Next Nikon lenses rumored to be replaced: Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VRII

Nikon 70-300mm f:4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens
In the next few months Nikon is rumored to update/refresh their current AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR lens ($496.95). Two new 70-300mm lens versions will be announced: one with VR, one without. This is an interesting move - it seems that Nikon will start offering VR and a non-VR models of their "cheaper" lenses. The latest AF-P DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G lens also came as a VR and non-VR versions.

The current 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens was announced back in December of 2006.

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

    I really wish they’d do a 70-300 that was actually good. Maybe an f/4 version. Heck, Canon’s 100-400 is a fantastic lens.

    • Then get the Nikon 80-400mm. Or the 70-200 f/4.

      • Stephen Corby

        I own a 70-200 f/2.8 but it’s not enough reach. The 80-400 has pretty poor image quality. So I think a professional level zoom would be in the cards soon. Like I mentioned, Canon nailed it with the 100-400. Surely Nikon can make something similar.

        • David

          The 80-400 is a great lens and very sharp. Maybe you used a bad copy.

          • or he’s shooting the old one 🙂

            • I just bought the old 80-400mm used, because I didn’t have the budget for the new. I’ve found it to be a fantastic lens, very sharp and an overall awesome photographic tool.

              It does have autofocus that’s slow at times (especially when moving from short to long distances), but when it’s focusing in a narrow range it’s fast enough.

              I’ve been very pleased with it, especially in view of how little it cost me used.

            • silmasan

              You should probably blame that little budget problem on your new D5. 🙂

            • Oh absolutely. Love the D5, I’m getting great results out of it even at ISO 51,200 🙂

            • Politics_Nerd

              Glass > camera.

            • Depends on how much you love shooting in extreme low light conditions. My photography of low light situations improved enormously when I got the D4 and enormously again when I got the D5.

              And actually the image quality of the 80-400 is pretty high in my experience. It’s just the slow autofocus that sometimes lets it down. I’m sure I would get more in focus shots if I had the new 80-400 instead of the old, but I’m not sold that the in-focus shots I got with the old 80-400 would be any higher quality if I had the new.

              I will admit that my old 80-400 makes me want the better autofocus of the new model, so it may well be a gateway drug for the new model. Not sure if I want the 200-500 or the 80-400. Both Thom Hogan and camera stores are highly recommending the 200-500, but I’m not sure if the extra weight and lower ability to zoom out would be good for the kind of photography I like doing, which is entirely hand-held. Then there’s the almost $1k additional price for the new 80-400 versus the 200-500. I may try keeping my 80-400 in the 200-400 range and see how much I miss being able to go back to 80.

            • Politics_Nerd

              Tamron or Sigma 150-600? Or a DX body for reach?

            • I like Thom Hogan’s reviews and unfortunately he hasn’t reviewed those lenses yet. He has reviewed the earlier Sigma 150-500, and says that it is very difficult to hand-hold, while the 80-400 is relatively doable.

              Just for fun, I tried tripod shooting for the first time in a while. Tripods are big, heavy and hard to carry. I’m so used to the flexibility and freedom of handhold shooting that I find it quite difficult to deal with tripods. Even on the tripod expedition day, most of my keepers were taken handheld.

              Based on my current experience with the 80-400 I am not experiencing much wrong with reach. Most of my photos now are cropped fairly modestly. I do notice the autofocus pain, so my best next step is likely to be to upgrade to the newer 80-400. I think that would probably improve my photos more than getting more reach by adding a D500 body. However, I still want to try the 200-500 and see how heavy I find it. Because I have the D5 it might actually balance better on the heavier body.

              I’ve pretty much exhausted myself money-wise in getting the D5 so I think I will enjoy it and the older 80-400 for a while before spending more. I’m enjoying the combination a lot more than I thought I would, so I’m actually really happy. Spending money on the right things can buy happiness, but it’s best done over time so that you can get a new happiness burst every few months :).

              My most recent D5/80-400 shots, at Wakodahatchee Wetlands in Palm Beach County:

            • pedantic_brit

              Actually even the old one was optically OK ( not in the league of the new one) – just very slow AF and rather basic VR. Not a bad bargain used these days though.

