New 70-200 2.8 VR Lens... Any new info?

Anybody know anything else about this lens? Cost? Quality?

Release date? I realize that it will be a "G" lens (i.e. no

aperture ring), but if that lowers the price to something not as

insane as their other VR lens while still being AF-S I will be very

intrigued. I looked on Nikons U.S. site, but didn't see anything.

 

George

I heard from a local dealer in Austin that the release date will be sometime in mid to late November, possibly as late as December. Still no price though.

Uh, since AF Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8 costs something like $150 (or less) and contains great optics (and allows manufacturers and retailers profit, presumably), the aperture ring can't be all that expensive to make.

Ilkka,

 

You bring up what could be a valid point (I actually love my 50mm 1.8 lens) but....

 

the 50 is a wee very mass-produced lens and is not up to the mechanical build of the 80-200 AF-S lens which are arguably built to "pro" standards so I imagine the tolerance on the bigger aperture blades of the 80-200 have to be better then the 50 since wide apertures at long focal lengths is harder to do well. (I could be wrong). Also the last time I checked Nikon prices things by convenience and captive audience...not just profitability. Ever buy any of their idiotic electronic shutter-release cords? 5 bucks at most in parts.....60 bucks to buy...and yet EVERYBODY with a new Nikon with a tripod needs one...not that small of a market to rationalize this price markup by marginal costs only.....

 

So I'm guessing/hoping that the price of this lens will be based on adding one convenience (VR) and subtracting another (aperture ring).

 

George

I have been using Nikon cameras for 25 years, so I know how "the old days" were like. But ever since I bought my N8008 in 1989, the apreture ring is more an annoyance than anything. The only thing I do with it is to lock it at the minimum aperture so that the camera works in the P or S modes. Sometimes it somehow slips out from the minimum aperture and the camera wouldn't fire and I get this FEE in the viewfinder. So I am very glad that Nikon is gradually phasing it out.

 

Keep in mind that VR won't even work with the F4, F/N90 ..., cameras without 5 AF points. By far the majority of those who are buying the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR are using modern bodies such as the F5, F100, D1h/x and D100. There is very little reason to maintain compatibility with cameras designed over 20 years ago such as the F3, FM/FE(2), etc.

 

I think another issue may be space. Compared to my 500mm/f4 AF-S, the Canon 500mm/f4 IS is much "fatter" on the end close to the lens mount. Presumably, they need room for the IS mechanism, motor, etc. I can see the Nikon engineers prefer to remove as much unnecessary features as possbile from that part of the VR lens. Otherwise, people will complain about the bulk and weight of the 70-200 VR. Well, they will complain anyway.

The existence of the aperture ring does not in any way reduce the need for the aperture (and the tolerances for that are independent of the existence of the control ring), and the mechanal parts for the ring itself are not that complicated (and the parts certainly are produced in very large numbers).

 

While many of us use and enjoy the modern bodies, many of us use older bodies as well. They're backups and used when (ie., practically always if you're trying to do technically high quality work) several film types are needed for a given trip/situation. Who can afford to upgrade all of their bodies to new models every a few years?

 

Think about it: almost every serious photographer using Nikon equipment has one version or another of the 80-200/2.8. Now, for several applications, the VR is very useful on such a lens. What we have to choose now is between

 

a) keeping several different 70/80-200/2.8 zooms around, to fit each different body you may have

b) buying the 70-200 VR, selling the 80-200/2.8 and all of the pre-F100/F5 bodies to be replaced by those cameras, or

c) not having the VR lens.

 

I think the lens may well cost something like 3000� in Europe (look at how Nikon prices their AF-S and VR gear), as does the Canon equivalent. For choice b), yousell 80-200 for a loss (you get 700� for it), F90X for 500� and buy a new F100 for 1500� or D100 for 3000�+memory cards. That will amount to 3300�+ for the VR feature on this one lens alone. Add any new tripod mount that you may have to make since Nikon thinks the much longer 80-400 VR needs only a flimsy mount. It doesn't make any sense unless you're a professional concert/indoor photographer.

 

<rant>I noticed that my LS-4000 came with a European (instead of international) warranty. This means that Nikon intends to support the 20-40% price difference between the US and European markets. </rant>

 

Shun: with an AF/AI-P/AF-S/AF-I lens, you can always convert it to a "G" lens by setting the aperture lock. I haven't missed a single picture because of a slipping aperture ring on any of my 9 AF Nikkors during the 8 years I've used them to shoot 30000 pictures.

 

I can understand the gradual outphasing of old technology, I just don't like the way Nikon does it. It's like having a rental camera system, you pay your annual upgrade fees. The cameras are built so well that they could be used after 30 years like new if you treat them properly, but this is not acceptable to Nikon, thus more vulnerable plastic parts are used, and software incompatibilities are introduced. What happens to the old gear? What about the environment? I understand that there is quite a bit of a problem with the industrial waste in Japan.

Oh! I'm so stupid! Of COURSE there still needs to be aperture blades...(insert image of blonde boy smacking himself on head). You are right. It can't be too difficult to throw in an exterior linkage to the aperture blades (aperture ring). I don't know where I was keeping my head... *8^)

 

And I'm just a wildly enthusiastic amateur who has finally decided to take the plunge to get the professional 80-200 Af-S for my F100 after my end of year bonus (fingers crossed)....so I would obviously also be interested in one with VR if its not as unbelievably ridiculously priced as the other VR lens. I'm sorry, I don't give a flying flip how many ED elements there are if I'm going to spend $1600 for a lens with a not extraordinary focal length I expect a capability for wide apertures just so I can play with depth of field. VR just adds better low light capability. A buddy of mine raves about his low-priced 100-300 (or something like that) Canon consumer lens with VR (or image stabilization as they call it) and it cost a whopping 400 bucks.

 

George

Oops! My communications skills must be on vacation.... I don't find the aperture on the current VR lens (hell it is a 80-400mm lens afterall) that appalling, but not having a CONSTANT aperture on a $1600 lens is what really irks me. I can't play with depth of field at a variety of focal lengths if it is going to change as I zoom.

 

George

Ilkka, if you really need modern AF-S and the latest VR technology such that you are willing to pay some US$/Euro 2000 for the 70-200 VR, don't you think your backup body should be at least an F80/N80 that can take advantage of the VR? The 70-200 G without a aperture ring will still work w/ an F4 or F/N90 in P or S mode, but VR won't. In other words, G is not the limiting factor.

 

Only if you somehow insist on using camera bodies desinged more than 20 years ago such as the F3, FM/FE and their successors that G becomes a problem. Well, IMO coupling bodies and lenses more than 20 years apart is simply an unreasonable demand. Unfortunately, I have lost some images because that otherwise useless aperture ring slips out of the minimum setting. That is why I am very glad that Nikon is phasing it out; there will be one fewer thing to break.

 

The days that camera bodies last some 30 years are long gone. The D1 was introduced exactly three years ago and people are recently disappointed that Nikon hasn't announced a successor to the D1's successors, namely the D1h/x. The change over to DSLR's will soon make the compatibility with old film bodies a moot point to mose people anyway.

 

Welcome to the 21st Century.

 

While we are on this topic, why do people want VR in a 70-200mm lens? What type of situations will VR improve you image w/ a short to medium zoom? I have the 80-200 AF-S and am very happy with it. IMO VR is at best only useful occasionally in the 70-200 range that I am in no hurry to upgrade.

I never shoot in the P mode with the F90X and only occasionally in the S mode. The shutter lag in P mode is intolerable for me and I generally use A and especially the M mode for that reason and others. I do use P mode with the 80-200 and F5 though on occasion.

 

VR is useful in certain applications such as when you need a little bit of extra depth of field in a quick handheld landscape shot (when traveling, my companions often get irritated at the sight of my tripod). I realise that this lens isn't long enough for most animals, but sometimes you can use it for an animal as part of a landscape shot. All of this if you see the animal at a distance and you're heading somewhere else (I hear that this happens in US national parks, it NEVER happens in Finland :-). In people photography, the use of VR is limited by the need to stop movement, but people can be _sometimes_ adequately stopped at 1/60-1/125 s, which means that VR allows for reasonably secure shots at 200 mm. The ideal application for this lens would be in indoor concert photography, where muddy iso 1600 colour shots seem to be the norm. f/1.4-f/2 lenses are often used, but the shallow depth of field is a big problem there, thus the 70-200 VR would be more attractive. That said, I have no plans to upgrade to a VR 70-200.

Depending on your particular type of photography, I ceratainly don't doubt that VR can be useful occasionally in the 70-200 range, but the key word is "occasionally." Yes, if you shoot during a concert, it may be helpful to gain a couple of stops. But for theatre, it might not work because the subjects tend to move. Or if you shoot from a small boat that moves up and down, it may be very helpful ....

 

But all in all, I never photograph concerts and don't own any boats. So how often can I take advantage of VR? Forget about the crazy prices in Europe, this VR lens is going to be a few hundred US dollars more than the 80-200 AF-S. For that kind of money I can get 1 or 2 decent lenses.

It will be a great advantage for me because I have "familial" shake. The 80 - 400 VR is great for me.

 

Conni