Will there be a D7?

[mike_halliwell]

300mm used to be THE focal length for sports and f2.8 gave enough light and target separation.

 

For current Z users there's nothing available beyond 200mm without using the FTZ.

 

Z9 users may have a 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 for the Olympics.

 

Adding a factory modded 120-300mm 2.8 makes a lot of sense.

 

Having to use an adaptor for anything beyond 200mm is going to get Nikon users laughed off the goal line....:(

[ilkka_nissila]

The D6 does have eye-detection as part of the modes that allow face-detection (i.e. 3D, Auto, and Group-Area including custom Group-Area). When taking portraits in these modes (with face-priority on) it marks the eye and focuses on it but only if the face is a relatively large part of the frame. For example it works fine when taking head and shoulders portraits, or even 1/2 body but at full body portrait distances it marks the whole face and focuses on it. I believe the Z6 II and Z7 II can detect and focus on the eye at longer distances. Anyway the D6's face priority (with eye detection at close distances) is very useful, but it only works for human subjects. With mirrorless cameras, increasingly they offer animal eye AF capabilities which of course are useful when photographing the animals programmed into the cameras. And because the main image sensor is used for pattern recognition, it can detect smaller features within the frame.

 

D6 viewfinder blackout is surprisingly unobtrusive; each iteration they make the mirror move faster so that there is less dead time between shots. And auto AF fine-tune works well and unlike in the D5/D850, it gives reproducible results. I think it's largely now a non-issue. Maybe with TCs and some quirky lenses there are still some issues that require attention.

 

300mm used to be THE focal length for sports and f2.8 gave enough light and target separation.

 

For current Z users there's nothing available beyond 200mm without using the FTZ.

 

I agree this is a problem. Not only for Z but there is no native 300mm prime for Canon's RF system nor Sony's mirrorless cameras. I think the manufacturers simply want 12 k€ for a fast prime longer than 200 mm and so they don't offer 300 mm as it would be too commonplace and asking 12k€ for it would be seen as greedy - so they solve the problem by only offering 400/2.8 and 600/4. Nikon produced a new -F-mount 120-300/2.8 with apparently outstanding MTF and autofocus (see Brad Hill's report on his blog) but they ask 11.5k€ for it, and it's not even Z mount. 12k€ is now the price class of a sports telephoto lens. I think it's completely ridiculous.

Edited March 15, 2021 by ilkka_nissila

[Dieter Schaefer]

I think the manufacturers simply want 12 k€ for a fast prime longer than 200 mm

By comparison, Sigma's prices for the 120-300/2.8 (around $3600) and for the 500/4 (around $6000) are real bargainso_O Nikon's 200/2 fits into that category as well - with a 1.4TC it can even substitute for the 300/2.8.

 

300mm used to be THE focal length for sports and f2.8 gave enough light and target separation.

If I am not mistaken, then the Nikon 300/2.8 VR dates from 2009 - it is still available for some $5500; all the others have received a refresh around 2014/2015. I think the 120-300/2.8 is the refresh for the 300/2.8 - together with a 50% price hike.

 

12k€ is now the price class of a sports telephoto lens. I think it's completely ridiculous.

Maybe Nikon must create a price space in which the 600/5.6 PF can live - which would probably be around $5k-$6k. With a maximum aperture of f/6.3, the price could drop to $4700 or thereabouts.

 

I think a 120-300/2.8 PF for Z-mount would be interesting - especially if the weight would be similar to that of the 70-200/2.8. And the price more reasonable than the current $10k.

 

I wonder what a PF alternative to the 180-400/4 with build-in TC (250-560/5.6) would cost - let's say a 250-600/4-6.3 or a 300-600/4-6.3 (both should be f/5.6 at 500)?

Edited March 15, 2021 by Dieter Schaefer

[ilkka_nissila]

By comparison, Sigma's pricing for the 120-300/2.8 (around $3600) and for the 500/4 (around $6000) are real bargainso_O

 

For the 120-300/2.8's Brad Hill did autofocus testing on a running dog approaching the camera as part of his Nikon 120-300 review:

 

"DETAILED RESULTS

 

Here are the exact percentages of sharp shots and keepers captured in each trial by each lens. As mentioned above, definitions of "sharp shots" and "keepers" are provided in Appendix 3.

 

A. At 300mm:

 

• Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E: 84.8% Sharp; 98.4% Keepers (which means only 1.6% were sufficiently out-of-focus to merit being discarded)

• Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8: 22.8% Sharp; 54.3% Keepers

• Nikon 300mm f2.8G VRII: 66.0% Sharp; 96.2% Keepers

• Nikon 300mm f4D: 43.2% Sharp; 90.4% Keepers

• Nikon 180-400mm f4E (at 300mm): 52.7%; 90.8% Keepers."

 

So it would seem then that the price is proportional to the number of sharp pics that one can expect in this kind of a test. ;-) Except the 180-400 doesn't quite keep up but that's perhaps due to its smaller maximum aperture.

 

If I am not mistaken, then the Nikon 300/2.8 VR dates from 2009 - it is still available for some $5500; all the others have received a refresh around 2014/2015. I think the 120-300/2.8 is the refresh for the 300/2.8 - together with a 50% price hike.

 

The VR 300/2.8G II prime is still available new and the 120-300 didn't replace it. I would be surprised if Nikon sell more than a few hundred of those zooms (compared to tens of thousands of 300/2.8's they've sold over the years). This is because the price simply exceeds most people's pain points. No matter how wonderful the autofocus appears to be according to Brad Hill's testing.

 

Mike's point, however, was that there is no native Z / RF / FE mount 300mm f/2.8 - which I find to be peculiar as well.