            • Jhw

              My “old one” is superb. And I have the 14-24/24-70/70-200 f/2.8’s to compare it to.

          • Mr_Miyagi

            Ditto. Mine is very, very good. I’d sell my 5 star 70-200mm f/2.8 before I’d get rid of my 80-400mm. I need the longer reach.

          • I love mine. It is not as sharp as a prime, but still very good and quite versatile.

          • DaveyJ

            That lens is too expensive for what it is! Look at the 200-500!

            • harvey

              One is 2.5:1 zoom, the other a 5:1 covering a greater optical range.

            • DaveyJ

              I am hardly the only one that thinks it is overpriced (the 80-400new Nikkor).

          • TwoMetreBill

            For someone who shoots mostly closeups, the new 80-400 is a lie as it is an 80-250. Nikon’s sloppy and incompetent lens designs are what drove me away. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a 70-150…

        • Gf

          Then you need the 200-400 vr2

    • outkasted

      I got an expensive 400mm | ƒ2.8 FL and its still in the box, in the store and on the shelf but it does belong to me because I I say it does. So there.

      • silmasan

        Hahaha 😀 I have the same thing to say about a certain 200/2 VR.

    • TwoMetreBill

      Canon’s 100-400 is 4 times the price of the Nikon 70-300. Nuff said.

      The Nikon stopped down to f/11 is quite good and matches the sharpness of the 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 variants. Wide open is rather poor, f/8 not too bad while it comes into its own at f/11.

      The same is true of the original 80-400.

      • DaveyJ

        You are right!

    • BrainBeat

      I agree it had better be even close to what the competition offers as to me the current VR version at least is total rubbish. I am not 100% sure if this is just the ones I have tried out but all of them are not usable for taking photos beyond 20m as they become super soften and do not get a good focus lock. They also in general are soft and my Tamron 70-300 is so much better and cheaper.
      I do agree if they could do it F4 that could be nice but I am sure it would then be significantly more expensive and bigger/ heavier.

    • Wilson

      If you are okay with the weight, the new Sigma 150-600mm Sport and Contemporary versions are supposed to be excellent, the sport is supposedly better at autofocusing and has better IQ than the new Nikon 200-500mm 5.6. If you want something light with amazing iq and autofocus you could sacrifice the zoom and go with either the new 300mm f4 pf vr or the older 300mm f4 afd.

  • ClemTig

    If it’s plastic, I won’t be buying. My last copy of this lens lasted 2 years. I went to EBay to buy a used metal lens.

    • Gf

      Actually, many plastic haters here and in every camera forum, but even zeiss prefers plastic to heavy metal 1980 crap. Plastic is more practical and actually more durable in real life. Try to drop a plastic lens and metal one onto a concrete sidewalk to see which one would survive.

      • It’s not a durability thing, it is more a thermal property thing. Metal expands and contracts with heat. Plastic doesn’t as much, if at all (if poly-blended). To have a material that doesn’t change your optical formula by 100ths of a millimetre is very good/important. =)

        • Eledeuh

          I believe it is also a durability thing, metal bends and stays in place, while the plastic they use in lenses can withstand a lot of abuse and not change shape for good.

          Filter threads are an example, if you hit the front of the lens and bend it even slightly, you’re out of luck.

      • DaveyJ

        I used to believe metal was stronger. Now our chainsaws are mostly plastic….Husquavarna…..they are tough!!! Carbon Fiber is tougher!

  • Steven Thomas

    Can’t see load of point in up dating this as it’s still a good lens. Only reason to up date it would be if offers something different. Maybe lighter or a little faster. I think the one lens they really need to update is the 17-55 dx. That and a 24mm 1.8 dx. Ideally a similar price/performance as the 35 1.8 dx.

    • manattan

      Ideally they would make a PF version and make it for DX. That lens I would buy. As to the VR versus non-VR, I think it is a dumb move. Why complicate inventory stocks?

      • ZoetMB

        Price points.

    • iamlucky13

      It really could be a lot better beyond 200mm. Besides, I think part of Nikon’s strategy is releasing new models to justify price increases and shake down upgrade sales on models they know sell well.

      I don’t think Nikon has figured out how to estimate the demand for lenses like high-end DX lenses like the 17-55, especially since so much time passed between the D300 and the D500. They also probably figure the 16-80 is good enough. But you’re right – the D500 would benefit from an update to the 17-55 to allow D500 users to get the most out of their bodies. On the other hand, they know the 70-300 is a perennially popular focal length, and it can be marketed both to DX and FX users.

      Nikon definitely needs to flesh out the DX prime set, including a 24mm F/1.8, and hopefully two more progressively wider options (10mm and 16mm?). Again, Nikon should think about how to unlock the full potential of the D500, and they’ll collect some sales to D7XXX users besides.

      • Eric Calabros

        No third party did a 24 or 16mm DX. It should tell you something. Really not enough demand? or a mindset about not enough demand.

        • Steven Thomas

          Possibly not but a 24mm 1.8 at a good price point could tempt a few.

          • Sawyerspadre

            It would seem a 16mm would be a better first prime. They have a 24 1.8 for FX that is good and can be used on DX.

            Why not a lens that has the field of view of a 24?

            • Pat Mann

              The 24 f/1.8 for FX is unnecessarily complex, large and expensive for DX because of the FX field coverage. The lens comes only with an FX-field hood. No 24mm DX hood available for this large bayonet size that I’m aware of.

        • nwcs

          Self fulfilling prophecy?

        • Riley Escobar

          It’s too bad Nikon isn’t as committed as Fuji to DX lenses. I’d love a Nikon 23mm f/1.4 or 16mm f/1.4 DX lens.

          • Pat Mann

            Make that “and”, not “or”for me.

    • Thom Hogan

      I’d say that the 24mp DX cameras proved it to be a weak lens, especially at the long end, which is where most users tend to be at most of the time. I no longer recommend the 70-300mm. Other lenses are clearly better. Even the 55-300mm DX is better optically (though not in focus motor).

      This lens really needed a redesign for the modern world. But I worry that Nikon is once again emphasizing low consumer products when the need is for something higher. It seems Nikon wants to sell 18-xx and 55/70-xx lenses still. Those decisions are driven by past results, which I don’t believe are as valid these days as the market shifted. That said, a 70-300mm is still an important lens to have, it’s just that we’re seeing “more of the same” from Nikon while neglecting obvious holes or needed remakes (where’s a wide angle DX prime or the 200mm f/4 macro replacement?).

    • Pat Mann

      Not great at 200-300 – that could use an improvement. Agree 100% on the 24mm f/1.8 DX – start filling the gaping void of wide DX primes, + 18 or 16 f/1.8 would be nice, and a 12 f/2.8. I expected these to come after the D300, or at least after the D300s. No such luck. Would love to see a 16-50 f/2.8, though I suspect Nikon thinks they’ve done that with the 16-80. And a 50-135 f/2.8 would really fill out the range. Unless the D500 starts a movement, probably won’t happen until the mirrorless APS-C Nikon cameras are released.

      Only Fujifilm really sees the APS-C lens light so far. Still waiting for the X-T400 though.

  • animalsbybarry

    Perhaps Nikon has a camera planned with IBIS

    • Maybe their upcoming mirrorless?

      • Eric Calabros

        The irony is that IBIS is not very effective in tele ranges.

        • Piotr Kosewski

          That depends on the kind of IBIS implemented.
          An optical IBIS (elements between the sensor and the actual lens) could be effective. Nikon has patented stabilizing adapters a while ago.

          • Eric Calabros

            Any idea works flawlessly.. in patent documents.

    • Steven Thomas

      That’s a thought. That would be interesting to see.

  • and the 70-300mm is a full frame lens 🙂

    • manattan

      You can use VR with IBIS, and the two together lead to even better stabilization then either alone; witness the Panasonic and Olympus cameras + lenses.

