Looking good on top of the 85 1/4 AF-s VR
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/04/20/ru...rom-nikon.aspx
Looking good on top of the 85 1/4 AF-s VR
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/04/20/ru...rom-nikon.aspx
Darren
Gear : Nikon Goodness
Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
Please support Precious Hearts
Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated
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
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
hmmm... yet more stuff I can't afford
Calxoddity
Concert Pianist, Test Pilot, Pathological Liar
Nikon D40, Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 HSM, Nikkor AF-D 50mm f1.8
Post Processing: Aperture 3 & Photoshop Elements 6
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 ...........
See the 100-500 rumour too ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
70-200 VR f4 would be nice. Like to see what it does to the price of the 70-300 VR (IF THESE EVENTUATE!)
NIGH -KON
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
35 1.4 is on the list for next year too
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?
im waiting for the 35 1.4 to be out!
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.
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
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.
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.
Regards, Rob
D600, AF-S 35mm f1.8G DX, AF-S 50mm f1.8G, AF-S 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G ED VR, AF-S 70-300mm F4.5-5.6G VR, Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Photos: geeoverbar.smugmug.com Software: CS6, Lightroom 4
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
Thanks,
Nam
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).
I doubt that you'll see much change if any out of $2K.
Cheers.
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.
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.