Could this lens be the ultimate in lens lust disorder?

[Nikonfreak]

Partly. The even bigger reason is that since demand for the plasma TV's was so high, manufacturer's were willing to invest in expanding production facilities and research for better and faster ways of producing them in larger quantities.

The demand for a 300 f/2.0 has never been super high, as I suspect the demand for the 200 f/2 won't be. If demand for the 300 f/2.0 were as high as say, the 70-200 f/2.8, you bet there'd be a cheaper version on the market. Someone would find a way to make it a reality.

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

Partly. The even bigger reason is that since demand for the plasma TV's was so high, manufacturer's were willing to invest in expanding production facilities and research for better and faster ways of producing them in larger quantities.

The demand for a 300 f/2.0 has never been super high, as I suspect the demand for the 200 f/2 won't be. If demand for the 300 f/2.0 were as high as say, the 70-200 f/2.8, you bet there'd be a cheaper version on the market. Someone would find a way to make it a reality.

That was my point. The optimum manufacturing technique is different for something that will sell tens or hundreds of units, than for something that will sell hundreds of thousands of units.

[Nikonfreak]

The questions would then become,

1- How much of a market would really exist for an affordable 300 f/2.0?

2- Would the introduction of an affordable 300 /f2.0 erode the market share of the 300 f/2.8 lens? If so, by how much?

3- Has the 200 f/2.0 been profitable? (After all, Nikon is not a charity... all businesses are out to make money... no matter what certain political affiliations would have us believe...)

4- Would such an introduction make sense within their product mix?

5- Can the research and development costs be spread over several lens developments and be adapted for use / upgrading other model lenses?

5- Given the expected returns, does it make sense to create such a lens?

These questions are all very real given any new product introduction.

Julio

[cyclohexane]

I've been absent from this topic for a bit, but I thought I'd chime in... =)

1. No idea, but I'd be all over it.* I'd appreciate the extra DOF control, and I'm used to cameras that can't handle high ISO, so anything that saves me a touch of the ISO button is something that I'd seriously look at (why do you think I want a 200mm f/2?)* Indoor sports shooters would probably love it; the 300mm would probably be too long for basketball shooters (the 200mm f/2 seems to fill in nicely for this sport), but it'd probably work for other sports when there's not a lot of light and one still needs distance.* Think Olympic events, or maybe poorly-lit night football.

2. I doubt it; the markets are probably different ones.* The f/2.8 lens is, currently, the only real step-up from the 300mm f/4, which is a pretty hefty premium to pay for a better build, better tripod collar design, faster focusing, and a faster aperture.* For many outdoor sports shooters, the 300mm f/2.8 will probably remain the bread-and-butter lens.* If anything, making the f/2.8 the middle lens instead of the top lens will cause more people to buy it (stealing sales from the 300mm f/4) because they'll feel like they're not blowing it all on a top-end thing they might not need.* Middle-end things are often the best sellers- look at the D70: it made the Digital Rebel/300D look like a bottom-end offering.* The D70, with it's middle-of-the-pack features, felt like a reasonable upgrade for the price, but without breaking the bank.* If there's a 300mm f/2.0, the 300mm f/2.8 will feel "more reasonable" in price.

3. Honestly, I'd guess yes.* It's hard to find it in stock all the time, and I doubt that's merely because of low numbers being shipped out.* I see it on TV being used for basketball.* There's also those amateurs who feel/know they need it, and those who buy it for whatever reason- because they want it, probably.* It probably costs $4,000 to make up for the smaller market for the f/2.0 compared to similar lenses (Hell, I think the AIS version is still $2,000+ new when B&H has it in.)

4. Sure; it gives buyers the impression that Nikon is the company committed to providing the very best, for the best.* Canon has three different current 400mm telephotos, and two different 300mm telephotos, and they all seem to have their niches.* I don't see why a third Nikon (superfast, to top it off) 300mm wouldn't make sense.* It'd certainly be better than adding more consumer zoom lenses that seem to just help confound new buyers on what to get ("Should I get the 28-100, 28-105, 28-200, 18-200...?").

