New Nikon Lenses - 24-70 2.8 VR, 24 1.8 and 200-500 5.6

[MissionMan]

Not sure if anyone saw these but some new Nikon lenses including the long awaited 24-70 f/2.8 VR

https://mynikonlife.com.au/gear/nikkor-lenses/af-s-24-70mm-f2-8e-ed-vr/features/tech-specs/

https://mynikonlife.com.au/gear/nikkor-lenses/af-s-24mm-f1-8g-ed/features/tech-specs/

https://mynikonlife.com.au/gear/nikkor-lenses/af-s-200-500mm-f5-6e-ed-vr/features/images/

[I @ M]

Saw the email but rather underwhelmed with the offerings ( much the same as I have been by any recent Nikon announcements ) because at the projected pricing the 24-70 would have to be be an absolutely stellar lens to fend of the likes of the Tamron twin and the 200-500 seems to be a little on the short side compared to the non OEM products that are known to be producing excellent results at similar price points. I guess the 24mm will sell reasonably well to those who want that focal length and have deep wallets.

[MissionMan]

Saw the email but rather underwhelmed with the offerings ( much the same as I have been by any recent Nikon announcements ) because at the projected pricing the 24-70 would have to be be an absolutely stellar lens to fend of the likes of the Tamron twin and the 200-500 seems to be a little on the short side compared to the non OEM products that are known to be producing excellent results at similar price points. I guess the 24mm will sell reasonably well to those who want that focal length and have deep wallets.

I'm surprised about the comments on the 200-500. Pricing is pretty good (compared to the usual pricing Nikon have) for a long lens. It's definitely within the affordability realms for most users compared to the other lenses.

[I @ M]

I'm surprised about the comments on the 200-500. Pricing is pretty good (compared to the usual pricing Nikon have) for a long lens. It's definitely within the affordability realms for most users compared to the other lenses.

My thoughts on the 200-500, which I maybe should have been more detailed with, are that it offers 500mm where Sigma and Tamron go to 600mm at the long end. Yes, the Nikkor is 1/3 stop faster and will probably accept a 1.4 tc to get extra reach and hopefully provide extremely good image quality but as a bare lens it still that bit short compared to the others.

I didn't mention anything about the price of the Nikkor lens as the only indication of pricing that I have seen is USD 1400 and how that will translate to Oz pesos at a retail level is unknown to me at least at this point. The Sigma ( contemporary ) and Tamron lenses seem to have a retail point around the $1200.00 mark and there are quite a few real life images around the 'net to show how capable they are.

I am not a brand snob so if I were in the market for a tele zoom the Nikkor would have to be an outstandingly superior lens to the opposition for me to feel anything less than underwhelmed. I feel that the Nikkor will retail at a dearer price point than the opposition and that will only add more underwhelmingness ( is that a word? :p ) to the equation when you look at focal lengths and add the cost of a tc to the equation.

Maybe I am wrong and the lens will retail at $1200.00, Nikon will throw in a 1.4 tc as part of the deal and the images will be as good as you can obtain from a 600mm prime -----

Everybody is allowed to dream.

[MattNQ]

B&H prices quoted below
Nikon 200-500\5.6 at $1395 USD (2.3kg, 19 elements in 12 groups, f5.6-f32, internal focusing , 9 blade. 2.2m min focus, 95mm ring, sport mode VR, no mention of whether it is weatherproof, ED glass)

Sigma 150-600/5-6.3 sport is $1999 USD (splashproof, 2.8kg, 24 elements in 16 groups, f5 - f22, 9 blade, 2.6m min focus, 105mm ring,)

Sigma 150-600/5-6.3 contemporary is $1039 USD (splashproof, 1.9kg, 20 elements in 14 groups, f5 - f22, 9 blade, 2.8m min focus, 95mm ring)

Tamron 150-600/5-6.3 $1069 USD ( 1.9kg, 20 elements in 13 groups, f5 - f40, 9 blade, 2.7m min focus, 95mm ring Low dispersion glass

I'm thinking they have priced this between the two Sigmas on purpose to make the decision less clear cut.

[swifty]

The f1.8 line of Nikkors are rounding out nicely. So we now have relatively affordable 20, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85 f1.8 lenses.

The 24-70 VR looks like a beast. 82mm filter threads though. Those with large MP bodies should appreciate it but seems pretty costly, at least at the present. But since this will be a workhorse lens for the next 8 years or so of expected current model life, it might have to withstand bodies with 100+ MP in the future.

