Ive shot at F4 with my sigma 70-200mm for a whole day , I need ii at F4 as the horse and rider is not all in focus if I shoot it at f2.8 , some part of the horse and rider falls out if the focal area
I'm happy that you went to CES. 90% of the tech channels that I follow have shown the same 3 things so far. It's refreshing to see someone talk about something different for a change.
yeh... you'te right, the tripod collar is on paper not strictly necessary, but, one thing I noticed with the 70-200 is that if you put the camera direct to a monopod you don't have the same stability to do pan pictures (I don't know exactly the name of this technique, I'm spanish... blurred background - focused subject thanks for the side camera movement) than the monopod attached to the lens. Changing the axis you change the movement, and if the subject is going 200mph I don't think that's a good idea. About the price... well the 300 2.8 costs more than double the price of this one... Is it double good?
F/4 at 300mm is plenty to separate your subject. But f/4 compared to f/2.8 is a huge difference for sports and wildlife shooting for anything other than strong sunlight. You're either halving your shutter speed or doubling your ISO. Still, nice to have a cheaper option, especially if it's going to be sharper than the zoom.
Basically Nikkor made a 300 that's: 1) much cheaper so more less-than-professionals can buy one, 2) made it lighter and smaller so it would be used and brought out more, and 3) added a VR so it can be hand-held more. Actually sounds pretty significant! I also like the new technology ie phase phresnal and the shutter.
Hi Matt. Do you know if this lens is compatible with Nikon 's teleconverters? It seems a great lens for occasional wildlife photography without having to lug around one of the larger alternatives. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for this video. I am thinking of getting this lens. Do you suggest this one for shooting Birds and Wildlife. I will be using 1.4x Teleconvertor with it.
It's funny, Nikon announced this lens the same day I got my own 300mm f/4 :P It's an old Sigma though, got it for 300 bucks and can't wait to test it! "Studio" shots are looking sharp, I love it already. As for this lens, yeah it's expensive. But you get a lot for it! I can't wait to see what the Fresnel element really does for it. And under 800 grams for a 300mm prime? That is awesome. The one I bought weighs about 1.5 kilos! AND that new lens has VR! If 300mm is a good focal length for you this is gonna be such a a handy lens. And that it is no f/2.8 is no big deal in my opinion. First of all, if you need an f/2.8 then just buy it. If you take your shots in well lit conditions f/4 is more than enough.
Go with the older one(non vr) if you are doing wildlife or sports as you can use a fast shutter speed and avoid camera shake,it is just over 1000 bucks
I bought a bundle and a 55-300mm lens came with it. The one I have on and usually use ( i mainly film vlogs and other videos for youtube ) is the 18-55mm. I put the 55-300mm on and all i noticed was it is zoomed in A LOT more. is there any point of the bigger lens other then more zoom? is the 55-300mm never really used for video?
Something I hear and appreciate is blatant truth and honesty. In one way it is depicted by you, Matt Granger, by saying to pay attention to what focal lengths you are using. There are so many who say to buy this lens and that lens and und so weiter. All one needs is the lens, or lenses, that one needs. To hell with the rest.
***** I am very interested personally to see how the lens does along with the 1.4 or 1.7x teleconverters. The MTF chart shows this should blow away its predecessor with being even lighter than my 70-200mm f/4. Perfect for travel! I am looking at getting the D750 to go with this lens.
ernest1324 I can't decide between the Nikon 300mm f/4E or the Sigma 150-600mm f/5.6-6.3 for shooting motorsports. I feel like the 300mm is the better choice since it's a much larger aperture and potentially sharper, plus I could always throw a teleconverter onto it. Any thoughts?
