Nikon Introduces 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR, $1399

<p>Out of curiosity - 5 stops of VR from what - what's the baseline? 1/70s? 1/200s? Even the latter amounts to 1/6s - seems an awful slow shutter speed to hand hold with a 70-200mm zoom lens.</p>

<p>I think it's a smart move on Nikon's part to make the collar optional - otherwise this would be a $1625 lens. If I am buying, I will most certainly without the Nikon collar (and probably get a Kirk or RRS replacement one if I indeed feel the need). The collar on my Sigma 150/2.8 is removable - and I tend to keep it off for most of my everyday shooting with that lens.</p>

<p>Oddly, that extra stop is now more than ever achievable by bumping up ISO with the modern chips. I guess it's the cost and weight benefit of the 'slower' lens that's finally worthy....in Nikon's eyes at least.</p>

<p>If it's extra reach people want, rather than adding a x1.4 to a 70-200mm f4 zoom, to get a 100-300mm f5.6, just get a 300mm f4 AF-S..........or get Sigma's 120-300mm 2.8 OS HSM and <strong>gain 2 stops</strong>.</p>

<p>VR that 5 stops off the camera shake speed is one thing, but it's still not going to stop subject movement!</p>

<p>If, as mentioned by Ilkka, it is similar to the 180 f2.8 which I have, handheld and/or on my Slik tripod will be fine for me: Using this lens + my Zeiss 35 f2 make for a portable kit.</p>

<p><em>How come that Canon can have four 70-200 zooms in their line-up (f/4, f/4 IS, 2.8, 2.8IS) </em></p>

<p>This is very easy to answer. Canon was the market leader in DSLRs for a long time (they might still be, but it's closer now) and they are particularly famous for their telephotos. As a result they were able to add more variety into this part of their product portfolio. </p>

<p><em>everyone was forced to the f/2.8 ones </em></p>

<p>Perhaps Nikon had the resources only to try to make the f/2.8 telezoom competitive, which they have managed. Nikon also made the 70-180/4.5-5.6 AF Micro-Nikkor which got excellent ratings in reviews, and I would guess it was a good landscape and macro lens in one, but only a very small number were sold (1997-2005). I have been considering buying this lens e.g. for studio portraits and general outdoor close-up work, but its price has been increasing recently on the used market; now it's about as expensive as it was new when it was discontinued. I guess the question was: if this market of people who want a high quality telezoom with moderate maximum aperture and lower weight than the f/2.8 versions is so great, why did the 70-180 Micro-Nikkor not sell? A lot of landscape photographers also shoot flower close-ups (ice close-ups in Finland ;-)) etc. So it saves more space in the bag than a 70-200/4, as the macro lens is included. Perhaps at that time people didn't have as much money to spend on gear as they do now. I suspect that is the main reason. </p>

<p>Things have changed since then; sensors are now full frame and offer incredible high ISO capabilities that make the use of slower lenses more viable in many situations. Nikon also currently has the high resolution small format leader (D800(E)), so perhaps that's why they're offering lenses that are likely to appeal to landscape photographers, such as the 70-200/4.</p>

<p>Quite interessting to change the AF-S 80-200/2.8 lens to this one. I cant really imagine that an f4 lens should be better than your f2.8 .<br>

Anyway if you feel so comfortable with VR buy it. I use my AF-S 80-200/2.8 on fashion shows and lot of other events and never used a tripod or monopod during the years and my pics are sharp enough. Would be more interessting to see some new f1.2 or f1.4 lenses from Nikon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>why did the 70-180 Micro-Nikkor not sell?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Several reasons in my opinion - high price for a slow and variable speed lens. If I recall correctly, the lens did cost about the same as the then current 80-200/2.8. Slow AF. Doesn't reach 1:1 without diopter. Short working distance (about the same as a 105mm). I own one - purchased used around 2000 for $700; I got the zoom because I wanted to dabble into close-up but couldn't decide which focal length to go for - so I went for the most flexible solution. Not too long ago, I saw some offered at keh for $1700-$1900! <br>

I use this lens for almost anything - it's one reason why my 80-200/2.8 stayed home so much (I only took it when I knew I needed f/2.8-f/4). Just imagine if Nikon could pull off the feat to add AF-S and VR to that lens - and make it a constant f/4! The one drawback would be that I expect that the price would be at par with the 70-200/2.8 VRII (or even higher).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is very easy to answer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't buy that. Nikon had manual focus 80-200/4 and 70-210/4 - and for some reason abandoned the 70-210/4 AF for the variable aperture 70-210/4.5-5.6. They also had a few f/3.5 zooms - seems to me that could have easily come up with a 70-200/4 years ago. It's more like that Nikon doesn't want to produce some lenses - like the 300/4 VR and the 80-400 AF-S.</p>

 

<p>Fortunately I shoot mostly static on a tripod so can get away with primes and manual focus lenses and even larger formats.</p>

<p>Is it just me or ... have I been noticing some of the non 2.8 lenses having pricetags of $1,000-1500US? From memory, this lens, the new 24-120/4, the new Nikon DX wide angle (well granted the 12-24/4 was $1200 wasn't it at one time), the 16-85 had a spike too, the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 all went up further than inflation. Once upon a time a 2.8 zoom was around $1500US and there were still bargains to be had such as that 80-200/2.8 AFD but from last memory that's been spiked up too wasn't that lens around $800US. </p>

<p>A few years back the 70-200/4 USM L (Canon) wasn't that expensive. Ditto back then with the Canon 17-40/4 L. Seems to me the bodies have became cheaper but the lenses.</p>

<p>Ray, good point. I suppose this goes to prove it's <strong><em>still</em></strong> very expensive to grind optical glass properly than put some electronics in an injection molded box............:-)</p>

<p>I already anticipated the nono coating. </p>

<p>Super Macro..??</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2202/AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs">http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2202/AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs</a></p>

<p>Gives a Max Mag Ratio of 1.36x??? I don't think so! Typo maybe? 0.274x seems the truth...though that's not just a typo, it's rubbish. Thanks to Jim Stamates for spotting this.</p>

<p>Double post from another thread. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Gives a Max Mag Ratio of 1.36x??? I don't think so! Typo maybe? 0.274x seems the truth...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think 1.36 should read 1:3.6 (which is the same as 0.274x)</p>

<p>Who'd buy this without VR if it brought the price closer to Canon's 20-200/4?<br /><br />Aye!</p>

<p>Roland, I fully agree mathematically, it's just a bit odd as Nikon doesn't use the <strong><em>X:Y</em> </strong>model for Max Mag Ratio and, AFAIK, hasn't for years..... I think it should, but that's another story and another thread.</p>

<p>And where did that little lower case <strong>x</strong> come from? You don't get those in ratios.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Who'd buy this without VR if it brought the price closer to Canon's 20-200/4?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Either there's a typo on that focal range or else my thirty years of shooting Canon were for naught.</p>

<p>The Canon 70-200 f/4 is going for $674 at B&H right now.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Interesting lens -not a day too soon! I appreciate the lower weight good minimum focus distance compared to the 2.8 offerings. I suspect this will find its way into many camera bags. But, when priced like a used 70-200 2.8 VR, I am no longer that sure it is the best buy. The 2.8 will most definitely work better with Nikkor TCs.</p>

<p>What I really would have hoped for was a DX only tele zoom lens, which could be made real light weight and compact. Perhaps we will see such a zoom (or prime) soon.</p>

<p>Lol, well-spotted Lannie; too late to edit!</p>

<p>This is one of the three lenses I think Nikon badly needed. The other two are a 300mm f4 VR and a 80-400mm VR AFS. Everytime something new comes out I try to think through how it will work out for me and my uses. It is true that bumping up ISO can easily compensate for the loss of one stop. The lightness appeals to me as I find I leave my heavy f2.8 at home on trips. OTOH, the f2.8 does give me easier focus in very dim light and I am a night shooter. I like that Nikon made the tripod collar optional. I almost use a tripod and love rotating collars for fast changes between horizontal and vertical. I have two other lenses that have one--Nikons 80-400mm & 70-200mm. I very quickly replaced both with a collar from Kirk. I now have two Nikon collars sitting "dead" in a box in my closet. A Kirk collar for the new lens should be twice as good at half the cost.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p><em>Nikon had manual focus 80-200/4 and 70-210/4 - and for some reason abandoned the 70-210/4 AF for the variable aperture 70-210/4.5-5.6. They also had a few f/3.5 zooms - seems to me that could have easily come up with a 70-200/4 years ago.</em></p>

<p>The f/3.5 and f/4 constant aperture zooms of that era were the fastest hand-holdable zooms that they had. When the AF f/2.8 zooms came out, Nikon abandoned the f/4 and f/3.5 zooms (if you check some reviews of that time, the AF 70-210/4 got poor reviews while the 80-200/2.8 got basically rave reviews). Essentially the f/4 and f/3.5 got upgraded to f/2.8. Gradually the f/2.8 zooms grew in size and weight in subsequent improved iterations (higher level of optical correction and VR), and cameras got bigger and heavier also, so there is now increased need for an f/4 version. When Nikon went FX they had a lot of lenses that needed improvement. So it took a while for the 70-200/4 to come out. I think what is important is that it appears to be a very solid optic (looking at the MTF) so all should be well, then. If the VR 70-200/4 had come out two years ago, it would probably have older and less efficient VR. If they had made it at the same time as the f/2.8 II, perhaps it would have 0,1x magnification at MFD instead of 0,27x. Given that Nikon gets feedback from their designs from users, they have time to correct found problems with subsequent new lenses. It would not be a good thing that they'd design 30 new lenses in one year, and then we'd be stuck with the same problems for the next 10 years.</p>

<p>I don't think there is anything sinister about Nikon not making such a lens for a while. Nikon had f/4 telezooms for several decades and IMO they were pretty boring things at the time. Film was so slow that I rarely could take advantage of such slow lenses outside of summer daytime. The new f/2.8 zooms were exciting and that's what people wanted in the late 80s and early 90s. It can always be debated how many different lineups of lenses at different price points are needed. Personally I think it's good that Nikon now makes f/4 zooms, since lenses have been getting heavier and heavier over recent years, but still it remains the f/2.8 lenses are more versatile and generally applicable.</p>

