Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR (III??) announced

[arthurking83]

New, much sought after and asked for Nikon tele zoom.

70-200mm f/4 by Nikon

Specs look good and Nikon seems to think it's going to be sharper than the f/2.8 version!

[I @ M]

Price looks sharp as well if the initial store prices in the USA are anything to go by at $1400.00 usd.
To me though it has been deliberately built down to a price to slot in as a hand held only lens for the D600.
The apparent lack of a tripod collar and foot combined with lowish weight indicate that Nikon have bulit it lightly as hanging a 950 gram camera body on the end of a 850 gram lens when used with a collar and foot is not a good idea, likewise, hanging that lens on a lighter weight body mounted on a tripod seems to run against common sense as well.

Maybe Nikon will issue a statement telling people not to use a tripod with this one, much like they are telling D800 users that for the best images they should use a tripod.

[arthurking83]

LOL!

I think that the inclusion of the tripod collar as an optional extra is both a good move from Nikon in terms of allowing the owner the freedom of choice, but then again a bad move in terms of their marketing and accounting departments!

Who on earth would pay over $200 for a $100 item that is almost certainly going to be built better by the usual suspects in the thirdparty tripod collar manufacturing crowd!(Kirk/Markins/RRS/Heyjnar).

I can imagine many thousands of sales for the lens, but really only one or two of the collar accessory.

Price is high when compared to the Canon equivalent, but in due course it'll settle to a reasonable level.
I reckon $1K to $1.2K would be appropriate, and should eat into the Sigma/Tamron 70-200 market.

[swifty]

No tripod? No problems. VR3 with 5 stops of stabilisation!!
I jest of course.
But I'd definitely be taking a long hard look if I didn't already own the VR2 2.8 version.
Also VR2 is already quite impressive. I've managed sharp results down to 1/2s @ 200mm on a D700 (bracing myself, not free holding), not quite as challenging as today's breed of DSLRs but still pretty impressive IMO. I wonder if VR3'll make any appreciable difference.

[I @ M]

Have a look at the sample images in the link above, image 2 is 1/20 at 200mm and they appear to take great delight in the "without a tripod" line in the blurb.
I still think that Nikon should be a little more expansive and add the part about perfect hand holding technique as I reckon the 'net will be flooded by forum jockeys saying that the lens can't deliver when in reality it is their fault.

[jim]

Vibration Reduction is a fine thing, but a 200mm lens without a tripod collar would make me nervous.

[arthurking83]

Vibration Reduction is a fine thing, but a 200mm lens without a tripod collar would make me nervous.

I'm thinking .. how come?

300mm lenses without tripod collars abound, so why would a 200mm lens require a tripod collar.

For some insight as to why the tripod collar as an option is better for the consumer:

1. third party offerings will be better built and cheaper(almost certainly)
2. the lens isn't all that heavy. While it's longer than most other lenses, the weight is still the main factor in stressing the mounts(both body and lens)
(24-70/2.8 weighs more, 28-300 is only 50g less, and is almost certainly going to be a longer lens at full extension and neither of those lenses have tripod collars as options)

3. many moons ago, when I owned an 80-200/2.8 AF-D, I once did a test to see how badly mirror slap affected IQ at certain shutter speeds. Mounting the camera to the tripod and the lens hanging off the camera(ie. not using the 80-200's tripod collar) I got sharper images at the critical shutter speeds where mirror slap affects IQ(approximately 1/20s to about 2sec).
80-200 is just over 1kg, and of course it's not wise to have such a heavy lens hanging off the camera body with the camera clamped to the tripod .. but the test was purely to see how well the lens acts as a dampener to minimize mirror slap in marginal situations.

The only other one time I've mounted a camera to tripod and this lens in this manner was on a D80, many years ago and that also worked OK too.

I wouldn't hesitate to mount the 70-200/4 in this manner is Nikon haven't included the tripod collar by default to any Nikon camera higher in spec above a D70/80/90.
Of course the lower spec D5100's and below .. well that's another story!
(I have no idea on how durable the body/mounts are in those lower spec cameras).

[knumbnutz]

Agree with Arthur. No big deal having a collar if it light, but the price of the collar is bordering on ludicrous. Maybe its made of gold ?

[MattNQ]

[QUOTE=arthurking83;1081871]I'm thinking .. how come?

300mm lenses without tripod collars abound, so why would a 200mm lens require a tripod collar.

QUOTE]

Also agree. Many won't need it. For me, I have the old 80-200/2.8 model without the collar. Don't miss it at all. Even dragging it around a 2 day athletics carnival on my D3000 is fine. I think it is what you get used to.
Tripod/monopod is usually a hindrance anyway in such situations. Given most daytime sport I shoot at f4 anyway, this lens would definitely be on my list if I didn't already have the mortar.

[Lance B]

I don't think I have ever used the tripod collar on my 70-200 f2.8 VRII.

[junqbox]

I plan to put my money down for one of these too. May well buy an aftermarket (RRS, etc.) collar. Nikon not including is more like following the Canon route, where lenses often don't come with a shade. At least Nikon chucks those in the box on appropriate lenses.

[swifty]

Yea.. not liking this trend of excluding many accessories, some of which are essential eg. the lens hood.
But I do like having the tripod collar on my 70-200mm 2.8 VRII for quick portrait/landscape rotation when tripod mounted. Its easier doing it the tripod collar way than on the ballhead. But having said that, I rarely tripod mount the 70-200, its mostly hand held.

[SerenityGate]

I'll be saving up for one