5. I can't really answer this one well, but it might.* Any development in super telephotos can be applied later to the ones that are starting to show their age; I have no idea how much R&D Nikon's got into the other supertelephotos that haven't been updated with VR/Nano/etc.

6. No idea, but it'd help the Nikon image.* That's something that does need a little tweaking if Nikon wants to continue to attract new customers.* Right now, the Kate Moss consumer campaign looks so-so (to me), and the "At the heart of the image" prosumer/pro thing sucks too.* My dad has a file cabinet where he stores all his acquired instruction booklets/documentation over the years, and in one folder is a bunch of minty Nikon promotional materials.* They basically spelled out that Nikon is the best- and while "We take the world's best pictures" is pretty cheesy, it's certainly better than "At the heart of the image".

[dougjgreen]

It's still bound to be a 15 pound lens, while the 300mm f2.8 is a 5.5 pound lens. Fifteen pound lenses are always going to be low volume niche products.

[badpickev]

i thought someone made a 500mm f2.8. i could be wrong

[Nikonfreak]

Well, the questions I posted were more rhetorical than real questions, but I'm sure these are the kind of things that get tossed around given any new product development consideration.

Definitely food for thought ins't it? I wonder how many would really step up to buy such a lens.

I'd love to see that lens be built today. Given the size, weight and probably the price tag, I would guess the majority would go to news / specialty mags / sports magazine / AP use. I don't know that I could justify such a lens if it were North of $8,000 - $10,000

I'm not too sure the 300 f/2.8 would drop considerably in price enough to cut into the 300 f/4 ... the 300 f/4 is a pretty good deal at about $1,000. I'd say it'd be a fantastic deal at $800. I'd own one at that price point regardless of whether I had a 300 f/2.8 or not, just for the weight savings.

It would be interesting to see what would happen wouldn't it?

Sigma's 300 f/2.8 HSM DG is $2,599 these days. Quite a difference from the Nikon's price point of $4500. It certainly has me wondering a bit. Breaking even on the investment sooner is certainly a plus. I just know I've been the Sigma route and although I haven't been disappointed, I know the Nikkor has some features that I would want in that long lens, especially for wildlife use and a TC. I already have a 1.7 Nikon TC so I wouldn't be excited about dragging two different kinds of TC's around and I don't believe the Sigma TC's are as good as the Nikon ones.

I've read in different places that the 200 f/2.0 hasn't been profitable yet, but they are selling like hotcakes and you're certainly right about the demand for that little monster. That's a gorgeous lens for indoor sports, gymnastics, fashion, and even concert photography. Obviously, the more you sell, the quicker you break even and become profitable so maybe it is by now. Only Nikon knows. I believe it was used during the Olympics quite a bit by many photographers. One heck of a lens without a doubt. It's a tough call, and while I haven't ruled out the 200 f/2, I can only buy one of the beasts at the moment. I have to really decide which is going to give the quicker ROI and fulfill more than one role.

I'm trying to get out on an Alaska trip this year so I'm trying to balance what I would want for wildlife with what I get paid for. If wildlife weren't a consideration, I'd have already ordered the 200 f/2 and a 1.4X TC 1.4 EII..

Julio

[cyclohexane]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

I'm not too sure the 300 f/2.8 would drop considerably in price enough to cut into the 300 f/4 ... the 300 f/4 is a pretty good deal at about $1,000.

It's not about a real price drop- it's the percieved price drop. Many people aren't willing to pay top dollar for a lens, but if the lens is suddenly no longer top dollar, then they breathe a little easier knowing there's still something more expensive. I've seen the excuse used, and I think it works. Heck, I may have used it before... "Well, that lens may be $1500, but just think about it- the next step up is $4,500!"

[badpickev]

you can go used MF lenses for a lot cheaper...

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by badpickev

you can go used MF lenses for a lot cheaper...

Exactly. My 300mm f2.8 Nikkor ED IF + 2X Kiron MC7 TC together cost me $350. My 300 has a busted diaphragm, which I knew how to work around (using inserts for Waterhouse stops in the filter chamber where needed). But even with a fully functional diaphragm, I could have gotten the manual focus 300mm f2.8 lens for $700 or so, compared to $4000 for a new AF 300mm f2.8 lens, or $2000 for a used one.