The principle of the technology has the drawback of halos from bright light sources. A light source can be water reflecting the sun light or the moon. It would be interesting to see such pictures with this lens
Matt, I wonder how it would look if you used the crop portion on your full frame DSLR and that would bump up the focal length to a good wildlife lens length.
my problem with the 70-200mm f4 is the shooter speed, if i try to catch a bird fast the vr doenst help, i need to use a high iso to have a decent speed, not much problem when i use my lens for landscape or people that stay still, but i think for a 300mm a 2.8 is needed because at 50 meters the DOF is not big thing when you want to capture a bird or the moving head of a animal but the extra stop give you the speed you may need thing the vr even a 5 stops cant help
Matt, can you do a review on this? I'm wondering how it can compare to 150-600 tamron for birding (like whether it's good with 1.4TC or 2TC) Also interested how this compares to the usability and the versatility that the 70-200 f2.8 offers in portrait photography. 300 is a little bit longer, and that can be a nice thing, should bring the background closer and the extra reach and be useful for some candid shots too. But I'm very much concerned that there's no 100-130 range to where to "zoom back" to when 300 is too much. Basically, is 300mm too much for portraits or candids, and is it good enough/sharp enough to challenge the much more heavier 150-600 tamron (or sigma) in regards of BIF reach (with a 1.4x or 2x converter attached to it)?
Hate to be that guy, but the word fresnel is pronounced "fruh-nel" (it's named after a french dude who invented it). They are usually used in hot lights for film (originally invented to focus light in lighthouses) and Canon has used them in their lenses for quite some time, referring to them as "diffractive optics" or any lens with the DO moniker. Keep up the good work Matt!
I don't understand why Nikon doesn't make a 200 mm f2.8 prime lens. In that focal length there is only the 200 mm f4 Macro or the very expensive f2. I suppose the 180 mm f2.8 would be a decent substitute for portrait work, but that is rather long in the tooth now, and could do with an update.
I was there too, didn't see you, lol. I saw the lens though and my main observations were that it is surprisingly small, and also overpriced no surprise from Nikon. You can get a 150-600mm OS Sports lens from Sigma for the same money, it would be tough to pay $2k for this instead.
On a side note, I remember when Nikon released the 300mm f/4 AF-S and it was $999 everywhere. This lens uses far less glass and less materials, it shouldn't sell for a penny more.
Photo314159 That isn't really how it works, you have to take into account inflation for a start. The AF version was about $800-850 when released and the same complaints were made about the apparent price hike from the AF version (which I seem to recall cost more $999 at the time).
Caledonian I was accounting for inflation when I said that. It's half the weight and materials of it's predecessor, so if it cost the same, that would account for inflation. If they can make something smaller and cheaper, they should charge less for it. Besides, look at tvs for example, they only get bigger, better and cheaper as they get more efficient at making them so they don't necessarily have "inflation" to begin with. Or they'll just continue to lose ground to 3rd party lens manufacturers. I remember when if you wanted the best you bought your camera brand lenses, now you get better performance for less money elsewhere. It's depressing.
Photo314159 I was curious as to the price after release after my last comment so I went and dug out an photo old magazine (I keep too many of them, drives my wife crazy...) to see if I could find an advert for the AF-S lens when it was released and low and behold I see it advertised for $1400 in a late 2001 edition. So shortly after release it was about the same as the asking price for the new version now (which will go down over time) so it isn't nearly as expensive in comparison as it might seem at first. As for it being lighter and using less material that alone won't cancel out inflation (although as I've demonstrated above it is about the same price in real terms as the old version which is exactly what you were asking for in your previous comment). It gets a bit fuzzy comparing the cost of different materials and thinking about the exchange rates etc so I won't go too deep into that as I'm no expert but I don't think the difference in price is nearly much as it would appear on paper. Reading this back makes me feel really old, can't believe the AF-S version was released 15 years ago!
Caledonian Indeed. If you saw this lens in person you'd understand. So little lens for so $2k. But then again, if they didn't charge that much the f/2.8 model would be a tougher sell I think. A few years back they stopped discounting and started charging a map price, that's probably got a lot to do with it, as well as the exchange rates. I remember telephotos (that I was looking at buying) going up $1k+ overnight and never coming back down. I've got old mag issues as well, and even all the Nikon Full Line Product guides and Moose Peterson Nikon System Handbooks. Looking back I've spent a not-so-small fortune on all this stuff.
