Nikon 120-300

[Randy]

I almost replaced my old sigma 120-300 but resale depreciation stopped me and unpredictable used copies. I’ll probably get the Nikon version. This is the perfect range for filed sports like soccer. Anybody else thinking about it ? I wonder if the weight will be better since it’s an ‘e’ version.

 

[ijm5012]

Oh, I'll think about it. But it'll be far beyond my reach.

I was up in the air between the Sigma 120-300 Sport and Nikon 300/2.8 VR. I ended up going with the Nikon prime, which is a fantastic lens. I can't even begin to imagine what Nikon's 120-300 will go for when it's released though...

 

[gryphon1911]

I agree with Ian. I'd love the range, but the price will be off putting. I do have the 300/4E PF and am happy with it.

 

[Dennis Carter]

Yes! Random thoughts...

The resale price of my 200-400/4 just tanked

I wonder what the actual T stop will be?

With a TC14, it replaces 200-400/4, sorta (168-420/4).

With a TC17, it replaces the 200-500/5.6, sorta (204-510/4.8)

Surely Nikon will fix the long distance issue that the 200-400/4 has.

For football (maybe it's just me and how I shoot), I think the trade-off losing a little range with my 400mm and gaining the additional zoom for close action would yield more keepers.

But, hey, what do I know?

 

[Emoyeni]

Rockwell should have his review up soon so we'll know all then...

 

[nuclearjock]

I'm thinking $$$$. It's gonna have to be stunning optically and light weight for me to join in. The way Nikon has been designing their super doopers, I'll probably opt in. Gonna be an expensive first quarter what with this lens AND the D6.

 

[Randy]

Yes! Random thoughts...

The resale price of my 200-400/4 just tanked

I wonder what the actual T stop will be?

With a TC14, it replaces 200-400/4, sorta (168-420/4).

With a TC17, it replaces the 200-500/5.6, sorta (204-510/4.8)

Surely Nikon will fix the long distance issue that the 200-400/4 has.

For football (maybe it's just me and how I shoot), I think the trade-off losing a little range with my 400mm and gaining the additional zoom for close action would yield more keepers.

But, hey, what do I know?

+1 on football
+10 for soccer, a game changer so to speak

 

[Randy]

I'm thinking $$$$. It's gonna have to be stunning optically and light weight for me to join in. The way Nikon has been designing their super doopers, I'll probably opt in. Gonna be an expensive first quarter what with this lens AND the D6.

they won't be able to ignore the Sigma so hopefully the price will be around $4k

 

[F15Todd]

they won't be able to ignore the Sigma so hopefully the price will be around $4k

That would be awesome, but with the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G going for $5,500 I'm guessing we will not see it come in under that.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

they won't be able to ignore the Sigma so hopefully the price will be around $4k

I'm guessing more like $6K USD! Sigma can offset cost by selling their 120-300mm S in multiple mounts, plus Nikon 2.8 glass has always commanded a premium. Though I'm sure the Nikon 120-300mm will focus faster, be much sharper and weigh less. The Sigma 120-300 is a heavy beast, but it is reasonably priced right now.

 

[tony-b]

If I was still shooting synchronized figure skating, I'd get on the waiting list as soon as it opened up. I had the Sigma and for me it was impossible to handhold in ice rinks where I was fighting for fast shutter speeds so I was always on a monopod. Lucky for my wallet, I currently don't have a need for it. Since I primarily shoot landscapes and wildlife (mostly birds and gators), my current lineup is serving me well. Depressing when new gear is announced and I say, "Sure NOW you come out with that!!"

 

[Mitchell]

No more zooms for me. I'm too slow to zoom during field sports and wind up staying at the long end whenever I've tried. My best option now is to zoom by cropping since we have so many pixels to work with on our current sensors.

 

[ijm5012]

they won't be able to ignore the Sigma so hopefully the price will be around $4k

Sigma has a 500mm f/4 that's priced at $6k, but that didn't do anything to prevent Nikon from pricing their latest 500mm f/4 at over $10k.

The 300/2.8 VR II is nearly 10 years old, and still sells for $5,500.

There's no way that a lens implementing the latest optical and mechanical technology, while offering more flexibility than a prime, will undercut that prime lens. Given Nikon's stratospheric pricing of the 180-400, I'd put this lens at around $8k.

 

[Russ_]

I have the Sigma Sport version and love it on my D500. This Nikon version would have to be seriously superior for me to change.

 

[colincarter]

they won't be able to ignore the Sigma so hopefully the price will be around $4k

ive heard figures around the $10K mark

 

[Palouse]

Here is a few thoughts on it from Thom Hogan: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews...9-nikon-canon/do-we-need-a-120-300mm-f28.html

And he concludes, "Personally, I'm glad to see Nikon doing "zoom overlap". Of course, now I want it in the Z mount, too ;~)."

 

[RoyC01]

I almost replaced my old sigma 120-300 but resale depreciation stopped me and unpredictable used copies. I’ll probably get the Nikon version. This is the perfect range for filed sports like soccer. Anybody else thinking about it ? I wonder if the weight will be better since it’s an ‘e’ version.

Sounds like a great lens for you sideline shooters if one does not already have the 180-400. And I agree that the price is going to a issue when a 300 f2.8 prime is $5K plus and if the 300mm performance is near/equal the prime this is going to be a pricy lens.

 

[BLev65]

I am curious about what wildlife shooters think of the current Sigma 120-300 Sport. The Nikon lens will have a stratospheric price (my guess is $8500-$9500 given the current 300 f/2.8 and mark-up of 180-400 from 200-400). While I would love the new Nikon 120-300 f/2.8 or 180-400mm f4, these lenses are beyond my means.

I shot the 200-400 f/4VR1 for years and loved the flexibility of the lens... however, I abhorred the inconsistencies at 400mm f/4 to f/4.5. I have since sold the 200-400 and have been using a 70-200 FLE and 500PFE for most of my work. I miss the added focal length. The Sigma 120-300 w/ a D500 would work nicely when shot w/ my 500PF + FX body.
My concern is two-fold... can the 120-300 be used handheld, and how sharp/contrasty are the pictures @300mm @ f/2.8 to f/3.5? The 70-200E is crazy sharp on a D500... I'm willing to give a little of that 70-200E magic to get a bit more range.
cheers,
bruce

 

[tony-b]

The Sigma 120-300 is a heavy beast. When I had it, it was when I was photographing my daughter’s synchronized ice skating team and f/2.8 was a must for the poor lighting of skating rinks. When I shot skating or anything else with that lens, I could not handhold it very long, if at all, and always had a monopod under it. I eventually made my way to the Nikon 200-500 and will stay with that until the Z mount 200-600 (on the most recent Z roadmap) is released.

 

[dgwhitham]

I love my Sigma 120-300 - the Nikon would have to be a serious improvement for me to justify buying it.

As for the weight, I generally handhold my 120-300 for the games I shoot. Ive found that a lot of the weight is in the lens collar, and removing it makes a huge difference