Full Frame vs Crop Sensor with UWA lens

[Cage]

The advantages/disadvantages of FF vs Crop Sensors has been discussed numerous times, and usually ends in total discord.

In different scenarios they both have their pluses and minuses, however when using UWA lens, I believe the FF sensor has a big advantage.

Look here... https://www.digicamdb.com/compare/ni...vs-nikon_d600/ for the differences in sensor size between the Nikon D7200 and D600 and here... https://www.digicamdb.com/compare/ca...os-6d-mark-ii/ for the difference between the Canon 7D MkII and the 6D MkII

As you can see, the FF sensor offers a huge advantage in sensor size, and therefore a much wider FOV (Field of View), so the same lens mounted on both cameras is going to give a much wider FOV on the FF camera.

So where does the FF camera have it's big advantage? Purely and simply in the availability of lens.

From my experience and research it would seem that 14mm is as wide as you would want to go to get reasonable control of barrel distortion.

To get the same FOV on a crop sensor camera as a 14mm lens gives on a Nikon FF camera , you would have to mount a 9.4mm lens on the crop camera, and we're getting into fish-eye territory here, and to see what that does to your image, check out some shots from the Sigma 10-20 lens @10mm, with barrel distortion right into the centre of the frame. I'm not aware of any crop sensor UWA lens that eliminates that distortion.

I'm probably opening up another 'can of worms' with this thread, but in the interests of my own learning process I welcome any comments.

[Tannin]

Oh, I can see we are going to have fun with this one!

No, the FF sensor does not provide "a wider field of view" on an equivalent lens. It produces a wider field of view on a non-equivalent lens.

Lenses are normally made to suit a particular format. This is why all the manufacturers make two different lenses for the same task: something like a 16-35 for FF and a 10-22 for crop. Both are called ultra-wides, although they are technically wide to ultra-wides. But when you mount one on a different body for which it was not designed, if it works at all, it works in a different way. A 16-35, designed as a wide to ultra-wide, becomes a wide/normal to wide if you mount it on crop. A 10-17 designed as an ultra-wide zoom for crop becomes ... well, it stays an ultra-wide on FF, but it's no longer a zoom as it's not usable below about 16mm. (See this thread - http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ra-on-a-budget - for examples.)

The modern industry standard for a wide to ultra-wide zoom is for a field of view from just under 100 degrees to just over 50 degrees at the long end. In full frame format, that's 16-35mm; on Canon crop it's 10-22mm, and on Nikon crop it's about 11-24mm. All the major makers make lenses in these sizes, or close to them. Canon for example have two recent 16-35s plus an older 17-40 in production for FF cameras, plus a 10-22 and a 10-18 in crop format.

Much the same applies to other makers: in Canon mount, Digital Camera Warehouse lists 7 crop-sensor ultra-wides: Sigma 8-16, Canon 10-22, Tamron 10-24 LD, Tamron 10-24 HLD, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 12-28, and Tokina 14-20. (What happened to the Sigma 10-20? Maybe they are just out of stock.) The same source lists 6 FF sensor ultra-wides: Tamron 15-30, Tokina 16-28, Canon 16-35/4, Canon 16-35/2.8, Tokina 17-35, and Canon 17-40. Now throw in some weird ones: there are three super-ultra-wides (two Sigma 12-24s and the Canon 11-24), of which the first two are sensibly usable on FF or crop with the third, a huge thing worth around $4000, probably not something any sane person would buy to put on a plastic $500 1300D. In short, there are at least a half-dozen ultra-wide zooms available for each of the two formats.

There is no technical reason at all for crop lenses to have more barrel distortion than FF ones. Optically, the exact same challenges exist and are overcome (or not overcome) in the exact same ways: it's just that FF lenses are drawn to a larger scale. There might be a marketing reason though. All retrofocus lenses (that's every ultra-wide made, most short primes, and most or all normal zooms too) have massive barrel distortion as an inherent property of the basic design. The lens maker then adds corrective elements to overcome that - with greater or lesser success depending on (a) how much money they have to spend, (b) what other qualities they are prepared to compromise, and (c) how clever they are. (I remember reading somewhere that a fisheye lens is essentially just an ordinary ultra-wide with the corrective elements left out.) In practice, I'm not aware of any consistent differences in distortion between FF and crop ultra-wides. Sure, individual models vary, but to my casual eye it has more to do with price and degree of difficulty than any other factor. (By "degree of difficulty" I mean taking on extra challenges, such as constant f/2.8 or especially wide fields of view.)

I'm not aware of any crop sensor UWA lens that eliminates that distortion.

Neither am I. On the other hand, I've never heard of a FF UWA that does either. Everthing in this sort of focal length gas barrel distortion at the wide end.

If you really, really want to get rid of barrel distortion, your best bet is to look at one of the super-ultra-wides: Sigma 8-16 (crop), Sigma 12-24 Art (FF) and Canon 11-24 (comes with free second mortgage). Barrel distortion reduces as you zoom in; the Sigma 8-16 (for crop) has practically none by 12mm (that's about 85 degrees AOV); the Sigma 12-24 Art is good from 16mm (about 92 degrees) and the Canon 11-22 at 14mm (something over 100 degrees but my mental arithmetic isn't up to working out exactly how much - it's lots.)

Wait! I just remembered that you are a Nikon user, and Nikon famously pioneered the super-ultra-wide zoom years ago with their legendary 14-24. Let's look it up. Hmmm .... it's pretty good from about 16mm. Feel like spending $2400?

PS: Hey, I'm not Mongo, but when it comes to forum topics, I always love to bring my spoon when someone says "worms".

[Cage]

I just found this review of the Canon 10-20mm... http://www.photozone.de/reviews/174-...review?start=1

Looks pretty good to me with the 1.6 crop factor at 16mm but losing a bit of width to the 14mm.

My current UWA lens is the Samyang 14mm f2.8 with it's 115.7° angle of view. Ok, it doesn't handle straight lines very well near the borders but is great for astro use.

[Tannin]

The Canon 10-22 has long been regarded as one of the better ultra-wides, certainly superior to the Sigma 10-20, but it costs around 50% more. Or it always used to: it's a pretty old model now, so maybe they have dropped the price a bit. I was always happy with mine, but I sold it a few months ago when I switched to full frame, replacing it with a 16-35/4 IS. Early days yet with the 16-35, but it is lovely and bright through a FF 'finder. The constant f/4 doesn't matter much to me, and IS is of less importance in such a short lens, but I daresay that will come in handy one of these days. And, of course, when the light is bad, IS aside, the 5D II sensor is a couple of stops better at high ISO.

I reckon you should learn to love the pain and invest in a nice little fisheye.

[Cage]

A question for you Tony.

Did you consider the Sigma 12-24mm f/4 DG HSM Art Lens before you got the 16-35 f4?

I ask this because my Samyang hit the deck a while back and the front element is chipped, plus I feel it just 'aint what it used to be.

I was keen on the Tamron 15-30 f2.8, particularly for it's VC, but the extra 3mm at the wide end of the Sigma is very appealing, and I do have the Sigma dock. My main use for the lens will be nightscapes so the wider the better. The Tamron's f2.8 aperture is better but that can be overcome by stacking several shots. And I did a shoot with the Tamron the other night at f4 and it came out OK.

I'm glad I started this thread because I'd never given the Sigma any serious thought.

[arthurking83]

I'm not sure if the Canon 10-22 is better than the Sigma 10-20 .. but the Sigma is better because I can't use a Canon 10-22
In fact, I' just had a look at TDP and the Canon produces too much CA mainly at the middle to edges of the frame, so I'd have dismissed the Canon just on that basis.
I don't see enough of a difference between either lens in terms of sharpness at the wide end to justify the price difference either.