Hi Matt. I am a fan of yours and subscribe to your posts on RUclips. The problem is that I don't get any mail anymore when you post something new. Why?
This is an awesome lens that people seem to under rate. It's a quality piece of glass at a fair price. If you want an f/2.8 at 300mm you'll pay for it. If you want a lesser quality lens at this distance get the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm. I'd pick this lens at 300mm and crop over a Sigma/Tamron at 600mm.
Good video. Thanks Matt. I think it is $500 overpriced. The current 300 f4 sells for around $1300 including tripod collar. Just adding VR and fresnal lens should not add 50%to the price. I am not buying this one. For around $2000 I can get a used Nikon 300 f2.8 afs II
You should not really compare the two lenses. The 2.8 weights 2kg, this one weights 755g and it's the size of a 24-70, they are for two completely different needs. Oh and the previous 300 came out 10 years ago at roughly $1400, add inflation and nowadays that would be $2000.
This lens is a pick your poison investment. Comparing it to the former Nikkor 300 AF-S, it's lighter, no monopod needed, portability in your bag is better, and the VR is very good - which will vastly improve low light shooting. However, I enjoy the image quality of the AF-s lens much better. If you like the flexibility of converting images to b/w, the AF-S lens is better. What is more valuable to you - portability and low light capabilities or image quality?
Those sample shots look remarkable, considering the poor environment. Subjects really pop off the backgrounds. The price is not outlandish, in my opinion, if the image quality is as good as I think it potentially is. $2,000 [give or take 10%] is not unusual for a good lens. Looking forward to some test shots in more favourable lighting conditions.
I would like to have 300mm f/4 for my Nikon D610.For $2 000,i would like to know where is this lens made?(This days nobody gives s... about that,i do). 2.From what kind of material is outer lens tube made?Is this another expensive lens made of plastic with some fancy name ? If it is made of plastic I would not pay that kind of money,nothing wrong with Canon EF 300mm f/4.
farturas81 Why do I care where is my money going to? Are you serious? Maybe because I do not want pay high end price for a product that is made in Chinese slave shop and with that money same people who run those companies (comunists),coming here in Canada (specialy west coast)buying real estate and driving prices up.They usualy raze rents and throw many tenants out.They throw many business out of business.Average working class families are moving more and more out of city.On top of that,they (slave masters) are bringing their old parents who never worked a day in the Canada to enjoy all the benefits that we enjoy nhere.(like free healt care)(Hey,they need baby seaters too). I never buy product made in China if I there is alternative,but sadly more and more there is not.So I always buy either Japanese or North American,European,Australian,New zeeland,Mexican,...Are we all going to live from welfare?
Broj 1 You really don't know what you are talking about. I have spent a lot of time calling in China from 1996 until 2009, and the factories there now are world class. They aren't dumb peasants . Maybe30 years ago but, the transformation of China is amazing. Go there and b surprised.
Peter G Mr. Peter G,i know what I'm talking about. I do not give f... what you are think about that.I never said that Chinese are dumb peasants but people from the west are becoming dumb peasants.I do not care about China.I do not want to go there,nothing interests me there.Is there something wrong if I care,where my money goes to.Yes I buy most things made in China,but only because I don't have any choise,specialy here in North America.I do not want to pay "high end" price for Chinese made product.Most amazing thing to me is what kind of hipocrats and bullys are our governments.they bumb some small non democratic nations,but what about China?They are only comunists left on planet.China is the best thing that happened after slavery.What did Chinese invented lately?They are just cloning everything and nobody those anything about that.
Yes you can as matt and others have done videos showing the zoom lens can be better than a prime. Also the carl zeiss guy also said the same thing and explained further reasons why it works and it's mainly due to the placement of the elements in the lens, a zoom lens shifts the elements so you can get a sharper image than a prime, which has no moving elements. so it's element placement might not work well.
