Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL - Sports - Badminton?

chung_jun · Sep 13, 2022

Hi all,

No much talk of the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL. Too niche or too late to the game by Nikon given there's also Sigma's offering in the market for quite some time?

Have been keeping watch on Nikon's 120-300mm FL for sports, badminton mainly. From what I've read, it is a mighty fine lens.

Anyone have experience using it for badminton? Care to share a few shots? I also wonder if it is too tight for small indoor courts like badminton. I would think for basketball or volleyball it would be a pretty good focal length.

Feel free to also share any photos / comments taken with Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL

X Ray · Sep 13, 2022

chung_jun said:
Hi all,

No much talk of the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL. Too niche or too late to the game by Nikon given there's also Sigma's offering in the market for quite some time?

The Nikon version is a little bit sharper in the midframe and corners but a lot more expensive. With the Sigma Sport version already being excellent, not surprising that very few people felt it was worth three times the price to move to the Nikon.

LensWizard · Sep 14, 2022

X Ray said:
chung_jun said:

Hi all,

No much talk of the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL. Too niche or too late to the game by Nikon given there's also Sigma's offering in the market for quite some time?

Click to expand...

The Nikon version is a little bit sharper in the midframe and corners but a lot more expensive. With the Sigma Sport version already being excellent, not surprising that very few people felt it was worth three times the price to move to the Nikon.

I felt it was and purchased the Nikon Version at 3X's the price...

Leonard Shepherd · Sep 14, 2022

X Ray said:
The Nikon version is a little bit sharper in the midframe and corners but a lot more expensive.

X Ray said:
With the Sigma Sport version already being excellent, not surprising that very few people felt it was worth three times the price to move to the Nikon.

There are probably more differences than you indicate - though I have not used either lens.

The Nikon is a newer lens design able to take advantage of newer technology.

In particular it has arneo and nano coating and also an SR lens element that significantly reduces issues with light with wavelengths shorter than blue for improved chromatic aberration control.

In some shooting situations the Nikon should produce higher contrast and greater colour accuracy.

The Nikon fluorite element and use of magnesium allow reduce weight.

Nikon say the AF servo drive works more accurately and flexibly than on previous generation F mount lenses - no surprise to me as this is a less than 3 year old lens very well suited to sports photography.

I am not sure what VR ability the Sigma has – Nikon report up to 4 stops for their lens..

It is not uncommon for a 10% increase in resolution to cost about a double with photographic lenses :-(

How much value any individual places on the generally high Nikon level of performance is a personal decision.

creative edge · Sep 14, 2022

I had the sigma sport in the past and it is a great lens.. sharp, fast to focus. I now have the Nikon version and it is a big step up in sharpness and focus speed. I have the 400 2.8 FL E and consider the 120-300 every bit as sharp as the prime. I had the 300 2.8 VRII and find the 120-300 to be even sharper. I enjoy using the lens so much that my 400 2.8 FL just sat in the safe... just sold the 400 2.8. With the tc 1.4 it becomes a 160-420 f4 that is incredibly sharp and focus speed is not affected. I tried the 1.7 and it becomes a 500 F4.8 that is just as sharp as the 1.4 with no focus speed hit. It quickly has become my favorite lens due to it's IQ and how versatile it is.

X Ray · Sep 14, 2022

LensWizard said:
X Ray said:

not surprising that very few people felt it was worth three times the price to move to the Nikon.

Click to expand...

I felt it was and purchased the Nikon Version at 3X's the price...

Seriously?

It's perfectly clear from your gear list that your purchasing decisions have absolutely nothing to do with cost benefit analysis and are simply a matter of you having nothing better to do with two hundred thousand dollars.

LensWizard · Sep 14, 2022

X Ray said:
LensWizard said:

X Ray said:

not surprising that very few people felt it was worth three times the price to move to the Nikon.

Click to expand...

I felt it was and purchased the Nikon Version at 3X's the price...

Click to expand...

Seriously?

It's perfectly clear from your gear list that your purchasing decisions have absolutely nothing to do with cost benefit analysis and are simply a matter of you having nothing better to do with two hundred thousand dollars.

You have assumed correctly and what's the problem with that..? No Budget friendly knockoff lenses here and never will and yes thats seriously.....!

X Ray · Sep 14, 2022

Leonard Shepherd said:
X Ray said:

The Nikon version is a little bit sharper in the midframe and corners but a lot more expensive.

With the Sigma Sport version already being excellent, not surprising that very few people felt it was worth three times the price to move to the Nikon.