On the D70s I remember being able to induce moire from the Sigma too! .. so it can't be a bad lens. IQ at the edges is very usable too.

Where the Sigma 10-20 is good from distortion is at the 12mm setting, which I tended to use for distortion free images wide shots of straight lines.
For wide vista landscapes, at 10mm and no matter how badly any lens distorts, you really can't see it.
Sigma @ 10mm obviously has distortion, but it's not straight up barrel type .. it's moustache barrel distortion, so a bit harder to correct for(but doable).

The Canon still has barrel at the 12mm setting but a bit reduced compared to 10mm, where the Sigma (f/4-5.6 version) has pretty much zero.

In Nikon world Nikon's 14-24 distorts more than Sigma's 12-24/4.5-5.6 does at 12mm, and at 14mm the Sigma is even better again .. that's my major decider for why I went with the Sigma.
Sigma's f/4 version is a tad better(but at a significant price difference too!)

The advantage in simple terms of focal length alone is not much for FF over the smaller formats(either APS-C or m4/3rds). The actual advantage is in the possibility for a shallower DOF from some lenses .. like the 14-24/2.8 or 14/2.8 having f/2.8 at such a wide setting.
You just can't get that combo exactly on an APS-C .. it's close but not the same. 11-16/2.8 is the closest focal length to aperture factor, and that's more like 16mm f/2.8 anyhow as an equivalent FOV + aperture value.
I don't know of any 10mm f/2 lenses that can copy that same FOV+ aperture for FF.

But in Sigma terms, they do make the 8-16/4.5-5.6 lens for APS-C which is an almost identical to their own 12-24/4.5-5.6 for FF. I haven't tried the 8-16mm lens, I did contemplate it for a long time tho.
I'd like to see the Sigma 8-16 on a D7200 compared to the Sigma 12-24(f/4.5-5.6 model) on a D600.
Theory dictates that they should render images pretty much as the other combo can do.

Strange parallel to this discussion between APS-C and 135 format re lenses .. it's the same problem at the bigger end of the format argument as well.
If we use the same aperture arguments and factors .. you can't get wider than about 20mm (equiv 135 format) AOV from a medium format lens .. which from memory is the Pentax 25mm f/4 lens.
I don't know of any '18mm' lenses for MF to replicate that 14-ish mm AOV for the 135 format.

I think that's the benefit of the 135 format .. it's success over the past 70-odd years has ensured that many and much varied lens options have existed for it over the years.
as extreme examples(from a Nikon geek here) .. take Nikons crazy 6mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/2 lenses as extreme examples of the popularity of the format breeding fairly exotic lenses for it too.
And I know of Canon's 200 mm f/1.8 lens too.
Obviously you can use those lenses on APS-C format cameras too, but the point being that they don't maximise the full extent of the lens design.


summary:
But with all that .. if I were starting out today, but knowing then, what I know now .. I'd still have started with APS-C, and those same APS-C only lenses, but I'd have spent much wiser on other gear.

1. not wasted $s on tripods I'll never use again.(I won't name names as Kev will get upset! )
2. wasted $s on expensive tripods when the Chinese copy is not only the same quality, but better small detail differences .. and by the way, those so called well regarded Gitzos are not as deserved as they achieve. I'm still kicking myself not having got the Benro back then!
3. better filter systems. Cokin is OK, but ultimately futile.
4. more trips to photogenic locations .. less work

- - - Updated - - -

A question for you Tony.

Did you consider the Sigma 12-24mm f/4 DG HSM Art Lens before you got the 16-35 f4?

I ask this because my Samyang hit the deck a while back and the front element is chipped, plus I feel it just 'aint what it used to be.

I was keen on the Tamron 15-30 f2.8, particularly for it's VC, but the extra 3mm at the wide end of the Sigma is very appealing, and I do have the Sigma dock. My main use for the lens will be nightscapes so the wider the better. The Tamron's f2.8 aperture is better but that can be overcome by stacking several shots. And I did a shoot with the Tamron the other night at f4 and it came out OK.

I'm glad I started this thread because I'd never given the Sigma any serious thought.

I'd recommend to have a peek at TDP and compare them for yourself.
it gives you an idea of how they wil both render images for your needs.
That is, at f/2.8(as you'd expect) the Tammy is just a tad soft at the edges. If the edges in astro are important and you're forever shooting at f/4 .. then why not just get the Sigma and use it at f/4 .. where it's pretty good!

BUT!! do you use it only for astro> Do you want it for some occasional other image types. Like you said, VC can be handy .. is really handy.
eg. take a camera into Genolan Caves, where it's dark, and the VC comes into it's own .. otherwise you have to pay 10x the entry fee to get a slot with the other photographers setting up their tripods!(ie. no, you can't take tripods for the general admission).
The more you look, the harder it is to find a location(train stations, many street locations, churches, art gallieries .. lots of places!) where you aren't allowed to use a tripod .. did I mention that VC is handy to have

ps. I'm hoping t6o have the 12-24 ART before the end of the year .. and then the D850 after that. Depends on how well the next 3 months are at work, if they're as busy as last year, then early next year I'll then have the D850 as well .. otherwise I can wait till tax return time again

[Tannin]

I certainly did Kev! Also the Canon 11-24, 16-5/2.8 II, and all the other full frame ultra-wides.

Most of them I crossed off because of inferior optical performance and/or inability to take standard filters, and/or size and weight, and/or lack of IS. (These factors listed in rough order of importance to me.)

I wound up with the 16/35/4, 11-24, 12-24, and 16-35/2.8 III on my short list. First to be crossed off was the 16-35/2.8 III (very expensive, huge filters, big and cumbersome, no IS). (F/2.8 doesn't matter to me, not in an ultra-wide.)

The Sigma was harder to eliminate. That super-ultra-wide focal length was very, very tempting. But though much improved on the older, cheaper Sigma 12-24 (non-art) it still isn't close optically to the others on the short list, and it can't be used with any sensible sort of filter. It also costs a fair bit (but I'd pay that if I wanted it - I am a huge Oscar Wilde fan when it comes to dealing with temptation), doesn't have IS, is fairly large, a bit short on the long end, and - seeing as I was going to buy grey market where sending things for repair is problematic - was also slightly worrying from a "will it work" point of view. I was happy to buy a Canon or a Tokina, not so happy with the notion of a Sigma or especially a Tamron. None of this is to say it's a bad idea - it did make it to my short list of three after all - and I wanted that incredibly wide field of view enough to taste it, but good sense prevailed in the end and I crossed it off.

That left the Canon 11-24, which by all accounts is a simply magnificent thing, a tour de force of the lensmaker's art. Optically, it's incredibly good, and it is wider than the backside of a bus. I'd love to own one, that's for sure. I seriously considered paying the $3000 it costs on the grey market from Hong Kong. But (in many ways like the Sigma only more so) it doesn't take filters, it's a bit short for everyday use, and it's enormous. (You actually can get filters for it: you buy some kind of special kit similar to the Cokin system only twice as large and four times the price. You'd need to be a serious landscape-only geek to bother will all that bulky, awkward gear.) And did I mention the price? Reluctantly, I crossed it off.

The only one remaining was the 16-35/4. It is remarkably inexpensive at about $1200; it's smaller and much slimmer than the Canon 10-22 (largely because of the better lens hood design), miles smaller and lighter than anything else on the short list; it was regarded as optically the best ultra-wide on the market until the 16-35/2.8 III replaced the 16-35/2.8 II a couple of years ago (and is only marginally inferior); it takes standard 77mm filters same as the 10-22 used to (I like this because I can share the same two CPLs between ultra-wide, standard zoom, and 100-400 - at two or three hundred each for a quality CPL, it soon mounts up!); it has a handy 35mm longer end, and it has IS.

