Nikon today introduced an expected new lens.
The 120-300mm f/2.8 TC VR S is now officially added to the lineup. Nikon’s new baby costs US$13,999 and weighs in at 6 pounds 0.5 ounces (2735g). The good news is that now that it’s official, the lens appears to be exactly the quality optic that we were all hoping for. The bad news is that price tag.
Let’s start with the pricing. The real problem for Nikon is that a light, competent 300mm f/2.8 now costs a bit over 2x in the Z-mount as it does in the Sony FE mount. You can buy a Sony A1 II and a 300mm f/2.8GM OSS for the price of the 120-300mm f/2.8 TC VR S. Ouch. Sure, sure, the Nikon version is a zoom with a built-in TC, so that’s got to be worth something, but 2x?
Nikon’s exotics now have very used-car-like list prices:
- 120-300mm f/2.8 TC VR S is US$13,999
- 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S is US$14,699
- 600mm f/4 TC VR S is US$16,199
I was one of those hoping that Nikon would draw the line somwhere around the US$9999 point, and manage to figure out how to produce the 120-300mm under that bar. But it seems the bar just keeps getting pushed higher, not lowered. The problem with that is that it means that most of us who need exotics are buying only one. At US$9999, I and others could consider two. At US$13,999+, sorry, Nikon isn’t going to get additional buying from us.
Pride goeth before the fall. Nikon is going to have trouble holding their sports photography pros with their exotic pricing. Whereas Nikon is undercutting Sony in body pricing, Sony is now undercutting Nikon in key telephoto lens pricing. Pros realize that their real investment is in lenses, not bodies, so Nikon’s reaching for your pocketbook on lenses is a long-term issue that’s troublesome.
The problem, of course, is that these big glass products require a lot of work to get right, starting with glass curing and polishing, but also in procedures that keep the narrow light paths absolutely aligned. To my knowledge, no one’s quite broken the code and figured out how to produce them faster or at lower cost. Still, the Canon 100-300mm f/2.8 is US$10,599, and Sony’s 300mm f/2.8 is just US$6799, so Nikon is significantly above them in pricing at the 300mm exotic point. This is just taxing to the Nikon pro.
—————
Bonus Q&A
Why US$13,999? Did adding the TC really raise the cost by US$4000? Nikon appears to have created yet another new design for reasons that are currently unclear, but likely have to do with next generation camera-lens communications. This is consistent with past refreshes in the exotic lens lineup. But again, this leaves Nikon missing an affordable fast 300mm option in the Z-mount. That’s probably a mistake.
Why didn’t we also get a 180-400mm f/4 TC VR refresh for the Z-mount? I’m suspecting the reduced capacity of the Togichi plant during reconstruction. That, coupled with the overlap with the 120-300mm would likely have made Nikon prioritize one over the other. The 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3, while a stop+ slower, duplicates the 180-400mm’s range adequately, while “fast 300mm” remained uncovered by Nikon, thus the preference. For those that seem to think that the Z-mount’s larger size and shorter flange distance is the reason why Nikon is redoing the telephoto lineup, I’d say no. With traditional telephoto optical design, the Z-mount has no advantage over the smaller mounts, such as the Sony FE. Perhaps there’s an optical design for a telephoto lens that could take advantage of the extra width and shorter distance to the sensor from the rear element, but I haven’t seen one of those from anyone yet. The Z-mount’s advantage over F-mount is going to come from mount communications for the time being, and I believe we’re waiting for a next generation body to see what that really is.
Will Nikon make a 300mm f/2.8 or 200mm f/2? I’d like to think so, though to be honest, the market for those fast focal lengths is more limited than it is for other focal lengths these days. Back when we had more pros on the sidelines, no zooms, and better access up and down the field, 300mm was a very useful focal length. Now it’s usefulness—at least in a prime—is less useful. For wildlife, 300mm is too short for the way most people can position themselves vis-a-vis the animals. What I’d propose Nikon doing next is a 300mm f/2, which would give us an option that isn’t currently available.
Will the Chinese step in and give us more affordable options? Probably. But this isn’t quite as simple as it sounds. The bigger the lens elements, the better quality your glass pour has to be, and the longer it takes to get the curing and polishing correct. These are not things you automate easily nor maintain high quality on without a lot of time and effort. We’ve seen one fast telephoto out of China—the Laowa 200mm f/2—and it’s good but not great. There are a lot of problems that need to be solved to bring “affordable exotics” to market. That will take time.