Nikkor 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR Lens announced, with the D6.

[Macro_Cosmos]

So what exactly is SR? Super resolution? Super refractive?
Your guess is as good as mine...

What we can expect is another zoom lens that performs like a prime, which comes with a hefty pricetag. It's probably the dream lens for low light sports and wildlife photography, or maybe it's a bit too short for wildlife? Really looking forward to this lens although I cannot afford one.

[Erik Lund]

Wow, it has been a long wait for that focal length range zoom and fixed f/2.8


Sure it will be expensive    Start saving   
Front zoom ring,,, Omg    there will be opinions shared 

[Jan Anne]

Used to have a couple of Sigma 120-300/2.8, the AF wasn't very usable and the optics were so so but the 120-300 range was very usable and due to the fast aperture worked great with extenders. Bring an FX and DX body and you're set for most of the tele work out there with a single lens.

[chambeshi]

In celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Nikon F mount  And who predicted no more new F-Nikkors?     

As the short official blurb says, this is aimed at sports genres. However with TC14 III, it should be versatile for wildlife, but limited for smaller birds at some distance

The current 300 f2.8G VRII weighs 2.9kg. The fluorite should trim down this 120-300 Nikkor closer to 2 kg (?)

This new fast "exotic" medium telephoto zoom means it is now unlikely that Nikon will update the fast 300 prime to a f2.8E FL. Similar uncertainty hangs over the future of the legendary 200 f2. It's hard to justify the release of a fluorite upgrade (Unless perhaps Nikon do this in a Z-Mount model). And in this case trimming off VR should shed it of a pound, or so, of mass.

The 200 f2 is a great niche prime for indoor sports and portraits. Lowlight ISO on the top-end Nikon action cameras has become really excellent; so the extra stop of a 200 f2 is really for DoF.... But, this depends IF the 120-300 f2.8 has great bokeh (which is likely), who will pay out for another heavy fast prime? The release of this encompassing zoom has interesting implications for the future values of the current fast primes in 200 and 300 F-Mount. A Used 200 f2 is hard to find, but 300 f2.8 is far more common by comparison in used inventories.

Here is the official Nikon link: https://www.nikon.com/news/2019/0904_dslr_01.htm

[tommiejeep]

Used to have a couple of Sigma 120-300/2.8, the AF wasn't very usable and the optics were so so but the 120-300 range was very usable and due to the fast aperture worked great with extenders. Bring an FX and DX body and you're set for most of the tele work out there with a single lens.

JA, I used the Sigma ( a friend's) for a couple of Soccer matches thinking I could have a single lens/body solution but 120mm was too long so I still had to use a second body with 70-200 f2.8.   I did not find the AF too bad on the D300S and D3S.  At one point I could have bought new Sig. 120-300 f2.8 and 500 f4.5 for less than the Nikon 300 2.8 G vr.   If this lens is lighter it wold really have suited me but now I am thinking 300 f4E , age  .
Some really nice lenses for Wildlife shooters these days, this is the first one aimed at sports.

[golunvolo]

A fx body with the 70-200 and a dx body with this and I´ll be in theater heaven 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Front zoom ring,,, Omg    there will be opinions shared 

Most zooms have the zoom ring at front, so this is pretty normal.

Sigma's 120-300/2.8 weights 3.39kg. Given that Nikon use fluorite, it is likely to be a bit lighter and less front heavy. The Sigma is definitely a monopod (or tripod) lens, and typically even 300/2.8 users at sports arenas use monopods, I don't think the new 120-300 Nikkor will be an exception. Once you are using it on a monopod, the zoom ring position matters less. Where it matters is when hand-holding the lens, as an extended arm (to reach the zoom ring) can get uncomfortable quickly (if you are thin, in particular). But I expect that most users will have it on monopod (if shooting sports).

I don't think this does anything to the 200/2; one stop is one stop. This will, however, probably delay the launch of a lightweight 300/2.8 FL, which is the lens I want. Although I think the 120-300mm range is useful for many things, the reality is that most of us who would consider these lenses, already have a 70-200/2.8 and it is a much smaller and easier to hand hold lens than any 120-300mm f/2.8 could be.

While I appreciate the availability of such options, I don't think zooms, in general, are a replacement for primes, and think Nikon should get on with modernizing their medium telephoto prime lineup.  Primes can be lighter, they have fewer elements and simpler construction, so often they focus faster (though not always), they can optionally be faster or have macro capabilities, and usually (with the exception of PF lenses) have nicer out-of-focus rendering than zooms. In the short to medium telephoto range I find the bokeh to be of particular importance and this is why it is disappointing to me that Nikon puts such emphasis on zooms in this range. It's not that I don't want this lens to exist - I am glad they will offer it, and hope they do well in the market, but it's not quite the lens I would prefer.

My guess is the price will be around 8000-9000€, looking at the prices of the current 300/2.8, the typical fluorite premium,  and the cost of the 180-400/4.

[Erik Lund]

Most zooms have the zoom ring at front, so this is pretty normal.

I'm not going to count, but for sure not Nikon Pro f/2.8 lenses,,,
I was referring to Nikon lenses,,, Specifically the 70-200mm AFS FL f/2.8 when it came out there was a lot of comments,,, because of the zoom ring being on the front,,,

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I'm not going to count, but for sure not Nikon Pro f/2.8 lenses,,,
I was referring to Nikon lenses,,, Specifically the 70-200mm AFS FL f/2.8 when it came out there was a lot of comments,,, because of the zoom ring being on the front,,,

Yes, but that's a lens that is designed for hand-holding so extending the left arm further makes it harder to hold and follow action, so the earlier design was easier to use. But the 120-300/2.8 is probably not light enough to hand hold anyway, so the left arm doesn't have to support its weight and the position of the zoom ring doesn't matter as much.

Let's take a look at other zooms that reach 300mm focal length:

Canon 200-400/4: zoom is front, focus ring back.
Nikon 180-400/4: zoom is front, focus ring back.
Sigma 120-300/2.8: zoom is front, focus ring back.
Nikon 80-400 AF-S: zoom is front, focus ring back.
Canon 100-400: zoom is front, focus ring back
Sony 100-400: zoom is back, focus ring front
Sigma 100-400: zoom is front, focus ring back
Tamron 100-400: zoom is front, focus ring back
Sigma 150-600: zoom is front, focus ring back
Tamron 150-600: zoom is front, focus ring back

I would therefore argue that having zoom in front is the norm in this type of lens, and of the current mainstream long zooms, the Sony (which has the zoom ring behind the focus ring) is the exception.

[chambeshi]

I'm not going to count, but for sure not Nikon Pro f/2.8 lenses,,,
I was referring to Nikon lenses,,, Specifically the 70-200mm AFS FL f/2.8 when it came out there was a lot of comments,,, because of the zoom ring being on the front,,,

The 80-400 G before the 70-200 f2.8 E FL, then 180-400 f4E TC....

Front zoom works well with the supporting hand, as (usually) MF correction to the AF are the exception

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The 80-400 G before the 70-200 f2.8 E FL, then 180-400 f4E TC....

Front zoom works well with the supporting hand, as (usually) MF correction to the AF are the exception

Well, if you hand hold the lens, with the new configuration of the 70-200/2.8 it's not possible to hold one's elbow against the chest while using the zoom ring and following action in different directions, unless the photographer has rather large body thickness. With the older design it was easy to use the zoom ring with elbows tucked in, leading to better stability.

The new position of the zoom ring isn't good for 70-200/2.8 hand held use, in my opinion. I usually find myself using the 70-200mm FL as a fixed focal length lens, only occasionally adjusting zoom, as it is so inconvenient to move arm to the front to adjust, and I always find myself moving the hand back in to hold the lens properly when shooting.

But in a lens used on monopod or tripod, this doesn't make much difference so it's not going to be a problem for typical user of 120-300/2.8 (just looking at sports shooters, they typically have any larger lens on monopod).

