Nikon AF-P DX Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED lens leaked online

Nikon AF-P DX Nikkor 70-300mm f:4.5-6.3G ED lens
Back in April I reported about two new upcoming Nikkor 70-300mm lenses - one with and one without VR. Both versions are now listed on Nikon's website (broken links) but are not yet officially announced:

  • AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED
  • AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR

My guess is that those two lenses will be announced together with the D3300 replacement.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • tap0

    The upcoming Nikon mirror less camera will be a Dx camera

    • Micha Quär

      If it has a nice fast AF, 4k Video and good allround performance i may could switch back to nikon again. But what i really would miss is Ibis 🙁

      • Nobody Knows

        I shoot both mirrorless and Nikon FF for video image stabilisation is a major bonus for stills it is of niche use

    • luca

      I hope so really soon much! and I hope it will share the same Nikon F mount of the DSRLs.

      • EnPassant

        Doesn’t make sense as it the will keep the same thickness of current DX cameras.

        • harvey

          that’s what a lot of people don’t realize – any body using the F-mount would have to have the same depth regardless of not having a mirror. Counterproductive if keeping the size down.

          • 9MW

            Could be done with an adapter to provide the correct distance for legacy F mount lenses. Adapter would need a mechanical link to connect with screw drive AF lenses. Not easy but not impossible. Legacy lenses compatibility may be Nikon’s greatest competitive strength so adapter needs to come as a standard accessory included in the price. .

            • harvey

              basically what Sony did with the FE mount and A lenses although Nikon did it a little better with the 1 Series adapter – kind of. Still focused slow. But now, you have a new mount to deal with and if Nikon keeps the 1 series alive, you are producing lenses in 3 different mounts. Only Pentax was that crazy. Maybe Fuji.

            • PhilK

              If Nikon comes out with a DX MILC I think the 1 series will have to go away.

              Which is a pity only because of all the resources it has sucked away from Nikon during a time when their resources have been limited, and probably hasn’t been profitable in the traditional sense. Tho it seems to have been a decent platform for research on mirrorless AF and so on.

          • Nobody Knows

            The thing is once you start bolting lenses on them the mirrorless size advantage for FF and APS cameras disappears . I would be happy
            to have the advantages of a mirrorless body with regard to EVF, proper video,
            fps , rapid S-AF and so on, large enough to have an F mount.

            Don’t believe me take a
            look at the size of Sony lenses for their FF models. Neither an APS or FF mirrorless camera with good
            lenses is ever going to be tiny and compact , there are no shortage of options if you need tiny

        • Size is not the only reason to ‘go mirrorless’.

          • EnPassant

            The other main reason is the EVF. But not reducing the thickness with a new mount would be dumb I think. Especially for DX cameras that would look stupid as mirrorless cameras with F-mount when compared to Canon’s, Fujifilm’s and Sony’s mirrorless APS-C cameras. Especially with wide angle primes attached!
            An adapter would take care of the compatibility with F-mount lenses.

            • harvey

              you can put an EVF into a dslr.

            • El Aura

              Probably, but why hasn’t anybody done so so far? Canon has quite a number of DSLRs with dual-pixel AF (aka on-sensor PDAF). It even has a video-focussed DSLR with the EOS-1D C. Sony has a line of cameras with DSLR flange distance and EVF but not combining optical & electronic VF. Pentax and Sigma have (or had) equally DSLR flange distance cameras with EVFs but no optical ones.

              What is holding everybody back from releasing a DSLR with an EVF?

            • EnPassant

              Of course, like the Sony A-mount SLT solution. But if it will be a true mirrorless camera without any mirror I don’t see the point keeping the limiting, long flange distance that make DSLRs so much fatter.

            • Nobody Knows

              not without using some g=kind of SLT solution which has not exactly been a winner of Sony. Their A mount users are hanging on by their fingernails.

            • Micha Quär

              EVF, way better Liveview-Performance and ofc: No mor BACK- and FRONTFOCUS!

            • David

              You’d still have back and front focus if the primary autofocus is phase detect, hence why the E-M1 has AF Fine Tune. But more to the point, if you’ve got a DX camera with an f/6.3 lens hanging off the front, you’re going to have enough depth of field that a little front or back focus really won’t matter.

        • luca

          which is perfectly fine! if you look at the present trend for mirrorless cameras they are becoming heavier and bigger than before. Which is correct from an ergonomic point of view and also for their lenses. Look at Sony Alpha series for example: a too light and small body for those super heavy FF lenses … totally wrong … imho. Fuji and M4/3 are goes correctly on the path.

          • EnPassant

            Maybe for you. But I think most people moving from DSLRs to Mirrorless cameras do it because of the size.

            I agree some mirrorless cameras are too small. While one can argue Sony A7 cameras do not balance well with many FE lenses we are discussing APS-C mirrorless cameras here. And for APS-C A7 in different versions would be a great camera with an APS-C sensor and still be smaller (but not lighter because of more solid metal build versus mostly plastic) than for exemple a Nikon D5500. Dedicated APS-C cameras like Fujifilm are even smaller with still a good enough grip. Sony A6000 is smaller yet, but therefore more compromised. It’s not tall enough for a good grip and have a small display size for photos:

            The big problem is however wide angle prime lenses, and the lack of them for APS-C DSLR cameras. Dedicated WA primes with same specification as lenses for mirrorless APS-C cameras would be much bigger because of optical reasons caused by the longer flange distance on DSLRs.

            To solve this problem Nikon would have to create a special version of the F-mount for mirrorless cameras, like Canon did with their EF-S mount for APS-C DSLRs. But because the Nikon mount is not as wide as The Canon EF/EF-S mount I doubt it is practically possible or worth the effort.

            It is also notable not even Canon opted for a mirrorles EF-S mount camera but developed the EF-M mount. And despite the EF-S mount allowing somewhat smaller lenses (but still restricted by the smaller than FF mirror for APS-C cameras) EF-M cameras and lenses are clearly smaller.

            Building a mirrorless with F mount would restrict both optics and AF operation and make the camera not competitive with true mirrorless cameras. Therefore F-mount compatibility is better solved with a good adapter.

            • luca

              Mirrorless Nikon camera in APS-C format would be great for all of us. And despite longer flange you can clearly see that Nikon DX lenses are MUCH smaller than FX counterparts.
              And lighter too.
              At this point a mirrorless APS-C camera with SAME DX lenses in F mount would be a win!
              And the lack of wide angles primes in APS-C format from both Canon and Nikon is NOT due to optical reasons because Fuji huge offer is there to demonstrate you (even with a shorter flange which is more difficult from optical point of view). Simply Canon and Nikon have thought not to do the effort from a financial point because they were/are so blind to develop only full frame line of cameras and lenses. And give to DX only zooms because they are considered “Pro” by them. I don’t see any other reason.

    • parallax

      I would love to switch back to Nikon….

    • Espen4u

      That would be sad, following Canon. And it won’t be so easy now to get a piece out of the mirrorless apc-s cake. But this could be why N has been so reluctant to make any dx primes (except the nifty-fifty).

      • Nobody Knows

        What mirrorless APS camera do you think Canon has that is real competition for anyone lol

  • manattan

    Looking forward to this update.

  • Eric Calabros

    and yet G again? Cant they be a bit consistent for gods sake?

    • RMJ

      G stands for “no aperture ring”.
      Those lenses won’t have aperture ring like none of the recent Nikkors.

      So what’s the problem?

      • Eric Calabros

        Not being E is the problem.

        • The Melbu

          not a huge issue TBH

          • EnPassant

            Just buy the VR version. The non VR version is for poor people.

        • EnPassant

          Maybe too expensive for extremely cheap kit lenses like these?

  • Coolhand

    I’m mystified. Two 70-300 DX-lenses. They must be extremely cheap, otherwise I’d rather have the 55-300 DX since it’s f:5,6 and 55 at the low end.

    • Riley Escobar

      Yeah the DX part doesn’t make sense.

      • EnPassant

        It does as these will be kit lenses with 300mm reach but size of the 55-200 VR lenses.

    • DrNo666

      totally agree. to me it makes no sense other than doing something cheaper than 55-200mm. I cant really get Nikons DX line up. for FX they have kind of 3 various budget options for wide, normal, tele and super tele. the DX line up is chaos. this edition dont make it better. is the the supercheap tele option?

