Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/2.8E FL version

[Ilkka Nissilä]

There is no FL 300/4 at least not by Nikon.

All of the camera businesses have had some red years recently; Nikon Imaging likely the fewest. I don't see any reason why Nikon Imaging shouldn't be able to make a profit now when they have a far better product line than in the past. Eventually people will notice.

[longzoom]

Yeah, true, what I mean is a "PF" series lens. Sorry. So what are a main differences, what I got immediately - older one is a little bit sharper, with better color/contrast ratio. Angle of view - the PF Fresnel  element is close relative to the polarizing filter, due to its nature. So, in very rare critical moments, the final result on the screen will be far from you did see in VF. Its simply unpredictable, in this case. Very rare event, let me repeat, from 3000 (about) images, what I had with this lens, 3-4 ones were carrying such the phenomenon. Nothing wrong with that, very small area of the image will be affected, but good to know, anyway. BTW, had never seen any moiré effect, produced by this lens,  even on D810 sensor. That is my own experience, one could be disagree, why not!  THX!  LZ

[MFloyd]

I think there is some confusion: I'm referring to the new 300mm f/2.8 with a Fluorite mono crystal lens element; I'm not making reference to the Fresnel type of lens.

[longzoom]

Nobody knows for sure, yet, when and where. But as for me, so far, is clear - new one is not always better than older one. That's a my post about. I am extremely picky to the lens quality. I do suspicious, you too. So, I've never made a rush. After top comments, I have to get good sample, and good sample of any lens needs a completely stabilized line of assembling. Its gonna take time, to address first, most important, flaws. Average time to stabilize is about a year, I think. LZ

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I'm unaware of any major downsides of the use of fluorite elements apart from price and alleged fragility. I certainly can say the 70-200/2.8 E FL is amazing image quality and feature wise and the reduction of weight at the front makes handling more enjoyable. PF is great for making a really small lens but it has some image quality drawbacks. I think both have their place in the toolkit of the manufacturer.

The older 300/4 D AF-S has some advantages and disadvantages compared to the PF version; long distance sharpness wide open with the older lens was weak; stopping down to f/8 solved that problem but the PF does long distances sharply wide open which I regard as a clear advantage. At shorter distances the older version may be a bit better optically in some ways (in particular, out of focus rendering). Autofocus of the new lens I find to be extremely accurate whereas the old lens gave me a lot of misfocused shots when focusing on approaching subjects (in fact I would say that most shots were not correctly focused in my typical applications on moving subjects, and I could not solve the issue with fine tuning). I think the PF 300/4 works in a stellar way with contrasty, colourful, detailed subjects, and in sunny conditions, but in dim, low-contrast light, or with subjects that are not colourful or are lacking in contrasty features, the results can be dull, and conventional optics can be better for such subjects and lighting conditions.

I am actually also hoping for an FL 300/2.8 E;  I'm interested in a stiffer tripod mount than the current VR 300/2.8G II has, but also weight reduction due to the use of fluorite would be nice. I have been putting off the purchase of this lens for a while, knowing past history it is updated frequently. If the tripod mount were better I would have gotten the current version but with this price class of a lens I want it to be just right.

There is also a rumor (or a rumor site post) of a 200-400/4 E FL. I suppose this will be of interest mainly to the wealthy or specialists of telephoto applications. I think the zoom is more of a tripod or monopod lens whereas the 300/2.8 can also be hand held, briefly.

[chambeshi]

... the new 300mm f/2.8 with a Fluorite mono crystal lens element; I'm not making reference to the Fresnel type of lens.

I will be intrigued to read how much a new 300 f2.8E will weigh. I'm very happy with my 300 f2.8G VRII with the 1.4 and 2 TCEs. But it gets a bit heavy to carry all day.