Cakon seldom let a Ninon product go unanswered for too long, so I guess that there is a broadly similar Nikkor around. It might be worth a look.



Arthur .... oh dear. You mentioned the Canon 200/1.8. Now Kel will start crying again. You know he's never been the same since he sold that lens.

[Cage]

1. not wasted $s on tripods I'll never use again.(I won't name names as Kev will get upset! )

Aw, c'mon Arthur, you've converted me to a Sigma dock devotee.

One out of two 'aint bad.

PS: It wasn't the tripods, it was the crap on top of them.

[arthurking83]

.... But (in many ways like the Sigma only more so) it doesn't take filters, it's a bit short for everyday use, and it's enormous. (You actually can get filters for it: you buy some kind of special kit similar to the Cokin system only twice as large and four times the price. You'd need to be a serious landscape-only geek to bother will all that bulky, awkward gear.) And did I mention the price? Reluctantly, I crossed it off.

....

Damn!! that sound incredibly a lot like me.

Had to added Dork as an additional adjectives prior to landscape-geek ... well that IS me!

For my Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 .. I purchased the Samyang filter holder($40) cheaper than most smaller filter holders, and it's shaded too!.
The major problem with that holder was that Like Tannin said, it uses some silly Cokin filter set, of which not many or none exist.
That's not something I like to be encumbered with, so I modded it with extended little wings(aluminium) and moved the filter slots in a few mm each so that they accepted any 125mm normal filters .. eg. Lee or Hitech(I went with Hitech).
Yes, the filters are expensive, but they work well.

Over time and with much use, I did wear the filter holder down, and could have re modded it to not be as worn down(basically gaffer tape! ) but it was time to get a better system .. kind'a
So I went online and got me a Nisi filter holder. Cost just under $200 this time. I was sceptical but ..
Huge large chunk of aluminium it is, beautifully made. The quality of the Nisi makes Lee stuff look like it's made in Azerbaijan, in the countries most remote village .. by a pair of goats!

Now I did say that I'm the serious dork landscape-only geek. Remember the dork!
The serious landscape-only geek would buy the right filter holder for the right lens.
But me being the dorkier version of the above, bought the wrong filter holder for the wrong lens.
I had it in mind to get the one I needed for my f/4.5-5.6 lens, but of course I must have hit the f/4 version(larger) .. so of course the one I have won't fit the lens I have

So as I said .. I have plans to get the f/4 version of the Sigma ASAP!
The publicly stated reasons for me getting the f/4 version of the Sigma is obviously because the lens is better, brighter, newer, does USB dock things, and so forth.
But you and Tony have inside info as to the real reason I needed it

[Cage]

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward the Sigma 12-24mm f4 Art. Plus I now have Sigma Dock

The Sigma's extra 3mm at the wide end over the Tamron is very appealing for it's main use, which will be nightscapes. OK, I'll miss the Tamron's VC for my architectural shots, but I'll do as I've always done and use my tripod.

The Tamron's F2.8 aperture was also a plus, but when I look at the shot below taken at f4 and ISO640, I believe I have the potential on the D600 to push the ISO up to around ISO3000 so the Sigma's F4 aperture won't be a problem. I actually got a good shot with the D800 at ISO3000 without noise, so the D600 should handle it with aplomb.

I'm reasonably satisfied with the light gathering ability of the D600 but the old Samyang 14mm f2.8 took a tumble a while back and apart from chipping the front element it seems to be out of alignment with misshaped stars with purple fringing at the top and very noticeable in the RH corner. That shouldn't happen on a 14mm lens at 15secs exposure. My focus was not spot-on either as the lens is notoriously hard to focus near infinity.

The shot was from my first night shoot with the recently acquired D600 and was a test run to see how far I could push the ISO. Unfortunately, as it was pitch black and I was in the middle of nowhere, I got spooked by some strange noises and did the bolt before I'd done much testing. I'll have to stop reading the local news with reports about packs of wild dogs, and black panther sightings in the area.

