Nikon Introduces 24-70mm/f2.8 E AF-S with VR, 200-500mm/f5.6 E and 24mm/f1.8 AF-S

[ShunCheung]

<p>Daniel, while admittedly I don't necessarily agree with you very often in general, I do share some of the same sentiment in your 1:20pm post above.</p>

<p>But I have gone one step further. I pre-ordered a 200-500mm/f5.6 immediately and hopefully I'll receive one of the earliest ones, knowing that getting an early sample comes with its share of risks. I still vividly remember Dan Brown's frustration dealing with the 300mm/f4 PF's VR issue earlier this year: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dBRT</p>

<p>Hopefully this lens checks out and I'll have opportunities to capture thousands of images with it in September and October. If not, I still have my 80-400mm AF-S VR and other lenses to get the job done.</p>

<p>And I am well aware that a $1400 200-500mm/f5.6 is definitely not going to be in the same league as a 200-400mm/f4 or 500mm/f4 that cost 5, 6, or even 7 times as much. It probably won't be as excellent as the 80-400mm AF-S VR that costs about $1000 more. Its price is essentially in the "too good to be true" category. When I first heard the price from Nikon USA, I immediately verified with them that they indeed meant $1400 instead of $14,000. I would imagine that there has to be a catch somewhere.</p>

[chuck]

Regarding getting something which might be broadly comparable to this 500mm lens, has anyone used TC-20E III with

70-200 VR II?

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>has anyone used TC-20E III with 70-200 VR II</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have just to check it out, and I have no plan to use that combo again: <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YPsY&sa=U&ved=0CAQQFjAAahUKEwjbrIbcmpXHAhXUK4gKHQIqBbo&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHMTLzb2cK14xVH0H3D4sTxQXLDcQ" target="_top" data-ctorig="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YPsY" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YPsY&sa=U&ved=0CAQQFjAAahUKEwjbrIbcmpXHAhXUK4gKHQIqBbo&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHMTLzb2cK14xVH0H3D4sTxQXLDcQ">New 70-200 f/2.8G ED VRII for my <strong>D7000</strong>, a good marriage?</a><br>

<br>

I should point out that when you mount a TC onto a zoom, typically the quality will improve a lot if you stop down, even by just one stop. However, we are starting from 200mm, f2.8. A 2x TC makes it a 400mm, f5.6. Stopping down will give me a usable 400mm f8. That is just way too slow for a long tele, not to mention that those two components combined will cost you close to $3000. The economics simply makes no sense.

</P>

<P>

Chuck, see all the good stuff you missed in the last decade? :-)</p>

[KyleE]

<p>I am very intrigued by the 200-500mm myself. Though it does feel like a too good to be true scenario. Right now I am using a 55-300mm AF-S for wildlife and I was going to upgrade to the sigma 150-600mm Sport though I was reluctant as that would leave me with no "walkaround" zoom lens. For not too much more than the 150-600mm Sigma Sport costs I can pick up the 70-200mm f4 Nikon and the 200-500mm f5.6 Nikon. That might be a good kit to cover my basis. I will go with the latter if the 200-500mm Nikon stacks up well against the 150-600 Sport Sigma which I have heard good things about.</p>

<p>Currently shooting on a D7000. </p>

[5711]

<p>no, my world of photography is not everyone elses<br>

but i do not complain.</p>

<p>i am also a graffiti artist and i carry 50 kilograms on my back just for fun...<br>

my photobackpack weights about 10-15 kilos..depending on what i am going to do.<br>

i bring equipment to places if i want that shot.</p>

<p>so do all my friends who make a living with fine art b&w film photography<br>

no one bitches about weight</p>

<p>no one</p>

<p>only on forums.</p>

<p>the flicker in your eyes caused by exhaustion...<br>

just to get away with a photo that did not exist when you started into your day should be the goal<br>

this and nothing else</p>

<p>i am sure the canon forums are full of complaints about the new 24-70 and how ridiculous the arrest switch for the<br>

zoom that only works at 24 mm, is...<br>

the filter size<br>

the prize</p>

<p>i got it on my 1dx.<br>

i hated it when i first got it.<br>

produces awesome photos</p>

<p>case closed</p>

<p>all the wishlists of whatever might have been awesome about something and where it should be<br>