[Cage]

The f1.8 line of Nikkors are rounding out nicely. So we now have relatively affordable 20, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85 f1.8 lenses.

You missed the 28mm swifty. I know there is one because I have it, and it is an excellent bit of kit.

I'll keep an eye on the 200-500mm offering and see what the feedback is like from real life users. If it works as well with the 1.4 T/C as my 300mm f4 does it could be well worth a serious look.

I had ordered the Tamron 150-600mm but cancelled out due to re-prioritising my needs. I also have the Tamron 24-70mm and the 70-200mm and they both
well and truly deliver what I hoped for.

PS: You edited your post swifty. :lol2:

[swifty]

Haha... Yea I forgot the 28/1.8G initially, had to edited it in :P
All we need now are 105 and 135 1.8's but of course those would really go with the 1.4's league.

[MissionMan]

The f1.8 line of Nikkors are rounding out nicely. So we now have relatively affordable 20, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85 f1.8 lenses.

The 24-70 VR looks like a beast. 82mm filter threads though. Those with large MP bodies should appreciate it but seems pretty costly, at least at the present. But since this will be a workhorse lens for the next 8 years or so of expected current model life, it might have to withstand bodies with 100+ MP in the future.

I think you're right. I think the new 30MP+ cameras are going to need better quality optics and I think this will have to reflect in the higher end lenses.

Also interesting to see Sigma has released what they are calling a prime quality zoom in the 24-35 f/2 which is supposed to be prime quality the whole way through the range. Initial reports are fairly good on it.

[arthurking83]

Saw the email but rather underwhelmed with the offerings ( much the same as I have been by any recent Nikon announcements ) because at the projected pricing the 24-70 would have to be be an absolutely stellar lens to fend of the likes of the Tamron twin .....

my suspicions are that the Nikon 24-70VR will be the 24-70 of choice.
Yeah price is monumental, but going by recent testing by LR, Canon's newer (that Nikon's older 24-70) is overall better in many respects.

So Nikon HAVE to counter this obviously glaring issue to start with.
As you know I have the Tammy, and love most of it's abilities .. i.e. have no inclination to have a better lens(I'm not that anally retentive :p)

But Nikon did need a new version of this lens to be a lot better overall than the currently fantastic version simply for the probability of future cameras that place greater demand on optics!

I the past most lens designs have performed well enough to last for a 20 or more year life cycle.
That the current 24-70 has only lasted 7 years when the decision to update it must have been made, is surely a sign of more pixels to come ;)

I passed out when I read of this supposed pricing of the 200-500! took me a few minutes to recover ... a new cheap!! Nikon lens .. <expletive>ing unbelievable :D
(there goes the global warming issue!.... hell has just frozen over folks! :p)

[Cage]

I wish I'd held off on getting the 28mm as I'd much rather have the 24mm. :(

And I'm with Arthur re the Tamron 24-70mm. Does all I ask of it and does it very well.

OK, the Tamron has some distortion at the wide end and the Nikon not very much, but for the difference in price I can live with that and usually work around it.

[arthurking83]

.....

OK, the Tamron has some distortion at the wide end and the Nikon not very much, but for the difference in price I can live with that and usually work around it.

my thoughts exactly!
Perfectly suited for almost any situation now and into the short term future.

The issue will be the long term future for a lens like the Tammy.
If Nikon create a higher resolution (100Mp or more) camera, obviously the lens with the lower resolution performance will be the one that is made redundant earlier.

And no matter what, I think even for such a short focal length lens .. the VR is a massive advantage. It's easy to turn off, but handy for use if needed.

I think the 82mm front filter diameter(and hence larger diameter front element) is the clue to this lenses performance.

Same with the 200-500.

Those physical properties allude to better overall resolution performance than current lens offerings.
If it turns out that neither of those lenses performs better(than current offerings) .. Nikon have a major issue on their hands!

The 24/1.8 is home free tho. It doesn't really compete with much else really, so it's relative performance is only against itself.
To a lesser degree comparable with Sigma's 24/1.4, but really only due to prices being similar.
The differences can be argued to be advantageous to one or the other and are different enough that one is better than the other in different ways. (eg. Nikon lighter and slightly smaller, Sigma faster .. etc).

There will always be a faboi somewhere that will shout loud and hard .. and I'm no fan of these time wasters.
I'm more prosaic with such matters.
If it's good enough and price is reasonable, it's great.
If it's cheap but crap, it's useless.
if it's exceptional but unaffordable .. it's useless.

Hopefully the 200-500 will be better than the rest within by comparison.
But my thought processes follow a line of reasoning that the entire possible process of any purchase has to be taken into consideration.
And even if the 200-500 is more able than the Sigma 150-600 Sport, the configurability of the Sigma lens via the optional USB dock is almost certainly to be a better overall system.

Until other manufacturers get it into their heads that in some(generally many) situations, some of us simply want to have control over our devices.
It's the way the world is headed and they need to be receptive to it!

[Cage]

Arthur, I love my 28 1.8G, use it lots.

I also use it for astro shots and that extra 4mm would be a bonus. (Where less is more :nod: )

[arthurking83]

Arthur, I love my 28 1.8G, use it lots.

I also use it for astro shots and that extra 4mm would be a bonus. (Where less is more :nod: )

do you research the lens characteristics before making a purchasing decision.
Obviously in this situations astigmatism specifically.
That is the lenses ability to render the image at the edges of the frame.
Astigmatism is where the point sources(so in your situation stars .. remember they're supposed to be round points) are rendered strangely. They get rendered as triangle shapes instead(as a common description).

They may not be specifically blurry as such, but just not rendered as stars should be.

The most obvious question to go with that tho is, do you even care about such matters! :D

[Cage]

I actually do a lot of research before I buy a lens. I check various forums for user feedback, and also sites like LensTip, DxOMark and Photozone.

And I was having a seniors moment above ( :o ) when I mentioned the 24mm f1.8G, as the lens I meant to refer to was the 20mm f1.8G which, according to LensTip, has negligible astigmatism.

And it has good sunbursts which should be good for the brighter stars.

[arthurking83]

I actually do a lot of research before I buy a lens. ....

As I suspected you would :th3:

Another great site for lens reviews is Lensrental's blog area.

All info is good, and they all may differ a little on what's good what's great and what's fantastic, but LR is the only site that gives you some guts on expected sample variation for any given product.

If you go there there is a good article on how to interpret MTF graphs and decide for yourself how good astigmatism is for any given lens type, plus the added bonus of why you would never rely on just the one lens for stuff like sharpness and astigmatism(again back to the topic of sample variation).

The other thing I like about LRs data is that they don't rely on the results for any given camera(any more) and use pure lens data to conclude their results.
This difference (nowadays) is significant.

As an aside but still related to the topic .. have a quick look at some of their recent blogs on just how bad Nikon(lenses) fare in terms of sample variation!

[glennb]

still early days but I think the 200-500mm looks a bit disappointing, I personally would rather pay 1k-1500 more and have a 200-400mm that is significantly sharper than the tammy and siggy, or at least not "debatable". Think there is still room for a 400mm 5.6 in Nikons line up :D me hopes.

[mongo]

the 200-500 is between $1800 and $2000 Aus dollars. Mongo was ready to buy a sigma or Tamron for travel purposes until this lens was announced. The 100mm less than the other two lenses is on no real consequence. If the lens is a very good performer - it is worth a serious look. However, , if it is no better than the other two, then, Mongo will go back to his original plan and likely to choose the sigma over the Tamron but would probably be happy with either of the third party lenses in that case. Let's see what all those lens test people have to say. Mongo is shocked that none of them seem to have taken the new 200-500 for a test drive. They are usually given advance copies to try out very quickly after the announcements.

[arthurking83]

.... If the lens is a very good performer - it is worth a serious look. ....

judging by Nikon's expectations of this lens via the published MTF chart, it should render very well.

While it's impossible to compare MTF charts from different manufacturers(ie. this Nikon vs Sigma's 150-600's MTF) you would expect that Nikon uses consistent methodology across their own products(at the least).

So it's not unreasonable to expect that Nikon's lens MTF charts are comparable.

So taking that as a a given, the 200-500 at 200mm(wide end) looks better at 200mm overall than the 200-400/4 .. and at 500mm, it's showing a clear advantage in the centre resolving higher at the 30lp/mm result and only really dropping just below out to the corners of the image frame.
So if you shoot with your subject at the centre of the frame, the 200-500 should resolve more detail than the 200-400/4.

To me this only means one thing .. Nikon is certain to be working on a replacement 200-400 lens.
(no way in hell would they allow a situation to continue where a cheaper consumer type lens to be equal to. let alone exceed a top end pro oriented lens by comparison)

of course the 200-400 is still a top notch lens, and the advantage of that extra stop of light is always an advantage(other than for size/weight).

But I think the 200-400 will soon have fluorite lens elements very soon(as has been predicted elsewhere too mind you).

Note tho that while Nikon publishes fantastic looking MTF charts, they don't always equate to real world instances. See Lens Rental's blog for more info.

[mongo]

thanks Arthur. Mongo has not yet seen (or knows where to find the MTF for the new 200-500). He does agree that at least, Nikon is internally consistent with its MTF charts of its own products. However, Mongo has noticed that those charts are usually at the 30lp/mm and not at the more universally used 50lp/mm. Not sure if the 150-600 Sigmas and Tamrons are using 30 or 50lp/mm but Mongo would like to compare apples with apples in this regard


UPDATE - have found MTF charts and attached below. Have to agree with most of Arthur's interpretation of the charts re both lenses. However, still interested how this lens stacks up against its real opposition - the Tamron and the Sigma

119044
119045

[Lance B]

Just remember, these are MTF's of the lenses wide open. Things will look different stopped down, hopefully with better MTF's. :)

Regardless, the 200-500 look impressive MTF's, just the same.

[arthurking83]

Just remember, these are MTF's of the lenses wide open. Things will look different stopped down, hopefully with better MTF's. :)

Regardless, the 200-500 look impressive MTF's, just the same.

Agreed!

but the key point is that the 200-500 will, for all intents and purposes, produce almost indistinguishable images from those out of the 200-400.
And this is where Nikon's issue will have to be resolved.

The 200-500 will almost certainly produce even better MTF results at 400mm(as most zoom lenses produce their best resolution figures in the lower to middle focal ranges).

Take into account that the 200-400 with a 1.4x TC will give 560mm, and the inevitable slight drop in MTF values that go with that ...

I still think that the 200-500 is a bit of a headache for Nikon with respect to future sales of the 200-400 .. until it's updated of course!

[Lance B]

You make some valid points. However, the 200-400 f4 will be revamped like all the other super tele lenses in Nikon's line-up and have Fluorite Glass, probably be sharper and have lighter construction and thus be a much more desirable lens in the new guise. The thing is, the 200-400 is an f4 lens which is a distinct advantage over the 200-500 which is an f5.6 lens and when you consider you can add the 1.4x TCIII to the 200-400 and get to a 560mm f5.6. Not only that, I do believe that Nikon will have to follow Canon's lead and have a 1.4x TC incorporated into the lens. There is more to a lens than just sharpness as well, bokeh and overall IQ do play a large part in lens decision for many people and something that I also value and also notice is an advantage with many of the exotics. Not to mention weather sealing, build quality and robustness.

Yes, the 200-500 will be a very well received lens, but there will still be a place for the 200-400 especially with the update that will come along.

[arthurking83]

Agree with everything you say Lance, have no doubt there, but Nikon can't really afford to follow Canon.

eg. Nikon's 14-24 back in 2007/08.
They had to take the lead there, they did so and the payoff was huge for them.
How many Canon devotees lusted over that lens .. same with the 200-400/4 now. Back before that lens many Canon shooters lusted after that lens too.

Nikon(being a much smaller company can't really afford to follow Canon) .. there isn't enough money in such a business case for them.

Thom Hogan talks about this incessantly, and I think he's right!
At the current rate of decay, and technological advancements .. Nikon need to take the lead, or suffer in the future.

If I were a Nikon head honcho with any capacity to make a decision regarding the 200-400, it's new direction would have to be along the lines of PF lenses to make it smaller and lighter and natively 500 or 560mm and still at f/4. Doesn't have to achieve 500/4 levels of IQ, but close enough would be good. Fluorite lenses for sure, but PF to make it smaller lighter(aka 300/4) .. and then charge basically whatever you want.

[Lance B]

You are correct that Nikon is a much smaller company that Canon. Can they afford to follow? Nikon can't always be innovative all the time with new lenses no matter how much they may want to be as there are just so many innovations you can make with current technology and manufacturing abilities. I also really don't think you can call Nikon making lenses "following" Canon, they are just bread and butter lenses, think 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 etc - they all make them. The fact is Nikon made the 200-400 f4 first and I think it will be made again, probably with the internal 1.4x TC. I don't think PF is necessarily the answer either - can they make it in a zoom, no one has yet - or they would have made it with the new 24-70 f2.8 and as good as the 300 f4PF is I don't think it is a step forward IQ-wise.

