Finally: Nikon rumored to announce a new Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4 FL VR lens

Pictured: the current Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED lens

Pictured: the current Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED lens

Nikon will soon introduce the long rumored AF-S Nikkor 300/4 VR lens with Nano and fluorine coating. The new lens is expected to be very lightweight and will replace the current AF-S model ($1,369). Nikon has already filed at least two different patents for a 300mm f/4 lens - in 2012 and in 2013. Those are the rumored basic specifications:

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • pegdrgr

    YAY! I knew I sold mine 2 years ago for a reason!

    • Steve Perry

      LOL – I did the same thing

      • 6Tron

        Me too !

        I sold mine 2 month ago.

        • Erics

          To each his ow.n. I am glad I bought one of the ones you guys sold! The VR version will be heavier and more expensive.

          • Eric Calabros

            More expensive yes, but heavier No. Both because of that flourite thing

            • Spy Black

              This may actually raise the price of used D models because the G model will be that much more expensive, making the D model a more desirable option.

            • rt-photography

              I think the opposite. I think mny will dump theirs and there will be mpre who want the vr. But first im buy that tamron 15-30 2.8 VC then a 85 1.4 sigma or tanron will do then a 300.

            • Jason Joyce

              It says the lens has fluorine coating, not a fluorite lens element. No weight savings…

            • neversink

              The lens will have flourine coating, but not fluorite glass according to this post, and fluorite glass would make it much more expensive. Two different things. So the lens won’t be lighter because of the glass but perhaps they will use more carbon or plastic in the housing.
              I do hope to see fluorite glass on a 2.8 version, though. That would be perfect. Also more expensive!!!

          • prx

            Heavier or not the most important for me is to have th VR. My 300mm f/4 got stolen last year and I am waiting this replacement for so long time…

            • Robert King

              Exactly…..VR! Bring it on! This is going to be a great lens: Crazy sharp, close-focusing and finally with stabilizing VR! This thing is going to be worth every penny I think. I have been anxious for this for the last 5-6 years at least.

    • Andrew

      You sold yours 2 years ago? Boy that is so off the mark, that is terrible timing 😉 You might as well have held on to it and taken maybe a $200 additional depreciation unless you’ve no need for it.

      • pegdrgr

        I sold mine for $25 more than I paid for it, so it was fine. Selling it now likely would have resulted in a significant hit, although if I had I wouldn’t care, $100 a year is cheap for a lens that good. I ended up with the current 80-400 and haven’t missed the 300 at all. It is a great lens, but VR is something that interests me on my big lenses. The question for me now is do I justify the new 300.

        • neversink

          Here is my rule for buying new equipment. If I need it for a shoot for a client, then I buy the equipment. Otherwise I continue to lust.

          • pegdrgr

            I am my only client, so by definition I NEED everything that is shiny and new, and I get to buy it.

            • neversink

              That’s quite funny…. So I hope you pay yourself well!!!

            • pegdrgr

              I can’t afford to pay myself, I spend all my money on shiny toys!

            • neversink

              At least you are enjoying your toys…

    • Cajetan Barretto

      2 years ago? That means you were not taking any pictures for 2 years, and have to wait another 1 year before you can call yourself a photographer. I hope it was worth it.
      🙂

      • pegdrgr

        The worst part is i held my breath the entire time too! I can’t be a photographer, Nikon hates me and won’t release the only camera capable of making me a photographer, the D400SeX.

        • neversink

          I hope you are being cynically sarcastic!!!!!!!

          • pegdrgr

            Me be sarcastic? NEVER!

  • Peter

    Long time overdue

  • Plug

    Sounds good, especially with the fluorine coating. I hope it is not DO that makes it lightweight as that might likely impinge on image quality given Canon’s experience there.

    • whisky

      if DO, it would likely drive the price too high. given the target market, i suspect Nikon will want to keep it at or below the 80-400mm G VR. JMO.

      • Plug

        Yes. I can imagine that many DX users would be interested as well as FX people and that would need a sensible price.

  • doge

    $2500+

    • Plug

      That would be good value for a top quality instrument, I hope you are right.

      • drpeters

        If it was top quality, it would be f/2.8 not f/4. I don’t see it being $2500+ which would be almost double the price of the lens it is replacing.

        • Danzig

          How could it be 2.8 when there already is a 2.8?! The whole idea is that it’s an F/4, the 2.8 is heavier and costs $3500 more.

          • drpeters

            I never said this f/4 lens would be a f/2.8 lens, I was referring to the “top quality” comment. This lens would be “mid quality”, which if compared to other manufacturers, could indeed be called “top quality”! 😛

            • Danzig

              Gotcha, however, I don’t think top quality necessarily correlates with max aperture. A good example is DO lenses. This lens will have new flourine coatings and new VR so 🙂

            • drpeters

              Top quality DOES correspond with aperture. Ask any professional. Since the new VR and fluorine coatings weren’t available when the last iteration of pro (f/2.8) lens was made, then obviously it doesn’t have it, but that is not an argument for this lens being better quality. It just has some of the latest bells and whistles.

              Would you argue that the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII lens is “top quality” compared to the 70-200MM f/2.8 VRI because it has an updated VR system? No, you wouldn’t.

            • Danzig

              Professional is a complex notion based on many factors, aperture is just one of them. You cannot compare the 18-200 with a 70-200, different audience, difference FLs, difference systems (FX vs. DX). The 16-35 is a professional lens and many professionals use it, yet it’s F/4. Deciding what’s professional and what’s not is not up to you.

            • peter w

              addition
              Just consider PC-E Nikkors. And the micro lenses.

              Not extremely fast, those.

              That being said, the present 300 F4 is not as good in the edges as the version 500 F4 from the same era. I have no experience with 300 F2,8. However, the 300 F4 is close to ‘best of the rest’.

            • kotozafy

              Top quality does correspond with fast aperture, by the aperture does not make the quality of the lens. Top quality cars have big engines, but big engines do not make the quality of the cars. Making top quality fast lens is a decision of the manufacturer. There is no optical law that makes faster lens better ones.

            • Aaron J. Heiner

              IDK about that, I think we have diverging ideas of the definition of the term top quality.

              Top quality means quality, a fast aperture is not a sign of quality, it’s a sign of performance. Show me the reliability and up time of a Porsche 911 and I’ll show you a 1999 Honda Acocrd with 290k that has never had anything done to it minus routine service. Yeah, the 911 may smoke the Accord in any performance category, that doesn’t mean it any better in quality, build, or reliability.

            • kotozafy

              What I said is that there is no physical or optical law turning fast lens into a “high quality” lens and slower lens a poorer quality lens.

              When a manufacturer make an expensive fast lens, they also ADD the highest quality to it. This is STRATEGICAL DECISION, because no one would buy a heavy, expensive and crappy fast lens. When they make a slower lens, say, targetted to consumer/prosumer public, they also decide in some manner to “reduce” the quality in order to reduce the cost (example, no nano, fewer ED glasses, weaker build, …)

              So, the relation observed between lens speed (or car engine) and “quality” is not an intrinsic result of any physical or optical law of nature, as the one who initiated this debate seems to believe, but the result of strategical choices.

              To conclude, YES, it is technically possible to produce a “top quality” F4 lens (or a top quality car with a small engine)

            • JosengSisiw1

              Maybe people here are talking of grade…you can have a high quality low grade F4 lens with same quality of high grade F2.8 lens.

            • kotozafy

              Why a F4 cannot be a top quality lens ? In my opinion, it is technically much easier to make a top quality F4 than a mid quality 2.8. The reason why F4 are not top quality is the price positionning. A top quality F4 would be too expensive for the target public.

        • Plug

          Quality is not a function of maximum aperture. The extra cost that I imagine comes from DO, VR and the fluorine coating.

          • drpeters

            Ah, but you see, it really is a function of maximum aperture. If you want the highest quality build, you go with f/2.8 telephoto lenses, not f/4 or variable aperture.

            • Plug

              In the sense that manufacturers make that decision, yes, but it doesn’t have to be so.

            • drpeters

              There is a reason manufacturers make that decision. Professional shooters want 1) the best aperture and 2) the most durable construction.

            • fjfjjj

              The “best” aperture isn’t always the largest one. The most durable lens isn’t always the right one for the job. Professional means you make judgements based on complex criteria. Prosumer means you make sweeping statements based on imaginary criteria and call yourself a professional in forums.

            • fjfjjj

              If you keep saying it, maybe it will become true. In the mean time, my Zeiss 35/2 is better quality than my Zeiss 35/1.4.

            • Kyle Medina

              So wrong on so many levels. But on variable you are right. Also are you calling the 600mm not high quality because its an f4? People only want the 2.8 the increase of background compression. Its the quality of glass that makes the lens great, not the aperture size.

            • Along with the quality of glass, aperture size and durability and price. (The last one is my opinion though)

        • i would disagree with you that quality of a lens is dictated solely by the widest aperture…. I don’t find the 24-70 to be better than the 24-120 and I also think the 500 and 600 f/4 are amazing pieces of glass. IF they were top quality in your world they would be 2.8 as well i guess…but why stop there? Why isn’t the 400 2.8 an f 2 like the 200/2 which is an amazing lens…then that lens would be top quality. It’s not that i don’t understand what you are saying as a concept – fast lenses are usually better but to say that it’s not top quality seems to be a step too far in that correlation

          • drpeters

            There are things such as size, weight and cost that are real world limiting factors. Else, we would all be slinging f/1.2 lenses of every focal length!