miss just one point</p>

<p>seriously<br>

what was the first camera you took a shot with you were proud of</p>

<p>i am sure there was a lot of complaing going on back then..now was it.</p>

<p>make the best of what you get<br>

quit your bitching, go take photos</p>

<p>..<br>

or hunt for rainbows and ponies.</p>

<p>i am srsly disgusted by what i read here..<br>

its a disgrace to photography</p>

<p>i help alot on these forums<br>

like the dude that asked about the greyed out menu of the inteval shooting mode.<br>

you didnt know it..the postings where shit<br>

and here are all the experts and knowit alls.<br>

dafuq</p>

<p>it makes me wanna puke.</p>

<p> </p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>[summary of complaint:] ...i am srsly disgusted by what i read here... its a disgrace to photography...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Norbert, I have no idea what you are referring to. Will you please be specific? Is every post disgusting to you? if not, what specifically disgusts you? Think we need some clarification. :)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, in which way I have "attacked" you? Did I describe you in nasty words? You have been making highly biased comments that only favor Fuji and Sigma, and that is precisely I am pointing out: the merit of your comments.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, i quoted you apologizing for getting "personal," so please dont try to deny you crossed a line there. Your tone wasnt appropriate for a moderator, and you cannot claim to be objective in your highly subjective and incorrect statements. In essence, you are blaming me for pointing out the obvious, which is that Nikon hasnt been as innovative as either of those competitors in a number of key areas. That's just a fact. Apparently, that upset you. If anything, nikon should thank sigma for producing lenses they won't in F-mount and giving consumers a reason to hold the line. In any event, you can defend Nikon all you want, but every time you say something ridiculous, you lose credibility. <br>

<br>

For example, you say, "We have been stating over and over, on this very thread as well as previous threads, that Canon and Nikon's emphasis have shifted to FX, since 2008 or so." While it is true that both companies probably have bigger profit margins on FX gear, APS-C sells far more units. So, i dont really see how that comment justifies lack of interest in a viable market segment on Nikon's part. We cant say the same about Canon, because they do offer at least one professional APS-C camera. And if we're looking at Nikon's FX offerings, other than the recent D750 and the 800 series, they have been underwhelming and beset with either QC or bad UI issues. i might have bought a Df had it had a better AF system; this might have ameliorated my need to replace my D300s. the logic of paying more for a camera with missing features isn't a solid one.<br>

<br>

But then, in your own words, you say, "I think Nikon still has prosumer DX in mind," which contradicts at least two of your earlier statements. and you conveniently overlook the fact that sigma, tamron, fuji and panasonic all offer stabilized 24-70 equivalents for APS-C cameras. that is a curiously odd omission, since it's so obvious. <br>

<br>

As a moderator, i really think you can do better than getting mad at people because they don't agree with you. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, I had some back problems (and neck and knee) when I was first using the 70-200/2.8 a lot (basically over the weekends I was using it all the time for over a year) and I didn't want to hang it from the body so I always supported its weight which probably was what lead to the problems. I also think the back issue was due to an unsuitable mattress that I had at first when I moved into the US, until I bought a different one. The back issues disappeared when I stopped using the 70-200. Later on I have bought heavier lenses such as the 200/2 and although that again caused some strain initially, over the years it has become a non issue. I started to practice tai chi actually and that builds static muscle strength evenly across the body and I believe that really helped. I think finding some exercise method which you can do regularly and which concentrates on static muscle strength can really be helpful. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tai chi is great. i agree exercise is good, but in my case, i slipped a disc while covering Occupy protests in Oakland and carrying around a D3s+ 24-70+70-200 is a messenger bag for hours at a time over varying terrain. Eventually i switched to a backpack for the heavy lenses, and a domke bag for my prime kit. That helps a bit, and i've been doing more stretching, but i am definitely conscious of weight these days.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the 24-70 would not come into my mind for indoor concerts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's perfect, actually, for photo pit assignments. when you can only shoot the first 3 songs of a set, lens-changing is often not something you want to do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> By the way I think the D3s is not really necessary for night club shooting; I believe today the D750 would work better with its more low-light sensitive AF and it is a much lighter camera than the D3s is. Also the f/1.8 primes would be much lighter weight on your hands while shooting than the f/2.8 zooms and yet give almost as much light as the f/1.4 primes do (at much greater weight). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, it's still a good body, although i would prefer more resolution for cropping. im considering a d750 but havent pulled the trigger yet. in the meantime, i have 35/50/85 1.4 primes, might add a 20/1.8 or 24/1.8. the D3s is great for shooting with big lenses in action situations, but not the most inobtrusive thing to be moving through a packed crowd.<br>

</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, i quoted you apologizing for getting "personal," so please dont try to deny you crossed a line there. Your tone wasnt appropriate for a moderator, and you cannot claim to be objective in your highly subjective and incorrect statements.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, I mentioned personal precisely because I found you to be highly biased and not at all objective, and any discussion/debate with you is getting frustrating. On one hand you complain about Nikon neglecting high-end APS-C. However, when Sony offers many camera options for both full-35mm-frame and APS-C in both mirror and mirrorless, you dismissed their approach as "carpet bombing," in a thread with the interesting subject: <a href="/digital-camera-forum/00dMxg">Fuji bias?</a></p>

<p>However, the word "attack" was added by you. And you are still unable to identify exactly how I "attacked" you. If the best complaint you can come up with is that you don't like my tone, you are entitled to your opinions, but that is not an "attack."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But then, in your own words, you say, "I think Nikon still has prosumer DX in mind," which contradicts at least two of your earlier statements. and you conveniently overlook the fact that sigma, tamron, fuji and panasonic all offer stabilized 24-70 <strong>equivalents</strong> for APS-C cameras. that is a curiously odd omission, since it's so obvious.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First of all, pro is high end. Prosumer is not. I said Nikon is not interested in high-end DX DSLRs, but they indeed added a prosumer DX E lens last month, and I think it is the prelude that Nikon will enter the prosumer DX mirrorless market, as one of the objectives for producing E lenses is preparing for mirrorless bodies that have no mechanical aperture lever. Where is the contradiction?</p>

<p>And please, no "equivalent." We were talking about 24-70mm/f2.8 for FX, which is a big lens to begin with. Adding optical image stabilization will make a big lens even bigger, which is exactly one of the things you are complaining about here. And that is certainly a factor people should consider. If you read my opening post, I pointed out that the new VR version is bigger with 82mm filter thread, heavier, and very expensive. Those are some of the down sides for the new lens that an objective reporter like me should point out immediately.</p>

<p>An APS-C equivalent of the 24-70mm/f2.8 is a much smaller lens e.g. 16-50mm due to the shorter focus length range and smaller image circle. Nikon has had a 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR for several years. While Canon still has no 24-70mm/f2.8 IS, they do have a 17-55mm/f2.8 IS for APS-C, a 24-70mm/f4 IS and 24-105mm/f4 IS. Once you reduce the overall size of the lens, by reducing some combinations among the focal length, the image circle, and maximum aperture, it becomes a lot easier to add optical stabilization without producing a lens that is way too big and too inconvenient. Everybody is bounced by those same physical limitations. That is why only Tamron was ahead of Nikon producing a 24-70mm/f2.8 with stabilization while neither Canon nor Sigma has one today.</p>

<p>Again, if you haven't done so, read that link Dieter provided earlier. Those Nikon lens designers talked about precisely that back in 2007, they considered adding VR to the first-generation 24-70mm/f2.8, but the technology available at that time would have produced a lens that was way too big such that they abandoned the idea.</p>

<p>If you are willing to spend some time looking into the facts, something that you thought was "obvious" perhaps isn't the way you think at all. APS-C lenses and FF lenses have very different design restrictions, so do SLR lenses and mirrorless lenses. Comparing lenses for different formats and different camera types is like comparing apples and oranges.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Norbert, I have no idea what you are referring to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mary, I, for one, would like to have a good understanding of things around me. However, in this particular case, maybe it is better that you remain having no idea about this. :-)</p>

[chuck]

