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

[studio460]

<p>I agree, the Coolpix A falls short of its competitors' offerings, and at a premium price, to boot. However, I'm just glad Nikon chose to make an APS-C compact at all. If only it had some kind of built-in CLS, I'd be running to get one.</p>

<p>If it doesn't get too bulky, I'd like to try sliding a PocketWizard TT1 into its hotshoe to fire my off-camera Nikon Speedlights. Or, what I may end up doing (should I decide to get one), is to simply run a hardwired PC cable from its hotshoe (using an AS-15) to one of my Speedlights for some stealthy off-camera flash action.</p>

[kgavin]

<p>Still, I just couldn't bring myself to spend nearly $3K on a variable aperture lens. At that price and at variable aperture, it should perform better than the 70-200 VR II. Something much more reasonable would be a comparative price delta of the older 80-400 lens and the older 70-200 VR. In the case of the older lenses, the 80-400 was cheaper than the 70-200 ($1800 versus $2000). This new lens is more than the current normal price of the 70-200 VR II. If this new lens were $2100 or at price parity with the newer 70-200, then that would be more reasonable in my opinion. But as others have said, this isn't a lens for everybody. It fits in a niche segment, and those that need it will spend the $2700 for it.</p>

<p>When/if Nikon releases a new 300 f/4 or a 135 f/2 (two Nikon lenses that I'd really like to have), I shudder to think what those prices are going to be...$2100 and $2500 respectively? Ouch!</p>

[bms]

<p>Just sent to <a href="http://camerasize.com/compare/#445,289">camerasize.com</a> and compared to Coolpix A to my OM-D, and the Nikon V1. Darn it is small.... pretty much the same size as the NEX-3N without the lens....</p>

[studio460]

<p>I just compared it to my Samsung NX200 (with the 16mm f/2.4 lens). It's virtually the same size! If the Coolpix A had been around at the time I bought the Samsung ILC, I would've chosen the Nikon in retrospect. I'm not crazy about the image quality of the Samsung NX200's 20MP APS-C sensor. They may make great washers, dryers, and flat-screen TVs, but I think their sensor-making skills still need work.</p>

[bms]

<blockquote>

<p>I just compared it to my Samsung NX200</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Didn't even think of that one, Ralph.</p>

<p>It is interesting that this is basically a digital reincarnation of the Nikon 28Ti, which is 118 x 6 8x 36mm and weighs 315 g, vs 111 x 64 x 40 mm and 299 g, down to color choice - and the fact that Nikon is kind of late to the party. I bet a 35mm lens equivalent is next (hopefully f2.0)</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>With respect to the Coolpix A, I'm going to land on the disappointed side of the fence. I don't think Nikon is cool for releasing this at all. With all of the other mirrorless fixed and interchangeable competitors here, it definitely looks like an also-ran. I'd have hoped for at least the Nikon 1's autofocus system. Shun takes a potshot at the Sony RX-1, but that camera is full frame, AND has a stop faster lens which had Zeiss' input on its design. This definitely reminds me of the Nikon V1 and V2 pricing hilariousness. It looks like a nice camera, but I don't think it's worth what the D7100 costs, given its feature set and lens. Nikon has never really been competitive with their Coolpix line, with even the P7000 and P7100 being a letdown when I rented them to test against the competition (the only saving grace was that they used my SB600's and SB800 without issue). But, it looks like this new Coolpix A is getting passed the torch of Nikon's compacts being a letdown. The only difference is when they invariably have a fire sale on this camera, then unlike my reluctant passes on permanently adding a V1 or J1 to my arsenal, I'll probably pick one of these up, justifying the purchase to the rest of my household as, "You know your iphone? This is going to be the same perspective, but with the image quality of my other cameras." Which will probably lead to me also picking up a J3 on clearance, as it also uses the same battery, and I've been itching to pick one up to use with the Tamron 70-300mm VC as an extreme wildlife setup.</p>

