[JJ_SO]

@JoJu

 

The length being "exactly" 75mm I would doubt, as all specifications are rounded, but it also doesn't mean anything directly. 

 

I was talking about the length difference. The data I got from the Nikon website:

 

300/4 old: ø 90 × 222.5 mm (app.)

300/4 new: ø 89 × 147.5 mm (app.)

 

And since Japan has also the metric system, I really don't mind about ± 0.1 mm, the difference is 75 mm and I find that pretty impressive. The 70-200/4 has a length of 178.5 mm, so it's longer than the new 300/4.

 

All that fresnel stuff - I admit I gave up trying to understand what the specific differences are.

 

To me the questions are:

• is the lens sharp enough to burn this amount of money ? After all, it's only f/4 and at least 40% more expensive than the current version.
  
• I already read, Nikon wants to reduce the flare via software. So, nothing for me, because I will not change all my workflow and I will especially very NOT fiddle around with Nikon's raw-converter and use another tool to organize my pictures. So, when are flares to be expected? If the answer is "occasionally on pointy highlights, round light sources, sun, waterdrops, reflexes in the eye" they can keep their lightweight shorty.
  

And while I expect extensive use of lightweight plastic in this lens (which doesn't mean to be a bad thing in my eyes), I can see why the 150-600 Sigma is NO lightweight: