1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Nikon's new 300mm f4 - smaller lenses

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by robbie36, Jan 8, 2015.

  1. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    Bangkok
    rob collins
    The specs on Nikon's new 300mm f4 look quite interesting especially compared to their old 300mm f4

    http://nikonrumors.com/2015/01/05/t...-the-old-nikkor-300mm-f4d-if-ed-version.aspx/

    As you can see the weight has virtually halved (even though they have added VR) and the lens itself is some 35% shorter at 5.8 inches.

    They have done something with the design of the lens that I dont pretend to understand and I am unclear whether it effects image quality although given that they intend to charge US$1900 for the lens, one would hope not.

    When we compare this new lens to the forthcoming Oly 300mm f4, it makes the new Oly seem a monster (unless you consider it has a 600mm fov). The Oly is 8.4 inches long which is shorter than the old Nikon (8.8 inches) but around 30% longer than the new Nikon (5.8 inches)
     
  2. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
  3. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    It's using a Fresnel lens as one of the elements which means they can use a thin sort of saw toothed element instead of a stupidly thick large element, the downside is if there's any flaws in the design it can become prone to *weird* lens flare due to the light entering the element through the wrong face.

    Canon have pulled off a few really good ones using the same type of element, the 70-300mm was their first I *think* and is a good one to look at from a size/weight point of view by memory. Look for the canon lenses using a green ring instead of red... (unless they've changed it?)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I think this lens will be awesome. For those that complain about flare, well that's what hoods are for! I'll pass on this lens as I've already invested in the Sigma 120-300 Sport, but I think this lens will be a big hit and it really throws down the DSLR gauntlet against FF MILCs.
     
  5. 50orsohours

    50orsohours Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 13, 2013
    Portland Oregon
    I have a friend with a D610/Sigma 35 lens combo, and while I can phisically carry heavy stuff, I would never get a DSLR. Way too heavy.

    Robbie, it is interesting that you use the word monster comparing the 2 lenses. Funny how when M4/3 owners throw that same word around (rightfully) they are told they are insecure. :rolleyes:

    In any case, that Nikon lens should not be compared to the Oly 300. Compare the Olympus with a 600mm lens. See which one is a "monster" lens
     
  6. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I guess one could assume that if Fresnel optics proves to provide adequate quality, then m4/3 lenses will become smaller again.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. duke

    duke Mu-43 Veteran

    420
    Dec 4, 2010
    Tulsa, moving to Houston
    Duke
    They're expensive though, expect to pay even more for the size benefits
     
  8. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    You're forgetting that you have the option to shoot this lens with something like the D810, get 36mp FX and still get 16mp with the DX crop resulting in a 450mm FOV. You can also shoot this with a D7100 and get 24mp with near the same pixel density as M43. The Sigma 35 Art is heavy indeed, but you can get an old school Nikon 35mm f/2 that's small, light and still plenty sharp.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    Bangkok
    rob collins
    I rather disagree with this last statement. If I put a 300 f4 on a D810 with 36mp, I can crop to 600 f4 and still have 9mp (obviously less than the 16mp on M43). Given that I start with 36mp at 300 f4 and can crop to 9mp at 600 f4, I effectively have a 300-600 f4 zoom with the FF lens.

    I dont see why I should have to buy a larger 300 f4 for M43 than FF (well apart from the fact that I dont have a Nikon) although if there is a substantial quality difference that is a different matter. (oops kind of a copy of Jf/2's post.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. 50orsohours

    50orsohours Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 13, 2013
    Portland Oregon
    You don't! You can go full frame, nobody is holding you back. :thumbup:The Sony 24-70 is also a little smaller than the 12-40 Oly. Do you not have an A7r?
     
  11. 50orsohours

    50orsohours Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 13, 2013
    Portland Oregon
    I am saying that non mirrorless FF stuff is HEAVY! I don't care how many mega pixels the system offers, the weight takes all the fun out of it.

    As I said, I am not weak. But still, heaving the "freedom" with my EM-1 is fantastic.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Yeah, it's quite impressive what Nikon has done here. I'd say Canon really led the way in terms of improving the weight and size of their lenses - to the point that their 300/2.8 is 40% lighter than the Olympus 300/2.8.

    In any event, it's sort of hard to justify the Olympus 300/4 being so much larger, despite covering a significantly smaller imaging circle. It's not like they haven't had plenty of time to design it!
     
  13. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II - introduced 2014

    Olympus 300mm f2.8 - introduced 2005?

    A lot of water has flowed under that bridge in those years. But maybe Olympus views that the Fresnel design may not be optimum.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I was just responding to your statement regarding the upcoming Olympus 300mm. The new Nikon 300mm should be every bit as capable as the Olympus with different Nikon DSLRs of various sensor sizes and megapixel counts. It's not an apples vs oranges comparison, it's more like apple vs apple. :rolleyes:
     
  15. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    Bangkok
    rob collins
    I have both an EM1 + A7ii + A7r. So I am building a system that takes advantage of the relative merits of both. For the EM1 I have the 60mm macro (macro being particularly suited to crop sensors), a 35-100 2.8 (which offers a massive size advantage over FF) and the 42.5 1.2 (which has numerous advantages). I am considering adding a 300 f4 to my M43 but by the looks of things I will end up with a big heavy lens without benefits.
     
  16. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Only if you're comparing Nikon with Nikon. ;)
     
  17. 50orsohours

    50orsohours Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 13, 2013
    Portland Oregon
    The 300mm with a FOV of 600mm should be compared to a Nikon 600mm lens. See what the weight and size difference will be. :rolleyes:

    Do we not compare the 12-40/12-35 zooms to 24-70 FF lenses? :confused:

    Lately it seems like M4/3 can't do anything right for some of you. I really wish that I could come to this site and read about the possibilities of this format, not all this BS. :dash2:

    If I was dissatisfied with M4/3, I would sell it and I'd move on.:2thumbs:
     
  18. duke

    duke Mu-43 Veteran

    420
    Dec 4, 2010
    Tulsa, moving to Houston
    Duke
    What about a 300mm on an 8x10 camera, should that be compared to a 25 on m43? these comparisons are stupid, repetitive, and boring.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. 50orsohours

    50orsohours Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 13, 2013
    Portland Oregon
    Tell me about it!
     
  20. duke

    duke Mu-43 Veteran

    420
    Dec 4, 2010
    Tulsa, moving to Houston
    Duke
    was calling you out too bud :wink: