New Nikon Lenses, 50 1.2, 70-200 F/4 !

[kiwi]

Looking good on top of the 85 1/4 AF-s VR

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/04/20/ru...rom-nikon.aspx

[dmdigital]

Really hoping the price is good when the 85 f/1.4G comes out. I want one!

If Nikon do at long last revamp the old 50 f/1.2 to a G series lens I think it will be expensive

[kiwi]

I think both the 85 and the 50 will be way expensive.

The f/4 range will be the goods with price I think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Calxoddity]

hmmm... yet more stuff I can't afford

[dmdigital]

Given the price the 24mm f/1.4 was released at I don't like the chances of the new 85 being priced anywhere near it's present version.

Be interesting to see if they do get the 70-200 f/4 out and if it has any N-coating optics or just ED. But will it be priced around the present 70-300 f/4.5-5.6?

...and then there's the replacement to the 200-400mm ...........

[kiwi]

See the 100-500 rumour too ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rogklee]

70-200 VR f4 would be nice. Like to see what it does to the price of the 70-300 VR (IF THESE EVENTUATE!)

[dmdigital]

See the 100-500 rumour too ?

Yes, saw that mentioned. Wonder if they will do a replacement 80-400 or change to 100-500?
Be good with VRII if it had good optic characteristics at the high end zoom.

[campo]

50/1.2? as much as i'd love faster glass, not sure why they'd want to release 50/1.2 given the recent 50/1.4...much prefer to see a full frame 35/1.4

[kiwi]

35 1.4 is on the list for next year too

[campo]

yeah, i've been following the rumours too...

what's interesting is that most of the rumours are "similar" to recent releases

85/3.5 micro
50/1.4
70-200/2.8 II

question is, will nikon duplicate on the focal lengths or bring in something from left field that nobody is really expecting?

[Colourised]

im waiting for the 35 1.4 to be out!

[ving]

im waiting for the 35 1.4 to be out!

if it works as good at the 1.8 then it'll be a rocker! wonder what the price will be like?

[Wayne]

I'm having a hard time deciding whether to get the $9K 400 f2.8VR or the $5.5K 200-400 f4VR. I really think that the 200-400 is not a sensible choice given I have 70-200 f2.8VR now and with a TC17 it is close to the 200-400 for about 1/10 the cost.

will there be a new 400 f2.8?? VRII Nano? hmmm, I'd cry if I spill $9K and then Nikon release a new version soon after.

That and I'm still working out how to hide the expenditure from the minister for war and finance.

[kiwi]

Not likely anytime soon re a new 400 I'd say. A sport pj doesn't use vr much and the rest I'd already there (nano, af-s etc)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wayne]

Yeah sports usually with fairly high shutter speed doesn't see all the benefit of VR, but wildlife, airshows etc I think it helps somewhat. More so when tracing fast moving things that cover distance quickly.

[farmer_rob]

With due acknowledgement to Thom Hogan, I think you'll find the 400/500/600 are too specialised and too expensive to merit an upgrade at present. They have VR and the other fancy stuff. Sure, there could be improvements, but if I was spending the R&D dollars, these are not the lenses I'd work on.

BTW, I wonder at the point of a 70-200 f4. It seems to fall in a gap between what works (e.g. 70-300 f4.5-5.6 - ~$800) and a more professional lens (70-200 f2.8 ~$3000). I'd say the budget choice is the 70-300 (my choice) and if you really need the aperture, you can justify the extra $2000. On focal length and f/stop, I can't see a reason to buy a 70-200 f4.

[N*A*M]

the 70-200 f/4 is to make the canon cheapskates switch, and to shut up the nikon whingers

so much good nikkor glass, so little money

[fillum]

BTW, I wonder at the point of a 70-200 f4.

This is likely a replacement for 80-200 f/2.8. The 80-200 is a great lens but its appeal is somewhat limited by lack of AF-S (and to a lesser degree, lack of VR). Nikon won't add AF-S to the 80-200 f/2.8 as this would cut into 70-200 f/2.8 sales. (They did have an AF-S 80-200 f/2.8 at one stage but discontinued the model).

im waiting for the 35 1.4 to be out!

...wonder what the price will be like?

I doubt that you'll see much change if any out of $2K.



Cheers.

[farmer_rob]

the 70-200 f/4 is to make the canon cheapskates switch, and to shut up the nikon whingers

so much good nikkor glass, so little money

Yes, but the canon cheapskates won't switch - because it really isn't about price, its about tribal loyalty; and the nikon whingers will keep whinging - because it really isn't about a missing lens, it's "blaming the tools" for poor photography.

This is likely a replacement for 80-200 f/2.8. The 80-200 is a great lens but its appeal is somewhat limited by lack of AF-S (and to a lesser degree, lack of VR). Nikon won't add AF-S to the 80-200 f/2.8 as this would cut into 70-200 f/2.8 sales. (They did have an AF-S 80-200 f/2.8 at one stage but discontinued the model)...

Yes, but you're trading off cheap f2.8 for AF-S that is available on other lenses that cross the range. The 80-200 f2.8 fills a niche, and any further development work costs money.

My bet is that there will not be a 70-200 f/4. But we'll see who's right when they are all announced.