<p>With respect to the 80-400mm, Kenneth, get that variable aperture snobbery out of your head. Nikon could, of course, have made the lens have a constant f/5.6 aperture, but that would have been an artificial limitation. Go look at Canon's L lineup for example; there are many variable aperture lenses. As long as the image quality, build quality, and features are up to snuff, then as mentioned earlier in this thread, being variable aperture makes the lens possible to carry without a pack mule. The price is a little on the high side for what I would have liked (but what Nikon zoom hasn't been lately?), but I can definitely see myself grabbing this in the future, especially if it's during one of Adorama's or B&H's package deals with the D7100, perhaps next Black Friday. And if you want a constant aperture lens, there is the still-relevant 200-400mm f/4; go buy and be happy. It's only 2.5 times more expensive than this new 80-400mm, while offering less range on the long end, no more reach, with only double the weight. And why should the 80-400mm perform "better than the 70-200 VR II?" The 80-400 has a cost 12% higher than the 70-200mm II, while giving both double the reach AND a much healthier zoom range (5x vs less than 3x), plus the new 70-200mm has focus breathing at the long end of its range. I don't know what dimension you're from, but in this one, we have these pesky laws of physics that bind our engineering decisions.</p>

[kgavin]

<blockquote>

<p>With respect to the 80-400mm, Kenneth, get that variable aperture snobbery out of your head.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's less about variable aperture snobbery and more about the flat out price of the product, which is a bit ridiculous. I've used several variable aperture lenses, and think the DX 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is one of Nikon's best lenses (my personal favorite actually...price-performance speaking), fixed or variable aperture, FX or DX sensor style.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know what dimension you're from, but in this one, we have these pesky laws of physics that bind our engineering decisions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seriously, insults are not necessary...and I majored in electrical engineering, so I know quite a bit about scientific restraints. But I also have a grad degree in business, which tells me this pricing (at least on the surface) is way off short of some pretty stellar performance. Time and testing will tell. But as I said before, old 80-400 versus old 70-200 was about $1800 and $2000, versus current 80-400 versus current 70-200, which is $2700 and $2400, tells me something in the milk isn't clean.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The price is a little on the high side for what I would have liked (but what Nikon zoom hasn't been lately?), but I can definitely see myself grabbing this in the future, especially if it's during one of Adorama's or B&H's package deals with the D7100, perhaps next Black Friday.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since you don't plan on spending the full $2700, you obviously don't think this price is worth it either.<br /> <br /> AGAIN, I am not at all against variable aperture lenses. I have a few that I use all of the time. My comment was PRICING-based. Read carefully next time.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Prices are the easiest item to change. If the new 80-400 does not sell very well at $2700, its price will come down to a more reasonable level. Optical quality, construction, etc. are much harder to change; essentially you need to redesign the thing. If you believe $2700 is too high, I would wait, perhaps a year or two. Don't be a pioneer and get it early or you would lock yourself into a high price. OTOH, if you think it is a good deal @ $2700 ....</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Undoubtedly, the price for the 80-400 is high. When speculating about this particular lens update in the past, I had feared that the price would go as high as $2500 and hoped that it would be around $2200. I should have known better since in the recent past, Nikon always has surpassed my price guesses by a healthy margin. $1900 for a 24-70/2.8 without VR - get real. $2400 for a 70-200/2.8 VRII - does that seem like a reasonable price? Granted, some of this is due to the weak Yen - but it appears that what was $1,000 10 years or so ago now is $2000. When I purchased my 80-200/2.8 some 9 years ago, it appeared to be at the verge of being discontinued with a $670; it is still being produced today and costs almost twice as much today. AF-S, VR, and nano-coating have driven the prices up and up.<br>

When comparing the prices of the old 80-400 with those of contemporary 70/80-200 lenses, one needs to keep in mind that the 80-400 (if memory serves) always cost more than the 80-200/2.8 (two-ring), and more than the 80-200/2.8 AF-S and was about at par with the 70-200/2.8 VR. <br>

<br />Nikon seems to have pushed the update higher in terms of optical quality - apparently at the level of the 70-200/2.8 VRII and /4 VR lenses; more a "low-cost" alternative to the much higher priced 200-400/4 than as an 5-times more expensive alternative to the consumer-grade 70-300 VR (even the 70-200/4 costs almost 3x as much).<br>

