josh_standon Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Hi folks, I am wondering why this lens is really needed and for what purposes one might use it. I am not trying to be a wise-guy or Nikon basher, it's just that I have never given much thought to a lens in this zoom range. I wish to be enlighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_frank Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 perhaps sports and wildlife photographers will find a need for a long (especially on smaller digi sensors) relatively fast lens that enables them to change their focal lenth so that they do not have to move towards or away from their subject. nikon used to have a mf version of this lens if i'm correct that was much coveted and near impossible to find these days. I'd be first in line for this lens if i could afford it. it will most likely be quite expensive. $3500+? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcb.photo Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Paul's correct, sports and wildlife will be the major uses. I know a Canon guy who uses a Tamron 200-400, and is going to buy a F100 just so he can own this lens. He does a lot of Birds, really good photos also, but to buy a whole new system?? Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_bartlett Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Assuming image quality and AF speed meets expectations, the D2H and the 200-400 VR will be a killer combination for sports. If I could afford the combination I would use it to shoot both football and baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briany Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 I wonder about this too.. Is the one stop on the long end really that much better than the 80-400 f/4-5.6? I guess because it's AF-S, but if they'd put that in the 80-400 in the first place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majid Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 I can't see how the 200-400 VR would be in the $3500 range. The Canon 100- 400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS costs $1400, and has the AF-S and VR equivalents. Sure, it is one half to a stop slower, but it also has longer range, and I can't see how Nikon would be able to introduce their competing product for more than $2000 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Slap a TC-14E on one and you have a AF-S 280~560/5.6G ED-IF VR (That�s your answer). The old 200~400/4.0 AIS Nikkors have sold for $10,000.00 used. Some one likes them. The old one was often used with the TC-14B. It�s an African classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_bridge Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 How many people heavily use the 80-200 end of a 80-400 VR or the 100-200 end of a 100-400 IS compared to the 200-400 end? That is what 70/80-200 f/2.8's are for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_steele Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 "Is the one stop on the long end really that much better than the 80-400 f/4-5.6? " Yes and beyond the one stop: The 80-400 VR is a great lens but definitely not fast on focus. I find myself manually focusing the lens quite often to avoid 'hunting' even with the AF limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_frank Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 >>I can't see how the 200-400 VR would be in the $3500 range. The Canon 100- 400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS costs $1400, and has the AF-S and VR equivalents. Sure, it is one half to a stop slower, but it also has longer range, and I can't see how Nikon would be able to introduce their competing product for more than $2000 or so. maybe you need glasses. ever noticed that a 300/4 afs lens is ~$1100 while a 300/2.8 afs is ~$4400? 1 stop costs alot at that focal lentgth range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 I use the original model 80 - 400 VR to pick out details in travel photography. It also makes a nice portrait lens to use in more formal settings. Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thidglance Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 If Nikon make this a good one it is going to be a very special lens, an a very expensive lens. VR + AFS + the range + F4 are all very desirable. I would expect it to cost somewhere between a 300 F2.8 and a 500mm F4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jemini_joseph Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 From 4 to 5.6 it's not half stop. It's a full stop. That's very very important in nature photography. Like David mentioned you will get 560/5.6 AF-S VR lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 I'd expect it to cost somewhere around $5000-$7000, as a constant aperture high-end zoom with this focal range + AF-S and VR, it ought to be in that ballpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 As I pointed out in another thread, back in the 1980's, there was an AI-S 200-400mm/f4 zoom that was in the $3000 range new; that was of course 1980 dollars. That lens was discontinued around 1990 or so and since it was so good for wildlife photography, prices shot up to as much as $10,000 in the used market in some cases. (Art Wolfe had one which was lost in the 1996 break in to his vehicle discussed a few days ago.) I think David also pointed this out. Used price finally came back down as AF gradually got mature and becomes an integral part of action photography. So I would imagine that the new 200-400mm/f4 will be over US$5000. On a small-sensor DSLR, it'll be like a 300-600mm/f4 and be super for wildlife photography. The problem is that a 300mm/f4 AF-S (no VR) is only $900 or so grey. You really pay a lot for the ability to zoom. Moreover, wildlife photographers like me are spoiled by long focal lengths. I already have a 500mm/f4 AF-S. I can't imagine spending another $5000 or whatever and worse yet, carry one more big lens traveling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kk_hui Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 Official list price for the <br> AF-S VR 200-400/4G IF -------- JY 980k<br> AF-S 500/4D IF --------------- JY 960k<p> So the choice is yours ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry n. Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 This promises to be an amazing. 400mm was a huge gap in Nikon's lenses...they had the f2.8, which is a monster, and the 80-400, which is a great lens but too slow for serious nature photographers. 400mm f/4 is very useful because it's plenty fast and long for just about anything but birds, and it's relatively small. By incorporating a zoom, Nikon made it a more useful lens, but probably heavier, more expensive and not quite as sharp as a 400mm f/4 prime lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 I believe that this was Art Wolfe's favorite zoom for wildlife when he shot with Nikon. (His lens was a manual version, and not IF either.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbilder Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 The lens clearly is not designed as a 220-400 4G AFS VR on film-cameras. It is designed for digital cameras - and than it is a 300-600 4G AFS VR. That is the point, and the digital-users will buy it. But I can't imagine that this lens will find its way to a film camera. Best wishes, Axel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbilder Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 The lens clearly is not designed as a 220-400 4G AFS VR on film-cameras. It is designed for digital cameras - and than it is a 300-600 4G AFS VR. That is the point, and the digital-users will buy it. But I can't imagine that this lens will find its way to a film camera. Best wishes, Axel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Axel, why not? I'd buy it in a heartbeat if I could but obviously I can't. The only problem with the previous 200-400/4 was that it wasn't IF and so it was really slow to focus. This one definitely isn't going to have that problem! And there will be a time when people will use it on full-frame digital cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbilder Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Why I would not this lens on an analog camera: I do not have to spend thousands of Dollars or Euros, I would get the 70-200 and teleconverters. ! Much cheaper, I think. Best wishes, Axel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 How is the situation different with digital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry n. Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Axel, You cannot use the 70-200 with teleconverters and get the same thing as the just announced 200-400. If you could, some clever Nikon engineer would have figured it out months ago and put a stop to the project, don't you think? The 200-400 is an f/4 lens. The 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter becomes an f/5.6 lens, essentially similar to the 80-400 VR. You see, there is no free lunch with lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geof_grieble Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 This is going to be a very neat & spiffy lens for sports and wildlife. At 14" long and 7.2 pounds it's not going to be a travel lens - it's aiming towards a whole different market than the 80-400. The fact that it's not a DX lens means Nikon wanted to make a lens that was useful to both film & digital shooters. I'll wager the images it produces will be terrific (even with a 1.4 tele which would make it a 420-840/f5.6 on digital bodies). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now