Why nikon dont produce lens 70-200/F4

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by sunilmendiratta, Jun 3, 2011.

  1. Hi All,
    i am wondering why nikon do not produce 70-200/F4 in affordable package. Why canon is offering more telephoto packages and Nikon don't.
    I would be among one of those who will buy this lens :). I am sure people are waiting for years....
  2. It is a real puzzle to me as well.
  3. When I shot film, many years ago, the absolute best zoom (and one of the finest) lenses I ever used was a Canon 70-200 f4L non IS. Truly a gem. Why Nikon doesn't make a copy is beyond me.
  4. That's one of the great mysteries of the universe. Especially since Nikon had a superb line of medium-speed zooms in the 1980s, including the 80-200mm f/4, 75-150mm f/3.5, 28-50mm f/3.5, 24-50mm f/4, and 35-70mm f/3.5. Although not a great lens, I also liked the 36-72mm f/3.5.
  5. Perhaps Sigma, Tamron, Tokina should release f/4 zooms and that may get Nikon interested too.
  6. With the recent release of several f/4 Zooms. (16-35mm f/4 and 24-120mm f/4), I can;t see Nikon holding back on a 70-200m f/4 for much longer.
  7. Actually Nikon does have this lens. Take a look at http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF70210mm/index2.htm. There is one on eBay right now see item 120731080181.
  8. I think this is the lens that Kenneth meant to link to. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF70210mm/index.htm
    AF Nikkor 70-210mm f/4.0. But it was discontinued many years ago, and replaced by the variable aperture lens that Kenneth linked to. So there isn't a fixed apertue f/4 lens in the current lineup.
    I think that maybe they are afraid that a 70-200 fixed f/4 might take sales away from their more expensive 70-200/2.8 lens.
  9. I'd buy one, even if it was $1200.
  10. Gary that link is an even better choice. With over 50 years of lenses to choose from, with a little shopping around, you can almost always find what you need from Nikon. It’s the main reason I’ve stayed with them for over 40 years. My oldest lenses work great on my newest digital bodies. There isn’t much in this world that can make that claim.
  11. I think that going all the way out to a 100-300 mm f/4 would be an even better choice than the 70-200 version. The prime 300 mm f/4 is getting a bit long in the tooth and has some issues with the tripod mount and no VR that Nikon could rectify. I already own the 16-35 and 24-120 mm f/4 lenses and would buy this sort of a model even if it were $2000, provided the optical quality is very good.
  12. I would bet one is coming, it was just delayed along with everything else this year.
    Kent in SD
  13. Dan, for $1200 you could get an 80-200 f/2.8, and you could almost get a used 70-200 VR I. The only reason the Canon 70-200 f/4 is so good is because it costs $500 less than those things. And because it's lighter. And smaller. Okay, so a few things. But mostly the money.
    "Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as ... "
  14. I was kind of poking fun at the cost of the 24-120/4 lens and Nikon pricing of late.
  15. Dante Stella has a good page on the f/4 lens, and why it's better than the later variable aperture version hyped by KR:
    I have the f/4 lens, and would love a modern AF-S/VR version. For me this would be the right tradeoff between speed and size/weight, irrespective of price.
  16. The IS version of the 70-200 f/4 L sells, of course, for more than the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor - not that this does me any good, since for some reason I've never seen the Nikkor for sale in the UK (I'll probably pick one up eventually). Whether Nikon would make a non-IS f/4, and therefore sell it for the relatively bargain price of the non-IS Canon, I'm not so sure - it'd be a hard sell between the 18-200 and 70-300 VR lenses (I never really lusted after the Canon when I shot Eos, since the 70-300 IS is quite good).

    I'd find a new, cheap, 70-200 f/4 ED AF-S moderately tempting, but it'd have to be as good optically as the Canon. An f/4 is a half-way house between a fast pro option and a variable aperture zoom; at least up to 200mm, I'm not sure that the extra stop over a cheap f/5.6 would be all that appealing unless there was a significant optical improvement - and my plastic 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 G isn't that bad optically.