<br />I'm with Shun, at $2700 this doesn't feel right - a rebate or a permanent price decrease (make that Nikon collar optional, for example) might push this into a more acceptable price range. Had this been introduced at, let's say $2200, many would still be complaining; they might stop and buy if the price gets reduced some $500 in 6 months or so because all of a sudden the lens feels like a "bargain".</p>

<p>I'm reserving judgement until the first field test reports etc are in - and maybe even until I could fire a few tests shots myself. As already stated, the MTF data give me a lot of hope that this lens is exactly what I've been waiting for. It will have certain limitations in its use - but so does any of the alternatives. For what I shoot, I would never spend $2400 on a 70-200/2.8 - but the same amount on a high-quality 80-400 might well be worth it.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Granted, some of this is due to the weak Yen</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe more than we'd expect.... Nikon isn't the only one ramping up prices:</p>

<ul>

<li>24-70 f/2.8 for $1900 a lot? Canon's revamped version: $<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html">2299</a>.</li>

<li>$2400 for a 70-200 f/2.8.... yep: $<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html">2499 </a>for the competitor too.</li>

<li>How about <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898652-USA/Canon_6313b002_EF_24_70mm_f_4_0L_IS.html">this pricing</a> for a f/4 zoom?</li>

<li>Their new superteles draw a pretty picture too (pricewise, though probably also when mounted on a camera), or their new primes....</li>

</ul>

<p><em>(note to any Canon user: this is not to imply any of these lenses are bad, or overpriced. This is just to show that Nikon's pricing isn't vastly out of line)</em><br>

Not that I think $2700 is a sound price for the 80-400VR, I still do not believe it is. But if the 2 largest Japanese camera makers bump up their prices significantly, it's either because they can or because they have too. As far as I recall, Canon was always pretty good in undercutting the Nikon prices, and they completely stopped doing that. They have numerous lenses now that are quite a lot more expensive. Their marketshare is not such a commending lead that they can claim victory and go to sleep - so giving up a competitive edge...? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.<br>

My guess: it's not because they can, it's because they have to. And the current economic state is the most likely explanation for that.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Remember this thread from about a year ago? http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aC7r</p>

<p>I think the D800 was priced too low at $3000. As a result, there was pretty serious shortage for a few months, and some scalpers were trying to flip them for a few hundred dollar profit. Prices are eventually determined by supply and demand. I think Nikon is smart this time to make that few extra hundred dollars, rather than let the scalpers make that profit. Let whoever is willing to pay $2700 for the 80-400 to get theirs first, and there won't be any major shortage. Gradually move the price down after a few months as demand drops, perhaps via various rebates.</p>

<p>I could well be wrong, but I think maybe a 20% price drop to closer to $2000 would be more reasonable, perhaps after a year or two.</p>

<p>We have also seen some very serious price drops too. The V1 lost like half of its value after barely a year. That looks kind of unhealthy.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The new 80-400 Nikkor costs about the same as the 70-300L and 400/5.6L combined. Their MTFs are reasonably close to each other, as are the maximum apertures, the focal range covered, and features (except that the 400/5.6 prime doesn't have IS, so here the Nikon lens has a practical edge if the photographer doesn't use a tripod). Thus the pricing of the new Nikkor closely follows the competitor's products of similar utility and quality. The 100-400L is less expensive but its MTF is not as good in areas outside of the very center of the frame. (Of course, this analysis assumes the quality suggested by the manufacturer's published MTF materializes in the lenses that come out of the production line and that there are no glitches.)</p>

<p>I too believe the initial price will follow with something like a 10% reduction rather quickly. This is a good pricing strategy. Those who are really eager to have one (you know who you are!) and have the money will get the lens first (a part of the extra money goes to Nikon's financial well being so both Nikon and we as its customers benefit; some of it will benefit the reseller, and some tax will be collected to pay for infrastructure, education, day care etc.). Someone always will be first to get a new lens; nothing you can do about that; at least this way they pay extra to be that person. Then there is a price reduction and a few more people get their copies. What is wrong with that? It seems like the whole internet goes nuts every time the pricing of a new high end Nikkor or Canon lens is announced. After a little while people find what the new lens is good for and accept its price as normal.</p>

 

[kgavin]

<p>Great points Shun and Ilkka. I also thought the D800 was priced kind of low when it came out. Nikon easily could have priced it around $3500 for the non-E version and still made out well because of the novelty of 36MP. That skim pricing dynamic is something that all companies tend to do (clothing, electronics, appliances, furniture). High prices in the beginning, and then gradually decrease prices as demand drops in an effort to keep demand constant. Again, I go back to the comparison in price to the 70-200 - the older versions had the 80-400 cheaper; the newer versions have the 70-200 cheaper. There are some parameters at play that none of us know about (production costs, etc.), but in the pricing of technology-based products this price difference from Gen X products to Gen X+1 products communicates to the market that something else (i.e., higher relative quality, increased relative functionality, etc....the key word here is relative) is at play, because without some type of relative difference this is equal to putting one product in a different class from one generation to the next. Simply on its surface that just seems strange.</p>

<p>We'll see what happens as time passes.</p>

[edwardchen]

<p>Finally! The lens I have been waiting for. I hope the optical quality meet my expectation. I have been disappointed with cheaper sigma, tamron, and old 80-400 version. With the price that high, I expect much more: faster AF and superb optical quality from shortest to longest focal length.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I think that the current Nikon (and Canon) pricing policies for lenses, for whatever reason, is going to drive cost conscious photographers to the indy lens makers.</p>

<p>Sigma, in particular, is producing high quality glass, in both prime and zoom, at a considerably lower price. Much of the IQ variation within a model seems to have gone, whilst Nikon's has slowly risen, they are probably at about the same point currently.</p>

<p>The old <strong>f4</strong> 'habit' for new Nikon lenses seems to have sadly gone away.....:-(</p>

<p>Now, if Nikon took on the the older Sigma 100-300 f4 HSM, at a reasonable price, they'd sell lots.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Shun, Ilkka, good points. Indeed sounds like a smart strategy to control first wave with bad availability while production and stock ramps up. Did not think about that :-)</p>

[jack flannery]

<p>$450 for the optical viewfinder??? The Coolpix A would be great for $600, including the viewfinder. Which is about what I will be paying for one 6 months from now.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i want to be excited about the Coolpix A, which looks like essentially a compact d7000 with less features and a fixed lens, but i'm with Leslie on this one: the AF performance for me would be the make-or-break feature, though a faster lens, say, 1.8, would be nice. i'm not sure what nikon's deal is: they wait for the market to fill up with interesting, innovative compacts, then release one that's about 1 1/2 generations behind the curve. for street shooting and compact PJ work, i think i'd still rather have a GRIV, and RX-100 or an OMD. for the price, i cant see this competing with the x100 all that well. if the price drops to $600, i might be more interested.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i want to be excited about the Coolpix A, which looks like essentially a compact d7000 with less features and a fixed lens, but i'm with Leslie on this one: the AF performance for me would be the make-or-break feature, though a faster lens, say, 1.8, would be nice. i'm not sure what nikon's deal is: they wait for the market to fill up with interesting, innovative compacts, then release one that's about 1 1/2 generations behind the curve. for street shooting and compact PJ work, i think i'd still rather have a GRIV, an RX-100 or an OMD. for the price, i cant see this competing with the x100 all that well. if the price drops to $600, i might be more interested.</p>

[steven_p]

<p>I've done some fairly close-up shots with the "old" 80-400 at 400mm. Locked own properly, (I have the RRS collar) it's not all that soft.<br /><br />With long shots……, birds, and such there is generally a lot of distance, atmospheric haze and dust which adds to the softening of images. (Even the AF-S version isn't going to help much focusing through a myriad of tree branches of different distances.)<br /><br />While I'm sure that the new version is matched for the higher MP camera bodies, my guess is that your going to have a similar ratio of softness at the long end. With 36mp, you pretty much need a bag of exotics.<br /><br />Personally, carrying a sack worth of $5k is somewhat scary these days. With if/all the new stuff we are on both sides of the $10K mark. My cutoff, price point, what I have or carry is in nondisclosure for online discussion.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>sorry, double post.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>With long shots……, birds, and such there is generally a lot of distance, atmospheric haze and dust which adds to the softening of images. (Even the AF-S version isn't going to help much focusing through a myriad of tree branches of different distances.)</em></p>

<p>Effects of the atmosphere (MTF_atm), the sensor MTF, and lens MTF are cumulative, i.e. MTF_system = MTF_atm*MTF_lens*MTF_sensor. Improvement in any of these components generally produces a visible improvement in image quality (except in the unusual circumstances where the atmospheric degradation is so strong that the subject only contains low frequency detail that each lens and camera system can render equally well). By using the best lens and best sensor one can often get good enough image quality in conditions where lesser lens and sensor would not produce acceptable results.</p>

<p>I suppose if one is photographing birds above water in certain locations in conditions when there is a lot of evaporation, it might seem that long distance photography using a long lens is hopeless, but these conditions are not universal.</p>

<p><em>(Even the AF-S version isn't going to help much focusing through a myriad of tree branches of different distances.)</em><br>

<em><br /></em>A good vantage point is probably the most important factor contributing to the quality of images obtained.<br>

<br /><em>While I'm sure that the new version is matched for the higher MP camera bodies, my guess is that your going to have a similar ratio of softness at the long end.</em></p>

<p>The new 80-400 appears to be optimized to give its best (or close to its best) performance at the 400mm end (see the MTF), which is also the case with the latest 70-200/2.8 II and 70-200/4 designs; Nikon finally realized that the longest setting of a telezoom is the one that is used the most frequently, and the image may also be often cropped at that focal length. It also seems (from the provided MTF) that the 400mm focal length wide open is entirely useable, which if it turns out true in practice, makes the lens quite attractive. If the lens had to be stopped down to f/8 to get clear images at 400mm, it would really limit the situations where it can be applied successfully.</p>

<p><em>With 36mp, you pretty much need a bag of exotics.</em></p>

<p>I find pretty much the opposite to be true. 36MP makes every lens produce crispier, more detailed images than the same lens does on a lower pixel count camera. Combinations that I didn't consider good enough with 12MP when assessing the final print quality (such as 70-200II+1.4X at f/5.6) produce nice images on D800; the threshold of "good enough" has been exceeded thanks to improvements in sensor MTF. I think a lot of people are lead to think that high pixel count cameras require exotic lenses because they look at the images at 100% on the monitor instead of making prints. In a print of given size, the improvement from the high pixel count is quite evident even at modest print sizes. </p>

<p><em>Personally, carrying a sack worth of $5k is somewhat scary these days.</em></p>

<p>Insurance can be a relatively inexpensive way of reducing stress due to potential theft, damage due to dropping the lens in the field etc. I don't worry about these things. Nor has anyone tried to grab my bag. Once I accidentally left one backpack compartment open and quickly someone from the crowd pointed it out to me (this was in London) instead of taking advantage of the opportunity.</p>

 

[john_hinkey]

<p>I've found that the 36MP of my D800 produces nicer looking/sharper images when appropriately sharpened and down-sampled to ~12MP than my D700 could at 12MP native. As Illkka says, lenses that can't use all of those 36MP do end up looking better in the end, though after some post processing.<br>

I would consider the new 80-400, but it would have to be much better than my 400/5.6 ED AI or my 70-200/2.8 + TC20EIII or 70-200/4 + TC20EIII to justify the cost. <br>

I'll have to rent one when they become available locally.</p>

[deepark243]

<p>I have had a love hate relationship with my 80-400 VR. I'm wondering if the new one eliminates the "hunting"on the AF, a smoother manual focus and having the manual/auto ring from binding. I just can't see myself buying an over priced one. Don't take me wrong I love my old one which has not depreciated much over the years.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"</em><em> the new one eliminates the "hunting"on the AF"</em> Have you tried the focus limit switch? I have never had this issue when using the focus limit switch.</p>