Apart from the strange noises, the wind got up and ruined my hoped for reflections in the water, and also blew in some hazy cloud along the horizon line.

This shot is posted only to show the light gathering ability of the D600 at f4 and ISO640. Getting rid of the light pollution the clouds picked up was too much of a challenge. I'll try some test shots at higher ISO from the safety of my yard.

Milky Way over Lostock Dam.jpg

[Tannin]

^ It's a very attractive and impressive shot. No love for the Nikon 14-24 Kev?

[Cage]

^ It's a very attractive and impressive shot. No love for the Nikon 14-24 Kev?

Lots of love for the lens Tony, not so much for it's price tho. And I'm liking the idea of 12mm at the wide end more and more. Plus I seem to have acquired Arthur's Sigma Dock fetish.

[arthurking83]

....Cakon seldom let a Ninon product go unanswered for too long, so I guess that there is a broadly similar Nikkor around....

based on this assumption ...

.... No love for the Nikon 14-24 Kev?

I'd say that for new entrants to that lens, it's probably better to wait(if you can) for Nikon to 'update' their FF UWA lens.

I also believe that anything Cakon can do, Ninon will try to do better .... somewhere down the track.

SO. if the UWA lens purchaseee can afford to wait a while, when Nikon provides this impending new UWA lens, then as usual the old lens will devalue somewhat, or that the net will be flush with used samples at even more reasonable prices than they are now.

Sigma's new Art is much more new, so you won't go kicking yourself paying $1600 for it now, when the day after you guy it, the price drops to $1300(as will probably happen with the Nikon lens.

When I first decided a while back(before my filter holder brain fade) to go with the Sigma Art, I noticed that it could be had for a smidge under $1500(I think something weird like $1492 or something .. not the usual $1499 type price point).
I assumed that it will probably drop a little more as it did from the initial price point of $1799.
But it went the other way and is now $1699!

Note that this price is from a local store(digi direct) that I can walk into and coerce them to drop it further again. You can't haggle with online prices(well I tried but failed when chatting to some supposed customer relations officer from their site)
I think Georges in Sydney had it a couple of hundred cheaper and explained this to the person at Digi, and they emailed me back saying they'll price match.
I didn't want price match, why would I want that and buy it off the net .. I wanted priced more advantageously .. ie. even $1 less than Georges. If I could get it for the $1499 that Georges had it at, why would I not just get it from Georges and choose DigiDirect.
The Digi salesdroid just couldn't see my point of view .. and just thought that their price matched offer was just better in some way

As for the Sigma dock thingy on this lens .. I don't think it'll be as important as for a lens like a tele, or prime or whatever. You almost certainly don't need AF fine tune ability on an UWA like that. DOF is baasically infinite anyhow.
But really it's probably handy to have for any firmware updates into the future.

The two deciders between the Tammy and the Sigma are (1) FOV/AOV, is 12mm really an advantage over 15mm and (2) is f/2.8 and VC more important than a few degrees of FOV?

Ideally(for me) the Tammy's f/2.8 and VC would make it the better option, as I have a 12mm currently .. but I got the filter holder now and I probably should put it to use.

[Tannin]

I also believe that anything Cakon can do, Ninon will try to do better .... somewhere down the track.

Just so, though sometimes it takes quite a while - it took Canon 8 long years to come up with something to beat the Nikkor 14-24, and if I remember correctly they had to have a couple of goes at it - wasn't there an expensive Canon ultra-wide prime that .... sort of didn't really achieve a lot a few years back? (That was a scene that should have been played by Crocodile Dundee: "That's not a knife, this is a knife. ... Er .... No, sorry, this is my car keys, but I'm sure I've got a knife here somewhere.")

It should go without saying that the process cuts both ways: it might be a very long time before we see a Nikkor to match the 100-400 II or the 400/4 DO II. But for those with a little patience, where one maker goes, the other one pretty much always follows sooner or later.