"If you are using any of the other PRIME f/2.8 lenses like the 24 to 70..." ERRR am i the first one to catch this? Yeah i know just a silly "miss-speak " but still funny. Not picking on you Matt, just funny.
well, they will be replaced soon. at least they seam to be at the end of theire productioncycle and the 70-200mm is about twice as heavy and with a 1.4 teleconverter you still do not get the quailty of the prime. actuallly, this 300mm is pretty interresting, consindering, it is possible to have a light 300mm f4.0 and a 420mm f5.6 (1.4 teleconverter) with a good close focus ability. for me it's at least interresting, but on the other hand i have all the stuff i need, except for a light telephoto prime. the only major probleme with this lense is, that it has wierd sunstars dew to the fresnel lense. ps.: cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Nikkor-300mm-f4E-VR-Image-Sample-20.jpg
I'm fairly knowledgeable on the subject. Of course it's not as simple as tacking on a few milometers, there are complex balances of optical design and build. I'm not doubting the costs associated with more complex lenses, I'm just saying that the original comment of "Awful lens for the price" is utterly ridiculous. Nikon packed a hell of a lot of tech and new design into this lens for a very reasonable price.
2.8 is not just for DOF, its also to be able to shoot at a whole ISO Stop lower.
Bruno Lazaro yep, mentioned that.
4:37
But the compression at 300mm makes DOF a potential issue at 2.8. I think thats extreme.
Erin Taylor oooji
Ive shot at F4 with my sigma 70-200mm for a whole day , I need ii at F4 as the horse and rider is not all in focus if I shoot it at f2.8 , some part of the horse and rider falls out if the focal area
I'm happy that you went to CES. 90% of the tech channels that I follow have shown the same 3 things so far. It's refreshing to see someone talk about something different for a change.
yeh... you'te right, the tripod collar is on paper not strictly necessary, but, one thing I noticed with the 70-200 is that if you put the camera direct to a monopod you don't have the same stability to do pan pictures (I don't know exactly the name of this technique, I'm spanish... blurred background - focused subject thanks for the side camera movement) than the monopod attached to the lens. Changing the axis you change the movement, and if the subject is going 200mph I don't think that's a good idea.
About the price... well the 300 2.8 costs more than double the price of this one... Is it double good?
F/4 at 300mm is plenty to separate your subject. But f/4 compared to f/2.8 is a huge difference for sports and wildlife shooting for anything other than strong sunlight. You're either halving your shutter speed or doubling your ISO. Still, nice to have a cheaper option, especially if it's going to be sharper than the zoom.
I have the D750 which has sensational iso performance. Should be an issue shooting between 1/1000th and 1/2000 sec like i normally do
I know this vid is old, but i just won a bid on eBay for the PF and am very excited to paste it on my D500 for some bird stuff, critters too!
Basically Nikkor made a 300 that's: 1) much cheaper so more less-than-professionals can buy one, 2) made it lighter and smaller so it would be used and brought out more, and 3) added a VR so it can be hand-held more.
Actually sounds pretty significant! I also like the new technology ie phase phresnal and the shutter.
Matt, you really have a great channel. thanks for sharing what you do. cheers from the UK.
Hi Matt.
Do you know if this lens is compatible with Nikon 's teleconverters? It seems a great lens for occasional wildlife photography without having to lug around one of the larger alternatives. Keep up the good work.
Yes, I own this lens and can use a teleconverter with it.
Agree with tripod cover not needed, they can get in the way, does it fit the Nikon converters?
Thank you for this video. I am thinking of getting this lens. Do you suggest this one for shooting Birds and Wildlife. I will be using 1.4x Teleconvertor with it.
hi matt which is better for wedding this 300mm or the 70-200 f2.8. thx for your respond
It's funny, Nikon announced this lens the same day I got my own 300mm f/4 :P It's an old Sigma though, got it for 300 bucks and can't wait to test it! "Studio" shots are looking sharp, I love it already.