Click to expand...

There are probably more differences than you indicate - though I have not used either lens.

Yeah, I left out that the Nikon has more distortion.

Leonard Shepherd said:
The Nikon is a newer lens design able to take advantage of newer technology.

In particular it has arneo and nano coating and also an SR lens element that significantly reduces issues with light with wavelengths shorter than blue for improved chromatic aberration control.

With the Sigma, I've never seen any chromatic aberration in any situation, ever, so this was never an issue to begin with. Definitely not money well spent there.

Leonard Shepherd said:
In some shooting situations the Nikon should produce higher contrast and greater colour accuracy.

Should or does? And how would you know?

Leonard Shepherd said:
The Nikon fluorite element and use of magnesium allow reduce weight.

They're almost the same. Both are beasts at just over 7 lbs. Again, money not well spent.

Leonard Shepherd said:
Nikon say the AF servo drive works more accurately and flexibly than on previous generation F mount lenses - no surprise to me as this is a less than 3 year old lens very well suited to sports photography.

The Sigma's autofocus is already excellent. No issues there either.

Leonard Shepherd said:
I am not sure what VR ability the Sigma has – Nikon report up to 4 stops for their lens..

4 stops with the Sigma at it's longest focal length. I can shoot at 1/15 of a second at 300mm.

Leonard Shepherd said:
It is not uncommon for a 10% increase in resolution to cost about a double with photographic lenses :-(

Only with this Nikon lens, it's nearly three times the cost.

Leonard Shepherd said:
How much value any individual places on the generally high Nikon level of performance is a personal decision.

What you refer to as "high" is simply average these days. Everyone, even third parties are making great lenses.

So what Nikon has is a lens that is a little better, in some ways, than a lens that was already excellent and had no weaknesses... but for nearly 3 times the cost.

--
If you're experimenting with new camera bodies but you've never experimented with light, you're definitely getting bad advice.

X Ray · Sep 14, 2022

LensWizard said:
X Ray said:

Seriously?

It's perfectly clear from your gear list that your purchasing decisions have absolutely nothing to do with cost benefit analysis and are simply a matter of you having nothing better to do with two hundred thousand dollars.

Click to expand...

You have assumed correctly and what's the problem with that..?

The problem is that the original poster is considering cost to benefit, and is looking for opinions from that approach.

Leonard Shepherd · Sep 15, 2022

X Ray said:
LensWizard said:

I felt it was and purchased the Nikon Version at 3X's the price...

Click to expand...

Seriously?

It is his money, his standards and his decision.

X Ray said:
It's perfectly clear from your gear list that your purchasing decisions have absolutely nothing to do with cost benefit analysis

Is it?

If that was an accurate analysis then according to you maybe everybody on this forum should own nothing more than a basic smartphone ;-)

If I had more money I would also seriously consider buying the Nikon.

X Ray · Sep 15, 2022

Leonard Shepherd said:
If I had more money I would also seriously consider buying the Nikon.

All the hours you put in shilling for Nikon, and you can't afford it?

LensWizard · Sep 15, 2022

X Ray said:
Leonard Shepherd said:

If I had more money I would also seriously consider buying the Nikon.

Click to expand...

All the hours you put in shilling for Nikon, and you can't afford it?

Take it any day over a knockoff 3rd party..

--
Canon XLH1 Video, Profoto AcuteR2400, Eizo 27Inch CG277 Monitor, MSI GT80S Laptop, MSI Vortex G-65 Desktop, Wimberly Mk2 Head, Gitzo 5540LS Tripods (2), Arca Swiss Monoball Head, Macbook Pro 15inch Retna Display,Arca Swiss C1 Cube Head, Apple Mac Pro (6) Core 3.5GHZ Dual AMD700's

X Ray · Sep 15, 2022

LensWizard said:
No Budget friendly knockoff lenses here

Unsurprisingly, the definition of "knockoff" eludes you.

knock·off/ˈnäkäf/
noun

a copy or imitation, especially of an expensive or designer product.

...or maybe you just don't know anything about photography other than what a salesperson or shiII tells you, to separate you from your money. In that case, a little insight; Sigma released the first ever 120-300mm f2.8 lens TWENTY YEARS AGO.

--
If you're experimenting with new camera bodies but you've never experimented with light, you're definitely getting bad advice.

Leonard Shepherd · Sep 15, 2022

X Ray said:
All the hours you put in shilling for Nikon, and you can't afford it?