            I’m not disputing that f/4 lenses are nice. But when you compare two lenses of the same focal lengths with one being f/4 and the other f/2.8, the bigger aperture lens will win out when it comes to build quality.

            • Samuel I Beard Jr

              No, the build quality of the lens isn’t necessarily related to the aperture size! The build quality–how well the lens is put together and the materials used in that construction–is irrelevant to aperture. Now, the IMAGE quality MAY be different, but that’s debatable and variable, depending on what is being compared. The existing 300 f4 lens is VERY nice, sharp, with excellent build quality AND image quality. By all accounts, it’s a superb instrument that would rate as top quality to many people. Is it the same as the 300 f2.8? Of course not! Is it pretty darn close in IQ, and possibly better in some areas? Probably for the former and maybe for the latter. I’m not sure about that as I’ve never had the occasion to compare the two lenses. But don’t confuse IQ with build quality and materials quality: two VERY different things.

            • drpeters

              Believe me, there is no confusion in my mind. Pro lenses get the highest build quality, just as pro bodies get the highest build quality. You are comparing apples to ducks. Can you show me one example of an an f/4 lens having a higher build quality than an f/2.8?

              Lenses with max aperture of f/4 have excellent build quality, and are certainly better than variable aperture and kit lenses, but they are not built to the quality of f/2.8 lenses. Are you suggesting that Nikon builds these lenses in the same fashion and then just arbitrarily marks the f/2.8 lenses as more expensive?

            • Samuel I Beard Jr

              But there IS confusion in your mind. I’m NOT comparing apples to ducks, as many others here have tried to point out, as well. The type and quality of the glass that goes into an f2.8 lens is quite different than that going into an f4 lens, even one as nice as the 300 f4. However, with the exception of the glass, the 300 f4 IS built as nicely as the f2.8 lens. But the size and type of the glass, and the subsequent motors necessary to drive those larger glass elements, are what differentiate between the two lenses, NOT the metal used in their construction.

              Nothing about the f2.8 lenses is arbitrary, and I never said or intimated as much. However, as stated by myself and others, the BUILD quality of the lenses–the metal and plastic used, the quality of the motors inside, the quality of the parts inside holding all those other parts together–is almost definitely the same as that in the f4 lenses, with the exception of the motors necessary to drive the larger elements of glass. Also, in something like the new 600 and 800 lenses with their Fluorite glass, the glass itself is of a better quality. However, IIRC, there isn’t anything special about the glass in the 300 f2.8 as compared to the 300 f4, other than size.

            • drpeters

              I’m confused, you are arguing with me yet agreeing with me. May I quote you?

              “…is almost definitely the same…”

            • Samuel I Beard Jr

              What’s the problem? YOU say that the build quality of an f4 lens is vastly different than that of an f2.8 lens, while *I* say that it’s NOT all that different. I said “almost definitely the same” because I don’t know FOR CERTAIN that the materials used in both lenses, outside of the glass and probably the motors required to move those larger glass elements, is the same between an f2.8 lens and an f4 lens. However, they sure do seem to be the same! There MAY be some IQ differences between them, but I’d bet you’d be hard pressed to determine which image was shot with an f4 and which with an f2.8, if they were both shot at the same aperture, even if you were to pixel peep.

              Also, YOU are saying that no professionals would be caught dead with an f4 lens. However, I could point you to any number of pros that use what works best for the given situation at the best price, with price involving a WHOLE lot of different things, particularly for different pros. There’s a guy that posts quite often on the DPReview forums who shoots magazine spreads, including covers for fashion magazines, and he uses the 24-120 f4 ALL the time! In fact, he is quite often praising the qualities of this lens! I’m sure there are quite a few other examples, as well.

            • drpeters

              I’m not saying the f/4 lenses suck. You are putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly stated that they are excellent lenses, with lower build quality than f/2.8. I’m sure the 24-120mm f/4 produces great, sharp images, as does the 70-200mm f/4. But they aren’t made with the same build quality as their f/2.8 counterparts.

              You have yet to provide an example to the contrary.

            • Samuel I Beard Jr

              Talk about putting words into someone’s mouth! NO WHERE did I say you said f4 lenses suck. What I DID say is that you said they’re not top quality, and yet there are pros using them all the time. I also said that the build quality is the same as f2.8 lenses, outside of glass and the motors to drive the glass.

            • drpeters

              You: “Also, YOU are saying that no professionals would be caught dead with an f4 lens.”

              I interpreted that as being the same as them sucking. We both used dramatic words to interpret what the other had said. We are both guilty of passion for the topic.

            • fjfjjj

              Size, weight and cost are not the reasons we don’t carry f/1.2 lenses. Even if they were small, light and cheap, we would carry slower lenses because they would optically outperform the faster lenses at the apertures people actually use. Go read some optical design, Doctor.

        • winblozTenpin

          what would you do with a 2.8? When you are shooting 300mm+ (+1.7x adaptor) your DOF is too small.
          2.8 would be a waste of money tbh unless you are one of thsoe people who just splash the cash because you think statistics matter.

          • drpeters

            I promise you that people who buy professional lenses do not do so for statistical reasons. f/2.8 has plenty of focus area, if you know how to use it.

        • neversink

          This discussion is infuriating!!! I now use the 16-35mm over the 17-35 with a wider aperture, but prefer the 14-24 or the 24 f/1.4 as my faves in that range. The only reason I use the 16-35 is that for the after being repaired by Nikon twice, my 17-35 got stuck at F/2.8 and I can’t stop the diaphragm down. And i don’t feel like sending it out from Africa. This is the first time Nikon has messed up a repair for me. This is why I wish third-party repair service shops like Marty Forscher were still in business!!!!!!

          • drpeters

            I am fortunate to have not had such a service problem, though I don’t see what bearing your thoughts have on the topic at hand.

            • Samuel I Beard Jr

              I believe he’s intimating that his 17-35 f2.8 lens isn’t “top quality”, as you would have us believe, simply because it’s an f2.8 lens, as evidenced by the repair issues. Now, he has a “top quality” Nikkor 17-35 f2.8 lens that is perpetually stuck at f2.8.

            • drpeters

              It is either a lemon, or a botched repair job, but not in the slightest an indication of the build quality of the entire line of 17-35 lenses.

            • Samuel I Beard Jr

              Perhaps. But it doesn’t look too good on it, either!

              In any case, the point that you are completely discounting is that f4 lenses have the SAME build quality, outside of the glass elements and the motors necessary to drive those larger glass elements, as the f2.8 lenses. Look at pretty much ANY review of the 300 f4, the 70-200 f4, and other similar lenses, and not ONCE will you see any mention that the lenses are constructed or poorer quality materials. They all talk of the metal construction and the high-quality plastics used, and when one has it, the seal at the mount, as well as the other seals scattered throughout. Granted, not ALL f4 lenses have these weather/dust seals, and one could argue THAT difference, if all f2.8 lenses had them. However, I’m not sure that’s the case, either.

              Bottom line: the metals and plastics, as well as internal elements OUTSIDE of the glass and motors, of the f4 lenses are most likely the same high quality as those of the f2.8 lenses. The glass and the motors are different, but that in and of itself doesn’t mean the f4 lenses are not also top quality lenses.

              And with that, I’m done. You have your ideas and absolutely refuse to believe anything else, probably because it helps you to justify buying f2.8 glass. If that’s what you need and it makes you happy, and you can afford to do so, then by all means, buy the f2.8 glass. I’ll buy what works best for me, and that means what fits within my budget as well as suits my needs. I happen to have two f2.8 lenses now, and am looking at a third, standard zoom lens. But I don’t have to believe the build quality of those f2.8 lenses is any better than a similar f4 lens, were there one.

            • drpeters

              I’ve seen you repeatedly mention points that reinforce my case, but since you’re done, you’re done.

              I’ve always said that the most important element in creating a photograph is the photographer. It doesn’t matter what camera or lens is being used if the shooter knows what he is doing.

              I’m just being nitpicky on this point of lens build, and you’ve been picking nits right back. 😀

              Have a nice life, and keep on shooting!

        • Robert King

          Make no mistake…..the current 300 f4 AFS Nikkor IS top quality. IMO, the images it takes are every bit as professional as the 2.8…excepting maybe a bit of bokeh it gives up.. Many pros have this lens in their stable. The upgrade of this lens to a VRII will be very exciting. The 300 2.i8’s have one big problem…..WEIGHT! They also do not focus nearly as close as the 300 f4 AFS does. Couple that with the fact that you can screw a Canon 500D into the front of the lens and you have a super close-up lens, because it is very, very sharp and you are a considerable distance from the living subject.
          It this lens does come out….I am buying it, regardless of price.

          • drpeters

            Methinks Nikon uses plastic in lens construction for the most part these days. The time of metal barreled lenses that doubled as a weapon are over. The issues you bring up do indeed sound exciting, but do not address the issue of build quality. It is not the easiest thing to search for online. Believe me, I’ve tried!