As for this lens, yeah it's expensive. But you get a lot for it! I can't wait to see what the Fresnel element really does for it. And under 800 grams for a 300mm prime? That is awesome. The one I bought weighs about 1.5 kilos! AND that new lens has VR! If 300mm is a good focal length for you this is gonna be such a a handy lens.
And that it is no f/2.8 is no big deal in my opinion. First of all, if you need an f/2.8 then just buy it. If you take your shots in well lit conditions f/4 is more than enough.
Sounds very similar to Canon's DO lenses. The small size and light weight would make it an excellent choice for sports/action work.
Go with the older one(non vr) if you are doing wildlife or sports as you can use a fast shutter speed and avoid camera shake,it is just over 1000 bucks
Now I am curious to see how big and heavy the upcomming 300mm f4 from Olympus will be.
I bought a bundle and a 55-300mm lens came with it. The one I have on and usually use ( i mainly film vlogs and other videos for youtube ) is the 18-55mm. I put the 55-300mm on and all i noticed was it is zoomed in A LOT more. is there any point of the bigger lens other then more zoom? is the 55-300mm never really used for video?
Something I hear and appreciate is blatant truth and honesty. In one way it is depicted by you, Matt Granger, by saying to pay attention to what focal lengths you are using. There are so many who say to buy this lens and that lens and und so weiter. All one needs is the lens, or lenses, that one needs. To hell with the rest.
How is the Autofocus speed compared to other Nikon lenses? I plan on buying this for motorsports photography and I'm extremely excited for this lens.
***** in that low light situation it was very good on the D750, 810 and 5500 that I tested.
For Motorsport, even trackside, 300mm isn't long enough. You'll need at least 400mm.
Calvin Chann I could just use a teleconverter, probably 1.4 or 1.7x
*****
I am very interested personally to see how the lens does along with the 1.4 or 1.7x teleconverters. The MTF chart shows this should blow away its predecessor with being even lighter than my 70-200mm f/4. Perfect for travel! I am looking at getting the D750 to go with this lens.
ernest1324 I can't decide between the Nikon 300mm f/4E or the Sigma 150-600mm f/5.6-6.3 for shooting motorsports. I feel like the 300mm is the better choice since it's a much larger aperture and potentially sharper, plus I could always throw a teleconverter onto it. Any thoughts?
Nice preview. I would like to see nikon do a 400mm f/4 VR PF next.
The principle of the technology has the drawback of halos from bright light sources. A light source can be water reflecting the sun light or the moon. It would be interesting to see such pictures with this lens
Agreed! That is my only concern at this point as I saw that too. Hopefully it does not affect many pictures.
Matt, I wonder how it would look if you used the crop portion on your full frame DSLR and that would bump up the focal length to a good wildlife lens length.
Matt, in your opinion, which would you say is the better buy/value, the Sigma 120-300/2.8 or the Nikon 300/4?
Any more vids coming from CES 2015 or is this it?
my problem with the 70-200mm f4 is the shooter speed, if i try to catch a bird fast the vr doenst help, i need to use a high iso to have a decent speed, not much problem when i use my lens for landscape or people that stay still, but i think for a 300mm a 2.8 is needed because at 50 meters the DOF is not big thing when you want to capture a bird or the moving head of a animal but the extra stop give you the speed you may need thing the vr even a 5 stops cant help
Matt, can you do a review on this? I'm wondering how it can compare to 150-600 tamron for birding (like whether it's good with 1.4TC or 2TC)
Also interested how this compares to the usability and the versatility that the 70-200 f2.8 offers in portrait photography. 300 is a little bit longer, and that can be a nice thing, should bring the background closer and the extra reach and be useful for some candid shots too. But I'm very much concerned that there's no 100-130 range to where to "zoom back" to when 300 is too much.
Basically, is 300mm too much for portraits or candids, and is it good enough/sharp enough to challenge the much more heavier 150-600 tamron (or sigma) in regards of BIF reach (with a 1.4x or 2x converter attached to it)?
how was (is) this lens in low light? i understand the 2.8 may have an advantage, but would like to hear your opinion in low light scenes.
Hate to be that guy, but the word fresnel is pronounced "fruh-nel" (it's named after a french dude who invented it). They are usually used in hot lights for film (originally invented to focus light in lighthouses) and Canon has used them in their lenses for quite some time, referring to them as "diffractive optics" or any lens with the DO moniker. Keep up the good work Matt!
It's not 'fruh-nel' but 'freh-nel'. The 's' is silenced, introducing a 'h' instead, but the 'e' remains the same.
Great thinking.
Nicely done!!
Can you use a teleconverter with this? If so, what would you recommend?
It is also important to note that it won't work on film camera as it has no mechanical lever to control aperture.
This is a must have for hockey!
I can't wait for this one.
I don't understand why Nikon doesn't make a 200 mm f2.8 prime lens. In that focal length there is only the 200 mm f4 Macro or the very expensive f2. I suppose the 180 mm f2.8 would be a decent substitute for portrait work, but that is rather long in the tooth now, and could do with an update.
I was there too, didn't see you, lol. I saw the lens though and my main observations were that it is surprisingly small, and also overpriced no surprise from Nikon. You can get a 150-600mm OS Sports lens from Sigma for the same money, it would be tough to pay $2k for this instead.
On a side note, I remember when Nikon released the 300mm f/4 AF-S and it was $999 everywhere. This lens uses far less glass and less materials, it shouldn't sell for a penny more.
Photo314159 That isn't really how it works, you have to take into account inflation for a start. The AF version was about $800-850 when released and the same complaints were made about the apparent price hike from the AF version (which I seem to recall cost more $999 at the time).
Caledonian I was accounting for inflation when I said that. It's half the weight and materials of it's predecessor, so if it cost the same, that would account for inflation. If they can make something smaller and cheaper, they should charge less for it. Besides, look at tvs for example, they only get bigger, better and cheaper as they get more efficient at making them so they don't necessarily have "inflation" to begin with. Or they'll just continue to lose ground to 3rd party lens manufacturers. I remember when if you wanted the best you bought your camera brand lenses, now you get better performance for less money elsewhere. It's depressing.
Photo314159
I was curious as to the price after release after my last comment so I went and dug out an photo old magazine (I keep too many of them, drives my wife crazy...) to see if I could find an advert for the AF-S lens when it was released and low and behold I see it advertised for $1400 in a late 2001 edition. So shortly after release it was about the same as the asking price for the new version now (which will go down over time) so it isn't nearly as expensive in comparison as it might seem at first.
As for it being lighter and using less material that alone won't cancel out inflation (although as I've demonstrated above it is about the same price in real terms as the old version which is exactly what you were asking for in your previous comment). It gets a bit fuzzy comparing the cost of different materials and thinking about the exchange rates etc so I won't go too deep into that as I'm no expert but I don't think the difference in price is nearly much as it would appear on paper.
Reading this back makes me feel really old, can't believe the AF-S version was released 15 years ago!
Caledonian Indeed. If you saw this lens in person you'd understand. So little lens for so $2k. But then again, if they didn't charge that much the f/2.8 model would be a tougher sell I think. A few years back they stopped discounting and started charging a map price, that's probably got a lot to do with it, as well as the exchange rates. I remember telephotos (that I was looking at buying) going up $1k+ overnight and never coming back down. I've got old mag issues as well, and even all the Nikon Full Line Product guides and Moose Peterson Nikon System Handbooks. Looking back I've spent a not-so-small fortune on all this stuff.
Was that blunty in the first sample pic?
I have aNikon 300mm 5.6 IF ED.... it cost me $400.... I would have to be really needing this one bad to pay all that money for one stop.
Hi Matt. I am a fan of yours and subscribe to your posts on RUclips. The problem is that I don't get any mail anymore when you post something new. Why?
Using a prime like 24-70?