Anyway, it is all just speculation. We really don't know what's up Nikon's sleeve, what their abilities are both technoligically and manufacturing-wise and what their research shows.

[arthurking83]

..... I don't think PF is necessarily the answer either - can they make it in a zoom, no one has yet - ......

Canon has with the 70-300 DO lens.

I don't know how good it is by comparison to a well made 70-300 non diffractive lens tho.(ie. no personal experience, but talk of it is positive).

I suppose the gestation period for the Nikon 24-70 was started at about the time that Tamron released the 24-70VC lens(so Nikon reacted quickly to counter that effort)
If we assume that a lens' engineering phase is about 2 years or so, then it makes sense that they wouldn't attempt a PF model of the 24-70 without some sort of feedback via another product first.

ie. the 300/4 PF wasn't one of Nikon's recent releases without issues.
Hence, Nikon were smart not to push such boundaries on another professional product.

I suppose now that the 300/4 PF is a well known and used product Nikon would use that feedback(user, manufacturing and marketing feedback) to further advance their future lens releases.

[Cage]

I don't know whether my thoughts are swayed by personal desire but I firmly believe that there would be quite a strong demand for a sub $2000 500mm f5.6 semi-pro prime.

I'm reckon that 90% of the buyers of the various 150-600mm's are buying them to use at the longer end (and they seem to run out of puff at around 500mm anyway) as most users will already have the 200mm-400mm range covered with their other lens. If you surveyed potential 200mm-500mm buyers I'm bloody sure that most, if not all, are more attracted to the long end than the short end.

[arthurking83]

I reckon you're on the money Kev.

a smaller lighter weight long lens is something many people seem to desire(if you go by the forums).

The weird part of this 200-500 lens too is, if they can do it at about $2k, then it makes sense that they could do a 500/5.6 prime at say $1500 or even less.

... anyhow, as they say it's all speculation. While it's fun to do, it never results into any meaningful reality :(
(unless you're a Sigma fanboi :p)

[glennb]

I don't know whether my thoughts are swayed by personal desire but I firmly believe that there would be quite a strong demand for a sub $2000 500mm f5.6 semi-pro prime.

I'm reckon that 90% of the buyers of the various 150-600mm's are buying them to use at the longer end (and they seem to run out of puff at around 500mm anyway) as most users will already have the 200mm-400mm range covered with their other lens. If you surveyed potential 200mm-500mm buyers I'm bloody sure that most, if not all, are more attracted to the long end than the short end.

I agree! Im not after a lens with a massive zoom range that's sacrificing sharpness/contrast/resolution. I would be very keen for a prime 400mm or 500mm f5.6 at a affordable price, $2kish. ATM I like the new Nikon 300mm f4 but is probably a touch short for me so Im thinking to add a 1.4 TC to it. But it then becomes about 1K+ more than what I want to spend and a drop in image quality. So It could be this lens (200-500) if it does well in tests or just keep waiting for a lens that suits my needs in my price range. :cool: Notice one price, aus stock of $1800 for the new Nikon 200-500mm

[Cage]

Glen, I have the Nikon 300mm f4 (pre PF) and my 1.4 T/C lives on it.

You would have to do some really, really serious pixel peeping to see any degradation with the combo.

I don't have any intention of getting rid of it any time soon.

[glennb]

Glen, I have the Nikon 300mm f4 (pre PF) and my 1.4 T/C lives on it.

You would have to do some really, really serious pixel peeping to see any degradation with the combo.

I don't have any intention of getting rid of it any time soon.

Got all excited and then I noticed no VR,:( it does look like a very good lens though.

[cupic]

I have had reservation on the latest 200-500mm f/5.6 but as the price for an Australian retailer @ 1696 I think it night be time to buy
While no real world reviews have emerged would the Mtf's ( Even though I don't know how to read them )be enough or wait for more reviews to surface


cheers

[Lance B]

As I stated previously, the MTF's shown are wide open. However, they are quite impressive MTf's just the same, especially for a consumer type zoom. They will only improve when stopped down. What is in it's favour is that it is only a 2.5x zoom and it should be easy enough to design and manufacture and therefore should be capable of very good results.

[arthurking83]

The only thing that will hurt this lens in terms of IQ will be sample variation.

Nikon don't seem to have a very good grasp of the manufacturing processes required to produce consistently good products across the production run.(have a read of lensrental's recent blogs ;))

For the real world tho .. the thing to ask yourself is how fussy are you .. really.
I'm not a perfectionist, so while the MTF graphs looks good .. and knowing that these are only theoretical (or best case) scenarios .. even if the MTF graphs were 10-15% lower .. I'd still consider this lens as an option .. even compared to the Sigma 150-600 Sport(which would be my preference).

