where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Bah! What is this talk about the 135mm F/1.8?
There's a 300mm F/2!
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/index.htm
Apparently an incredibly rare Nikkor lens.
Here are some sample images.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=38933599&changemode=1
He also has a blog, Google Regex if you guys are interested. He's based in Japan and although he has pro equipment, I don't think he is a photographer by trade.
Yep, that is one nice lens. I occasionally see it for sale on ebay (usually from a posting from the NR blog), and it is not cheap by far.
There is an AI-S fiend on NikonCafe that has one and loves it, despite the weight. Im happy getting an effective 300mm f2 when I slap my 200mm f2 on a DX body. :]
What else I think would be fun - take a page from the Canon 200-400 f/4 1.4TC, and have a 200mm f/2 with a built in 2x TC. :)
El_Pickerel said:
What else I think would be fun - take a page from the Canon 200-400 f/4 1.4TC, and have a 200mm f/2 with a built in 2x TC. :)
That lens still needs to be released, and it's projected to cost over $10,000!
This lens is cool though- if you add a 2x teleconverter, you get a 600mm F4!
Too bad it's not an AF-S lens, it'd be nice.
NSXType-R said:Too bad it's not an AF-S lens, it'd be nice.
What I want updated with AF-S and VR (and other modern stuff) is the old 50-300mm f/4.5. Maybe even make it f/4, and have it remain parfocal and constant aperture, and I won't mind the size for how neat of a lens that would be! Though it'll probably be a bit smaller with modern optics.
IMO f/2 and bigger is really nice in lenses under 200mm, after that the weight becomes too much of an issue with the currently used materials. A 200/2.8 prime would be manageable and a certainly welcome addition to Nikon arsenal.
Silverbacks and hulking behemoths need not bother with the following paragraph:
-----
Here´s a suggestion: Nikon could start producing diffractive optics like Canon to reduce the weight and dimensions of the heavy glass.. for example, I really like the idea that the Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS USM weighs about 2 kilograms (although the design had its own flaws and was not optically excellent). That´s portable and that´s what you can use handheld all day.
I read somewhere that Nikon had already done a special bunch of 400/2.8s in carbon, which made them a lot lighter. Something like that or start making 400/5.6s or DO glass like C. Please. Wouldn´t want to start taking growth hormones.
--- END of PARAGRAPH--
Canon does tend have a lower grade of glass (rarely noticeable by most) than nikon though and fill most of their lenses with flouride which doesn't handle well in certain situations. None of their current lenses can resolve at the pixel pitch of the 7D (it is noticeable wide open)Many of nikon's lenses can. Compare the 1Dx test shots to the D800 and you will notice a softness on the canon the nikon doesn't have...
That 300mm f/2 makes me drool. I do find that 300mm on a MF lens wide open is a trick to focus with (I have 2 300 f/2.8's and really love both of them). Getting something in that dream sliver is worth it tho...
Also a 200mm f/2 on a Dx is not the same as a 300 f/2 on a Fx because while the focal length is exactly the same, the perspective distortion (as unnoticeable as it it to non pixel-peepers) is a bit more accentuated on the Dx/200mm than on the other combo. You also lose an f-stop in terms of Dof (light and exposure are exactly the same tho). The composition otherwise is almost identical though.
I have Nikkor 300mm f2 adapted to p/l mont for cinematography for sale,
Serious buyers should contact me at <link removed>.c with best offer.
You must log in to post.