      • Thom Hogan

        Yes, and dual IS would be especially useful at 300mm. But things have to move in steps. Nikon doesn’t really have a sensor-based IS system, so how would they build a dual system before they had taken step one?

    • animalsbybarry

      Here is a wild speculation loosely based on actual currently made sensors and rumors

      FF mirrorless
      Sony manufactured sensor
      5 axis ibis works together wth OSS
      150 mp 2.4 um pixel pitch full array dual pixel
      DBI direct bond interface on Exmor RS sensor
      25 fps unlimited burst
      Dual XQD card slot
      F mount or fully compatable with F mount lenses via adapter
      Advanced pixel shading
      Individual electronic shutter on every pixel

      I have reason to believe this technology is currently possible…I have absolutely no idea if this will actually be built

      • 150MP? No way. Maybe in 5 years.

      • Jaroslav Charvát

        Weeeeeellll… 150 MP at 14bit at 25fps is some 6,5 GBps. Assuming the data can be compressed like in current cameras (my 24MP 14bit lossless nefs are usually somewhere in the region of 32 MB on average), you are still looking at some 5 GBps file writes. Unlimited? Umm… like in a lab, connected to a massive server, probably. SSD’s are progessing quite nicely, but still, these are more like RAMdisk parameters. I’d love to see the progress of any card type in this way, though. OTOH, I’d hate to go through these petabytes of data from one session and picking the best shots.

        • animalsbybarry

          DBI direct bond interface
          Is a technology owned by Zypterex and licensed to Sony
          This allows a ” multi chip solution”
          As Sony is currently using it
          Exmor RS is a BSI backside illuminated Stacked ( on pixel processing elements) chip
          Additional processing chips are directly bonded to the image sensor
          Effectively this results in almost unlimited on sensor processing capability plus the multi chip solution provides greater surface for heat dissipation

          In the full frame version this will almost certainly be coupled with Dual QXD card slot

          Sony also is indicating unlimited burst capability ( the write to card will keep up with the burst so the buffer will never fill up)

          Nikon has a history of buying the best available sensor , including Sony, so it seems highly likely that the best of this Sony technology will end up in a Nikon camera

          They 70-80 mp rumor I have heard is considered highly reluable
          The 150 mp rumor I have heard is not considered highly reliable…

      • Max

        And it should have a second sensor at 16mpx for low light mode. The slide in and out behind the mirror 😀

        • animalsbybarry

          The rumor for 150mp included a low res low light mode where 4 pixels combine for low light

    • animalsbybarry

      I wonder how it will compare with the new Sony FE 70-300 and if the close focus ability will be comparable ?

  • iamlucky13

    I’ve been hoping for this with a sense of hesitation. This is my main telephoto because it’s an affordable, but very versatile, easily portable telephoto. Unfortunately it is outresolved, especially at 300mm, by the current sensors. When it was released, the cameras it was most likely to be paired with had 6 MP sensors (The 12 MP D2X was not the target body).

    However, although I expect the new version to be significantly improved in terms of resolution like the 80-400 update was, I also expect it to be significantly more expensive. My hope is it will be less than $600, but my suspicion is it will be over $800. At that price, the premium for the 70-200 F/4 doesn’t seem so bad. The latter is sharp enough that cropping or a 1.4X TC will likely be solid alternatives at the long end, and of course, offer F/4 without the TC.

    Others will probably disagree with me on this, but I also hope they don’t go PF on this one. Smaller size could be really nice, but the bokeh quality on the 70-300 is somewhat distracting as is, especially when shooting small birds in the brush where the reproduction ratio is high enough for a significant amount of the scene to be out of focus at a lowly F/5.6.

    • manattan

      I disagree. The 70-200 f4 is already big enough that most times I leave it behind in favor of the 300 PF 4. A PF 70-300 would be most welcome.

      • Eric Calabros

        PF just makes it expensive, while this lens targets low budget crowd. Beside that, PF doesnt show its full miracle in any lens.

        • manattan

          Nikon may not be targeting the “low budget” crowd as the margins are weaker than producing products for the “high budget” crowd. Many of the things they have produced recently scream “keep margins up even if volume stays low” (D5, D500, DLs, 300PF, and even the “budget” 200-500 is still $1.3 thousand).
          I would counter that Nikon already has the 55-300 for “budget” consumers, and if they want to produce a budget lens, they would update or replace that one. The existing 70-300 served as a gateway drug to more expensive lenses… what you are really saying is that they need a new drug to get folks addicted to high quality glass 😉

          • Eric Calabros

            They are selling pretty capable FX cameras for the price of D7200. Those FX bodies need budget tele zoom anyway. You cant simply tell your customer: get some of our top lenses or go back to DX.

            • Thom Hogan

              That’s only true if you assume that the consumer market is still important. Yet it’s the consumer customer that Nikon is currently having the most trouble with: they’re disappearing for Nikon (and most of the industry).

      • iamlucky13

        I definitely understand your argument, and I can’t fault Nikon if they make a 70-300 PF, because I suspect my caring about the relatively minor drawbacks of PF represent the minority in this market segment. Obviously the 300 F/4 PF has been well-received. That said, the 300 F/4 PF and the current 70-300 VR are very similar in size and weight. I’d hope they can hold a replacement to the same.

        It’s not that size isn’t a consideration – I’d honestly have already bought a used 300mm G, but I know the size and weight would keep me from bringing it along except in those very rare occasions when I have time to actually make an outing dedicated to photography. I simply think a non-PF replacement would provide the best compromise for my situation – budget, portability, and performance all considered.

        Then again, it’s not like the bokeh on the 300 PF is that bad. I’m just assuming that a 70-300 PF will make similar compromises compared to the current 70-300 as the 300 PF does compared to the 300 G. If I’m wrong on this and Nikon makes a 70-300 that is smaller than the current model, sharper, and does as well in other regards, then I happily retract my previously stated preference.

    • I got an old used 80-400 for $495 on consignment at a camera store. That might serve you just as well, if not better. It’s very sharp but autofocus can be slow. Actually, autofocus is erratic – it’s either really slow or pretty fast. Worth checking out if you can get it for close to the money I paid. I would certainly prefer it by a high margin over the 70-300 as I remember it.

      • iamlucky13

        I’ve thought about it, but what I’ve heard about the optical performance of the old 80-400 doesn’t sound like it really outperforms the 70-300 – just adds a bit more reach. AF speed is a potential concern, but the main hold back is the fact that it weighs twice as much and takes up a lot more bag space than my 70-300.

  • Tieu Ngao

    The current 70-300 is soft at 300mm. I hope that the new 70-300 will fix it. The new lens should also be faster, perhaps at f/3.5-4.5, and the price is in the same range as the current one. Too much to hope for?

    • Eric Calabros

      Making it faster will making it bigger. It should stay compact

      • Allen_Wentz

        With improving camera capture ability lenses need to get better, not stay compact. Just my (selfish) 0.02.

    • iamlucky13

      F/3.5-4.5 is too much to hope for. You’re talking about a lens with larger elements than the 70-200 F/4, but longer reach, for a lower price. The most I’d hope for is F/4-f/5.6 – a small improvement at the wide end only, similar to older versions of the 70-300.

      I also expect the price to go up commensurate with the improvements. That has been Nikon’s trend, as they did with the 70-200 F2.8, 80-400, 300mm F/4, and 16-80.

      • Allen_Wentz

        But not with their very latest tele lens, the great value 200-500mm f5.6. I am hoping Nikon has value tele production dialed in and will continue to go that way.

    • outkasted

      is not soft. Its soooooofft…..offff….offfff.t.

    • Gf

      But it’s quite sharp at 200mm mark, almost as sharp as the 70-200vr2 at 200mm f5.6. So considering the modest price and size, it is a pretty good lens for many of us who actually value real life practicality over ultimate image quality in long zooms. I don’t need expensive long zooms but light weight very portable but not too compromised quality 70-300 like the new Sony FE zoom. So it’s a great move I think.

      • Tieu Ngao

        It’d be great if the new one at 300mm is as sharp as the old one at 200mm.