    I've always felt that Canon's reason for having four versions of every lens (well, the 70-200 and 70-300, anyway) is to compete with Nikon owners' ability to get cheap lenses by picking up 1970s-vintage manual focus options. Nikon are probably happy that their low-margin lens market is being dealt with by ebay - or at least, I can understand their high-margin lenses taking priority.
  17. Life's really too short to worry about such trifles, but I'm still wondering where the good ole 70-210mm focal range disappeared to, and why. One day it was all the rage, and then I blinked and the world was filled with 80-200s and 70-200s. Seems a bit daft when the obvious thing is to design zooms with a nice round zoom ratio like 3:1.
    I'm just glad that my Vivitar Series 1 AF 70-210 f/2.8 is still functioning perfectly, though it doesn't get any lighter in weight with the passing years!
    Incidentally the 70-210 f/4 AF Nikkor is optically identical to the 70-210 F/4 Nikon Series E Lens. The coating colour was changed slightly, but that's about it. The AiS 80-200mm f/4 MF Nikkor is a better lens IME. Also the early AF 70-210 zoom has got to be one of the ugliest-looking lenses ever created, second only to Canon's 70-210 and 100-300mm offerings of around the same era. There must have been a modernist-brutalist design revival in the early '80s.
  18. As a landscape / outdoor guy, I would love to see a compact 70-200 f4 with tripod collar. Until then I will continue to use my 70-300 which is plenty sharp but I imagine could be sharper at the long end with a Tripod Collar. On my last multi-day backpack I brought my 70-200 4-5.6 which is beautifully compact and plenty sharp using good a stable tripod. I'd like to see nikon make some quality zooms for those of us who are not chasing race cars.
  19. Joe, that Vivitar sure is a great lens. Those guys really knew what they were going. Past tense.
  20. Four or five years ago, I bought an af 70-210mm f4 constant. Since then, I've bought two more for "insurance". There are a few about, but I think they were only produced for about 18 months in 1986/7.
    I've used them with F801s, F90x, F4, D70s, D700. OK the focus is a bit slow, but optically they perform very well. Even at full aperture, the images are good. As I recall, on many occasions the question has been asked as to why Nikon doesn't produce a "modern" version.
  21. Hugh, I've used a variety of lenses both with and without tripod collars, and on a variety of tripods and heads. The conclusion I've come to is that a tripod collar is there either purely for decoration, or to take mechanical strain off the camera and lens-mount.
    What a tripod collar won't do is to automatically give you a more stable lens, camera and tripod system. In fact in most cases using a lens collar makes for a less stable setup. By shifting the centre of gravity of the lens and camera more-or-less directly over the tripod, the whole system becomes a see-saw that will rock and vibrate at the slightest provocation. Nowadays, magnified liveview let's you see this effect in real time very easily, but I burned a lot of film before I cottoned on to the aforesaid see-saw effect.
    Anyways, if the lens is light enough not to bend its mount, then you're probably better off just fixing the camera to the tripod, and even handholding the camera as you release it. Yes, you read that right. Keeping your hands on the camera and applying slight pressure will tend to damp any vibration rather than cause it. With cautions: The tripod has to be good and sturdy, and the shutter speed needs to be reasonably high. With a lightweight tripod or at longer than about 1/125th sec, then you're better off using the self-timer or a remote release. And in general a 3way pan/tilt head resists vibration far better than a ball-and-stalk head. (It's the thin connecting stalk that's the weak point in any ball-and-socket head.)
  22. That's one of the great mysteries of the universe.
    Indeed. A 70-200/4 would be very suitable for a lot of travel photography, especially for landscape and architectural details. I think the reason for this omission is that Nikon wants advanced amateurs, as well as pros, to empty their wallets for the 70-200/2.8, rather than offering something less expensive but equally good.
    A tripod collar has many functions: 1) to protect the mechanical interface between camera and lens from strain, 2) to allow easy switching from horizontal to vertical composition, without affecting balance, 3) to make handling of a heavy lens + camera rig easier and safer on tripod, and 4) to improve stability. If a collar works out to be less stable than mounting the lens on camera, then the collar and/or tripod are extremely badly made (all current Nikon collars of course belong to "quite badly made" category, with the exception of the 200mm AF Micro which is not such a surprise as a macro lens actually has to be well supported to be useful). If touching the camera or lens while it is on tripod "improves" stability then the tripod and/or collar is/are simply no good, perhaps they're made of rubber or liquorice instead of a useful material for tripods, such as carbon fiber.
  23. It really depends on your usage. I own a D700, the 80-200 f2.8ED, and the 70-210 f4-5.6D. I rarely use the 80-200 f2.8. It is just too heavy to carry around. The 70-210 f4-5.6D is very inconspicuous, light, and good optics for sideline high school football in daylight. I chose it over the f4 because it is easier to run around with it due to the size. For daylight, fast action I am using the center focus so sharpness is great. Pick your tool based on the circumstance.
  24. i was lucky enough to buy the nikon 70-210 f4 AF when it was produced for a few months. i love it - and since it is not as heavy as the 2.8's, my arm loves it too :)
  25. why nikon do not produce 70-200/F4 in affordable package
    With Nikon its always : : "Just because they can" , i think :)
    So if they can refuse to make this lens, they do refuse to make this lens.. :)
  26. Well that is true F4 shines because of less weight and less cost. It is easy to bacgpack. i am sure canon 70-200 F4/L get 5 star rating by any reviewer... Nikon used to produce better lenses that is why i was wondering why nikon can't (or Nikon as usual want to sell expensive gear)....
  27. About the tripod socket.
    I have the 70-210/4 and a 75-300/4.5-5.6. I only keep the 75-300 because it has a tripod socket, which I NEED for certain long exposure shots. If the 70-210/4 had a tripod socket I would not need the 75-300. Well the 75-300 does have a bit more reach.
  28. Nikon did produce such a lens at one time and it is a great lens I have one. the autofocus is quite fast and accurate for it's time and I use it more than my larger 70-200 2.8 AFS lens. You can still find them at camera shows and on ebay. they run about $150.00 but well worth it.
  29. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    A year and half ago, Nikon had no 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR nor any 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR. After those became reality in 2010, it seems quite likely that some 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR will soon follow to form the three f4 zoom set.
  30. Well love to get one if it comes....And i dont know why D700 upgrade is pending...
  31. I would buy a 70-210 or 80-200 f/4 Nikon lens, if Nikon ever made one again (and not in the G-series, either). I could get a f/2.8 version, but I am not interested in lugging around this heavier, bulkier, version (of course we know how well the f/2.8 performs, but I still do not want to carry it). A f/4 aperture would fit perfectly in my lens bag.
    This is the part of being a Nikon-user to accept not getting what one needs, for years, and years. Sometimes I joke to myself that being a Nikon user means "Nikon = Disappointment."

Share This Page