<blockquote>

<p>I should point out that when you mount a TC onto a zoom, typically the <a id="itxthook1" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dQEB?start=100" rel="nofollow">quality<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>will improve a lot if you stop down, even by just one stop. However, we are starting from 200mm, f2.8. A 2x TC makes it a 400mm, f5.6. Stopping down will give me a usable 400mm f8. That is just way too slow for a long tele, not to mention that those two components combined will cost you close to $3000. The economics simply makes no sense.<br>

Chuck, see all the good stuff you missed in the last decade? :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>70-200 VR II + TC-20E III cost about twice as much as a single 200-500. But in return you get a very high quality 70-200 lens in addition to lesser quality option to reach 2/3 of the range covered by 200-500.<br>

So I guess whether it make sense depends on whether 70-200 range or the 200-500 is more important to the style of photography in question. If one shoots primarily long telephoto wild life shots, then it probably does not make sense. But if one envision 70-200 to be more useful overall, and would still like to occasionally reach out to 400, then it seems to me whether the teleconverter option makes sense depends on just how bad the image quality is with the lens + TC combo.<br>

</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Haha, Mary Norbert's posts are like poetry - the reader finds his or her own meaning :)</p>

<p>And a vote of support for Shun's frank but professional moderating style (at least in my view)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Chuck, the quality of that lens with 1.4X is ok at f/5.6 up to 280mm but with the 2X it is only good when stopped down to f/8 and used in the near distance range. In my experience the 70-200/2.8 II + TC-20E III at 400mm quality is quite poor at further distances (e.g. 20m) even stopped down so I would avoid using it. It is not at all comparable to a "real" 400mm lens (including zooms that can reach that focal length without the use of a TC). However if you need to occasionally get to 280mm then it is feasible to do that using that zoom and a 1.4X but remember to stop down to f/5.6.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>Daniel, while admittedly I don't necessarily agree with you very often in general, I do share some of the same sentiment in your 1:20pm post above.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just had to crack up at this. You are ok Shun, lets maybe make this a new direction for our interaction on this forum...:-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I am well aware that a $1400 200-500mm/f5.6 is definitely not going to be in the same league as a 200-400mm/f4 or 500mm/f4 that cost 5, 6, or even 7 times as much.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is why I am going to rent it. I usually get a special request loan or rent the 200-400 VRII for high paying annual shoots I do, it's a sharp, sharp lens and does well with a TC-14 as well. But it is big, not 400 2.8 big but commit to using it if you haul it big. So the 200-500 really appeals to me in regards to being a lens I can yank out of the bag, nail a few shots with and get back to the lenses I really love using which are small and light primes. <br>

One thing to consider here is that Nikon *could* by sheer virtue of advances in technology, have created a great sharp zoom in the same way they created at the time a landmark zoom in the budget 75-150 F3.5 series E. That lens was nearly an embarrassment for Nikon because it ended up producing far better images than even some primes at the time in a higher price point. <br>

But time & experience with it will tell the real story, 5.6 is a slowish lens by most standards so contrast could be the first thing that suffers. You never know though....maybe Nikon knocked it out of the park with this one, lets hope so!</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>My experience is similar to Ilkka's. I have also checked version 1 of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR with version 1 of the TC-20E, and the results are similar. Version 2 of the lens and Version 3 of the TC-20E are both slightly better; therefore the combination is also slightly better, but wide open will yield a totally unacceptable (to me) 400mm/f5.6 lens either way.</p>

<p>IMO, the TC-20E is essentially good for only three types of lenses, all AF-S VR: 200mm/f2, 300mm/f2.8, and 400mm/f2.8. Those are relatively fast, high-quality "prime" lenses, hence they are still pretty good after the 2x degradation.</p>

<p>You can mount a 2x TC onto the 600mm/f4, but there is so much magnification that it is tough to get good results on such a slow lens.</p>

<p>Obviously the quality of the new 200-500mm/f5.6 has yet to be checked out by independent parties outside of Nikon. But at least some people (Mary, Daniel, and me) are willing to be guinea pigs. Among Nikkors, that is probably the least expensive way to get you to 400mm and 500mm. Outside of that, the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 seem to be pretty good. I just don't particularly like the f6.3 minimum aperture.</p>

[m_allegretta]