    • whisky

      yet not nearly as soft as the previous version was. some might even say still “good enough” for a poke. 🙂

    • BG

      No idea what you guys are shooting, or how large you’re printing, but I got absolutely excellent bird photos in Iceland from my 70-300 VR on a D610. I was stunned by how good that lens was (I used live view/contrast AF though, as the phase seemed to be somewhat inconsistent). Would a 300/2.8 have been better? Sure. But the 70-300 was really surprisingly good at close distance.

  • animalsbybarry

    Just began shooting my new
    200-400 f4 VR ii
    TC 20e iii
    TC 14e iii
    I am loving it … Especially the ability to get so close…6.4″ with up to 800mm focal length

    • Shutterbug

      Twice in this very short comment section so far you have told everyone you got a 200-400 VR II with no prior context. How is your purchase of a lens that literally costs 15 times as much relevant in a rumor post about a 70-300 replacement? We get it, you got an expensive new lens, I’m sure there are better places to brag about it than among people interested in a $500 70-300VR replacement.

    • So back to Nikon? Abandon Sony?

      • Jeffry De Meyer

        Sony and tele, lol

      • animalsbybarry

        Currently Nikon: long lens
        Sony / macro/ medium lenses
        But all options are open, especially if Steeie Chen can deliver as promised

      • jstevez

        In the internet people switch brands overnight.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Don’t you mean 6.4′ rather than 6.4″ ?

      In any event a sweet lens.

      • animalsbybarry


  • Stephen Corby

    I’m sure it is! But that’s more than 3 times the costs of the Canon 100-400. Hoping for something more reasonably priced 🙂

    • Gf

      The try the a7r2 plus Sony 70-300g

      • animalsbybarry

        I have preordered the FE 70-300
        It seems like it will have really good center sharpness at 300 mm, and focuses to 2.9′ for almos macro .31 magnification
        In addition if you put the Sigma MA 72-01 achromatic close up on it it should focus closer and have .5 x max magnification
        This will be my walk around lens on the A7Rii plus the FE 90mm macro
        I will be carrying that and my Nikon long lens set up everywhere

    • The 200-500 is reasonably priced; just very heavy. Hopefully the new 70-300 will continue Nikon’s strong run of new lens releases.

      • Politics_Nerd

        24-70 VR notwithstanding….

        • That’s not a _bad_ lens, at worst it’s just too big and too expensive and much of a muchness optically. (I speak only from reviews; I do not own nor do I want a lens of that class.)

          If you’re going to poke my argument, how about the 18-55 without VR?

  • Reilly Diefenbach

    Good news. Nikon should be able to get it to be a bit sharper than the current 70-300VR @300mm with better performance in the borders and corners (with less CA,) in which case I’ll definitely upgrade.

  • m1hoff

    This is actually a wonderful lens, it’s just not fast enough for most people, and the variable aperture gives the appearance of a lesser product. Keep this one as an entry leveland add a f/4.0 version.

    • catinhat

      F/4 version would not be anywhere as portable, probably a bit larger and heavier than 70-200/2.8.

      • Micha Quär

        Sigma 100-300 f4 anyone? Its absoluty possible and would be a great lense. Iam not shooting nikon anymore, but i would also love to see such a lense for other systems like E-Mount 🙂 F5.6 ist just not fast enough and the superb 120-300 f2.8 is just… well, damn expensive ^^

        • catinhat

          I shoot with both these Sigma’s and both are excellent but heavy, though the 100-300 f/4 is a lot more manageable. Still, it is way too much to carry for casual use, unlike this 70-300 f/5.6 Nikkor, which is why I said that an f/4 lens in this range is a totally different beast and won’t serve the same purpose despite having superior abilities..

          • Micha Quär

            They could make it a 120-300 f4, less range but more brightness 😀 I really miss my 100-300 f4 now on my alpha77… But for sports i was just not fast (AF and f-stop) enough 🙁

            • catinhat

              I actually disagree with the criticism of the 100-300/4. I found that in daylight the AF and the f-stop are perfectly suitable for sports, even with 1.4x TC if necessary. I’ve been using it with the D300 for daytime soccer and lacrosse for a very long time with great success. Of course, as the light fades or under stadium lighting this is not the lens to use, even with a D3S.