[arthurking83]

..... it took Canon 8 long years to come up with something to beat the Nikkor 14-24, and if I remember correctly they had to have a couple of goes at it - wasn't there an expensive Canon ultra-wide prime that .... sort of didn't really achieve a lot a few years back?...

My knowledge of Canon history and prior efforts is pretty scant, rudimentary even .. just the basics.

But Nikon have a lot of history re UWA lenses. Back in the day, they're zoom efforts were non existent or very small .. all primes.
But they have had some major products.
13/5.6 wayyy back when 13mm was eye openning for a rectilinear lens.
and of course the major fish's they ouptut, culminating with the 6mm f/2.8 salad bowl that saw behind itself! .. 220° FOV f/2.8 .. looks like a radar dish with a small box behind it .. and that's with a D5 too!

That history is something to help fall back on in terms of design principles.
And (I may be wrong here) but I think I read that it took less than 4 years for Nikon to develop the 14-24 which was started at the same time as the D3, and released at the same time(time frame .. a month or two or less) way back in '07.
Note that they also updated the old 28-70/2.8 to the new 24-70/2.8 at the same time too.
So they had this 'holy trinity plan' from day one for the D3 having the 14-200mm focal length continuously covered for the Fx converted folks.

I can't see nikon doing the 100-400, as they seem to be stuck on the 80-400 and 200-500 lenses now, and makes sense to them in terms of marketing. 200-500 is now a solid performer for them, cheap but very high quality.
They updated the 80-400 only a few years back and it's apparently an improvement from the old. But the issue for Nikon is that the 200-500 is better at the long end in sharpness at all ranges, and the 80-400 is an expensive item by comparison.
So they desperately need a new 80-400 again to counter the 200-500 issue they're dealt themselves.

** FWIW: If Nikon had this USB dock system like Sigma started and Tamron (happily for me) followed .. I reckon I'd have reluctantly got the Nikon instead of the Sigma lens.

400/4 DO copy isn't out of the question. They finally did the 300/4 DO copy called the PF .. so it's always a probability. 300PF is very expensive tho.
Not sure on the price difference between the Nikon Canon versions tho. Problem here in Aus tho is that Nikon Aus are massively maniacal at price gouging when compared to the same product sourced from overseas.

[Tannin]

80-400, 100-400, 120-400, they are all pretty much the same thing. I'm just saying that one or other manufacturer pulls off a miracle product every now and then, so good that it takes the other one years to match it. I'm not actually sure that Nikon do "desperately need" to replace the 80-400: the 200-500 seems to be selling well, and it will be extraordinarily difficult for them to match the Canon 100-400 II, which is one of those rare miracle lenses (like the Nikkor 14-24 back in the day). Big ask to match that one, and in reality a lot of people will buy the 200-500 (or a big Sigma) anyway. So it's a bit of a hiding to nothing proposition, in commercial terms.

220 degrees? Seriously! Wow! So essentially, this was just another case of Nikon discrimination against downtrodden minorities, right? You'd have to be slim enough to fall through the cracks in the floorboards to use that lens without getting yourself in the picture.

[arthurking83]

....

220 degrees? Seriously! Wow! So essentially, this was just another case of Nikon discrimination against downtrodden minorities, right? You'd have to be slim enough to fall through the cracks in the floorboards to use that lens without getting yourself in the picture.

Yeah .. disgusting right!

Luckily for me, I'm at the opposite end of the physical properties spectrum to those that fall through cracks in floorboards. You can't hide from that lens .. so you make use of it as a selfie cam in interesting ways.
After all, (Nikon)photography is all about 99% creativity and 1% discrimination.

I have plans to get me a lens to achieve similar creative concepts without having to sell my house .. and everyone elses house ... and then rob a bank to afford the 6/2.8. They usually sell for between $50-100K, so another Nikon discriminatory clickbait 'noos' item for the feeble to share.
Nikon discriminate against the financially inept too!