What about Nikkor 70-200 F4 ?

[asaf_tzadok]

I was wondering whether Nikon is planning to introduce a

professional 70-200 F4 (L equivalent). Nikon does not have any high

quality zoom lens in this range under 1kg. Why ?

 

I once talked to a guy that switched to Canon cos` he can`t deal

with that lack. It is also very odd that Nikon has not introduced

any successor to 80-200 F4.

 

Asaf.

[lahuasteca]

It seems a little strange (see a few posts down) that 2 questions about this lens would be

asked in one day. I have one of the originals - 70-210 AF, f4, bought it for about $200

here on photo.net. It is very, very sharp, but very, very slow AF. It seemed to work quite

well on my N6006, not so well on the N-80. I guess I wouldn't recommend it for a new

digital camera. I think the version I have came out in 1986, then was replaced by variable

zooms later. I, too, would very much like to see an updated version..

[abbilder]

Hello!

 

Instead of a 70-200 4 you can get a 70-180 macro, a 80-200 2.8 and a 70-200 AFS VR lens. Not bad at all, especially because such a 70-200 4 would get AFS and VR. With this, it would be as expensive as the 80-200 2.8.

 

And - the 80-200 2.8 is a realy small and liht lens, compared to the 70-20 VR and all the other 2.8-tele-zooms.

 

But, to be honest, if it would be possible to create a 70-200 4 with AFS and VR, my D70 and I would enjoy. I want a not as heavy and large as the 80-200 tele zoom as addition to the 18-70. To carry the 80-200 is not so much fun, especially the D70 does not fit so good to such heavy lenses as the F90x or other cameras with vertical grip do!

 

Best wishes,

Axel

 

Best wishes,

Axel

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"Instead of a 70-200 4 you can get a 70-180 macro, a

80-200 2.8 and a 70-200 AFS VR lens. Not bad at all, especially

because such a 70-200 4 would get AFS and VR." --Axel

Kuhlmann<br>

</em><br>

The f/2.8(s) are rather heavy so they are not the best choice for

hiking and the like. The 70~180 macro is slow as a general

purpose zoom at f/4.5~5.6 but its a damned good close-up

lens and if youd stop a 70~200/4.0 down to f/5.6, something

you dont need to do with the 70~180 the only thing you

loose is 20mm. The 70~180 micro is not slow when compared to a

105/4.0 or 105/2.8 micro when used at close distance. This is

because the lens throws away effective focal length instead of

effective aperture as you focus close.<br>

<br>

I think Nikon should get off its ass and build a AF 70~200/4.0

ED but apparently they dont.<br>

<br>

I own the AF 80~200/2.8D ED w/ collar and the AF 70~180/4.5~5.6D

ED Micro-Nikkor. I can recommend both. I can highly recommend the

70~180 micro. Depending on the intended use the AF-S 80~200/2.8D

ED-IF and AF-S 70~200/2.8G ED-IF VR might be a better choice than

the lessor 80~200/2.8. Maybe Nikon could just make an anti-gravity

device for the big f/2.8(s) ;-)<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[abbilder]

HI Dave!

 

You are right! I just wanted to say that Nikon offers more alternatives in this range than Canon does. If it would be lighter, smaller, less expensive, Have AFS and VR, I would want it at once.

 

But I fear that such a lens would not be much cheaper than the 80-200 2.8 and I can not imagine that Nikon offers several similar lenses.

 

But what about a 70-300 4-5.6 with VR as the Canon lenses?

 

best wishes,

Axel