  • Brett Monroe

    Any update on camera (specifically FX) updates/refreshes this year?

  • Gf

    But Sony main cmos plant was completely destroyed by the second after shock of the recent Kumamoto earth quakes, so you cannot expect any thing good from them in the next few years.
    Nikon was smart to ditch Sony sensor and went with their own design in the d500

    • animalsbybarry

      Your comment is incorrect
      Although currently closed for evaluation there is no indication of the extensive damage to claim
      Here is a link to the latest reports on the status of the Sony plants

    • animalsbybarry

      Your comment is not correct
      I sent a link to the most recent status reports but it went into moderation because it contained a lint

    • Yes, reported that on PhotoRumors:
      Operations at Sony Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation’s Kumamoto Technology Center (located in Kikuchi Gun, Kumamoto Prefecture), which primarily manufactures image sensors for digital cameras and security cameras as well as micro-display devices, were halted after the earthquake on April 14, and currently remain suspended. Damage to the site’s building and manufacturing lines is currently being evaluated, and with aftershocks continuing, the timeframe for resuming operations has yet to be determined.

  • Captain Megaton

    “The latest AF-P DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G lens also came as a VR and non-VR versions.”

    Except it didn’t did it? Announced in January. Not available at any major retailer, or bundled with any camera, that I can see.

  • How are you handling the size and weight? Do you hand hold it at all?

    • animalsbybarry

      I have a simple rig I made that allows full movement, eliminates all the weight, and allows one finger handheld operation

  • Manuel Ferreira

    What to expect for Photokina this year ? D3400/3500, D620, D820, some lenses, what else could be….?

    • EnPassant

      The D3300 is on sale here, so maybe we will see a replacement soon? D610 was upgraded with the D750. When most of the old stock of D610 is sold out D750 will replace it as the budget FX camera as the D760 will be presented in time for Photokina. D820 should be released in summer already.

      That is if Nikon follows their usual release schedule. There is however talk about a Nikon mirrorless camera being released at Photokina. If that is true some expected DSLR releases could be pushed into 2017.

      • Yes, I think the D3300 will be replaced soon as well – I will post this online. I still have no details.

  • I have a sneaky feeling these versions will have AF-P autofocusing motors in them.

    • Morris

      and it will cost around 1k €/$

  • reporteratlarge

    C’mon Nikon – where’s your 135mm F2 update?

    • Espen4u

      Better yet a 135/1.8 and it’s patended.

    • Morris

      and 200 f4 macro + macro lightning set

  • Squirrel&Nuts

    Oh Please Wake me up when Nikon gets Serious about Their Lenses like Sigma did with Art Line. Nikon your 85mm 1.8 G is Excellent. Let me think of another Nikon Lens that is excellent..hummm ….wait still thinking…oh wait..105mm DF and 135 DF.

  • Ahmed Negm

    Could someone remind Nikon about their 135mm f2? Seriously this is getting ridiculous

    • Yep, would love to see them bring one of those out.

    • nwcs

      The market for a 135 is going to be much less than the 70-300. Businesses think in terms of ROI.

      • Mike

        I know someone who bought a Sony with an adapter to be able to use the Canon 135 f/2. It’s that good. Sony and Canon got the sale because Nikon doesn’t have a modern 135 f/fast.

        • nwcs

          OK, that’s 1 sale. Compared to how many of the 70-300? I’m not saying they shouldn’t do a 135 but that it’s a very very niche lens.

          • Mike

            I suppose it’s perpspective. For what I do, anything over 300mm is niche and can’t figure out why they refresh 300 2.8 up to 600mm every 3-4 years, seemingly. Meanwhile the 105 & 135 are from the late 80’s (?). Like the old 85 1.4D, they lose contrast and sharpness at anything other than portrait distances. And are “cooler” in their rendering than the modern primes and zooms with N coating. The 85 1.4G is a much better all rounder than the D version and I’m sure people, like me, are waiting for a 135 f/fast to be the same.

