Wishing for updated 80-200 lens or a ligher f4 version

[kerry_grim]

Can anyone see into a crystal ball and tell (well, speculate) if

Nikon will come out with an updated (AF-S) version of their very

popular 2.8 lens. I would eventually like to get a zoom as this is a

range I am missing. I do mostly landscapes and nature with film

cameras and mostly do not need the speed or weight of the current

f2.8 lens. I do not need a fast focus lens although if I had one I

would likely buy a fast focus film camera such as the F100 for my

kid?s track and field events. As good a lens and as popular as this

lens is, I would prefer a smaller and lighter f4. In fact, if I had

the luxury of starting over, I would start go with Canon just to get

ther excellent 70-200 f4 lens. Hopefully Nikon is listening?

[jbq]

I'll echo the feeling. Canon's 70-200/4L is (from first-hand experience) an outstanding lens, definitely one of the sharpest zooms in that range at any price, and far far above just about any consumer telephoto zoom. That lens was a major factor that made me sell my Nikon equipment to buy Canon gear.

[kng]

Nikon did have an AF-S version of their 80-200mm. It was discontinued and replaced with

the AF-S 70-200mm with IS, and now only the regular AF-D 80-200mm remains. If you look

around used, you might find the 80-200 in AF-S.

[mark_chappell]

I strongly second Jean-Baptiste's comments, but would add that if Canon (or Nikon) made a

70-200/4 of the same high quality WITH stabilization (IS, VR), it would be a world-beater.

[ravi_swamy]

The Nikon 70-200 lens is the replacement. It is AF-S and it has VR (vibration reduction) and a constant f2.8 aperture. There are two older 70-210 lenses that you can buy used. One is a constant f4 and the other is f4 to f5.6 I believe.

[ShunCheung]

Given the smaller digital sensor, instead of a 70 or 80-200, something like a 50-135 might make more sense. Incidentally, there will soon be a 55-200mm AF-S zoom; it is a cheaper and slower f5.6 at 200mm. Moreover, there are various 70-300mm/f5.6 zooms already. It is already a crowded zoom range.

[joseph_smith3]

I recommend you consider buyuing the Nikon 70-210 AF f4.0-5.6D lens. It is a push pull zoom, takes 62mm filters and produces excellent images. It does not have a tripod collar. I own it precisely for the needs Kerry has. You can pick one up used in the D version or the non D version. Price range is about $120--170. Joe Smith

[asaf_tzadok]

I will be the first to buy it. The Canon 70-200mm F4 is the biggest advantage that Canon has on Nikon. When someone consult with me about which system should he/she buy. The first reason to buy a Canon is this marvelous lens followed by the Canon 17-40 F4. Those 2 high quality lenses in the midrange price are hard to beat.

 

OTOH, a friend of mine is about to decide to go with Nikon for its 18-70 kit lens and D70 1K combo. While Canon sells a crappy kit lens(I had one - so I can tell it is crappy) with its tiny camera.

 

Asaf.

[stephenedwards]

I almost moved to Canon precisely because of the poor choice in Nikon telphoto zooms. I bought into the Nikon digital system and keep waiting for a lense worth buying that is lighter than my 80-200. I would love to have an AF-S 70-300, or a 70-200 f4. The old Nikon 70-210 lenses are good, but not AF-S and the push pull zoom does a great job at sucking dust into digital bodies.

 

 

 

My dream lense at the moment, would be an AF-S VR f2.8 50-135 (or maybe even 40-135). Please don't make it DX only and keep to 77mm filters. I don't really care about the price providing it is optically stunning!

[ilkka_nissila]

I wouldn't want a lens slower than f/2.8 (I have one, it is the 300/4). It just wouldn't be applicable to the kind of photography I do. Or at least I would need the f/2.8 anyway. To me, the fast aperture is of primary importance, and VR secondary. A 200/4 is hardly a hot thing, how do you shoot people indoors with it (in natural light, of course)?

 

Typical f/4 zooms have to be stopped down to get good performance and that just won't do IMHO. If you

[vivek iyer]

Contrary to the notion that one need to stop down to get good images are the 75-150mm f/3.5 E-Series zoom, the 50-135mm f/3.5 zoom, etc that Nikon was able to make and deliver. In the case of the 75-150mm zoom, it was an inexpensive lens. It is possible that they can do it.

 

Would they?

[ilkka_nissila]

The need to stop down is primarily in the 200 mm end; the 80-200 and 70-200 f/2.8 types are very good wide open in the short end. The 75-150/3.5 and 50-135/3.5 avoid this problem to some extent by not going that high, and at least my 75-150 was pretty poor (not sharp) at 150 mm, while it was a fine lens at the short and middle part of its range. I am not sure they could just redo a 50-135/3.5 AF-S with a similar optical design that they had in the original; was the lens IF? But anyway it could be made and it would be fairly compact.

`

However, in reality Nikon has fixed itself to the idea that consumers want maximally lightweight variable aperture lenses, and so there is no f/3.5 or f/4 lens. It's about internal politics I think. Some executive thinks that people want larger numbers in zoom range, not smaller.

[vivek iyer]

I have two samples of 75-150 and both are stunningly sharp at both ends (and in between).

[jbq]

Ilkka: photodo's tests [insert here standard disclaimer about photodo only measuring single-sample MTF curves] interestingly found the 70-200/4L at 200mm to be sharper wide open than either the 70-200/2.8L stopped down to f/4. At 70mm they're equally sharp at f/4. At 135mm however the f/2.8 lens pulls ahead. At all focal lengths the f/2.8L shows some big improvement between f/2.8 and f/4.

 

That matches my experience: my 70-200/4L wide open is equally very sharp at all focal lengths. Your sample may be different.

[jay_miao1]

My Nikon 75-150 3.5 E is extremely sharp thru all zoom range and the color rendition and details are marvelous. I'm so glad acquired it just very recently with only 65 dollars in mint condition.

[ilkka_nissila]

Ok, it maybe true that the EF 70-200/4 is really sharp wide open but Nikon has never made an equivalent lens in this respect. There was a 70-210/4 AF on which reports vary widely (from a poor to excellent lens) depending on who you ask. It didn't seem to sell well and so we now have two 2.8 versions and several f/4-5.6 models (70-300, 70-300 ED, 80-400 VR ED).

 

I am glad to hear that people are happy with their 50-135 and 75-150 lenses (I sold my E series lens because it was very sloppy and zoomed by itself); these lenses would be a good starting point for Nikon to do a compact high quality telephoto zoom primarily for DSLR users. I remember from his books that John Shaw used the 50-135 a lot at one time, so I'm sure it was very nice. I could never find a really clean copy of either lens so I gravitated towards primes and the f/2.8 zooms.

[ro_ro]

I think Nikon will release up to 9 lenses during the next months.

 

I guess there will be VR micros and cheap VR Zoom, like a VR 100-300 4.5/5.6

 

I hope we'll also see something like a 70-210 f4.

[kristopher.ian.whitemac.c]

Although I dont usually use a zoom in this focal range, I do have and use the 70-200 vr occasionally. It's really a great lens- fantastic color rendition, bokeh, and contrast. Pretty sharp, too.

ian