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/rumor-upcoming-lenses-from-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 :umm:

[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.

[arthurking83]

.....



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.

Eggg Zaktly!

:D

given the choice of a darker viewfinder with a constant f/4 lens in that focal length or a similarly priced f/2.8 lens with the added bonus of the ability to shoot 1 stop faster to boot!.. I'd prefer the 300g extra weight of the f/2.8 lens.

Nikon stopped producing 70-200mm f/4 lenses very early on in their history, and probably saw no reason to re-introduce them again.

For the type of photographer that needs AF-S in this type of lens because of the limitation in their existing bodies(D40's, 60's 3000's and 5000's and so forth), I think the $1.5K price tag of a 70-200/4 lens may be a bit steep anyhow.. so the current(and very good) 70-300VR lens maybe a better half priced alternative!

I think a better bet for such a lens type for Nikon to produce/upgrade would be to add VR to the current 80-200/2.8 lens, and maintain a price point at less than $1.5K.

[FeedMeTrance]

50 1.2 zomg!

[Flora]

In the process of purchasing a new Nikkor 80-400mm Zoom. Has anyone had any experience with this lens. I would like to take wildlife shots with this lens ??
Thanks

[kiwi]

Good IQ, slow AF

[mongo]

Mongo has been holding off buying a 70-200 2.8. Now there may be an f4 version it will probably attract him. Do not be surprised if the IQ is virtually as good as the 2.8.
Lets hope the price is right.