My reservation with it is simply one of Nikon's recent quality issues.
* the new 24-70/2.8 VR has been delayed for release .. due to an issue with the lens(Nikon obviously won't say what)
* 300PF
* countless recent cameras have had to be recalled for fixing something too!

Nikon are having massive major quality control issues .. which from my perspective is sad to see!
If it's new and it's Nikon .. the best way forward is to wait .. which in itself is an issue, because if everyone did that .. the issues that the product may have won't surface as quickly as they otherwise would.
If Nikon's customer care program wasn't so blatantly self serving .. I don't think this would be a problem.
But going on their recent track record on product issues, they procrastinate for far too long.

[Sar NOP]

The announcement of the new 200-500/5.6 VR (with a very "low" price tag) is a good news for the 200-400/4: Nikon will certainly upgrade the current pros zoom 200-400/4 to a higher level (FL glass, weight reduction, built-in TC, etc).

[cupic]

Anyone seen a post with the 200-500mm @ 500mm
Just want to see the lens extended to 500mm'

[cupic]

Just 75mm extra when fully extended

[MattNQ]

Nikon Rumors have posted a link to a Swedish review with sample images.
It didn't translate well.....if you work out what "With the new AF-S 200-500 / 5,6g ED VR Nikon shows where furniture should go" means, let me know :D

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberphoto.se%2Finfo.php%3Farticle%3D200500vr&edit-text=

Also a couple more below. Is is just me or has Nikon really restricted the number of lenses sent out for review?
I'd have thought they'd be wanting to be hitting the Sigma 160-500 sport with a bit of pre-sales momentum.:confused013

This one has some better test images
http://foto-info.si/test-nikon-af-s-200-500mm-f5-6e-ed-vr/

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ro&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblogdefotografie.ro%2Ffotografii-de-test-nikon-200-500mm-f5-6-vr%2F

[Cage]

Pretty good reviews Matt. Some of the pics look very promising.

It's now on top of my 'Lens Lust List". :nod:

[arthurking83]

Nikon Rumors have posted a link to a Swedish review with sample images.
It didn't translate well.....if you work out what "With the new AF-S 200-500 / 5,6g ED VR Nikon shows where furniture should go" means, let me know :D .....

While I can't explain exactly what they're trying to express with that comment .. but considering that it is a SWEDISH! site .. and Sweden's predominant export is IKEA .. well it makes sense that most things that make sense to the Swedes will have some relevance to furniture! :p

[Lance B]

While I can't explain exactly what they're trying to express with that comment .. but considering that it is a SWEDISH! site .. and Sweden's predominant export is IKEA .. well it makes sense that most things that make sense to the Swedes will have some relevance to furniture! :p

Maybe they want us to assemble the lens ourselves. :D

[cupic]

Need a trip firstly to a therapist paid for the 200-500 lens and when I rang today was told don't know
when its shipping and there's 40 in front of you
:Doh::Doh:

[MattNQ]

Maybe they want us to assemble the lens ourselves. :D

Might be Nikon's next cost saving exercise. :D
You have just reminded me I picked up an 'assemble yourself' twin reflex camera kit that you make & then put some film in.
Lomography IQ of course but should be fun. Still haven't made it yet.....one day.

[mongo]

Mongo has ordered his and is No. 7 on the list with 10 lenses allocated. So, he should get one when they arrive to this supplier.

Other considerations - Mongo agrees with Cage in many respects. Mongo also uses his 300 f4 AFS (pre PF) lens very happily with 1.4 and 1.7 converters with excellent results (even X2 converter on occasions with good results). So, if you have that lens and can get some converters (second hand) you have got a very very good combo. It will be lighter and cheaper than the new 200-500mm.

Here is a shot with D800, 300AFS f4 with a 1.7II converter (effectively 500mm) wide open at f6.7 and at 50% crop. Mongo is more than satisfied with the result.

119960


Disadvantage is that it is not a zoom, you cannot realistically get it to go more than 600mm with X2 converter (with some IQ loss). Whereas the 200-500 will probably be good with a 1.4 converter to get you to 700mm and say, stop down one stop for better IQ to f11. F11 is no big deal - Mongo often shoots at f11 now with other lenses even without VR - let alone have the use of the 200-500's VR to help.

food for thought