Nikon Introduces 80-400mm AF-S VR and 16MP, DX-Format Coolpix A

[Two23]

<p>This is one of the very few lenses I was hoping Nikon would come out with. I have the first 80-400mm VR. It's VERY useful! I use it for "general purpose" when needing a long lens. It's fairly compact and is what I take with me on trips, especially if traveling by air. It's very flexible. For something like photo safaris (which I will never do,) it will allow great flexibility when you aren't allowed to change your position. I have zero use for a 400mm f5.6 that isn't a zoom. I'd just buy a 500mm f4P instead. The AFS means faster focus, and I will be able to use it on a D5200, which is the perfect compact travel camera. It sounds like Nikon has fixed the problems with the original. I'll add that the nano coating should help me when I shoot my beloved trains--hopefully less ghosting from the strong headlights!</p>

<p>Now for "real life". I've already spent well over $3,000 this year on a Derogy lens vintage 1857, and some vintage Leica doo-dads and repairs. I also want to buy a D7100 in the near future, and a D5200. Together I'll still need to come up with $1,200 cash after selling my older Nikon cameras. At $2,700 (!), I would need to come up with $2,000 after selling my current 80-400mm VR. I would have just sold my 70-200mm f2.8 VR, but I have been shooting more & more weddings the past year and that lens is a MUST HAVE. So, for me Nikon's timing is very poor. The 80-400mm VR is the first Nikon lens I'v bought that I will lose serious money on. I think I'll hold off until later this year and see if the price comes down or there's a rebate. Patience is always rewarded! I think this new lens with a "D400" would be a killer though! Nikon is on the right track, finally. Maybe this will continue the rest of the year.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[wenhan_xue]

<p>In my mind, I never doubt that Nikon would roll out Coolpix A or similar. It just matters when it will be given the popularity of Fuji X100, and new comer Sony RX1. However, it seems to me that Nikon introduced A prematurely with it's choice of equivalent 28mm lens and 2.8 aperture. While I am happy with prime lens selection, I would like to have a fast lens at least 2 if not 1.4. I agree the price will drop after the camera hits the market because this maybe a test of the market from Nikon. Personally, I will hold myself to wait for its' 2nd generation though I welcome Coolpix A. My 2 cents.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Wouldn't it be really nice a 80-400mm/f4 AF-S VR? How big would it be?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

I saw the thread title and thought I'd missed my chance to offload my 150-500. Then I saw the price

and felt better. The 100-400 L Canon has always been pricey, but $2800 is silly money.

 

I noticed the old 80-400 was quite popular in the most recent Wildlife Photographer of the Year

competition - maybe that finally persuaded Nikon...

[jonb]

<blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't it be really nice a 80-400mm/f4 AF-S VR? How big would it be?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As big as the 200-400 f/4, I imagine.</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>The lens I have been waiting for - at a price point that is higher than I had feared! From the MTF, the optical performance appears to be in the same league as the 70-200/2.8 VRII - certainly better than using the 70-200 with a TC20EIII (and cheaper too). I also expect it to be better than the 300/4 with TC-14E/EII - which is my current 400/5.6 substitute. I have been toying with the idea of purchasing a Sigma 120-300/2.8 - but I would need to use it with a 1.4x almost all the time, which may deteriorate the optical performance too much to be worth the $3600 cost. In addition, being 2 pounds heavier and quite a bit more bulky than the new 80-400, it certainly won't be a lens to haul around for all occasions. As much as I would like to own a Nikon 200-400/4; it's price point is just to far out there.<br /> I will wait for some field tests before making a decision - but this lens could replace the 70-200/2.8 VR, the 80-400/4.5-5.6 AF-D VR, and the 300/4 AF-S in my bag. I may also throw out the venerable 70-180 Micro Zoom, as the Sigma 150/2.8 does a fine job for me. I might add the 70-200/4 AF-S VR as a light-weight alternative when traveling (though a 85/1.8G and the 150mm Sigma might suffice).</p>

<p>Wish Nikon had made the purchase of the tripod collar optional (like it is on the 70-200/4) as based on recent history, I doubt that Nikon will have gotten it right anyway. In any case, for use with Arca-Swiss-type clamps, I rather get a RRS replacement collar with the dovetail foot. <br /> Haven't seen any images that show the switch arrangement - wonder whether there is a focus limiter and what the limits are.<br /> Comparing the magnification with the old version, there appears to be some focus breathing at the minimum focus distance - as expected for an IF design.</p>

<p>So here it is - the long-expected mirrorless DX Nikon. Underwhelming and overpriced without a built-in optical viewfinder (and an overpriced attachable one) - that's all I have to say. If I was in the market for that kind of camera, I'd rather get the Fuji X100s. Maybe this is just a "teaser" and some body with interchangeable lenses will follow (with all those DX primes that Nikon never made for their DX DSLRs).</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe we'll see a 300mm/f4 AF-S with VR in the not-too-distant future.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Possible - even likely. At an expected $2K+ price point, I'd rather have the new 80-400 though (for the reasons Ilkka mentions above). Or a 70-200/2.8 VR with a TC-14EII. Since I would have to use a TC on the 300 most of the time, I'd expect optical quality to be only marginally different from the 80-400.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't it be really nice a 80-400mm/f4 AF-S VR? How big would it be?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bigger and more expensive than the 200-400/4 AF-S VR.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I just bought the current Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS (not the new USB version) from Roberts Camera in Illinois online for $2500 and after seeing this new price from Nikon, I'm very happy. I have the Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 HSM (AF-S) OS (VRII), bought over a year ago for $900 (which I'm selling) and in my opinion, it's a very viable alternate choice to the Nikon 80-400.</p>

[bms]

<p>Coolpix A - I get that some are enthusiastic, but IMO Nikon is just a little behind the other folks, mainly Fuji. I mean , they did not see this coming? Almost seems like they saw what a hit the X100 was and then went to the drawing board... I am guessing there might be a Coolpix B with 35 mm equivalent ala Sigma.... and hopefully Coolpix X with an Nikon F mount... ??? Liked my V1 and 10 mm for street shots, so I am tempted, but for $1,100... not so much.</p>

<p>What I do not understand is the pricing, i t seems not very competitive. Are they just hoping that there are tons of Nikon fans that have been waiting for a fixed lens APC camera from Nikon - if you really need such a camera, you probably bought a Sigma or a Fuji already. I think for $600-700 it would be a hit. Hopefully the price comes down.<br>

<br />---</p>

<p>As for the 80-400... cool. I was waiting for this, too, but I agree $2,700 is too steep.</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Everyone's complaining about the $2,700 price tag on the new 80-400. But did anyone notice that the 70-200 f2.8 VRII is now $2,400? If the latter is a fair price, then so is the former, surely.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>I have owned a couple small camera/big sensor pieces of equipment. A sigma DP1s, and a Fuji x100, so I am definitley interest ed in the genre. But $1200 for the body and an additional $450 for a purely optical viewfinder? I have been a Nikon guy for a lot of years but I'm not sure I'm ready to invest $1650 in a pocket sized D7000. I can pick up a used Sigma Dp2 Merrill for about $800, and a used Fuji X100 for about the same, and get the same (or better) IQ. If the price comes down drastically, maybe I'm in. But not yet, not at $1650.</p>

<p>But I do applaud Nikon for building the thing in the first place. I image that people (like me) who are used to paying Nikon prices will flock to it.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>'However, it seems to me that Nikon introduced A prematurely with it's choice of equivalent 28mm lens and 2.8 aperture. While I am happy with prime lens selection, I would like to have a fast lens at least 2 if not 1.4."<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think part of Nikon's calculation is to make the camera much smaller and lighter than the Fuji, which, despite its compact size, is not really "pocketable," while the Nikon can fit into a coat pocket. Thus to some degree, the gain in portability may make the Nikon more usable, even for "regular" folks on a night out, for example. The lens is retrackable is also critical for portability as you can easily take it out and put it in your pulse/pocket without having to worry about lens cap. It will be also easier to achieve sharp focus with a shorter lens at smaller aperture. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The Coolpix A is the first indication I've seen that Nikon finally groks the niche market for this type of camera. While the specs aren't perfect it looks good so far and the price seems about right for this niche.</p>

<p>Specifically its closest competitor was the Ricoh GR Digital IV, possibly the best tiny sensor digicam for the devoted candid, street and documentary photographer. For that niche of photographers the fixed, fast wide angle lens is not a problem. Cameras like this were never intended for folks who are more comfortable with long range sniping behind the detached comfort of a telephoto or zoom lens.</p>

<p>Fairly recently there were rumors that the next GRD would feature an APS sensor. I was doubtful about the practicality of that size sensor in a pocketable digicam. I'm happy to see Nikon proved me wrong. I'd still bet the Coolpix A does a ton of internal processing to correct for near-fisheye type barrel distortion.</p>

<p>The Fuji isn't even in the same class. While the optical viewfinder is appealing there are plenty of reports from experienced folks indicating the Fuji lags in AF performance, and has an excessively complex menu structure. The X100's built in flash is a feeble afterthought.</p>

<p>It wouldn't take much effort to beat Fuji's features and Nikon appears to have addressed at least some of those: better built-in flash and at least some compatibility with Nikon's external TTL flash system; Nikon's usual sensible ergonomics and, hopefully, the menu structure as well; some manual focus capability.</p>

