, 135, and 200 ais primes a long time ago, but I did go back and buy one of those giant OLD ai converted 200 primes for something like 50 bucks as it is in a league of it’s own. To be fair, the ais 135 2.8 might stand up to a zoom but the 2.0 smokes it.
    This is a list of the few ai/ais lenses that have not yet been eclipsed by the zooms: 28 f2, 35 f 1.4, 85 f1.8, 105 f1.8, 135 f2, 180 f2.8, early 200 f4, 200f2, 300 f2, 300 f2.8, early 400 f5.6, 400 f3.5, the longer non mirror lenses, and, of course, the 13 f5.6. Of those, the 180 is there only barely and if I had access to a 200-400 lens I might have to delete the old 200 f4 and 400 f5.6. Note also that I didn’t include the 85 f1.4.
    Until recently I would have included all the primes between 15 and 24 as they are excellent lenses. Of course, many lenses no longer on the list are quite practical when considering size, weight, color, filter size, close focus ability, cost, durability and other factors. For example, the 15 mm is completely rectilinear while the 14-24 is not even close. Some of the primes not on the list may have better contrast than the zooms at f2.8 and might be a little better in the corners. But if you’re looking in the middle of the picture and shooting at a reasonable aperature the zooms generally blow the lesser primes away and it is much easier to carry a few zooms than a case full of primes. I have no doubt that if sigma could make a zoom that is consistently within a hair of the nikon then nikon could make one that is just a hair better. Nikon should continue to extend the range of their zooms and then make an inexpensive prime beyond that, at 400 or 500 mm. The standard now is the 14 – 24, 24 – 70, and 70 – 200, but one could switch to the longer lens and carry an 85 or skip that length. Similarly, they could substitute a small prime for the 14-24. They are extremely useful lenses.

  • Back to top