[Erik Lund]

Well, most other Nikkor zooms are rear zoom even the 200-400mm AFS f/4 So that what I'm used to    sure there a a lot of vintage that are push pull as well!


The preference is so personal and really this was the only point I would make out of it, so feel completely free to like it, I have not owned a front zoom lens ever but maybe 20 or more rear Nikkor zoom lenses. Maybe this will be the first one!


Anyway, take care not to strain something if you try to hold your elbow against your chest when taking pictures - just rest the elbow against your lower body at a comfortable height 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Well, most other Nikkor zooms are rear zoom even the 200-400mm AFS f/4 So that what I'm used to   

Looks like the currently available are approximately evenly divided, on nikon.fi, I counted 18 Nikkor zooms with zoom ring at front and 15 with zoom ring at the back.

The preference is so personal

Yes.

Anyway, take care not to strain something if you try to hold your elbow against your chest when taking pictures - just rest the elbow against your lower body at a comfortable height 

Not straining anything. But if I use the 70-200/2.8 FL zoom ring, no part of my left arm touches my body while zooming. With the rear zoom ring position lenses, my left arm is supported by my chest.

Anyway, although I prefer the ergonomics of the rear zoom lenses, it doesn't make a difference in what lenses I purchase. I consider other aspects of the lens design more important. For example the 70-200/2.8 FL allows tight close-ups from distance (e.g. concert) whereas the 70-200/2.8 II presents a much wider crop at the same distance at the 200mm setting. Thus I prefer the FL. Also it is lighter and optically I prefer it also, it has the VR SPORT mode which I really like and the tripod foot doesn't vibrate and the focus motor jitters less. So there is a lot to like in the FL lens. But the ring position if I could swap it, I would. Anyway, as you say, this is very personal.

I would have preferred a prime 300/2.8 FL to a zoom because the zoom is likely to be more expensive and heavier. However, I can see the added value of the zoom as well.

[Roland Vink]

So what exactly is SR? Super resolution? Super refractive?
Your guess is as good as mine...

Super Refractive is the best guess I have seen so far, but Nikon already have a couple of lenses with HRI (high refractive index) glass, so maybe not.Yet Nikon have ED and super ED, so maybe they can have different high refractive glass too?

This lens pretty much replicates for FX what the 70-200/2.8 is for DX. I wouldn't have guessed this lens was a priority, but it would be very useful for sports photographers. We now have a comprehensive set of telephoto zooms:
  70-200/2.8, 120-300/2.8, 180-400/4 (and 150-560/5.6 with TC)
We just need a 300-800/8 to complete the set.
Or how about a smaller 50-140/2.8 portrait zoom? 

[MILLIREHM]

My 2 cents:
Also curious what the SR means and whether it makes this lens specific interest
It is a know pattern that nikon releases a remarkable pro lens when a new pro body is launched. The best thing for me is the signal that the Nikon F system is still alive (despite the mirrorless hype).
A lens good for sports, for wildlife it is too short- good for large mammals, too short for birds. There cant be enough choice in the lineup - and as long as Nikon can afford to keep a huge system it can still be associated with the qualities that made Nikon leading in the past.
The zoom rings? I'd prefer the focus ring in front of the zoom ring (as the 200-400 configuration), the new nikon "feature" is to place it the other way round. Thats OK when it comes to the 80-400, the 200-500. I havent used the 180-400 so far, it couldbe OK, so does the new 120-300. The 70-200 FL is a super stellar lens, but here the front zoom position is some kind of mess hard adapt and the only downside of this lens.

will the 120-300 replace the 300/2,8? Who knows? Probably there won't be an FL version in the near to mid term future but hope is not lost (also for the 200/2) as there wer rumors of patents for new versions of these lenses. The 300/2,8 was the classical pro lens for Sports photographers (Besides the 400/2,8) press photographers (no use for a 400) so it has some tradition.
Is there a need for a 200/2 FL? It could be more lightweight but i consider it hard to beat this gem in terms of quality.