Compared to the G primes they replaced, the new 400 f2.8E, 500 f4E and 600 f4E all shed significant mass. And the independent tests confirm they are all optically superb.  A 300 f2.8E can be expected to match or exceed this level of performance. http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/choosing-lenses/rationalizing-lenses.html

There sure are some utterly superb lenses in the current inventory: the 300 f4E PF, 70-200 f2.8E and 105 f1.4E to single out three. Tributes to the excellence that is Nikon.

Here are some photos taken on a recent Zambian trip: with the 300 2.8G VRII and TC20E III on Nikon Df.

[Frank Fremerey]

I would wait for absolutely reliable source to test the new "PF" lens, any of them, if lower mass and size of the new one isn't the imperative factor to get it immediately. My own experience with new "FL" 300/4 and older AFS version clearly shows - do not rush! And yes - "E" lenses deliver a bit less vibrations, compare to "G" version, a hair less, but you are able to see this hair difference when your unit is on the tripod, not hand-held, of course. THX!  LZ

I can only say, that the 4.0/300PF is superb in any respect even exotic ones like being use with a 23mm of extension.

If I imagine which weight & heft gain a 2.8/300PF could have, I am not at all sceptical, more "in hope".

[Frank Fremerey]

PLEASE, stay focused on this lens and avoid generic chitchat about the "survival" or "profitability" of Nikon. Don't take it wrong. Thanks 😊

Since when do you babysit me???


***Moderators, please delete both, thank you.***

[MFloyd]

May be the new 300mm f/2.8 will be based on this patent https://nikonrumors.com/2016/09/06/nikon-300mm-f2-8-fl-vr-lens-patent.aspx/

[MFloyd]

Since when do you babysit me ? ....

Frank, this wasn't particularly meant against you; but rather a general statement: I'm a member of a couple of other photographic forums; and about every thread is polluted by off-topic considerations, more a less connected with the "Fuji-Nikon recommendation", or the so called "Nikon's financial troubles"; this goes often so far, that after one page or two, you can barely recognize the original subject / purpose of he thread. So, nothing personal.

[David H. Hartman]

I'm unaware of any major downsides of the use of fluorite elements apart from price and alleged fragility.

I thought the fragility was well known and that Nikon is not using fluorite elements on the front or rear of its FL lenses so the concern should be greatly reduced or eliminated.

Dave

[Roland Vink]

Even ED glass is softer than normal glass. It is strong enough to be used on the front element of a lens, such as the AF 180/2.8 and AFS 300/4. But in many lenses the front ED element is kept behind a front lens plate, which is essentially a built-in protective NC filter.

My feeling is that Nikon avoided using fluorite glass for many years because of its fragility, and sensitivity to heat and moisture. They opted to use ED glass instead which has nearly the same optical qualities but is much more robust - which was much more in line with the hard-wearing professional quality of their lenses. With digital imaging the importance of ultimate optical quality is much greater so now they choose to use the superior fluorite elements, and now there is better technology for mounting fluorite elements in a lens.

[Akira]

If I remember correctrly, Nikon used the ED glass for the front element only in the earlier MF lenses (i.e. Ais 200/2.0 and Ais 180/2.8 ).  Since then Nikon has never used it for the front element wihtout the built-in protection glass.

That said, I see many modern non-Nikon lenses that use elements made of abnormal dispersion glasses: many Zeiss lenses, Sigma 1335/1.8 etc.  I wonder if there is any technological breakthrough, especially in terms of the coatings?

[David H. Hartman]

The manager of Lee-Mac Camera, Pasadena, CA told me he had seen a 180/2.8 ED whose front element was pitted by propellent from canned air sprayed at close range. This would be extreme temperature shock. I have not heard of other problems with ED front elements. They must be reasonably serviceable.

I think I've seen a photograph of a Canon telephoto with a deceased front element which was said to be fluorite.

Dave

[Akira]

I've heard that the front element of Ais 200/2.0 would break when canned air is sprayed from the proximity because of the drastic downfall of the temperature on the surface.