This is an awesome lens that people seem to under rate. It's a quality piece of glass at a fair price. If you want an f/2.8 at 300mm you'll pay for it. If you want a lesser quality lens at this distance get the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm. I'd pick this lens at 300mm and crop over a Sigma/Tamron at 600mm.
Another review needed
love the shirt matt...
Good video.
Thanks Matt.
I think it is $500 overpriced. The current 300 f4 sells for around $1300 including tripod collar. Just adding VR and fresnal lens should not add 50%to the price.
I am not buying this one. For around $2000 I can get a used Nikon 300 f2.8 afs II
You should not really compare the two lenses. The 2.8 weights 2kg, this one weights 755g and it's the size of a 24-70, they are for two completely different needs. Oh and the previous 300 came out 10 years ago at roughly $1400, add inflation and nowadays that would be $2000.
Jay John oa
THE NIKON 200-400 TRIPOD COLLAR FITS THIS LENS IF YOU WANT ONE
hey angus, do some night city scapes to show the really bad lens flare ....! that should be enough said
How high ISO?
This lens is a pick your poison investment. Comparing it to the former Nikkor 300 AF-S, it's lighter, no monopod needed, portability in your bag is better, and the VR is very good - which will vastly improve low light shooting. However, I enjoy the image quality of the AF-s lens much better. If you like the flexibility of converting images to b/w, the AF-S lens is better. What is more valuable to you - portability and low light capabilities or image quality?
Great Lens.
1:21 Half-Life 6 confirmed.
Thanks!
Seems very much like the Pentax DA 300 f/4.
Hmm, no bigger than a 24-70..... must come with an ML-3 case - I hope!
It does :)
I'm the owner one fantastic 300 pf. Best travel/macro/wildlife/nature/portrait etc... LENS !!!
Has to be really good for a 300/4 at this price.
Those sample shots look remarkable, considering the poor environment. Subjects really pop off the backgrounds. The price is not outlandish, in my opinion, if the image quality is as good as I think it potentially is. $2,000 [give or take 10%] is not unusual for a good lens. Looking forward to some test shots in more favourable lighting conditions.
I would like to have 300mm f/4 for my Nikon D610.For $2 000,i would like to know where is this lens made?(This days nobody gives s... about that,i do).
2.From what kind of material is outer lens tube made?Is this another expensive lens made of plastic with some fancy name ?
If it is made of plastic I would not pay that kind of money,nothing wrong with Canon EF 300mm f/4.
Why do you care where it's made? Seriously. And the built quality is similar to any other current Nikon lens, nothing new there.
farturas81 Why do I care where is my money going to?
Are you serious? Maybe because I do not want pay high end price for a product that is made in Chinese slave shop and with that money same people who run those companies (comunists),coming here in Canada (specialy west coast)buying real estate and driving prices up.They usualy raze rents and throw many tenants out.They throw many business out of business.Average working class families are moving more and more out of city.On top of that,they (slave masters) are bringing their old parents who never worked a day in the Canada to enjoy all the benefits that we enjoy nhere.(like free healt care)(Hey,they need baby seaters too).
I never buy product made in China if I there is alternative,but sadly more and more there is not.So I always buy either Japanese or North American,European,Australian,New zeeland,Mexican,...Are we all going to live from welfare?
Broj 1 You really don't know what you are talking about. I have spent a lot of time calling in China from 1996 until 2009, and the factories there now are world class. They aren't dumb peasants . Maybe30 years ago but, the transformation of China is amazing. Go there and b surprised.
Peter G Mr. Peter G,i know what I'm talking about.
I do not give f... what you are think about that.I never said that Chinese are dumb peasants but people from the west are becoming dumb peasants.I do not care about China.I do not want to go there,nothing interests me there.Is there something wrong if I care,where my money goes to.Yes I buy most things made in China,but only because I don't have any choise,specialy here in North America.I do not want to pay "high end" price for Chinese made product.Most amazing thing to me is what kind of hipocrats and bullys are our governments.they bumb some small non democratic nations,but what about China?They are only comunists left on planet.China is the best thing that happened after slavery.What did Chinese invented lately?They are just cloning everything and nobody those anything about that.