            • Robert King

              I have the 80-400 AFS G and it has considerable plastic components in at least the outside of the lens barrel. However those who own it make no mention that it is a cheaply built lens….with the exception of the lens collar (no surprise there), and BTW Canon’s answer to this Nikon lens, their new (very recent) 100-400 f5.6 also has a lens collar with cheapness equal to Nikon’s, but Canon’s is not even removable; mine is.

              Though I may be naive, I like to think that Nikon, with so many lenses with plastic in the barrels, is leading the way in the evolution of lenses toward plastic construction without sacrifice of quality. It is inevitable. Future cars are going to be made of plastics.

              I am not an engineer, rather a wildlife biologist (which I would much, much rather be; i.e. I absolutely love nature!!!! 🙂 :))….so regarding these lenses, I am just making guesses based on buying nothing but Nikon since about 1984.

              Nikon still rocks! The new 800 FL 5.6 Nikkor is the sharpest super telephoto lens on the planet now….literally. Don’t believe it? It is true. Check out the MTF chart of this lens. It will shock you. Look at owner comments if you can find the few that are out there. Move over Canon. Once all four of the new big gun Nikkors super telephoto Nikkors are revealed to the world, Canon will not longer have bragging rights to sharper big guns than Nikon. Nope! This is just around the corner….and I just love that! I will find a way to buy one of these newest Nikkors. The truck will have to rust a few more years. Oh yeah!

              BTW….may we substitute the word “composites” for “plastics”?

              I would guess that the barrels of Nikon’s really big guns are still made of magnesium alloy, rather than plastic. And that may lend credibility to my guess (I do not know) that Nikon builds with composites primarily for the reasons of shedding weight; i.e. their engineers have determined that for physical strength, they just cannot justify the use of composites in these massive pieces…..yet; but even this is eventually coming.

              Ok, I know I am somewhat naive; i.e. a big reason for the composites is the lower construction costs. A bunch of lenses made of composites is a big savings over the same lenses made with magnesium alloy.

              Last, your point is valid and my ramblings over it has caused me to rethink my claim that this new 300 f4 AFS is going to be all mag alloy. Considering that it is one of the less massive lenses in the first place….I’ll bet you are right on this one; it is going to be made of composites.

              Robert King
              http://itsaboutnature.net

            • drpeters

              After replying to your last message I did some more searching and found nothing. I read one of Nikon’s lens brochures and searched around on their site but still came up empty handed.

              I would also add that my comments only apply to lenses where there is an f/2.8 and f/x of the same focal length.

              I’m not knocking on the 800mm f/5.6. Man, could you imagine how freaking HUGE an 800mm f/2.8 would be?!??!?!?

              I’m a wedding/event/portraiture shooter, and my longest lens is the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRii. If I need a little extra zoom in a large reception room I can hit one of the function buttons and twiddle a knob on one of my D800 bodies and get a 15 megapixel image at 300mm. 😀

            • Robert King

              Yes, that is an exciting technique that comes in handy and is one of the big advantages of having that 15 mpx DX mode. Right now my D610’s 25 mpx’s allow me to crop to get more reach out of the long end of this 80-400. I’ve decided to hold back for now on a D810 purchase. But it is coming and then I will be cropping that larger file as well….for more “reach”.

              I differ with you on that; i.e. the 300 f4 is a professional lens. I have owned three 300 2.8 Nikkors and about 5 300 f4 Nikkors, two of which were the AFS versions (the lens we are talking about right now.). The 300 f4 AFS Nikkors I had are virtually as sharp as any of the 2.8 Nikkor’s I had. In fact, other than for bokeh, I could not tell any difference in the quality (sharpness) of the image and that is when cropped all the way to 100%. Again, it is a professional lens and there are many pros who have it in their bag.

            • drpeters

              The 300 f/4 is an advanced hobbyist lens. The f/2.8 version is a pro lens. At no point in this thread have I talked about image quality or sharpness. Just build quality. Heck, the D300 camera body was an advanced amateur body and I know plenty of professionals that used it, but the build quality was inferior to the D3 which came out at the same time. Yes, the D300 had a great build quality, but the D3 was simply better. Same for the f/4 and f/2.8 lenses.

            • Robert King

              I am weary of this forum. I do not want to debate this stuff. In the end, it really makes no difference in my life.

              But I can’t wait to see this new lens 🙂

              Honestly, no rudeness intended….. but I am going to block any more mail coming in to me regarding this.

              I hope you have a nice evening drpeters.

            • drpeters

              I don’t have disqus set to send emails, so I’m not pestered by such things. 😀

              I love it when new lenses come out, whether they are ones I will use or not.

              No worries, I’m not thinking your actions are rude. Have a good new year!

    • Brian

      $2200

      • AM I Am

        It shouldn’t be over $2,000 without the tripod collar.

  • outkasted

    WTF? Tripod Collar sold separately! I mean really Nikon!

    • Plug

      Kirk will make a much better one, so no problem.

    • Maji

      yes, sold separately. So what?

      • Antonio

        So what?…well…if the new lens weights at least the same as the present model (1440 grs, but it will be probably more) it will not be advisable to use the body to support it on a tripod as it will force the mount to much…otherwise it wouldn’t be understandable why Nikon instructions warn not to do so with 70-200 F:2.8 VR II…
        And if you are supposed to use it, why should it be sold separately? Of course it is not impossible, but…

        • kotozafy

          A display sample does not need a tripod collar 🙂

        • Maji

          I am glad that Nikon keeps that dongle price separate. That way, I can buy a foot from another manufacturer and not double up. If Nikon included that foot in the base price, they would have charged higher and I for one, don’t want to pay for it. So, in my opinion, Nikon is doing the right thing. Also, if one is going to shoot it hand held (with VR, there is a good chance), then maybe why pay for the foot at all. Thus, a la carte pricing is better.

          • Antonio

            I can agree with that but Nikon’s track record shows that they sell lenses with a collar when weight recommends it on a tripod.
            As a matter of fact the collar of my 70-200 VR II spends most of the time in the bag when I don’t need to use the tripod or a shoulder strap for a long interval of time as it is not the best thing to force the camera mount.
            Ok, that’s included in the price and makes it higher as Nikon is not known for selling cheap accessories. If you require a third part piece you will have an extra expense that’s a fact but as you can see a manufacturer can get a lot of criticism just because a rumor says it will be an optional.

            • Maji

              I think the criticism are from people who are bent on criticizing Nikon. Just see the record of some of the posters here, no matter what, they will criticize Nikon. Most importantly, one cannot make everyone happy all the time, there is an Aesop’s Fable to this regard. So, I am glad that Nikon is offering these items a la carte.

            • Scott M.

              Your 70-200mm VRII collar doesn’t come off. Unless you mean the f/4 version?

            • Antonio

              Yes you’re right if you refer to the collar itself but you certainly got that I used the word as a simplified way to refer to the two pieces set to support the lens on a tripod (the collar itself plus the foot, and this is the one that goes in and out for weight and ease of use reasons).

            • Scott M.

              Sure. My foot stays in the bag as well. I wish the whole collar did come off.

        • what makes you think it would be heavier – every long lens for the last few years has been significantly lighter

          • Antonio

            I don’t know if it will be heavier or not but with present model at 1440 gr it will be difficult to see a reduction that puts it in the weight area where Nikon considers the collar as an option, but if so and there is no problem for the body to support the weight we’ll have a no issue to criticize them for the lack of a collar in the box.

      • outkasted

        Why? Because I should have the minimum. That’s why. If I choose to get otherwise.. then so be it. Viva la Sigma!

    • rt-photography

      yep, exactly what I said. selling a telephoto with no tripod collar.

      what a cheesy move.

      • santarock

        thats NIKON better buy TammyOR Siggy

        • rt-photography

          you bet your ass. I can get the tammy 300 or the siggy 2.8 for not much more than the nikon 300 f/4 used. I can even find the tokina 2.8 for less and its 2.8 and excellent performer.

          waiting to get the tamron 15-30. looks better than the 14-24 AFS.

          • ss

            lol this guy, what makes it “look better” than one of the most highly regarded lenses of all-time?

            • Eric Calabros

              Maybe its look looks better 😉

            • Maji

              reading many posts by this rt filly, it appears that she bears a grudge against Nikon.

          • drpeters

            By all means get an off-brand that will back-focus on days that end in ‘Y’ and need servicing every time a client sneezes.

            Nikkor lenses all the way!

            • Kynikos

              Ah.
              Nikkor-flavoured Kool-Aid.

            • Eric Calabros

              or just Experience

            • Kynikos

              Any ‘experience’ with…
              Tokina 16-28
              Sigma Arts or 120-300
              Tamron 90 Macro
              Zeiss…anything?

            • drpeters

              Tastes better than the saccharin sweetened offerings of other brands.

          • Antonio

            “the tamron 15-30. looks better than the 14-24 AFS” – surprising conclusion at this point in time as shipping will only start 5 days from now.
            And do you also find it nicer or just…better?

            • rt-photography

              wait and see. MTF shows it better and im certain it is. well see. make a wager? $100?

              get one nice and crisp ready. you have paypal? if not western union will suffice.

              BTW you have the 14-24?

            • Antonio

              No. I used it but when the 16-35 came out I got this one because it meets my needs better (weight, use of filters, flare and VR against speed, wider focal and optics quality of 14-24).
              The reason for my previous comment is that I find it rather difficult to judge a lens that it is not in the market yet to compare it to one of the best wide zooms and say it’s better just based on charts.

            • rt-photography

              price $1100 or less. they probably will break the market with it at $1000.

              and like other lenses they put out recently
              24-70
              70-200
              150-600

              this one will be a out of the park for sure. wait and see.my comment about it being better than the 14-24 is because of my intuition (relevant for me only), the MTF chart and tamrons comment saying they are not going to meet it but beat it.

              and I have a strong feeling it will true. just like sigma said about the 50 ART which stands toe to toe with the zeiss 55 otus and for $3000 less and AF. so its possible.

              every single ART lens sigma has put out, beats any lens from nikon canon or sony.

              the OEM are sweating. there is heavy pressure on them from 3rd party mfr. and not only lenses. flashes grips batteries all steal a huge chunk of their sales.

              my $100 wager is still open.

            • neversink

              rt – once again you speak nonsense. everything you said in this post is just a stream of prevarication. Enjoy your junk third-party lenses and be a victim if you choose….

            • rt-photography

              Alwaysstink I see my posts bother you so I will keep posting just so you can grt pissed off 🙂

            • neversink

              No – you flatter yourself…. Your posts don’t bother me. I’m just surprised that you really enjoy spouting nonsense about photography – a profession and art you obviously know nothing about.

            • rt-photography

              sure thing 😉 W H A T E V E R you think as long as I can keep pissing you off.

            • neversink

              You don’t piss me off. I wouldn’t lower myself….. However. You are obviously a troll for Sigma crap lenses…. But you come here with fake facts and pretend you are an expert, and then you destroy any intelligent conversation on this site with your ubiquitous presence and never-ending nonsense and your nasty responses…

            • rt-photography

              See how you make an ass of yourself when u assume?

              Hell no am I sigma lover. Im very hesitant to buy sigma because of their qc and aff accuracy issues/camera compatabilities . I started out with all ex lenses years back because i saw nikons price tags and said “no way is the nikon worth 50% more” then i bought my first two nikon lenses 80-200 afs and 85 1.4 ais. Wow was i in for a shock. I sold all my sigma gear one by one and moved to nikon. Then, they were elite. today ,theyre overpriced and riddled with problems. Especially build. If anyone ever owned an 85 1.4 ais or D then that person knows that compared to today theyre just not the same. The name nikon tough was a known slogan. Today its “ah.. another problem..what now?”

              Sigma is kicking ass. And so is tamron. So im no brand loyalist at all. I used to be a hardcore fanboy like you but i dont really care who offers great gear at great prices. Nikon is low on that list today. Maybe they can chnage and bring back that spark to me and many other who see nikons rep tarnished. Their greed is Very clear

            • rt-photography

              yes, thank you. ill enjoy my junk 😉 you want tweezers for yours? love to see that you get all worked up about a strangers posts.

          • neversink

            you have no idea what you are talking about “rt-photography,” or should I say, our old nemesis “robert.”

            • rt-photography

              I have no idea who your nemisis is but if people here are your nemesis, then you are taking things way to hard. you get so worked up from posts on the internet..I wonder how it is at your home..

            • neversink

              Home life is pretty good. Thanks.

      • Heritage Imaging

        Cheesy is not replacing the AF-S for 15 years to match the old Canon VR. Some day people will realize a lot of customers are dead and buried in that time frame. Or is Nikon’s customer base 16 years old?

        • rt-photography

          the lens is still stellar. its also not a great sellar. so its not priority for them. and besides the vast majority will buy one of the tamron or sigma superzoom tele instead of this. people want convenience more than extreme levels of IQ. for most, those super zoom teles are more than enough for people. people are lazy and prefer to zoom then walk to get their composition. most who use a 300 are shooting wildlife and dont have the means to walk around to get the shot. they simply zoom, click and are done. better to tget the image and lose a tiny bit of IQ then not.

          and thats why nikon hasnt updated it. and besides, with FF and excellent high iso performance VR isnt as useful as it once would have been. so you now see why you waited so long. for me picking up another 300 F4 AFD is just amazing. its performance is very sharp even with the 1.4x on it.

          • justintime

            What came 1st the chicken or the egg?
            Current 300mm may not be a seller because it lacks VR.
            I May still have kept my D800 if there had been 300 f4.0 VR available earlier this year.

            • rt-photography

              I dont know what came first but theyre both yummy and I need protein for my bodybuilding so bring both when you come over 😉

              you can get a D800 for damn cheap today. 1500bucks with 10000 clickies..

              hope you sold for more than that.

          • neversink

            rt – and you’ve been to Africa???? – because Illive in Africa and that is not how those tours work unless of course you are taking the cheap cheap tours…. And then again, you can do your own tours at your own risk. Africa is more than the Mara during migration season.

            • rt-photography

              Yes i was more than 9 years ago.

            • rt-photography

              We werent allowed to go far from the bus and the guide told us when it was on ok. Of course you can go by yourself but we took a group trip. My wife is a travel agent and we decided it was best in a group. Im glad you get mad at stupid stuff show how immature you are. You and scheitz

            • rt-photography

              yes you belong amongst the animals 🙂

            • neversink

              Thanks… I trust the animals more than most humans these days…. Of course, I don’t leave a vehicle in lion and buffalo country unless I feel it is safe…. And I always travel with a local guide. Even if I am on my own. Safer that way, and the guides can see a lion a mile away as well as identify each plant and bird and lizard ……. And they know where the animals are, at least they have an educated idea…

            • rt-photography

              its like I said. when in lion territory, the guide did not let anyone out. so a zoom like those I listed are mostly what people buy. not primes. they are more flexible, and convenient. I prefer primes but the vast majority of those who buy these zooms in the list are nature and birding folks who are a bit on the lazy side and prefer to zoom than to walk. and in daylight the aperture and speed you get is much more than enough.

              you dont need VR when youre shooting birds and things that move anyway

              realize why there are so many zooms super teles to choose from? because theyre in high demand. not primes. only enthusiasts and semi/pros want a prime. the rest? they just want a tight image of the damn lion to take home. the IQ those lense make are more than fine.

    • Greg Heller

      They did that with the 70-200mm F/4 the ring is approx $140.00

      • Fred Basset

        And how many paid Nikon the $140? 😉
        I bought a good Knock-off for $30, the base of mine is all scratched up from its main use as a steady rest on rocks and walls etc. It may have only seen a tripod once or twice. I wouldn’t want to scratch up an original Nikon one!

    • Photobug

      If it’s like the current collar used on the 300 F4 and 80-200mm lens, you don’t want the Nikon version you want the RRS version. It’s $195 and does not allow the lenses bounce that the Nikon collar allows.

      • Pat Mann

        Kirk is a good alternative to RRS.

        • Photobug

          Okay if you say so. I had bad luck with a Kirk lens bracket and had to buy the RRS bracket. The kirk bracket did not fit as well in my ball head.

    • thelordjesuschrist

      It’s a rumour calm your farm we don’t even know if it’s even accurate.

      • outkasted

        dees nutz

    • Pat Mann

      If Nikon would make solid tripod collars for the mid-range lenses I would agree. However, since they don’t, and I have to replace them with 3rd-party collars, I’d rather not have to pay for something I’m not going to use.

  • IamGoogoo

    Current version around $1200, new version probably $2200….worth the $$, not with the current version being such a good lens…I’ll keep mine

    • lorenzo

      Good idea but, as it happened for the D800E, if you decide to sell it later it will be worth $100… thanks Nikon!

      • IamGoogoo

        Doesn’t happen with lens, esp good ones like the version 1 70-200, it is still in demand

        • lorenzo

          Really? I tried to sell a new, pristine 14 mm f//2.8 that currently goes for $1,600 and got an offer from B&H for $395 🙁

          • IamGoogoo

            1. it’s overpriced, you can buy a 14-24 for only $4-5 hundred more.
            2. Not as good a lens as the 300 MM is in focal length(see above)
            3. you never trade in a lens, you sell privately:)

            • lorenzo

              I always wanted to buy it and I waited for a new one, didn’t know that it was such a good lens.
              Selling to privates seems a risk to me: they might not pay or harass you for the rest of their lives with unreal problems; I never sold anything, have all my cameras and lenses since the 70’s.

            • IamGoogoo

              Meet in person, public space, cash only….still afraid? take a friend, write down their plate #

            • lorenzo

              How do you avoid the buyer to come back to you for a return/refund or whatsoever reasons? I prefer not to have to deal with all these issues.

            • IamGoogoo

              sold as is! Now,I’ve sold a lens or 2 with a warranty from Nikon, I said we’d arrange for me to take it to get fixed if something happened….nobody has come back

          • rt-photography

            14mm has no demand since rokinon bower samyang offer there 14mm for peanuts which brings yours down. besides, its not a great performer..no offense.

            but after the tamron 15-30 gets loose, it will make your 14mm drop even more. so sell it as as you get a decent offer.

            many videographers shoot with this FL. they use it with a 2nd camera on a tripod for the slow dance for the ceremony and the B&G meet. then they use it on the dance floor.

            me personally I dont like the stretched out perspective it created for people standing even a bit off from the center. I personally use the 24mm as the widest.

            • lorenzo

              I also have a 14-24 f/2.8 Nikon, that’s why I thought of getting rid of the first, but thanks, I won’t sell it then.

            • rt-photography

              yep, better to hold it then sell it. unless you REALLY need the money, keep it as a spare.

            • neversink

              You are one of the people who are ruining this site. You speak with no knowledge, but pretend you are an expert. Oh well, you have to wake up in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror.
              ADMIN — — Is there any way to put some people on Ignore!!!!!!

            • rt-photography

              maybe ill bring u a box of tissues and some hot chocolate..go to sleep and things will look better in the morning.

            • neversink

              I’ll take some single-malt scotch instead. Thanks!

            • rt-photography

              ah thats why the psycho talk haha!

          • drpeters

            Hello, eBay! You will have better luck there, with a huge customer base, than with a photography retailer.

          • CERO

            tradeins will give you at most 60% of the real value of the equipment. Thats how these companies make money from used stuff.

      • manhattanboy

        The price is $1400 at B&H. For $1050 that lens would be a steal.
        http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207356-USA/Nikon_1909_Telephoto_AF_S_Nikkor_300mm.html

      • rt-photography

        wow D800E owners really got screwed. you can get a D800 for $1500 used in mint condition with less than 10k clicks. shame for the owners.

        • lorenzo

          yep, shame on me too. My D800E and everything that came with, including the box, only 86 actuations, is worth $990! B&H said they have more than 100 in stock. So I just ordered a D810 and will keep the D800E as a memory of a camera still made in Japan 🙁

          • rt-photography

            its still a killer camera and very relevant, why to sell it?

            • lorenzo

              You are right it will be a good backup for the D810.

          • Rich Murray

            Lorenzo, B&H aren’t buying your equipment to use but to resell. They have to make a profit that’s why the low prices.

          • Curt Davis

            wait…you have a D800e with only 86 actuations and still bought an 810? I’m not questioning your right to do whatever you want with your money, but what for?

            • Sleeper

              So he can take photos of his D800e with D810. BTW the 86 actuation on D800e came from taking photos of his D700, D3, D3s.

            • fred

              and sleepy kitty. 😉

          • Danny Hernandez

            That’s a fair trade in value. You do realize they aren’t a camera trade charity right? They have a business to run.

        • Andrew

          Well, I assure you that the D810 will not drop in price as much when its replacement comes since it has so much good stuff in it like its enhanced AF mechanism and Video performance. But it is not just the D810 that is affecting the price of the D800, it is also the D750 which is very popular. We take these things for granted, but Nikon now has some pretty strong models on the market.

          • rt-photography

            **the D*** will not drop in price as much when its replacement comes since it has so much good stuff in it***

            thats what youll say when the D810 falls hard as well.

            how many features it has is not relevant. its what the market will pay for it. when theres better options for less with warranty, thats what most will go for. the D800 to D810 is incremental in features. its not like a D600 to D750 which is a big jump. unless you need the 36mp, many prefer to get all the bells and whistle of the D750

            but after the light leak severity and no solution as of now, im not buying any nikon camera.. for now.

            did you read a posters comment about selling his nikon 14mm prime? they offered him $350 when it sells for $1650

            goes to show, it doesnt matter what you and me think. the market (buyer) decides how much hes willing to pay. when people dont buy becuase nikons raping prices are outrageous, what do they do? they make a sale. if you havent noticed..the sale has been all year long.

            • Robert King

              The vastly quieter shutter/mirror is not an incremental improvement. This is huge over the 800(E)’s. The now-vibrationless exposures with MUP is not an incremental improvement.

              The D750 does not have all the bells and whistles. It lacks one very important item: Its buffer stinks.

          • Robert King

            I do agree.

    • Tor Kristian Herskedal

      I will too. It’s just great!

      • rt-photography

        stellar lens. with a magnicfication ratio of 1:3.7 thats just amazing! damn 70-200’s cant do that. and no portrait lens can do that. with an extension ring you can bring it really close. makes for special portrait images. nice compressed shots and the backround comes up from the far distance to look like its right behind them.

  • whotaketh

    I wish they’d leave the aperture ring in the design. Some of us still use their old film stuff!

    • rt-photography

      they havent made a lens with the aperture ring for years. grab the 300 f/4 AFD. its still a stellar lens.

      • fred

        300mm AF-S has an aperture ring too. Born in 2000.

        • rt-photography

          Absolutely. Its the one youre seeing in the photo. But no lens made recently in the last 8-10 years hasnt had an aperture ring. Im with u on the aperture ribg but nikon went g

  • David Wujcik

    I wonder if this will drive up the $1000 used price of my current 300/4… optically the current 300/4 is razor-sharp… in good light, it doesn’t need VR at all.

    • lorenzo

      Up? You mean Down!

      • David Wujcik

        Nah… if the alternative is more than 2x the price, you should be able to push the price of the cheaper lens up a bit…

        • lorenzo

          FYI: currently the new one is $1,049 and the used one $999. I wonder WHO would get the used for $50 difference and NO warranty, but everything is possible.

        • rt-photography

          nah..they dont sell so well today. people prefer the tamron or sigma BIGMA variations in a zoom wih VR and flexibility over a prime. we can appreciate its sharpness and contrast but people want convenience and the stellar tamron 150-600 sells for $1000 so most get these.

          the 300 f/4 lenses being posted in forums I frequent sell slowly. they arent in demand as one thinks.

          its also the reason it was updated last. either people prefer the 300 2.8 or the 200 f/2 and those hobbyists prefer the range of the tamron/sigma supertelephoto zooms over a prime. many want convenience and dont want to walk to compose the frame. many are older folks as well.

          you got it wrong. the price is coming down.

          • Robert King

            That’s it don’t you think? I see the same thing. The 300 f4 AFS just does not sell anymore. In fact, it is not easy to sell a used one at a low price. And that may be the only reason why Nikon is finally going to give us a new version after 14 years….no?

      • whisky

        i suspect the price point for the new lens will send people scrambling to buy the last of the old lens ASAP.

    • rt-photography

      DOWN for sure! getting me a used one. sure the new one will be a better performer but the current one is sharp as hell. does 1:3.7 magnification ratio as well. and with todays FF cameras you can bump iso and get excellent picture.

      but them selling the lens with no tripod collar is a cheap move.

      • whisky

        by not including the collar, it gives Nikon a chance to maximize revenue, and compete with third party alternatives.

        given the last few nikon collars i’m ok if nikon abandons this pursuit or spawns more effective competition. JMO.

        • rt-photography

          not me. its a telephoto lens, right? add the freaking tripod collar. this will work against them. they already look greedy in many peoples eyes. this will not help them.

          but wth do I care. im buying used. youre the one who takes the hit. sure the 300 AFS may not be the most solid tripod collar in some peoples eyes, but I didnt have an issue with it when I shot with it. it was awesome. many times I just handheld it or used a monopod

    • Bengt Nyman

      The existing 300/4 is an excellent lens. On a D800E or D810 and enlarged (cropped) by 1.4 it is still sharper than with a TC-14E III attached.

      • MacManX

        Why would it be a different story with sports? I use a 200-400/4 with excellent results, so why would the 300/4 be a problem?
        Of course it would be “better” to use the 2.8…

        • Bengt Nyman

          I am not talking about aperture, I am suggesting that you might prefer the new lens with VR for fast moving subjects.

          • MacManX

            No. When shooting sports like football (“soccer” to some of you), I always keep shutter speeds around 1/500 or faster to freeze motion, so VR would be off anyway. I think I’m going to buy myself a 300/4 AF-D while they last.

            • Bengt Nyman

              Of course, when you have enough light, like in daylight games, the existing 300/4 is a great lens.

      • Jake Engel

        300/4 & TC-14E III? Mine weren’t compatible.

        • Bengt Nyman

          They are mechanically and optically compatible but has only manual aperture control and work only in Manual and Aperture modes. The new TC-14E III has no mechanical transfer between camera and lens aperture ring so the camera can not read or control the lens aperture.
          In Manual and Aperture modes the camera thinks that the 300/4 is set to aperture 5.6 no matter how you set the lens aperture ring.
          In M and A you can consequently shot as normal in aperture 5.6.
          If you set the lens aperture ring to something else it acts as exposure compensation since the real aperture is different than what the camera thinks.
          If you combine this with in-camera exposure compensation you can use any lens aperture you want but it becomes a bit of a mind twister to get the exposure right.
          Anyway, D800E and D810 get better resolution without the extender, simply crop to 1:1.4 = 71%.

  • Maji

    Lets start a poll with the price… I say $2,399.

    • whisky

      don’t forget the FL coating. 🙂

    • manhattanboy

      If it is a DO lens that is smaller and lighter for that price, I will buy. Else I will probably pass and wait for the price to drop, which it eventually will given that DSLR sales are plummeting.

    • fred

      Close to the mark…not counting the extra for the tripod foot.;)

    • ZoetMB

      I think that in spite of Nikon’s greed, it’s going to be lower, at least in the U.S. If it’s 33% more than the current lens, that would make it $1995, but with the dollar buying 119 Yen, we’re within 1% of the 2007 exchange rate. In 2012, the dollar had dropped to 79 Yen, so we should have 50% more buying power today and all of Nikon’s prices should have dropped (but of course they didn’t, except for the older bodies). Of course the weak Yen could also mean that Nikon’s costs are higher if they import any parts or raw materials from countries whose currencies are strong against the Yen. And in terms of Yen, the U.S. operation is costing them far more, although the incoming U.S. dollars are worth more.

      I’m going to guess $1895 without the collar, although they really could have priced it exactly the same as the current lens ($1495 list, currently selling for $1369 U.S., $1049 import).

      • Plug

        Here in the UK the price will be high to start with, netting profit from early adopters before dropping to the long term level.

    • Robert King

      I say that may be very close. It may even go considerably higher. It is not going lower. I’ll go as high as $2999, although I am probably considerably over with this guess. Certainly, Nikon always comes in higher than most of us think it is going to. I see this new 300 f4 AFS VRII as being built tank-like, though I could be wrong on this point.

  • LFC

    Definitely on my “to buy” list. If the D9300 comes out as well, 2015 could be an expensive year for me.

  • Louis-Félix Grondin

    At this rate you’ll see a d300s replacement in 2019.

    • ZoetMB

      What does a body replacement have to do with a lens announcement? Absolutely nothing.

      • Louis-Félix Grondin

        Thanks for the input Sir Buzzkillington, I’ll be very carefull to make sure I post only important stuff on internet forums from now on.

        On the other hand you could learn that you don’t need to answer your own rhetoric question….

        • ZoetMB

          Thank you for making the decision to only post important stuff from now on. (You can post the other junk on your Facebook page. I’m sure you have lots of followers.)

  • Nikos Delhanidis

    what about a 400 5.6 VR ??? ……….

    • manhattanboy

      I am more in favor of this than the 300 f4 VR. There is not that much that is optically off on the current 300 f4 and it seems most people are sticking a 1.4 TC on the 300 f4 anyway. Why not get rid of the unnecessary complications and make a great 400 5.6 VR lens? Nikon could one up Canon on this.

      • El Aura

        A 300 mm f/4 lens gives an option that is pretty much one stop faster (@ 300 mm) than the 80-400 mm AF-S. A 400 mm f/5.6 lens would not be faster than the AF-S 80-400 mm.

        • manhattanboy

          The 400 5.6 VR is all about speed, sharpness, size and weight. I’ve shot with the Canon 400 5.6 and it is rather good at bif. My preference would be for a fast and sure focusing, razor sharp and light weight prime that’s affordable. Also, 400 on a prime is not the same thing as 400 on a zoom. Even the current Nikon 300 4 gives more reach than any of the Nikon x-300 zooms and performs much better wide open than any of the zooms.

        • Nikos Delhanidis

          a 400 5.6 would beat with quite a margin in every field the AF-S 80-400, from actual reach, to sharpness, AF performance, cost, weight, size, except versatility. But they are different tools for different priorities. Many action and wildlife photographers would adopt for life such lens (or 500 5.6) .

          Most often many of the above photographers shoot with good weather (and outdoor). Neither are bookeh hunters. One stop difference can be more or less, one way or the other, dealt with todays sensors and software. (as opposed to difference with 2.8 which is a different story)

          Its the big number of photographers who need the image quality, the clarity, the accuracy of a prime (over the versatility of a zoom) for specific subjects, those who are pairing a 300 f/4 with a 1.4 TC rather than getting the 80-400, and who are maybe the majority of 300 f/4 users (as who is not interested in the 400mm usually prefers the 70-200 f/2.8)

          its all those who cant afford a 500 f/4 , a 600 f/4 (or a 200-400 f/4) and would cling on a 400 5.6 if existed (and again use it with the 1.4 TC often, as usually as i said they shoot in fair weather, plus the new bodies can focus effectively with at least one cross-type focus point with f/8 lenses)

          • El Aura

            If Nikon were rumoured to shortly release a 400 mm f/5.6, at least the same number of people would have said that it should release a 300 mm f/4 VR first.
            The tide has turned against tele primes that are not faster than zooms that cover their focal length (with the exception of macro lenses). When was the last time such a lens has been released for any mount?

  • Mark
  • Michael Pawlowski

    I assume the new 300 will work with the new 1.4x III teleconverter. I’ve got a 1.4x II permanently attached to my 300 AF-S. It’s a get combo!

  • HF

    Nice, but depends on the price including TC and collar. I wonder wether it makes more sense going with the new 80-400 4.5-5.6G lens. Very sharp, too and with instant rebate you get it here for 1800 Euros.

  • Cammece Capitalbrock

    great… now hurry the hell up and update that weirdo of a lens (that I was so happy to replace with the excellent Canon 70-200mm isII) the Nikon 70-200mm (effectively 60-135mm) 2.8G… and while your at it update the flawed Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G.

    • rt-photography

      bravo. someone who says it like it is. sharpness and contrast it has but at what cost. being able to shoot to a 135mm frame.

      and that crap QC on the 24-70 2.8 with the stiff zoom cam. a friend of a friend bought it new and came out of the box with thestiff zoom. sure not many have it but man for a $1900 lens, every lens should be perfect.

      • HF

        I know three people having the 24-70. Neither has a problem. But I read of some having an issue. The 70-200 is 135 only at MFD, see http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm and gets back to what it is supposed to do at larger distances. The Canon seems to be the oppsite http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/3, but shows very strong focus breathing (see M. Grangers comparison).

        • rt-photography

          screw fat grainger. I dont like what he did in one video with the 35 ART. dont want to talk about it though

          I dont know hobbyists but only pros who shoot weddings and it seems to be that more have the issue than not. 1 sold his to go with the tamron because he said it was driving him crazy and he got the benefit of VC

          I saw Hogans review when he put it out te same day. and its exactly the problem. shooting weddings I want to get in close at times for tight portraits and I simply cant.

          its a HUGE flaw. people can play it down as much as they want but id rather be able to shoot tight then not. sure the VR2 is sharper, but the VR1 is no slouch. and now if I want a tight portrait, I have to crop to get that and basically lose the advantage of the sharpness of the vr2 vs vr1. so back to square one.

          remind me of sony in the walkman days. every year they put out a new waterproof flagship cassette player (whats that, right?) and they would add new features but wouldnt take last years excellent features and add those as well. so isntead of having both close up and sharpness, you give up on one.

          • drpeters

            I guess I’m lucky… my 70-200 VR2 and 24-70 have been workhorses, delivering beautiful photos with regularity.

            I would never in a million years sell one of my Nikkor lenses and go with with a Tamron/Tokina/Sigma instead. No way. Nuh-uh!

            • dclivejazz

              Love mine too, but then I don’t use my 70-200 close up that much, so the focus breathing hasn’t been affecting me much. Really love my 24-70 but I’d still welcome VR to help with low-light shots.

          • HF

            You can have your opinion. But the way you do it is not very nice. Your opinion is not a universal law, by the way.

            • Eric Calabros

              Not even universal opinion

            • mikeswitz

              He is a troll, probably not a photographer and justs spouts bs he reads elsewhere. No need to feed.

            • neversink

              He’s a bore, but certainly makes reading the posts on this site difficult….

            • rt-photography

              absolutely. everyone is entitled to their opinion. nothing is set in stone. im not a politically correct guy. I dont round off the corners. I say it like it is. grainger as a known person should hold a higher level of values than us peasants though. hes had his nose up a bit too high recently and what he did in the video killed it for me as a fan of him.

    • Carleton Foxx

      i’m really liking my 24-70 on the D810. The two of them work well together for some reason. It’s been fun using it again.

    • neversink

      Never had a problem with the 24-70; and the 70-200 f/2.8 is stellar….. why are you even here… go over to the Canon site and take rt with you!!!!

  • txstubby

    Yes some people need the extra stop, but as soon as you add the 1.4tc to a 300mm f4 lens that costs over $2k the 80-400mm is probably a better option as well as being more flexible.

    The caveat being if it’s as sharp as the 300mm f2.8 and takes a 1.4tx as well as that lens then it could be very interesting combo.

  • Mansgame

    I think it would be more on par with the 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 with the price and the high quality. The new 80-400 is an absolute pleasure.

  • Grampus

    At double the price of the current one it had better be good.

  • MB

    Here we go again … FL means Fluoride glass used for lens elements that should give great performance and light weight … Nikon fluorite coating may or may not be used for front element that is in contact with air but it is not the main point here …

    • Alain2x

      Don’t mess Fluorite and Fluorine, please.

    • JJ168

      Agree. If the lens is expected to be very light weight, first thing come to mind is the fluorite glass. Fluorine coating can’t magically make the glass lighter. Admin seems to still confused even after he posted the difference, unless the rumoured lens is going to have both.

      • I am not confused (any longer), this is the info I received.

        • Eric Calabros

          But how can it be so lightweight without FL?

          • Plug

            DO

            • Eric Calabros

              DO is a Canon thing

            • Plug

              There has been a Nikon patent for DO in a 300 f4

            • Eric Calabros

              Ok I saw it, but why use DO in one lens and FL in another?

          • Not sure – we have to wait and see if I will get any more details before the announcement.

      • Alain2x

        Both ? Double the pain, for the price tag ;-(
        At least for the rational ;(

      • Plug

        First thing that comes to mind with lightweight is DO.

      • the 300 f/4 was not listed/rumored as one of the lenses that will come with a fluorite (FL) element:

        http://nikonrumors.com/2014/11/17/more-nikon-patents-for-telephoto-lenses-with-fluorine-fl-coating.aspx/

  • santarock

    why dont they make something like the 100-400 or just 400 f/5.6 which is still missing

    • Nikos Delhanidis

      There is the AF-S 80-400 which is the nikon similar to 100-400.

      400 5.6 is missing indeed. Even 500 5.6 is missing in general … There is a series of primes that does have a decent if not significant market portion needing it that third party as body brands too fail to see

  • Larry Holt

    If only there was a d400 to put it on. 🙁

  • Neopulse

    I’d say for about $1599-$1699. Better to sell many to help the economy on their end.

    • drpeters

      I don’t know where all the people in this thread get their ideas of $2200+, $2500+ for a hobbyist lens. Yours is the first sane guess I’ve seen.

      • Neopulse

        Yeah I know. But I guess people like thinking that Nikon does the same as Canon when it comes to lenses and body price changes.

        Anywho, I say that price instead of $1499 for example, because it might have VR III in it and also the new lens tech in it to make it more compact and to compensate for R&D. This would do well with a new body to go with it.

        • drpeters

          VRIII?!?!??! I hadn’t even thought of that. Yeah, that would be pretty sweet… but Neopulse, my friend, I fear you are venturing into fantasyland with that one.

          • Neopulse

            Well the 70-200mm f/4 has it. Why not this one 😉

            And I don’t think it’s in the realm of fantasy this idea. It’s very possible. Maybe that’s why they aren’t involving the tripod collar because it’s possible to use it handheld (given it’s compact and lighter design).

            • drpeters

              Oh wow! I don’t really pay much attention to the f/4 lenses, so I missed that VRIII was a thing. I’m glad we’ve had this little conversation! 😀

            • Neopulse

              Glad to have passed this information along to you and possibly others who are reading this. I just hope though that the price is reasonable. Because it will sell well if it is. Wonder if it will have extensive weather sealing though.

            • whisky

              VR III ? if Nikon sticks to it’s own designations, it’ll incorporate the latest VR but just be called VR II — as the 70-200mm G and 80-400mm G were.

            • Neopulse

              Yes, you are right. Most logically it will be called that. I meant before though mainly the latest stabilization rather than the naming. I should have been more clear on that.

          • Neopulse

            Wanted to clarify earlier, the VRIII as the latest optical stabilization rather than the “naming” for it (eg: 300mm f/4 VRIII, but will most likely be called VRII)

        • manhattanboy

          While I WISH you were right about the $1500, I think the lens will be DO and priced ~$3K-4K similar to the Canon sadly.

          • Neopulse

            I apologize, but I’m not following what you posted. A Canon 300mm f/4 DO that’s priced around $3-4K that would be priced the same to the new Nikon 300mm f/4 DO?

      • Morris

        check the price range of the amateur v1-2-3 cameras

    • I am also thinking in that price range.

      • IamGoogoo

        So, people think that the current 300mm is one of the best values in the Nikon line up($1300-1400) and the new one will have Vr, improved image quality, new lens coating…and more, all for only $a few hundred $$……the plan may be $1899-1999, keep it under $2000!

      • neversink

        I would agree, particularly given the dollar’s recent strength against the yen….

    • Kynikos

      The old 80-400 and 300/4 were roughly the same price.

      The new 80-400, and new 300/4 will likely be the same price as well. $2499–book it.

      • Fred Basset

        That was my thinking.
        Everyone complained that the latest 80-400mm was a BIG jump in price. Not including the tripod collar, the new 80-400mm lens got heavier, a noticeable 260g more.
        The new 300mm will have more plastic! to make it lighter.
        I like the solid metal of the current 300mm f4 AF-S and the slide out metal hood is so convenient, taking up no space in the bag. Cant lose it either. I think the new 300mm will not have this feature.
        It will be the $60 replaceable Tupperware version.

        On price I think Nikon will do the same with this new 300mm f4 VR….and we will have reason to complain too.

      • Robert King

        good analogy…and one that neverstink can’t seem to get into his head.

  • Tripod Collar included ? Or again for /let guess/ 300 bucks?

    • drpeters

      I was thinking something along the lines of $75, but I’ve never had to buy one, so I don’t really know.

      • 200 USD costs the one for 70-200/4 VR so since 300mm lens is bigger i would estimate something around 300 USD.
        What the shame. Anyways i don’t care I am using f2.8 lenses and there are still tripod collars included. Until now 🙂

  • Roy LaFaver

    The current Nikon 300mm f4 is about as sharp as it gets. I expect the new one to at least match that.

    • Eric Calabros

      This one will cut your fingers, you need a glove, sold seperately

    • Heritage Imaging

      Yeah, 15 years later I guess so.

  • Photobug

    It’s about time. I have $$$ budgeted for 2nd QTR 2015 to buy a 300mm F4. Now the question, how far do I need to increase the budget.

    • HF

      You should save s.th. for the upcoming mirrorless Nikon FF camera 😉

      • Photobug

        Don’t want to be an early adopter of the mirrorless platform. I have excellent DSLR’s for DX and FX. I need a 300mm prime lens to fill a gap in my lenses.

  • Great news. But I have budgeted for a Zeiss 15 2.8 and the Nikon 20 1.8G adding the new 300 4 will blow my budget for next year.

    • Kynikos

      You will love the Zeiss. Beautiful rendering, minimal distortion that’s easily corrected, sharp.

  • Fred Basset

    The current 300mm f4 AF-S is Nikons 8th sharpest lens ( see http://nikonrumors.com/2014/12/03/the-best-nikon-cameras-and-lenses-according-to-senscore-and-lenscore.aspx/
    It truly is Nikon’s “poor mans telephoto”. It’s a bargain!
    The 7 lenses that are above it in the list are all upwards of $5000.
    The 300mm Af-S has more resolving power than the 70-200 II, the 200-400mm f4, the 85mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8, even all Nikons macro lenses!
    I own one but I’m wondering just how good they will make the new 300mm f4 VR?
    I think I’ll be buying it anyway…it wont be twice as good, absolutely no more than 10% better in resolving power.
    I think the price will be almost double though, around $2500. The main benefit will be getting the latest VR for lower light situations hand-held, especially for birding.
    This new 300mm VR will put some money back in the bank for Nikon, it should sell well, very few can or want to handle the weight and cost of the next step up, the 300mm 2.8 VR.
    Just maybe Nikon are starting to listen to what their customers have wanted?

    • manhattanboy

      I agree with you 100% except for the Nikon listening to their customers part…they would have released a D400/9300 a while back had that been the case.

      • Fred Basset

        Wishful thinking, yes that last sentence was a bit over the top.

    • dgr

      VR and birding usually don’t mix unless you normally only shoot birds that don’t move.

      • Roy LaFaver

        Agree with dgr, especially when you consider the high ISO performance of just about every current Nikon camera. Just crank up shutter speed and let it rip.

      • Fred Basset

        I was thinking the VR might help me hand-held in low light or heavily shaded areas with waders that move slowly and tend to momentarily freeze while stareing at/into the water.
        When panning birds at 1600-2000th sec I switch off VR on the 80-400mm, they look sharper.

    • Funduro

      300 f4 + Kirk collar + 1.4 TC = good value.

  • dgr

    Would be nicer if it were a 400 f/4 prime.

    • Like you can’t crop it a bit with a D810?

      • dgr

        Sure but cropping only get’s you so far.

        • rt-photography

          you have the bucks for the 400 f/4 if it were out? im sure itd be at least $7000..AT LEAST.

          • dgr

            I would have more use for a 400 f/4 than a 300 f/4 VR since I have the existing 300 f/4. The sooner a 400 f/4 comes out the sooner it hits the second hand market at a cheaper price. 😉

            Regarding the Tamron, I did try it and it is nice. It just goes to f/6.3 really fast and I still prefer Nikon native lenses for faster focusing. If keeping the price down was in fact the priority the Tamron would be hard to beat.

        • rt-photography

          since most of us shoot in daylight almost always and wont need the VR because were shooting moving objects anyway. VR isnt useful for anything moving,

          Id suggest you get a D7100 for an extra $900 and there you go. you got yourself a 450mm F/4 lens!
          no need to spend $2500. you get the AFD used for $900, the D7100 for $900 and you got crazy reach. you want more, get the 1.4TC. 630mm f/5.6
          cheaper and sharper than the tamron for sure. and weighs less!

          youre welcome!

          • dgr

            I would still hold out for the D7100 replacement and hope for a better buffer. If getting the best value was the priority I would get the D7100 refurb for $699 and a second hand 300/4. I was able to get the 300 for $800 earlier in the year. I think this new VR version will cost more than double that so it won’t affect the second hand market prices much.

  • CV

    Huraa!

    I wonder what the price will be….

  • Brian

    One of Nikons best lenses. I sure hope they can make it as good as the current.

  • Brian

    One of Nikons best lenses. I sure hope they can make it as good as the current.

  • Heritage Imaging

    Long rumoured? Like the 16mm? After bitching about this for 10 years I really don’t care anymore. Nikon turns people off with their arrogance. Do they realize how many people have gone to their grave waiting for this simple upgrade that Canon provided a decade ago?

    • rt-photography

      what rudeness to charge people for a tripod collar. anything over 200mm MUST come with a tripod collar!

      another way to rip people off nikon? is there no limit to your greediness?

      • mikeswitz

        I think its time you moved to Kodak.

    • whisky

      for a solid arca-swiss collar … i’d gladly pay extra. but for a wobbly standard mount collar … i’d rather they take the cost off the price of this new lens.

      whether it’s being implied correctly that Nikon will charge us for a cheap collar in the price of the lens, and then a second time afterward … is nothing short of cynicism. this is simply a rumor site, short on facts, and nothing to get too worked up about. JMO.

  • koenshaku

    Hoping for a refresh of the 70-200mm with VR-III and better focusing distance soon.

    • ZoetMB

      Not happening. The 4.0 is only 2 years old and the 2.8 is 5 years old. Nikon’s still got 41 lenses in the lineup older than that, not including the old manual focus line.

      • EnPassant

        Nikon have been updating the 2.8 tele zoom more often than most other lenses. The VR I version was introduced 2003 and replaced six years later, 2009 with the current 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II version. Next year it will be six years old and living on overtime. Also the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens should be updated within the next 2-3 years.

  • Kyle Medina

    Nikon still needs a 400 5.6 and Canon needs a 14-24.

    • saywhatuwill

      Unfortunately Nikon will tell you that they already brought out a 400mm f/5.6. It’s just in a more convenient zoom form factor.

      I personally would not give up my 400mm f/5.6 EDIF AI-s until a newer version comes out. However, this 300mm f/4 might get me to move. The 400 is sharp, but not as sharp as I know a newer lens would be. Also the lack of AF has caused more than a couple out of focus shots or missed shots. We’ll see though. $2k is a bit more than I want to spend on a lens at the moment.

      • FredBear

        But a fixed 400 F5.6 would have better IQ than an equivalent zoom. Many have reported that the current 300 F4 plus 1.4TC is better than the newer 80-400 zoom at 420mm vs the 80-400 @ 400mm as it is. A new 400 F5.6 prime should rock.

  • d810_shooter

    given Nikon’s recent pricing practices…. US$1599 to $1999 is more like it.

    • FredBear

      I think more likely $2,499.

      • Robert King

        yep

  • Dave

    Should be interesting to see if Nikon add 1k to the old price for this lens, like they did with the new 80-400.

    • Robert King

      that’s what is gonna happen.

  • EarlFargis

    As luck would have it, I bought the Nikkor 300mm back in September. But I had a need. Upgrade for fllourine coating? No chance. Upgrade for VR? Probably not. Nice to have but not worth lots of cash. Upgrade because lack of a back element is a dust magnet? You’re getting my attention. All the above? Getting more interested.

    Size. Weight. Optical performance. So many unknowns. All I know is my 300mm f/4 is the perfect size and weight for me (just fits my bag as it is), works well with a Nikon 1.4x and pretty well with the 1.7x if but you have to stop down a bit with the latter.

    We’ll see. I have the Sigma 150-600mm Sports on pre-order so I’m not sure how much I’ll need the 300mm f/4. It’s going to end up something compact I’ll always carry with me in a pinch; whereas, the Sigma I’ll take for planned shoots.

    I probably won’t upgrade. It’s the nature of photography. There’s always a newer body or lens coming down the pike. I can’t justify constantly churning all my equipment.

    • FredBear

      It’s unlikely either the Tamron or Sigma zooms will give you the IQ of the current 300 F4 and 300 F4 plus 1.4 TC so I doubt you’ll want to part with it 😉
      Now a 400 F5.6 with all the bells and whistles might be a good complement to your (and my) existing 300 F4.

  • maxit

    Alleluja!

  • Jaranu Schuldheiss

    I wish Nikon would just adopt a lens road map like Fuji. This secretive “already leaked to rumour sites” approach is stupid.

  • FarQinell

    …looks like the usual crappy plastic tripod mount. Why do Nikon do this – how much do they actually save?

    But it could turn out to be a very sharp lens…..

    • nwcs

      Did you know that most “metal mounts” are merely a metal ring attached to a plastic mount?

      • Neopulse

        It’s not to give away they’re ideas early to the competition.

    • looks like the same…

      because it is.

      “Pictured: the current Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED lens”

  • Neopulse

    Wonder what would a Sigma ART series 300mm f/4 be designed to look like.

    • peter w

      If, it will be called sports…

      But I fear Sigma focusses on zooms in this segment.

      A new 100~300 F4 would be welcome, too.

      In order to have a bit of choice.

  • Stan Chung

    Hi quality, lighter and cheaper please.

    • rt-photography

      ah, you mean the norm with nikon. cheap plastic build, slow SWM plastic filter thread and crap plastic hood and plastic threading..
      ill take the current over the newer plastics. the current one is mostly metal.

      • Stan Chung

        Hi quality in my book doesn’t equal plastic. However, once I added cheap, I do expect some trade off. :/

  • NightPhotographer

    Any hope for a modern 135mm 1.8/2?

  • Henri

    How soon? Obviously, you don’t have the answer to this, but this lens was supposed to surface years ago.

    • mikeswitz

      Haven’t you switched to Canon yet?

  • Funduro

    Check this sites resolution patterns. I was amazed at the “old” 300mm f/4 D lens abilities Vs 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII with 1.4TC II. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=651&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=4

  • peter w

    Nice, very nice…
    I am not selling mine before I find out about its focus breathing, its macro capacities. The big difference between the Canon and Nikkor 80/100~400 zooms.

    The present 300 F4 is very pleasant to photograph shy dragon flies, smaller ones possibly with 1,4 convertor attached.

    But I’ld sure value a lens of (even) less weigth and far more VR…

    (and probably a third party lens foot, or something like this http://abrahamdist.com/vacuvin-corks-for-vacuum-pump/).

  • Rohan Wick

    After years of waiting for 300 F4/VR I was about to buy Sigma 150-600 sports, however short supply prevented me from ordering it, This is really good news as I still want to go for Nikon 300 + TC. Any idea how soon Nikon would release this long awaited lens

  • Robert King

    $2999

    • neversink

      How do you know any of this. What kind of crystal ball do you have. I believe your price is twice as high as the introductory price and then perhaps six months later $300 will be taken off during special Nikon lens pricing. That’s what my crystal ball is telling me.

      Secondly, I doubt it will be sharper at f 4 the the 300 f/2.8.

      Thirdly, the new TC 14iii might or not might work well with the lens. TC and lens combinations are funny things. They work better with some stellar lenses and really poorly with others and there seems to be no rhyme or reason why.

      Fourth: Dream on!!!!! ;–}

      • Robert King

        Your questions are …..”How do you know any of this?” “What kind of crystal ball do you have?.” I don’t.

        And since you ask…my question to you is…”How do you know any of this?”

        Everybody on a forum is as much entitled to their opinion as you are to your opinion. Now…..I would not be flippant enough to insult your estimate. But you sure went ahead and did it to me didn’t you ? Now, I do not mind laughing at myself….but you are not kidding and if you are….you do not know me enough to take such liberty.

        It is not within the rules of any forum to become aggressive or flippant to anybody. So from now on, if you should see me comment anywhere, if you are not able to find something at least half civil to say to me….. why don’t you just keep it to yourself? Things would be smoother that way.

        Regarding the points you make:
        1. If you say that my $2999 is twice as high then that means that you are predicting it will be $1500. I say you are quite low. And I was going deliberately high because Nikon goes high all the time. It really does not matter because the lens will be simply outstanding!

        2. First, I have owned three 300 2.8’s (the first one was a manual focus lens back in 1984-1985, 2nd one was VRI and the 3rd one was a VRII) I have also owned two 2 300 f4-4.5 EDIF Nikkors (manual focus) and 2 300 f4 AFS Nikkors (the lens we are comparing to the 2.8’s).

        All I was doing was reflecting back and thinking of how sharp my f4 AFS’s were compared to the 2.8’s I had. But I do admit that the MTF charts show that the 2.8 is sharper.

        3. Regarding TC performance: The 300 f4 AFS matches up very well with the TC 1.4. I have read no comments over the years that would say otherwise. There is absolutely no doubt that the 300 f4 AFS VRII will be very sharp with the TC 14 III.

        Robert King
        http://itsaboutnature.net

    • yepits me

      What rubbish you spew..

  • Jack S

    I bet it’ll be double to triple the price of the old one just for the VR. Fluorite coating is nothing new, only new to Nikon. I’ll be on the lookout for everyone’s old versions in their upgrade spree.

  • Back to top