p.1 #4 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
PixiPhotography wrote:
Nikon lists one of the features as "Superior Mobility" i wonder if that translates to weight/size
Well, it probably translates into "light and maneuverable" but no specific weight mentioned. I wonder what happened to simple descriptors instead of these kind of superlatives.
The current F mount is 3.25kg the same weight as my Z 600 f4 TC!
Let's hope it can be trimmed down to about 2.5kg but even then, it's still a little too heavy as an adjunct to my 600 TC, IMO. I would be very happy for a 300 f2.8 prime like the Sony 300 f2.8 which is about 1.5kg! Or even a 300 f2.8 + 1.4x TC which could be made for about 2kg or even less.
p.1 #5 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
I'm pretty excited for this....like others mentioned....I'd love to know the weight first, price second.
I feel like a light weight 300mm 2.8 is all I really wanted though.
p.1 #6 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
Curious of the affect this lens will have on the desire for the 400mm TC. Granted I understand the trade offs with focal length and when TC is applied but still. Perhaps not much
p.1 #7 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
PixiPhotography wrote:
Curious of the affect this lens will have on the desire for the 400mm TC. Granted I understand the trade offs with focal length and when TC is applied but still. Perhaps not much
Not to repeat the obvious, but the 120-300 will be f/4 at 400mm (or 420mm) so the results will be quite different.
p.1 #8 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
PixiPhotography wrote:
Curious of the affect this lens will have on the desire for the 400mm TC. Granted I understand the trade offs with focal length and when TC is applied but still. Perhaps not much
Not much I think.
The 400 TC will lean more towards wildlife, while the 120-300 leans more towards field sports. 300-420 can often be 'short range' for wildlife, while 400-600 feels like the longer range for football, soccer, etc.
p.1 #9 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
You guys are in for a treat, awesome lens. Love my RF100-300mm in the Canon world. As far as the 400mm f2.8, that is what I pair my 100-300 with. The 2x works amazing well on both lenses. I assume Nikon is similar. Makes a stellar travel lens giving me 100mm to 600mm in one package. Bonus one of your TC's will be built in. My best lens for wildlife video also as I have 200-600mm using the 2x. Congrats on this lens, hopefully a bit lighter than the Canon but with the TC built who knows. Nikon wins hands down with the lens line up. If I ever left Canon, Nikon would be it. Love all the choices today.
p.1 #10 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
So many good choices out there....this upcoming Nikon lens looks great, Canon's RF version is nice (all be it a bit heavy) and then we have the Sony 300GM and the upcoming 100-400 f/4.5.
They all have their pros and cons. Obviously if you want the lightest weight it is probably going to be the 300GM although the 100-400GM is rumoured to be the same weight or very close. But ultimate versatility goes to the Nikon and if the weight can be kept reasonable then it is a winner in my book.
A few photos I took of 300GM vs RF100-300 when I had them together....
Bare lenses
2xTCs mounted (the large RF adds a lot over the small FE)
Cheating with my shorty hood on the Sony (could probably get something similar to the Canon to even things out)
p.1 #11 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
DAMN IT!!!
Now I am seriously considering a move back to Nikon - have been for a bit but this lens really might seal the deal. The RF 100-300 has been the biggest, and of course the solid tracking of my R1, for my move to Canon..; but man-o-man, here I go again!
p.1 #14 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
PixiPhotography wrote:
Curious of the affect this lens will have on the desire for the 400mm TC. Granted I understand the trade offs with focal length and when TC is applied but still. Perhaps not much
I owned the 400TC from its release and shot with it for a couple of years. I’ve now been shooting with the R1 + RF 100-300, and I wouldn’t say this lens is a direct substitute for the 400TC. It’s different — and, in my opinion, a more flexible option.
For my use case, mainly photographing mammals in Africa, I’d pair the 120-300 with either the 600TC or possibly even the 600PF. That combination makes more sense to me than treating the 120-300 as a one-for-one replacement for the 400TC.
p.1 #15 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
I’ve been waiting for this, it will replace my 100-400, 400/4.5 and possibly my 70-200. I mainly shoot wildlife. I can see using this lens with my Tamron 35-150 & 180-600. I may even be able to replace the 180-600 if it works well with a 2x TC.
Now I’m just curious about the size/weight, cost and availability.
p.1 #16 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
I'm sure this will be a most excellent lens, but wouldn't the primary use case be sports and PJ?
I'd rather have a 1xx-400/4 or 200-500/4 with an internal TC for wildfile.
p.1 #17 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
EB-1 wrote:
I'm sure this will be a most excellent lens, but wouldn't the primary use case be sports and PJ?
I'd rather have a 1xx-400/4 or 200-500/4 with an internal TC for wildfile.
EBH
Depending on what type of wildlife one is shooting and the location, an f/2.8 prime/zoom combo is often used. The 400 f/2.8TC and 70-200 f/2.8 combo is frequently used in Africa for beginning and end of day shooting where the light is low. Having a 120-300 f/2.8TC to replace the 70-200 gives you more flexibility in the short tele range and could also allow you to replace the 400 f/2.8TC with a 600 f/4TC, or possibly a lighter/more compact long tele option (600PF, for example). Then you'd use the 120-300 for low light, and the 600PF when it's brighter without adding a ton of extra weight/size to your bag. The 120-300 is also helpful for mammals in other areas of the world.
Plus, as you said, sports. I used to shoot hockey with a 300 2.8, but this lens would be great in combination with a shorter 2.8 zoom.
p.1 #19 · Official Nikon Z 120-300mm 2.8 TC - Image Thread
Wezre wrote:
Depending on what type of wildlife one is shooting and the location, an f/2.8 prime/zoom combo is often used. The 400 f/2.8TC and 70-200 f/2.8 combo is frequently used in Africa for beginning and end of day shooting where the light is low. Having a 120-300 f/2.8TC to replace the 70-200 gives you more flexibility in the short tele range and could also allow you to replace the 400 f/2.8TC with a 600 f/4TC, or possibly a lighter/more compact long tele option (600PF, for example). Then you'd use the 120-300 for low light, and the 600PF when it's brighter without adding a ton of extra weight/size to your bag. The 120-300 is also helpful for mammals in other areas of the world.
Plus, as you said, sports. I used to shoot hockey with a 300 2.8, but this lens would be great in combination with a shorter 2.8 zoom....Show more →
I've done 20+ safaris in Africa. 300, 400, 500, 600mm prime lenses and most all zooms 80-200, 70-200, 120-300, 100-400, 100-500, 200-400 TC, 200-600, etc. I can think existed over the decades I have exhumed.
Of course you could use that lens as one of a set. Not saying it cannot be used but I'd rather a longer, fast zoom.