    • Bob Thane

      Though the 55-300 is rubbish at 300mm at all apertures – if this new lens is sharper at the long end it might make up for the slower aperture.

  • Ritvar Krum

    a f-en DX? why? this gona be better than 55-300? and a version without VR… you got to be kidding me, right? or is this for the next nikon mirorless DX, that will have inbodystabilisatiobn? (if the later is true – then I am no longer pissed, but little aroused).

    • EnPassant

      Not better, but smaller and lighter than the 55-300. Compare the different 18-300 versions.
      Nikon always had non VR kit zooms for markets where even small differences in price matters a lot. Don’t expect IBVR for Nikon any time soon.

    • parallax

      IBIS in a mirrorless DX. Consider me more than a little aroused…

    • PhilK

      These are going to be relatively inexpensive lenses wit the “P” style AF, which is optimal for cameras used for video and/or phase-detect AF. Not really competing with the FF/Pro line.

      Makes sense to me.

  • Nikonland

    In a nutshell: junk 🙁

  • Micha Quär

    6.3 at the long end… Not that great and a reason for me to not buy something like that. But i really hope, thats a hint for the starting of nikons mirrorless lineup (at least APSC) 🙂

  • Firebrand

    These both must be incredibly cheap; I don’t get it. There should properly be a:

    – DX 50-300 f/4.5-5.6 (VR, cheap construction, but optically good), and an
    – FX 100-300 f/4.5 VR (solid, sharp, very good 70-300 VR replacement).

    • peter w

      make it four, F4.

      and PF

      and focussing to 0,8 m.

    • Micha Quär

      Ahhh. 100-300 f4 (like the wonderfull Sigma 100-300f4 i had in my nikon times) and with OIS, would be an wonderfull tele-lense 🙂

      • The Melbu

        100% agree, I still have that sigma and its great but really needed to be updated for those of us who don’t need/want the massive 150-600 and similar lenses

    • EnPassant

      A DX 55-300/4.5-5.6 IF-ED VR already excist.
      The 70-200/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 105-280/4 lens.
      I don’t think you will be successful asking Nikon for lenses with minor differences to what they already sell.

      • Firebrand

        But isn’t a darker 70-300 very WEIRD for DX, when brighter 55-300 exists?? I’m just talking about an upgrade, so I extended it to 50. If we are talking about upgrades (replacement lenses).

        As for FX, fair enough if you don’t mind carrying that around. But Nikon had quite successfully produced a 70-300 VR full frame, so your argument is a bit weak if you think a 70-200/2.8 + 1.4TC compares in build quality or cost. The latter being far greater. I was considering from the point of view of “upgrades” on the consumer lens. I just don’t think that 70-300 is an appealing range anymore, at this level of dark lens. That’s probably why Nikon didn’t make an FX version.

        So if Nikon wanted to refresh anything, and keep FX interested, a 100-300 /4.5 VR should be possible — consumer grade, with optics/build similar to the 200-500 — to make somewhere between the weight/size of a 70-200/4 and a 70-200/2.8+TC, and for a lot less money and much more compact than the tc combo. An update on the 70-300 VR.

        Meanwhile, if Nikon is coming out with a new 70-200/2.8 VR III, then that is a totally separate matter. That will be a brick and a chunk of high quality glass with lots of metal parts (one hopes).

        • EnPassant

          No. Reason is to reduce size and weight and make the lens able to have a collapsing design. The 55-300 is too big for most ordinary consumers. That’s why Nikon upgraded the 18-300/3.5-5.6 with a much smaller and lighter 18-300/3.5-6.3 lens. Most people buying these lenses care more about size than aperture, if they at all have any knowledge about what that is. Besides it is only a third stop difference.

          A 100-300 with a constant f/4.5 would be much bigger than a 70-300/4.5-5.6 lens and not much smaller than the 70-200/2.8. The difference is too small for Nikon to bother making such a lens.
          If you want a very good 300mm lens, then buy the new or old 300/4 prime. I have the old. It’s excellant and very affordable used.

          • Firebrand

            I can see that being the reason. But I seriously doubt the 55-300 VR is too big for average consumer — when the incredibly petite 55-200 VR II exists. I’m 100% sure that everyone who consciously buys a 55-300 VR over a 55-200 VR knows why they are buying it. And its to have a “serious” lens for reach. And I would argue (at least from an American consumer perspective), the “telescope” look of the 55-300 is something that a large mass of the DX gear segment craves. It may sound weird, but the reason a soccer mom/dad buys a DSLR — and chooses not to use a tiny pocket cam, a phone, or even a small mirrorless — is because they want to have that slightly bigger gear in their hands. So either they are keeping up with the Joneses OR they did research and know that a bigger sensor and bigger lens can often get better results. Plus, they love the status that comes with “a real camera” and showing their “real lens”. Otherwise, they’d just get a nice pocketcam with 10x zoom, which would probably be nearly as good in full daylight, and reaches out to 600mm, etc, etc.

            Anyway, you are probably right though. And I guess anyone who jumps from a 55-200 f/~5.6 to a 55-300 f/~6.3 might not notice in daylight, as long as if at 200mm the new lens is still around f/5.6. But if Nikon really wants to make DX into a slim solution, sheesh, it should just make a set of ultra-slim f/3.5 pancake lenses, already.

            Nikon used to have the f/2.8 line. Since they’ve come out with the f/1.8 line — I think that means that there is viable market for f/3.5 or f/4 pancakes (or pancake-ish slim lenses).

            • EnPassant

              I don’t know what Americans crave as I don’t live in USA. But I know North Americans have had a long going obsession with everything that is big. However USA is not the whole world.

              You are propably correct in your observations of your fellow citizens (I assume you are living in USA?) and about those buying the 55-300.

              However many more million customers bought the different flavours of the 55-200 lens. Don’t you think they would want the 300mm reach if they could get it in almost the same small package and price?

              Besides I think the main reason buying a DSLR insted of a compact is the better image quality in low light, faster and better AF tracking and better controls. But people can of course buy what they want for whatever reason they like. I don’t care! 😀

              We will see what the future brings!

            • JXVo

              Agree. Having used the 55-200 kit lens on a friend’s D5100 for large wildlife at fairly close range (It was giraffes on that particular day) I had various frustrations when compared with my decent FX gear…
              – needed more reach some of the time for head shots
              – shockingly poor contrast (the lens was clean inside and out , I checked)
              – not very sharp, even on low resolution D5100 sensor.

              If Nikon is revising its kit telezoom offering then a collapsible 70-300 makes some sense but if it can’t have remarkably better optics than the 55-200 models then don’t even bother.

    • David

      I think the problem with the latter lens is it’s going to be roughly the size of the 80-400 if not bigger because it’s nearly a stop faster at the long end and only 25% shorter in focal length. If it were PF then it might work.

    • JXVo

      Make that FX 100-300 a constant f4 bigger brother to the stellar 70-200 f4G VR.

      • Firebrand

        Except, the 300/4 VR is already $2000. Not sure how much more a 100-300/4 VR would be. 😀

      • PhilK

        I’d vote for a lens like that, but F/4 would probably be a stretch for something with that range unless you want something really big and expensive. Pretty much all the past X-300mm Nikkors have been 5.6 on the long end, with the exception of various versions of the 50-300mm, which were F/4.5 and quite expensive/large.

        • JXVo

          Need be no bigger really than 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4TC fitted and no more costly either. The internal focus and internal zoom design of 70-200 f4 has given us a well sealed, sharp, close-focusing lens so similar optical design for a 100-300 f4 could be equally spectacular.

  • HD10

    Best indications that Nikon will be releasing a mirrorless/EVF camera with in-body image stabilization … in DX but hopefully, in FX as well. Alright Nikon, let’s see what you can do to differentiate yourself and better the current mirrorless camera offerings out there.

  • Chris

    What’s the AF-P designation mean?

  • Dustin 4WD

    I need new FX 70-300mm lens
    not DX 70-300mm….

    • Thom Hogan

      Absolutely agree that the FX 70-300mm needs replacement. Has needed it ever since we got to 24mp.

      • Sandy Bartlett

        So will they?