Broj 1 Have a nice day :-)
Focus breeding Matt. You can't have 200m at 10 feet on a nikon 70-200m lens
Yes you can as matt and others have done videos showing the zoom lens can be better than a prime.
Also the carl zeiss guy also said the same thing and explained further reasons why it works and it's mainly due to the placement of the elements in the lens, a zoom lens shifts the elements so you can get a sharper image than a prime, which has no moving elements. so it's element placement might not work well.
Focus breeding. When you dail the lens at 200m and focus closely it is actually about 150m. Super sharp and all but not 200m.
ramanmono breathing*
I hate it when my focus breeds. All those baby lenses running around.
😣😥😦😧😞😖
"If you are using any of the other PRIME f/2.8 lenses like the 24 to 70..." ERRR am i the first one to catch this? Yeah i know just a silly "miss-speak " but still funny. Not picking on you Matt, just funny.
I'll stick with my holy trinity I like f2.8... beauty of a lens but i'll stick with what I have- for now..
still Nikon at heart eh?!
I stopped watching when you said 10 groups 16 elements
the s in Fresnel should not be pronounced. ( /freɪˈnɛl/ fray-nel)
Nice
Nikon has 4 300mm you should start the video with which one your reviewing!
That’d potentially ruin your curiosity!
i dont know why de go crazy with bokeh, when most award winning pictures i saw wasnt based on bokeh but the captured moment inage , its story..
true. all sensational images have no bokeh. Its just for portraits
I don't think it's worth spending 2000 bucks on that, I'd rather buy any of the Nikkor f/2.8 zoom lenses. (14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm VRII)
Ubz Unclemax different lenses for different jobs
well, they will be replaced soon. at least they seam to be at the end of theire productioncycle and the 70-200mm is about twice as heavy and with a 1.4 teleconverter you still do not get the quailty of the prime. actuallly, this 300mm is pretty interresting, consindering, it is possible to have a light 300mm f4.0 and a 420mm f5.6 (1.4 teleconverter) with a good close focus ability. for me it's at least interresting, but on the other hand i have all the stuff i need, except for a light telephoto prime. the only major probleme with this lense is, that it has wierd sunstars dew to the fresnel lense.
ps.:
cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Nikkor-300mm-f4E-VR-Image-Sample-20.jpg
Apples and oranges. You buy what you need. If it's not for you, move on.
Well, I just think that pros aren't gonna use this F/4 lens, and consumers aren't gonna spend 2000$ for a f/4 lens either.
Should I pick some nits? Nah...
Hey Matt, are you sure you don't want to invest in a proper microphone ? This video sounds like a 8-bits console music playing in a tin box.
Stéphane Pierrejeu i have great mics - but no with me today
Man I hate it when I pay for something and it's not as good as I had hoped. Oh wait..
Awful lens, for the price
...why? The Canon 400mm f/4 is $4,500 MORE than this lens for just 100mm more.
***** Obviously f/4 is more expensive as the lense gets longer...an extra 100mm at the same aperture is a big thing.
Is it really worth over 3 times the price of the 300mm f/4? It's six and a half grand... The Canon is overpriced, plain and simple.
***** Do some research into aperture and focal length and you'll see that an extra 100mm at over 300mm is huge in terms of cost to build.
I'm fairly knowledgeable on the subject. Of course it's not as simple as tacking on a few milometers, there are complex balances of optical design and build. I'm not doubting the costs associated with more complex lenses, I'm just saying that the original comment of "Awful lens for the price" is utterly ridiculous. Nikon packed a hell of a lot of tech and new design into this lens for a very reasonable price.
I don't care for this lens. It's overpriced. I'll stick with my Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6G and 70-200 f4
"fer-nel" not fresnel...
definitely overpriced!