<p>The real challenge to the Nikon Coolpix A is meeting the standards of a camera like the Ricoh GRD4 - AF and shutter response speed, outstanding built-in flash - with better overall IQ at high ISOs. This is a perfect time for such a camera, since reportedly Ricoh is having to switch sensors for their next model.</p>

<p>Nikon's press release didn't offer any specifications about the AF, so there's no way of knowing for now whether it matches the outstanding AF of the Nikon 1 (the V1 is so good in dim lighting I've disabled the AF assist lamp).</p>

<p>I'm also curious about whether Nikon has ventured beyond their usual staid comfort zone with JPEG effects. There is a market for creative internal JPEG effects, but you'd never know it from reading most SLR-centric Nikon forums.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Lex, the AF is not partially phase based, nor has many focusing points. From what I read, it's just a slow contrast based with no IS/VR and the 28mm f2.8 prime. I think I would choose a $600 RX100 over this, not to mention the x100s, Nex 6/7 or, say, an OMD...</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>Fairly recently there were rumors that the next GRD would feature an APS sensor. I was doubtful about the practicality of that size sensor in a pocketable digicam.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess there's no reason why a digital mirrorless can't be the same size, or smaller, than the smallest 35mm film rangefinder....except maybe battery size. Rollei 35 maybe? Makes APS or DX seem easy!</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Well, I went and looked at the MTF data. Impressive. The 80-400 sure has a professional price, and it looks like professional optics as well.</p>

<p> </p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>The Fuji isn't even in the same class. While the optical viewfinder is appealing there are plenty of reports from experienced folks indicating the Fuji lags in AF performance, and has an excessively complex menu structure. The X100's built in flash is a feeble afterthought.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The new X100s hasn't been properly reviewed yet, so we'll have to wait and see, but at least one (gushing) report now praises the AF and menus: http://www.petapixel.com/2013/03/02/david-hobby-purchased-the-first-fujifilm-x100s-to-be-sold-and-he-loves-it/<br>

The flash looks the same as before, small and too close to the lens axis, but of course there's a hotshoe - I'd much rather use a separate flash than a separate finder!</p>

[Two23]

<p>Maybe I'm looking at the new lens from the wrong angle. Instead of comparing it to the original 80-400mm VR and it's eBay value of ~$850, maybe I should be thinking of it as a half priced 200-400mm f4 VR with one less stop ISO? Odds are great I'll eventually buy it. I'm wanting to buy a D7100 first. Maybe by then the initial rush will be over and they'll lower the price a bit.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[dan_south]

I've got a serious case of NAS for the new 80-400. I'll pass on the prime lens compact, though.

[kgavin]

<p>$2700 for a variable aperture lens? This thing better have stellar image quality. That's $1000 more than the price of the current (now older) model. I'm with Shun...the 70-300 at around $570 is looking like a real bargain now.</p>

<p>Price aside, I would like to see what it's capable of doing on a D800. If it's good, it'll be great for wildlife shooting...and at a much lower price point than the 200-400.</p>

[harveysteeves]

<p>I remember, not too many years ago, when the 80-400 was over $2k. For some reason, people want to compare the price of a brand new lens with price-reduced copies of a lens designed over 10 years ago. Lets face reality, for the last 5 years, sales of that lens were breathing on fumes and past performance - and even then it wasn't that great. Its about versatility and hopefully this time, great performance and that is why it will sell. People out there are dropping $2k on D600s and $3k on D800s - $2700 on this lens? people are talking about $2300 for 135/f2s and $3000 for 15/f2.8s.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>Harvey - But when you compare it to a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 with pretty good reviews for $2500, and ad a 1.4x teleconverter for $250, making it up to 420mm f/4, the new 80-400 just does not compare in my opinion.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Let's at least compare prices on an equal footing: the new Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS is $3599; the discontinued version was offered a month or so ago with a rebate for $2900 and now costs $3199. The regular price for a new US market 80-400 (old version) before the $350 rebate was 1,846.95 (grey market is $1399). Nikon's 70-200/2.8 VRII is $2397 with currently a $300 rebate. (all prices taken today from adorama's website)</p>

[Two23]

<p>The price gap between the 70-300mm VR and the 200-400mm VR is pretty big, with nothing else in there except for the aging 300mm f4 AFS. We await unbiased reviews to see if image quality from the new lens is closer to the 70-300mm or the 200-400mm. If it turns out to be at least as good as the latter lens but only a stop slower, hmmmmm.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[bob_flood1]

<p>I agree completely that the specs for the new 80-400 make it a professional grade lens, and that's the problem.</p>

<p>A professional's photography MAKES money, but mine COSTS money. That makes the new lens' price a deal breaker. It doesn't matter whether I think the improvement in optical quality, focus speed and VR are worth the extra cost. The price has been moved out of the range most amateurs will pay, including me.</p>