New gear announced: Nikon 200/2.0 AF-S VR, TC-17EII Teleconv, Coolpix 4100

[aardvarko]

<a

href='http://www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04052801nikkor200.asp'>Nikkor

200 mm F2.0 AF-S VR lens, TC-17EII 1.7x

teleconverter</a><br><blockquote>"Nikon today announced the new 200 mm

F2.0 AF-S VR G lens, a very fast prime telephoto lens with Vibration

Reduction capability when the light gets low. This promises to be a

very interesting and very sharp lens which will provide photographers

with some great possibilities for shots with very nice soft bokeh. In

addition Nikon also announced a new teleconverter, the TC-17EII 1.7x.

Combined with the TC-17EII 1.7x teleconverter this lens becomes a 340

mm F3.3."</blockquote><br><br><a

href='http://www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04052802nikoncp4100.asp'>Nikon

Coolpix 4100</a><br><blockquote>"Nikon today announced a four

megapixel version of the Coolpix 3200, the new Coolpix 4100. The 4100

has a four megapixel CCD and a three times optical zoom lens, it has

14.5 MB of built-in flash storage and an SD memory card slot. Designed

to be as easy to use as possible the Coolpix 4100 has a

straightforward control layout, a new simplified Graphic User

Interface and a range of scene shooting modes designed to help even

the complete novice get results in different situations."</blockquote>

[ist_petit]

It's Queen of Nikkor.

[david_h._hartman]

NAS Hurts!

[ilkka_nissila]

4500 e, that's like 3000 USD considering the current lens exchange ratios ... not too bad.

[mark_scheuern]

Unfortunately, 4500 Euros is more like $5500 (one dollar = 0.815 Euros.) Looks like quite a lens.

[mark_scheuern]

Ah, but you're probably saying that it would be about that given both the exchange rate and the differences in lens prices in Europe and the US. That would help some but I imagine it'll still be more than $3000.

[umd]

Although new 200/2 is a full frame lens it seems to be aimed at digital sports/pj/wildlife shooters. On a subframe digital camera it is a very compact 300/2 lens with the bonus VR. This one possibly won't be a speciality item like the former 200/2 was. I too wish it were around $3000.

[ShunCheung]

4500 Euro is probably more like MSRP in Europe. Since Nikon gear is considerably cheaper in the US, "street price" will be closer to US$3000 at B&H, still expensive, though. I wonder what the intended applications are, perhaps news or concert type photography? For me, the 70-200mm/f2.8 VR is a lot more versatile, smaller and cheaper.

 

I wonder why Nikon produces this lens. IMO replacing their 300mm/f2.8, 400mm/f2.8, 500mm/f4 and 600mm/f4 by their respective VR versions should be of a much higher priority.

 

BTW, this is another G lens, but nobody is surprised by that any more.

[andre_noble3]

NAS or STPE?

 

The 200/2.0 looks more impressive than 99.99% of the pictures the avarage guy will take with it.

[manuel_weber]

At that price I am more excited with the new 1.7x TC than with new lens. The new teleconverter would be an excellent alternative in between the current 1.4x and 2.0x TCs with all the auto-focus capabilities.

 

1.5 stops lost and 1.7 magnification gained. Not bad at all!

Imagine for example, my 70-200/2.8 would be a 120-340/4.3 in my F100 and a 180-510/4.3 in my D100 with all auto-focus and VR capabilities.

 

Sounds good to me!

[manuel_weber]

Of course with all the reservations for tag price on the TC as well!!

 

If it is going to be more expensive than the current 1.4x and 2x TCs then I will stick with my Kenkos pro series Tcs!

[ivan_verschoote1]

Indeed, a 200/2 is not the lens anyone needs. Beside the speed factor, the depth of field is so shallow that most of the subjects aren't up to be taken at full f/2. Given the weight and price I really don't see the need for it. VR tele upgrades (mentioned here above) are for more interesting. Or may'be an affordable high tele (e.g. Minolta) like a 400/4.5 AFS VR. The 1.7Tc however seems interesting.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>I wonder why Nikon produces this lens. </I><P>Here are five reasons: sports

photographers, fashion photographers, nature/wildlife photographers, advertising/

commercial photographers, photojournalists. <P>Also Canon stopped making their

200mm f/1.8 L lens.

[ShunCheung]

As a serious nature/wildlife photographer myself, I can tell you that I have no interest in this lens at all, although obviously I can't speak for other wildlife photographers. 200mm is simply too short for wildlife work, and I don't need the bulk of an f2 for such a short focal length. Most serious wildlife photographer already travel with a big lens such as a 600mm/f4, 500mm/f4 or 200-400mm/f4. A 2nd big lens is very inconvenient, especially for air travel after Sept 11, 2001.

 

I see an f2 as an indoor, existing light lens for news, such as those Washington DC hearings where no flash is allowed. But in this digital age where higher ISO is very much usable, the necessity of a 200mm/f2 is kind of questionable. Canon clearly wasn't getting sufficient demand for their 200mm/f1.8.

[andre_noble3]

Nevertheless Shun, you just KNOW this is going to be a winner for Nikon due to the digital conversion to an equivalent 300 f2 thingy.

 

For example, have you seen what the Canon 200 f1.8 still goes for on Ebay?

[lars]

This IS in a way the VR update of the 300/2.8 (for DX format) with one f-stop gain added!

<p>

Regarding the press release stressing that the announced 1.7 TC "only " results in a 1.5 f-stop loss:

<p>

This is pretty darn close to what is expected when the physics of optics are considered as we are dealing with a base 2 log scale.