            • nwcs

              Maybe Thom will chime in with some sales data on both or something.

        • m0r3px1s

          I’m waiting for a new Nikon 135mm as well. I have tried the current (old) one and it is simply not good enough for my needs. The focal length is though – it is precisely what I need. I’m just getting by with the 105mm micro + 1.4x TC but it is not a sustainable solution.

  • Dovlado

    If the new model will improve the current, definitely i’ll buy it.

    The 70-300 is one of the lenses that offer me better results in my D750.

    I wish a 70-300 f/4 version like have said some guys here, too.

  • Wally Brooks

    Besides a marketing decision that new lens sell more cause they are new the question is Why redue the 70-300? I own one and for the money a really good lens. If they make the 300 part sharper then yes other wise the origional version falls into the 80-200 f2.8 category- I own one of these too- great lens that work great.

    • Allen_Wentz

      You answered your own question: “make the 300 part sharper.”

      The other reason would be if they regularly sell 70-300, why not bring what they sell current with their latest production capabilities? A new version may actually be cheaper for them to produce in addition to being a better product. When I look at what US$1400 buys with the new 200-500mm it just screams that Nikon has learned to do something right value-wise in zoom tele.

  • nwcs

    I’m not in the market for this lens but I think updating this lens would be great. 2 versions may be a bit much but maybe they can have a regular one like the old ED version and a higher performing one that’s sharper at 300mm.

  • Kikou Yamata

    It will be interesting to check what Nikon has to offer but the current 70-300 is already a very, very good combination weight-reach-performance-price especially on a DX body. I don’t see how a non-VR lens could make sense = it will not be that much cheaper than the current model, and would have to be much better to offer a valuable alternative. Except of course if Nikon comes with a DX f/2.8 !

  • Dino Brusco

    Hm. Better to wait then, but if I had to choose a 70-300 today, I honestly prefer the Tamron’s, which seems to have equal or comparable performance at a much lower price than Nikon’s
    I want to add that we won’t see any 70-300 f/4 from Nikon, at best a 100-300f/4 (if we’re lucky) again by Sigma, although I don’t remember any f/4 zoom patent of any kind, right now.

  • MonkeySpanner

    Hmmm. Vr and non vr huh. Preparing for a body with on sensor stabilization? I have said it before – I think the update to the d3300 will be mirror less.

  • I have owned the 70-300VR since it came out. It has been an awesome lens but as the bodies have improved it really shows its limits in resolution and contrast beyond 200mm. Also the color is not up to par with the coatings in newer DX like the 18-140. I hope they keep it close in size and weight since it is so nice to shoot with in its current form.

  • TylerChappell

    It would be really nice if the price stayed around $500 for the VR model, but I would anticipate closer to $700 just because Nikon wants to make people salty like that.

  • Monopod? More portable and just as effective at weight-bearing.

  • MonkeySpanner

    Any d3400 rumors? Seems like that body is due for a refresh.

    • Yes, I believe this is the next camera to be announced, I will post this online – I have been holding it with the hope to get some specs before posting the rumor online.

      • MonkeySpanner

        Great. Thanks.

  • Kenny

    I hope Canon could update their obsolete 70-300 crap too.

  • Did any officially announced news?
    I can’t wait for this : )

      • marcello

        this is DX

        • Yes

          • Du322

            So are we still expecting a replacement for the FX lens or was the rumour wrong and the DX version is all we’re getting? Your “yes” response to the question above is ambiguous at best.

            • Sorry, this was the rumored lens I knew about – I have not heard about a new full frame version.

        • marcello

          so this is NOT a replacing of Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VRII

        • Du322

          Exactly and the original rumour was that the FX lens would be replaced. My question is whether the rumour was wrong or are we still expecting a new FX version?

          • Yes, when I first got the rumor, I assumed it was the full frame lens that was getting replaced.

  • marcello

    this is NOT a replacing of Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VRII

  • Back to top