  • Mato34

    Weird. Let’s wait and see…

  • Zenettii

    I do find myself questioning time after time what must be going through the minds of Nikon’s decision makers and product managers.
    Why release an amazing D500 camera body, which has a very good DX sensor on it and targets sports and wildlife photographers who have to often deal with dim-lit environments, then follow up with terrible lenses like this which will only be brought by Chinese tourist groups.

    • luca

      I totally agree. And I’m still asking out loudly where are my DX fast primes, Nikon!?!?!?

      • Coolhand

        Or Nikon versions of the $149 Canon EF-S 24 f/2.8 and $279 Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6.
        Would like to see some low-cost wide angles.

        • EnPassant

          I agree about the affordable wide zoom. That is a lens Nikon should make. A wide normal such small as the EF-S 24 Nikon can’t make because of technical reasons with different specifications for Nikon DX cameras.

        • Adam Lang

          ditto that. the 10-18 or a low cost 14mm…

      • I’m not a DX shooter, so I don’t really understand why you would not simply buy the FX lenses?

        • Coolhand

          What FX lenses? The widest lens is the AF-S 20 f/1.8 which isn’t that wide on DX? And the DX 10,5 f/2.8 isn’t AF-S so it does not autofocus on the D3xxx and D5xxx bodies.
          I bought a Samyang 14 f/2.8 to get some affordable wide angle.

          • I agree, the big hole in the lens line is a great 14 mm prime. The current D lens is old and does not produce great results with today’s sensors. I am hoping for something new soon, but naturally my preference would be FX.

        • David

          If nothing else, you’re mounting lenses that are heavier than they need to be, and don’t necessarily hit the right focal lengths. For example, the widest FX zoom that takes filters is the 16-35…the Nikon DX equivalent lens is old and in need of replacement, whereas Tokina has come out with three lenses which arguably beat the Nikon (two 12-24s and the 12-28). Tokina makes an 11-16 while the Nikon equivalent, the 14-24, is great but takes no filters and is REALLY flare-prone. Nikon doesn’t make ANY of the standard primes in DX except for 50mm-equivalent. 58mm doesn’t count because it’s as expensive as the 85mm 1.4. Most people with DX cameras are Joe Schmoes walking around random places with their cameras. They’re not purely wildlife shooters, they’re not purely architecture shooters, and they probably want a variety of relatively cheap lenses that give them good results. Particularly at the wide end Canon seems to have customers satisfied (including a cheapish wide-angle zoom on EOS-M) but the Nikon versions are either nonexistent, outdated, or way too expensive.

          Now, let’s look at the telephotos: The 70-300 equivalent would be the 70-200 f/4, but that’s expensive and because it’s an FX lens weighs a bit more than it has to. The actual 70-300 would be a great 80-400 substitute if the optics weren’t lacking as 24mp DX is much more demanding than 24mp FX (it’s actually closer to 54mp FX).

          • I get the lack of a couple wide angle primes, but I see a lot of people asking for a series of fast primes. If you really want fast primes, you can buy the FX version. If you want a wide zoom, Nikon offers a 10-24. I don’t have any experience with it, but I am sure it will satisfy the Joe Schmoe you mentioned.

            I think the problem is that people want DX to be cheap and great optically. As you point out the optical requirements for sharpness on a DX lens on a sensor of 24MP is greater than a FX counterpart. This means it will need all the same technology to be sharp as a an FX lens, but maybe a little less material. As a result a great lens is still going to be expensive.

            By the way, the 14-24 does accept filters, just not screw in type. I use a NiSi mount on mine with 170mm square filters. It works great. I believe theit is an agapter for Lee and Corkin X series as well.

            • David

              I absolutely agree with your second paragraph, but the first one just isn’t quite true for a lot of situations. Most fast primes don’t hit the right focal lengths for DX users. The only one that really does is the 24mm pair, and honestly buying either is pretty overkill, especially the f/1.4. The 10-24 has poor build quality and the optics aren’t there compared with any of the Tokina lenses in that focal range.

              People do want DX to be cheap and great optically, but the point is that Nikon hasn’t been delivering that while other manufacturers have stepped up. My kit (coincidentally, I swear!) at one point was a Tokina 11-16, Sigma 17-50, and either a Nikon 55-200 VR or a Tamron 70-300. Each lens I chose had something the Nikon didn’t, like better optical quality or VR, and each one was had for a quite reasonable price.

              The real point is this: The vast majority of Nikon shooters are DX. The mirrorless manufacturers have shown they can not only make the right lenses for crop sensor formats, but provide lens/camera combos with a greater shooting envelope than DX. Hell, at this point Nikon is the only manufacturer withOUT an image-stabilized wide-angle zoom. This means that all things equal, Nikon can be three, even four stops behind literally every other manufacturer.

              Fuji has the 56mm 1.2, m4/3 the various 45mmish lenses, but what reasonably-priced portrait lens does Nikon have? The 50mms do not count. Fuji has several wide angle primes, m4/3 has two truly wide angle and a few less wide primes, and Nikon has…none.

              This is why people have been saying Nikon has been deliberately gimping the DX lens set to try to get people to go FX, but all that has happened is people buy used FX or new/used mirrorless, and either way Nikon loses out.

            • I agree with most of your points, but I take it a little further and that is that the overwhelming majority of DX shooters are happy with the kit lens and never buy a second lens. Of the DX shooters that purchase a second lens, the overwhelming majority of them probably want more reach and therefore go for a 70-300mm and the primary decision point is probably price and not IQ.

              All that said, I do hope to see strong mirrorless offering from Nikon that will use their current lenses.

              For the record, Nikon does offer the 16-35 and it has VR.

            • David

              Yeah, although since you’ve made the point that it’s hard to do quality DX for cheap, I wonder what the price will be?

              Do you have the 16-35? I know Thom Hogan and others praise it but lab tests seem to show the old 17-35 and even 18-35 outshooting it. Is that just flat test charts not telling the whole story or VR being such an extra boon?

            • I shot with the 16-35 quite a bit. It performs well and is far better than its reputation. I am not sure how good the VR works because I shot it almost exclusively on a tripod. I liked the increased range over the 14-24, but I found my self using the 14-24 most of the time, so I sold the 16-35.

            • Sebastian

              I would guess the 35/1.8 is also a very popular second lens because many people realize the low light limits of the kit zoom after a while.

            • PhilK

              For what it’s worth, I bought a Tamron 10-24 when I had my D300 (before Nikon had an equivalent, I believe) and its optical performance was terrible. Low contrast, low color saturation. AF wasn’t very good either. Hopefully the one they are selling now is a lot better.

            • Max

              Just two: a 16 and a 24. The 24 1.4 gives a 35mm angle on dx, which is perfect, though

            • David

              I thought I made a reply, but apparently it didn’t stick. Short version: Other than a 24mm lens as a 35mm-equivalent, there aren’t ANY FX primes that work on DX. Why would I get the 20mm FX lens when I could get the Sigma 18-35 DX lens for the same price and only slightly more weight?

              Second paragraph: Considering that Fuji, Sony, and m4/3 seem to have no problem making relatively cheap and relatively highly rated prime lenses, wide-angle [b]stabilized[/b] zooms, and telephotos sized for the sensor, why is Nikon DX having trouble? Canon’s already doing it with a stabilized wide-angle lens that’s probably got the durability of a gingerbread house on a volcano, but it’s sharp and relatively free of optical aberrations. It’s also got a small f/2.8 prime for perfect street shooting.

              The real point is that DX is already more than good enough sensor-wise and mp-wise for 99+% of all photographers. When the ultimate shooting envelope is wider for Fuji, for m4/3, even for Canon than it is for Nikon (see stabilized wideangle zooms, faster portrait lenses, etc) Nikon DX looks like a poor choice when you can take good pictures with any of those systems. Heck, at one point the ONLY Nikon lens I was using was a 55-200 on occasion. My lenses were a Tokina 11-16, Sigma 17-50, and Tamron 70-300. When I wanted a portrait/macro lens, I went with the Tamron 60mm.

              When Nikon is making a lens, is it asking itself who the hell this is supposed to appeal to? It really doesn’t seem so.

            • I agree, if you are interested in a zoom, then perhaps the 18-35 Sigma is a better choice than a prime. I prefer to use primes when I don’t need the flexibility of a zoom. I know others that shoot exclusively with zooms.

              Yes, Fuji, M4/3 and Sony offer some good lenses, but after a quick look I am not sure they are really all that much cheaper (if at all) than a similar Nikon lens.

              I guess the reason that I don’t get this argument is I am simply not a DX shooter. If I really wanted smaller, then I would go Fuji or M4/3 not DX or even Sony. If I am going to shoot a DSLR, then I will shoot FX. I do get that some prefer DX for the additional reach, but that is not what we are talking about here.

            • Sebastian

              The wider lenses get, the more overkill it is to use FX on a DX body. At least one wide DX prime is needed.

        • luca

          Because FX lenses are always heavier and bulkier than their DX counterparts. If I choose DX is also because I want (I would, actually!) a smaller and lighter set of lenses …

      • true

        It’s both funny and sad, that when it comes to aps-c, both nikon and canon are doing equally as bad sony when it comes to aps-c lenses. Truly goes to show that m43 is the best small system.

        • luca

          yes, I agree. But there is a very good aps-c lens system: it’s Fuji. So you don’t lose the DOF (better: lack of…) as with m43 and you still have a small system or at least much smaller than Sony Alpha7 series.

    • Thom Hogan

      What’s going through their minds is this: “there must be a way to grow our business by catering to the lowest common denominator and selling more low-end consumer products.”

      There are several problems with Nikon’s upper-management-group-think here: (a) that ship has sailed; volume at the consumer end is disappearing fast; (b) it’s the “make it up in volume” mentality when the volume isn’t there to support it; (c) there’s nothing new here, the 55-300mm is a perfectly fine lens; (d) Nikon’s quality and customer support is already in question, and more low-end stuff ain’t going to help that; and (e) this does absolutely nothing to help the customer share their images (workflow improvements), which is the real thing that’s killing consumer cameras.

      The sad thing is that Nikon has put themselves in a Catch-22 that was predictable (and is a repeat of their previous attempts at being a consumer company and failing). The size of Nikon today is due to all those Coolpix and consumer DX bodies they sold. But there’s no demand for the Coolpix any more, and less demand for the consumer DX bodies. You can’t give up on either because to do so would be to make the company half its size instantly. But you also can’t grow the company by putting lots of investment here. So things will spiral downward, just as they have in the past.

      I’ll repeat myself for the umpteenth–okay, millionth–time: Nikon is putting their serious enthusiast market at risk by not iterating a full DX lens lineup (buzz, buzz). Nikon’s strength with customers has been in the D70 (now D7200) model and up, but even the D5500 would be solidified with a full, serious DX lens lineup. Nikon is slowly letting those key, long-term customers trickle away while desperately trying to hold onto the low consumer. That’s a mistake they’ll end up regretting, I think. Ain’t no way Nikon is a true consumer company, and cutbacks in customer support,, aren’t going to help that one bit.

      • Karhai

        If they are really trying to push volume, they might want to make the lenses actually available, somehow. The 2 flavours of the 18-55 P lens were announced a long long time ago, but are not even listed at B&H

        • Thom Hogan

          They await the D3300 replacement.

          • Karhai

            Maybe. But in that case it seems strange to announce the lenses when they did.

            • Thom Hogan

              Nikon originally was going to introduce that camera in early 2016. Why they didn’t is unknown. But note the problems that they had with the DLs. I wouldn’t be surprised if the problem wasn’t related.

            • jmb2560

              What’s your view on Nikon’s ability and means to bring to market a medium format à la Hasselblad X1 or Leica S, even if at the beginning only two lenses are commercially available? Mirrorless or DSLR is not the critical aspect in my question; I’m more curious about your opinion regarding a larger format sensor, taking Nikon to a new market segment. Say $9,990 body only, 50 to 60 MP. Not a direct competitor to a Phase One but infringing on the segment. Just curious… Thanks

            • Thom Hogan

              Nikon is fully capable of making a medium format camera. Always has been. But the problem is that what Nikon needs is volume sales, not high-priced low volume sales. They let themselves fall victim to the price elasticity of demand issue without understanding how they’d transition to a new, desirable generation of low cost items. The smartphones cleaned their clock at the lowest level and are working their way up Nikon’s food chain.

            • PhilK

              Yep. A low volume camera like that would be a really stupid and pointless drain on their already limited resources.

              I doubt Leica is making much money on the S series either. It’s a halo product that most likely is getting subsidized by point-and-shoots, Leicas other optical businesses and their licensing deals with companies like Panasonic and Huawei.

            • Hans Bull

              Not necessarily, the 16-80mm f/2.8-4E was also announced months before the D500

            • ZoetMB

              They’re available in the UK. They’re on the international Nikon website, but not the U.S.

        • EnPassant

          That may be a USA thing. In other parts of the world they are for sale both single and as the kit-lens with some cameras.

    • David

      As someone who lived in China for a while…TRUE! I saw quite a number of Tamron 18-270s sold at the camera shops to people who truly would never look at a photo beyond 1600×900 at best and are thinking it’s great!

  • Chaitanya

    Another set of Vaporware products I guess, cannot see those first AF-P lenses for sale anywhere.

  • Adam Fo

    Is f 6.3 a typo ?

  • EnPassant

    These are tele zoom kit lenses complementing the AF-P normal kit zooms released in January. Because of the f/6.3 aperture they will be much smaller than the current 55-300mm lens. Propably around the size and weight of the 55-200 VR lenses, but maybe a tad longer and with 55mm filter thread as the AF-P kit zooms released in January.

    • Thom Hogan

      Well, maybe. The thing is with telephoto designs the front element to the sensor distance is going to be about the focal length (300mm ;~). The f/6.3 aperture might make it slightly smaller in diameter. But the current 55-300mm is its minimum length at 55mm. Starting at 70mm would actually make the lens longer in minimum length with current design parameters.

      You can deal with this problem by making a collapsing lens that has to be extended for shooting. And that could be the reason for an f/6.3 aperture, as it reduces element diameter within the lens, giving you room to do the collapse.

      • EnPassant

        I naturally expect these to be of the collapsing type just like Nikon’s latest DX kit zooms. The goal for the new 70-300 lenses should be to make them as small and light as possible as many ordinary consumers are put off by the size and weight of the 55-300mm lens.

        If Nikon managed to reduce size and weight with the same amount as they did with the second version of the 18-300mm lens many will be happy and sales will be much better than for the 55-300 lens.

  • DrNo666

    current dx zoom line up…
    10-24, 16-80, 18-55, 18-105, 18-140, 18-200, 18-300, 55-200 and 55-300mm.

    70-300mm in two version makes no sense!

    12-24, 16-85, 17-55mm is obsolete

  • Aldo

    I’ll wait for the 70-1000mm f 8-11

    • PhilK

      Good luck with your AF at the long end.. 😛

    • true

      Panny 100-400 is pretty good on m43

  • AYWY

    Ah. Thought this would be FX.

  • iamlucky13

    Huh…so still no replacement for the current 70-300? I still like mine, and it holds up reasonably well in the center to the 16 MP on my D7000 out to 200mm, but definitely not out to 300mm.

    And what about the D600 and D750 users? I’m sure the corners don’t get better on FX than on DX.

    Granted, if you’re buying FX, you’re generally choosing quality rather than affordability and size, but an updated 70-300 should have a lot of appeal to FX shooters who mostly shoot wide but have limited need for telephoto, and don’t want to sacrifice a lot bag space for it.

    • David

      The corners probably aren’t better, but on the 24mp sensors the lower density probably has a positive effect.

      Maybe an FX version is still coming…who knows? At any rate, the Tamron version is somewhat better at nearly all focal lengths and I believe appreciably better at 300mm, and the VC is a bit more positive than Nikons (I was getting sharp enough shots of stuff at 1/8s with the Tamron). I also like the sound of the autofocus better…almost like a lightsaber 😛

      • true

        Yes, I adore tamron’s VC, I like how it stabilizes the image for VF too, unlike VR.

  • Jacek Siminski

    So, Nikon is not dropping the G aperture in its entirety. Pity thoough that these lenses are DX only.

  • Back to top