<p>Nice burst of innovation from Nikon! The 24/1.8 is more accessible, pricewise, against the fast version. I noticed the long 200-500mm does not have the Golden Ring in spite of having ED glass. Does E lens iris work on D700?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>E lens aperture control should work with the D700 provided you have upgraded its firmware. A: 1.04 / B: 1.03</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>On one hand you complain about Nikon neglecting high-end APS-C. However, when Sony offers many camera options for both full-35mm-frame and APS-C in both mirror and mirrorless, you dismissed their approach as "carpet bombing,"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's apples and oranges, not inconsistency on my part. also, i don't know that i'm dismissing Sony as much as putting their offerings into context. If you look closely at Sony, you'll see they've put more emphasis into designing bodies than full-fledged lens options. Not only are they currently making two kinds of APS-C and two kinds of full frame bodies, but they also make the RX series with the 1" sensor -- the RX 10 compact and the RX100 superzoom. they also have the RX1 full-frame compact. But their lenses arent nearly as well-iterated. There's no FE-mount 24-70/2.8 or 70-200 equivalent, for example, and similar gaps in their prime lineup. im not the first to note this, but if you buy a Sony A7 series for its low-light performance, you then have to give back a stop when using f/4 zooms. There are also gaps in Sony's APS-C mirrorless lineup: the A6000 is one of the better mirrorless bodies, and has the AF Fuji lacks, but Fuji has better lenses overall and a more complete lineup.<br>

<br>

Nikon, on the other hand, is in a completely different situation. i guess we can sit here and pretend that it doesnt matter that they've abandoned high-end APS-C, but the fact is that it does.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And please, no "equivalent." We were talking about 24-70mm/f2.8 for FX, which is a big lens to begin with. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, you are limiting the discussion to full frame. i was talking about stabilized standard 2.8 zooms in multiple formats. if you can go off into tangents about PC-E lenses which have nothing to do with these lens announcements, then i can talk about nikon not updating the 17-55, even as other manufacturers have made smaller stabilized zooms with the same spec.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you are willing to spend some time looking into the facts, something that you thought was "obvious" perhaps isn't the way you think at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i have to laugh here, as you seem to think the facts and your opinions are one and the same. There's a lot of subjectivity in your comments. And admitting you are exhibiting personal bias while denying you are making attacks is really a strange, contradictory kind of nit-pickiness. if you want to be an apologist for Nikon, so be it. But attempting to censor or demean other people's perspectives because you find those perspectives irritating is petty. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Eric, enough said. I'll let you have the last word, at least for now. :-)</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>[applause]</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Just arrived after two weeks of disconnection, it`s great to see there are new interesting releases. <br /> And not only this, I`m even more happy to check that I`m owner of the smallest&lightest 24-70/2.8 Nikkor ever... hmmm, I`d say it feels now lighter in my bag than before... :D</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Jose, it reminds me a story my wife told me years ago. She was in high school and they were guessing the birth order of a classmate. One student guessed that person was youngest sibling, another person guessed that she was the oldest, and my wife guessed that she was the middle child.</p>

<p>The answer, the other two students were both correct, and my wife was wrong. That student was the only child so that she was both the oldest and youngest. However, she wasn't the middle child since nobody was older or younger.</p>

<p>Sorry to burst your bubble, but your 2007-edition 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S has always been the lightest 24-70mm/f2.8 Nikon has ever made, until perhaps some day they add a plastic-barrel version. :-) However, it is no longer the heaviest.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Don't know why you guys are talking about small and light 2.8 versions - if you want small and light in a 24-70, Nikon has a version weighing in just a little over 6 ounces ;) <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/ix/24-70mmf_35-56/">Compact 24-70 Nikkor</a></p>

[chuck]

Chip, I don't think Ix-Nikkor lenses are really compatible with FX cameras.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Yep, the FX label stuck on those images is appears to be a mistake - to mount those lenses on a Nikon DSLR, the mirror would need to be moved up and locked. Manually focusing them via live view might work - not sure you could control the aperture though. Listed as incompatible for the D4S <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d4s/spec.htm">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d4s/spec.htm</a> and D810 <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d810/spec.htm">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d810/spec.htm</a></p>