<p><em>It's more like that Nikon doesn't want to produce some lenses - like the 300/4 VR and the 80-400 AF-S.</em></p>

<p>This is not so. Nikon has a patent for a compact 300/4 VR and one for 80-400 AF-S VR. They also have several other long zoom patents that have been published in recent years. They are clearly working on such lenses. Whether they decide to produce them may be decided at last minute. While I would love a 300/4 VR I do not understand why everything has to be had today or better yet yesterday. There is time. It's better that Nikon comes out with a few really good designs rather than a dozen half-thought outs per year.</p>

<p>Ont thing to keep in mind is that since Nikon introduced the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-D with a tripod collar in 1996, that lens was available new at around $900 (or lower) for most of the last 16 years. Only around 2009 or so when the Japanese yen apprecaited greatly that the 80-200mm/f2.8 went above $1000. Even today, you can buy it new at below $1100 from B&H.</p>

<p>In other words, there has always been a more-affordable option if you want a 80-200mm type AF zoom, compared to the expensive 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, version 1 or 2.</p>

<p>What the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-D does not have is the lighter weight and small size from the f4 version. $1399 is a bit higher than what I expected, but give it a year or two, I expect the new 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR to be around $1200, and the tripod collar will come from a third-party anyway. It is not clear to me whether Nikon's RT-1 collar has the Arca-Swiss quick release.</p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Expect the 300mm/f4 AF-S and 80-400mm zoom to get VR III, hopefully within 2013.</p>

 

 

 

 

Shun, does it look like to you that Nikon will update their 135 and 180mm lenses in future?

</blockquote>

<p>Shun: The pictures of the RT-1 look like tripod screw only attachment, and this brings up a point. In order for most of us to use the 70-200/4 on a tripod, we will need both the RT-1 and a Arca adapter foot. This suggests that the better route will be a 3rd party Arca collar. Surely, the Likes of RRS and Kirk will deliver this to us.</p>

<p>Personally, I am not planning on getting a tripod collar for my 70-200/4 when it arrives in late November.</p>

<p><img src="http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o/Roe0RGLmh0otLYnBtBvgesTeiQg/Views/353_RT_1.png" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, does it look like to you that Nikon will update their 135 and 180mm lenses in future?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no idea. I thought Nikon should have introduced/updated the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR, 300mm/f4 AF-S VR and 80-400mm AF-S VR at least 5 years ago. That tells you how well I can predict future lenses, although after the 16-35mm/f4 and 24-120mm/f4, the 70-200mm/f4 is quite obvious.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun: The pictures of the RT-1 look like tripod screw only attachment</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It looks like that to me also, but I want to be sure. I'll check with Nikon and maybe I can borrow an RT-1 in addition to the 70-200mm/f4. (To test a lens, I need to mount it on a tripod anyway.) Hopefully a Kirk or RRS collar for the 70-200mm/f4 will be around $150 to $200. I don't expect Nikon will sell a whole lot of RT-1.</p>

<p>BTW, back in the early 1990's when the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-D had push/pull zoom, there were a lot of requests on internet news for Nikon to add a tripod collar to that lens. Finally in 1996 Nikon did just that.</p>

<p>So I think plenty of people would like to have a collar on this f4 vesion also. It is good that it is optional so that both camps can be happy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... why everything has to be had today or better yet yesterday</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Come on now, I didn't say that - but especially the 300/4 VR and the 80-400 AF-S should have come out years ago! For example, they've now been on Thom Hogan's waiting list for 53 and 51 months, respectively. The 300/2.8, for example, got updated twice in that period. And don't tell me that the 300/2.8 is an alternative for someone looking for a 300/4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I think it's good that Nikon now makes f/4 zooms, since lenses have been getting heavier and heavier over recent years,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do to.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but still it remains the f/2.8 lenses are more versatile and generally applicable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure they are - but they come at a hefty price - both in weight and cost and either may not suit everyone. It appears to me that many go for the f/2.8 because they want the "best" - and this is certainly fueled by peer pressure. I can't deny that I moved up towards f/2.8 zooms as well while quite often I could do with an f/4. If I really make a move towards FX, then the 16-35/4 VR and the 70-200/4 VR would make one hell of a kit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>80-200mm/f2.8 AF-D with a tripod collar in 1996, that lens was available new at around $900 (or lower) for most of the last 16 years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually below $700 some 8 years ago - that's when I purchased mine. While it is a great lens, one drawback that I discovered with its use is that it doesn't balance well on my D200 and D300 bodies, regardless whether or not the battery grip is attached.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...have I been noticing some of the non 2.8 lenses having pricetags of $1,000-1500US?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The price we pay - aside from inflation and exchange rate fluctuations - for AF-S and VR. Generalizations are always fraught with problems, but it seems that those increased prices by $500-$700.</p>

Nice! I hope that it tests out and handles well.