If I have experienced it and found it to be good I have the right to say so.

If I have experienced it and found it less good I have the right to say so.

Neither has anything to do with how much money I allocate to photography equipment.

I generally spend more money getting to good photographic locations - where every good picture can tell a story.

Some – but possibly from the tone of your replies not you – apply weighting to some factors when making a cost benefit analysis.

Everybody has a right to place a high or a low weighting on better quality images - that in the context of the lens in the thread heading - in capable photographic hands - the Nikon is capable of delivering.

If on a scale of 1 to 9 with 4, 5 and 6 being 3 grades of middle and 7, 8 and 9 being 3 grades of best you are free to generally settle around level 5 if you choose to do this and I am free to choose to settle around level 8 for both equipment and image quality.

X Ray · Sep 15, 2022

Leonard Shepherd said:
If I have experienced it and found it to be good I have the right to say so.

If I have experienced it and found it less good I have the right to say so.

Minor detail....you haven't used either of the lenses we're speaking of.

So why are you even here? Oh, that's right. It's your job to sale Nikon products.

--
If you're experimenting with new camera bodies but you've never experimented with light, you're definitely getting bad advice.

Leonard Shepherd · Sep 15, 2022

X Ray said:
Leonard Shepherd said:

If I have experienced it and found it to be good I have the right to say so.

If I have experienced it and found it less good I have the right to say so.

Click to expand...

Minor detail....you haven't used either of the lenses we're speaking of.

So why are you even here?

If you read the qualification I applied to my comments - if you choose to - you might understand why ;-)

I have handled and even owned some of Nikon's most advanced lenses.

The Nikon 120-300 is the most advanced F mount lens made by Nikon.

It has I mentioned several specification advantages, backed up by actual owners confirming the Nikon has superior performance compared to the option you have commented on.

On this basis - perhaps it is fair to ask why you are still here - unless perhaps you are completely unwilling to accept the Nikon is the superior performing optic.

X Ray · Sep 15, 2022

Leonard Shepherd said:
perhaps it is fair to ask why you are still here

So you can keep your job. Just helping you out, buddy. ;-)

--
If you're experimenting with new camera bodies but you've never experimented with light, you're definitely getting bad advice.

Rich Rosen · Sep 15, 2022

chung_jun said:
Hi all,

No much talk of the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL. Too niche or too late to the game by Nikon given there's also Sigma's offering in the market for quite some time?

Have been keeping watch on Nikon's 120-300mm FL for sports, badminton mainly. From what I've read, it is a mighty fine lens.

Anyone have experience using it for badminton? Care to share a few shots? I also wonder if it is too tight for small indoor courts like badminton. I would think for basketball or volleyball it would be a pretty good focal length.

Feel free to also share any photos / comments taken with Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL

I'd love to see a Z mount version of this lens. The Sigma was a fantastic lens. my only problem with it was 7 1/2 lbs, and on a Z mount camera, with FTZ adapter, it's AF took a big hit in speed. I did use the 120-300 in gym for basketball...I preferred a 70-200 f2.8. Basketball is very fast moving in a relatively small environment. The Sigma was a little unwieldy.

X Ray · Sep 15, 2022

Rich Rosen said:
The Sigma was a fantastic lens. my only problem with it was 7 1/2 lbs, and on a Z mount camera, with FTZ adapter, it's AF took a big hit in speed.

This is a problem inherent to the Nikon mirrorless cameras, not the lens.

I noticed the slow AF as well when using the 120-300 with the Z7ii. And then noticed that using the Z7ii with a Nikon 500mm f4 had equally slow autofocus.

The Z7ii, and most likely all other non pro body Nikon mirrorless cameras, just don't supply enough power to the AF motors in the big lenses to focus them quickly.

Nikon knew this, but let us all find out on our own, conveniently, after the purchase. Typical intentional handicapping from Nikon, ensuring that everyone who purchased one (or more) also has to purchase the Z9 for adapted super telephotos to focus at normal speed.

Leonard Shepherd · Sep 16, 2022

X Ray said:
I noticed the slow AF as well when using the 120-300 with the Z7ii. And then noticed that using the Z7ii with a Nikon 500mm f4 had equally slow autofocus.

This is an interesting observation.

I find with the 300 PF, the 500 PF, the 180-400 and even the 200-500 on the Z7 provided technique is adjusted for the different way the AF systems work there is no loss of AF speed - and when face detection or eye detection is utilised there can be an increase in AF speed.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL - Sports - Badminton?

Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts