Perhaps they could just make both, then we would all be happy :)

I don't think they will either, but it would be a winner for a lot of photographers. I just wished they designed lenses for me, Leica is doing bespoke cameras, I can always fantasize about bespoke lenses.

A close focusing 300 with a modest aperture is more interesting to me than a faster, larger lens that doesn't focus as closely. We all have our needs.

I wouldn't suspect that the Nikon will ever release 300 mm macro - but wouldn't be surprised to see new 300/4 af-s VR II either this fall or next spring

What I would really like Nikon to design would be a 300/4 with VR and macro capability. The current 300/4 go to 4.8 feet 1:3.7. It would be nice if it went to 1:2 and have an extension tube supplied that would take it to 1:1.

Also add a 1.4 tc and you would have a 420/5.6 macro - that would be a lot of fun.

I use my 200 micro on a D90 and I'd miss the 1.5x factor if I went to an FX body. The 300 above would solve that and fill a nice hole in the line-up.

I'm starting to carry my 200 micro instead of the 70-300. It's faster, much sharper and if it's too long, I go back to the 105 micro or 16-85 zoom. All are much better. I expected more from an FX lens. What's it like on a D3X?

I can tell you from personal experience. I also have the 70-300. I don't use it anymore precisely for the reasons just given. As a consumer variable aperture lens, it cannot hold up to the rigors of wildlife shooting. As adamz and I have said before, us wildlife shooters push our equipment to the limits. We shoot at extremes.

I got the AF-D 300mmF4 last fall. This lens allows me to capture things with the speed and accuracy that the consumer lens cannot compete with. Also unlike the 70-300, this lens is sharp throughout it's focal lengths (although I've not shot with it higher than F8 or F9). It's sharp wide open unlike the 70-300 and you know us wildlife shooters often need wide open.

I agree with you. I also have the 70-300 and am disappointed at 300 (much of the point of the lens for me). I've also thought about the 300/4 (w/tc1.4), but would also prefer a 400/5.6 w/VR. The 200-400/4 is a beautiful piece of work, but at $6K and over 7 pounds, it's not in my future.

Thx for your comments. I would use the lense for common wilde-life and birds. I already have a Nikon 70-300 VR but I'm not that satisfied with the IQ on 300mm. I really wanted to go above 300mm because I already have the 70-300. I only hear good things on the 300mm f/4 but a 400 f5/6 would be great. Maybe there'll be a 300mm f/4 VR sometime this Fall or beginning of next year.. always difficult.
I'll have a look at the Sigma's.
Thx!

sigma 100-300/f.4 adamz I've actually heard the same thing about this lens. I've seen some photographers work with it as well and I would have to agree. I tend to be afraid of investing in Sigma though.

How is Sigma's 300mm2.8?

D300 user - IMHO Nikon needs this kind of lens to compete against canon (as in the long range there are lot of white spaces), Niko - 80-400/5.6 is not the same as 400/5.6, but I wouldn't mind to see a new version of the first one with VR II and AF-S. As for above 300mm, You have couple options D300 user:
- sigma 100-300/f.4 - it's considered by a lot of people to be better than 300/f4
- 300/f4 either AF or AF-S
- sigma 300/2.8
- sigma 120-300/2.8
all of the with price tags below 3000USD

D300 user, I really wish for a 400 5.6 from Nikon as well. It's why I almost bought a Canon. The 80-400 at 5.6 would not give you the same IQ and performance as a 400mm prime with that as a fixed aperture so they cannot be properly compared. I have the older 300mmF4 and it works great on my D300. The AF-S one should make you very happy. I don't know how or what you shoot so I will not suggest at this point when you should buy it. If you're a birder in Europe, you probably due most of your work during the spring and summer. For me, if I were contemplating buying this lens, I'd have to get it right now as I'm in southern California and the prime birding season is about to begin. Evaluate your needs and situation as none of us are exactly the same.

Gee thanks ;^) Your bunny picture just made my day :^) I think the low-tech camera approach makes it an even funnier picture. I really like it. Thanks for sharing!

haha lol. yeah it is a real bunny. It was taken with a HP 850 something photosmart with 4 MP and a whopping 8x zoom :p. They are real. Love your selfportrait on your Flickr btw ^^.

Sorry to get off topic but is that a real bunny in your "bunny(how sweet is that....!" picture?
It looks like a lawn ornament! LOL

Hi NikoDoby,

Thx for you answer. I indeed ment the f/4 and not the 2.8. Should've said that :p. I'll wait for this Fall. Maybe there will be more news with te introduction of the D3s.

Welcome to the forum D300 user. You've got some nice photos in your gallery. You should share some of them with us on the Photo-A-Day thread :^)

I assume your thinking of getting the Nikkor 300mm f/4 and not the 300mm f/2.8 (which is now discontinued) right? I don't believe the roadmap is real so I don't think there will be a 400mm f/5.6 VR lens from Nikon. That lens hasn't been around since the 1980s and at f5.6 why not buy the 80-400mm f/4-5.6? If it was brought back from the dead it would have to sell for much much less than $2000USD. I think a VRII update to the 300 f/2.8 or f/4 seems more likely

Wait to see what happens this Fall.

Hi,

I want to buy a telelense to complete my collection (16-85, 70-300 VR, and Sigma 150mm macro). I was thinking about the 300mm + 1.4x conv. (and Sigma 150-500, but that seems to s*ck in comparision to the Nikon 300mm) but I'm hearing some rumors about a possible Nikon 400mm f5.6 VR. It is also stated in the roadmap of Nikon for 2009-2010 I believe (if it's real that is :p). Is it worth waiting for this lense? And what will it cost? Would it stay under about 2000,- Euro's (about 2700,- USD)? Otherwise I'll buy the 300mm + 1.4x (but... it has no VR :( ).

Thx!