<p>

Remember D = f/N <=> N=f/D

(see <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial">http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial</a>)

<p>

To get the resulting lens speed one therefore simply mulitiples with the focal length extension. The exact f-stop midway between 2.8 and 4 is sqrt(2^3,5)=3,363585661 (pretty close to the 3.3 stated for the TC-17/200/2 combination @ <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04052801nikkor200.asp">dpreview.com</a>!

[hugh_t]

I'll keep my 70-200 F2.8 VR thank you very much, but I am glad Nikon keeps offering items like this even if I'm not buying this one. The TC sounds interesting but I'm pretty happing with the Kenko 1.4 Pro. This new lens make my 70-200 seem like a bargin.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think it's a very interesting lens for Nikon digital users. Nikon hasn't produced VR versions of 400/2.8, 500/4, and 600/4. Instead, they came up with a 200-400/4 VR which, given the current digital crop factor, should be useable in the same situations than the big prime supertele lenses of old. And the 200/2 is an obvious replacement for those who used the 300/2.8 with film bodies.

 

I can imagine a lot of applications in indoor theatre & concert photography, as well as sports photography with film and digital. I have the excellent 180/2.8 which is one of my favourite lenses and I don't have the money for a 200/2 nor much desire to carry it but I can imagine many newspapers buying the 200/2 for this type of coverage. Canon's 200/1.8 was an excellent lens and it was produced until those who needed it had already bought one. Now it's Nikon's turn to produce such a lens for their user base, except that it has been extended with VR. These are specialty lenses and stopping production has nothing to do with loss of interest in an item. It is cheaper to make a batch of 200 lenses of a kind in a short run than extending its manufacture over 10 years.

[eric friedemann]

"As a serious nature/wildlife photographer myself, I can tell you that I have no interest in this lens at all, although obviously I can't speak for other wildlife photographers. 200mm is simply too short for wildlife work, and I don't need the bulk of an f2 for such a short focal length."

 

But Shun, Nikon has, for all intents and purposes shifted its attention to DSLRs. If for no other reason, Nikon lacks Canon's production capacity and is under the gun to produce a DSLR to compete with the Canon Mark II, let alone the 1Ds. Besides that, I can tell you from working in a camera store, the bottom has fallen out of the 35mm film SLR market, while we practically have to fend off D70/Digital Rebel buyers with a cattle prod.

 

On Nikon DSLRs, right out of the box, the 200mm f/2.0 lens is the 35mm equiv. of a 300mm f/2.0. With the 1.7x TC, you've got a 510mm f/3.5 on an NDSLR. Given that the 500mm f/4.0 S lens currently sells for $7,200, I think you'll see wildlife and press photogs tripping over each other to get this 200mm/TC combo.

 

My only quarrel with the lens is that even though it is obviously geared toward DSLR shooters, it is a 35mm full frame lens. Nikon could have made the lens way smaller and less expensive in a DX configuration.

[ilkka_nissila]

While I recognize that photo.net wildlife photographers love very long FL lenses, a lot of top wildlife photography is done from hides. A recreational photographer might not be interested in such practice, but MANY professionals use hides on a regular basis. At dusk or dawn, photographing from a hide, I can imagine that the 200/2 would be loved by them, especially with the digital sensor size. Also, there are many places in the world where the sun does not shine like in California. In Finland, for a long time in the winter, light levels are really low, and fast apertures help there.

[ilkka_nissila]

Eric, the 200/2 lens would be smaller by a negligible amount if at all if the coverage circle were reduced to DX size. It's highly likely that the optics of this lens do cover more than 35 mm if the mechanics aren't in the way. There is no benefit in reducing the coverage circle of long lenses, except maybe for reduction of reflections. This would limit Nikons' future sensor options for eseentially no benefit.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Sheun there professional nature/wildlife photographers and there are

"serious amateur" nature & wildlife photographers.

 

Professional photographers/photojournalists are a very samll market, but they

are "market leaders" for the much larger amateur (either serious or silly)

photographer market. This has been Canon's strategy with the EOS 1Ds:

hook the pros with a digital camera that has a 24x36mm sensor and you'll

bring in the huge amateur market for the D30/D60/10D & Digital Rebel

cameras. Before the 1Ds Canon was having their lunch eaten by the Nikon

D1x. Both companies also did this with film cameras the argument goes: "if

Pete Turner & Jay Maisel use a Nikon F3 than by gosh a Nikon FM might just

let me get pictures as good as theirs." ) Believe or not this sales strategy

works very well.

[eric friedemann]

Ilkka, a 200mm f/2.0 DX lens wouldn't be significantly smaller than a full frame 35mm lens? Well, screw it, either way I'm saving my pennies for a $14,900 Compact Flash card:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04052601pretec12gb.asp

 

Its pricing the card $100 below $15K that makes this offering art. Perhaps they'll entice buyers with free shipping.

[ShunCheung]

You guys have never done much wildlife photography, have you? For small animals such as birds, long lenses are key because even a blind isn't going to bring you any closer to birds high up on a tree. In these days when I photograph birds with my D100, I still frequently have a 1.4x TC on my 500mm/f4; it simply opens up opportunities that I would have passed up with a film body. If you are talking about larger mammals, keeping a safe distance is critical. Either way, a 200mm lens is never going to cut it, and we really don't need one at f2. As David Middleton once told me, in nature photography, if the light so poor that you need to use ISO 400 film, or in this case f2, it is no longer worthwhile to take the picture.

 

Today a lot of wildlife photographers are switching to Canon to take advantage of long IS lenses, which Canon introduced in late 1999. If Nikon's strategy is indeed to hook the pros so that the amateurs will follow, you have to wonder why there is still no 300mm/f2.8 VR and 500mm/f4 VR.

[eric friedemann]

"You guys have never done much wildlife photography, have you?"

 

I beg to differ.<div></div>