[Dieter Schaefer]

It appears that as soon as a front-element diameter of 100mm or more is required, the price shoots through the roof. Is there really such a price differential between a 90mm diameter front element (as required for a 500/5.6) and 100mm one as required for a 400/4? A 300/2.8 requires "only" a 107mm front element - does that make such a difference in cost? Of course, the front elements of the 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 and 800/5.6 are significantly larger.

 

Mike's point, however, was that there is no native Z / RF / FE mount 300mm f/2.8 - which I find to be peculiar as well.

Maybe the manufacturers think that the high-ISO capabilities of their sensors makes up for the loss of f/2.8 - but then, there's no 300/4 either. And I doubt that any of the variable aperture 80/100-400/500 or 150/200-500/600 zooms hit f/4 at 300mm.

 

So it would seem then that the price is proportional to the number of sharp pics that one can expect in this kind of a test. ;-)

I wonder how that result would change if Sigma had direct access to the Nikon AF algorithms?

 

The VR 300/2.8G II prime is still available new and the 120-300 didn't replace it.

Could also just be existing stock of the 300/2.8.

[tonybeach_1961]

I would say a D850 successor is likely, a D500 successor is uncertain, and a D7500 successor is unlikely.

At the beginning of this year, I would have agreed with you; after the latest Ikegami interview, I think they are all unlikely. The D6 will be the last F-mount body released.

Nikon once said that the D90 and D7000 would coexist, but that ended after they sold all their D90 cameras. Nikon also skipped the D400 and said the D7000 series were now their flagship DX cameras (related to the D90 coexisting with it I suppose), but then out of the blue the D500 was co-announced with the D5. My point is I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Nikon says and instead I would look at market forces as a better predictor of what Nikon will or won't do.

The D780 is what those other DSLR successors would likely look like.

Agreed for a possible D880 - essentially Z7 (or now Z7II) technology in a DSLR body (the same way the D780 uses Z6 innards). A D550, which is the one I am hoping for the most, would be similar to the initial pairing D5/D500 by putting D6 technology into the DX body. The fact that the D6 was released alone already slims the chances for a D500 successor. As hard as it is to believe, but the D500 is already 5 years old!

Yesterday I read a post (on a Fuji fan website) by Thom Hogan saying the D6 has noticeably better AF performance than the D850 or D500. That would be something I would be interested in, but it also is just the sort of thing Nikon would hold back for the mirrorless D500 successor. Given that there was no D400, I think unlikely is probably more appropriate than uncertain for a D500 successor being a DSLR. Personally, I don't see myself getting on the mirrorless bandwagon any time soon.

The D780 was a surprise - coming more than 5 years after the D750 release and more than a year after the Z6. By contrast, the D880 could come 4-years after the D850 and within a year of the Z7II release if released by Fall of 2021 - which I find an unlikely scenario. And the longer the wait, the less likely the event. I think Nikon should rather focus on catching up with a Z6 III and Z7 III release sooner rather than later.

One of the likely reasons there was no D400 was the flooding in Thailand and the tsunami in Japan. Right now there are parts shortages which creates external factors on how Nikon proceeds with their updates.

[ilkka_nissila]

 

Could also just be existing stock of the 300/2.8.

 

The 300/2.8 is probably the most commonly used exotic in professional sports photography and at least in figure skating I find the ratios of 70-200/2.8's to 300/2.8's to the other exotics to be about 50:10:2 or so (the big lenses are more common at world level competitions but still). It would be absurd for the manufacturers not to make 300/2.8's. Sports photographers' income has been decreasing quite a lot and many have left the field because it's no longer viable to make a living from it, and it's hard to imagine those photographers buying 400/2.8s' or 120-300/2.8 Nikkors for 12k€ give or take. It could be different in the US (because of differences in the economic structure of society, making the purchase of such things relatively affordable) but these are really rare things in my part of the world. And even at world's many of the exotics had NPS or CPS tags on them suggesting that they may have been loaners. Relying on 70-200/2.8 puts the photographer on equal footing to hobby photographers and it also means that all the advertisements are visible in the background which would be a no-go for many professional uses. The 300/2.8 is essential. The 120-300/2.8 may be suitable as a replacement for a few photographers but most will never see one in their lifetimes. 400/2.8 is already too long in my opinion and produces images with distinct "distant subject" look. My favorite is the 200/2 for this application but a lot of the time the subjects are too far in singles, and 300 mm is ideal. I think the camera manufacturers are trying to force photographers to pay twice the going price (either for a 400 or a 120-300) as part of "we want to focus on the high end market". It just means their new gear won't be used and old Nikon and Canon 300/2.8's will continue to be used (with DSLRs), which is pretty much what I see happening anyway. But my experience is mainly in this one sport, perhaps it is different in others.

 

The disadvantage of the really long lenses is not only that they're expensive and more difficult to maneuver, but the aperture is smaller necessitating the use of higher ISO which can be an issue in indoor sports photography, and additionally the feel of "captured from a distance" that comes from the perspective (and outdoors, from hazy appearance); images from 200 mm or 300 mm primes are more clear. Long lenses are great for birds and such small subjects as the absolute distance is typically not as great, clear images can be made but at least I want to use the shortest lens I can get away with because I find the perspective to be more dynamic and it's easier to get away with medium ISOs and yet get fast shutter speeds. I have thought about the 400/2.8 but always abandon it as I simply find it too long for what I'm trying to do (at sports and other events).

Edited March 15, 2021 by ilkka_nissila

[ilkka_nissila]

My point is I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Nikon says and instead I would look at market forces as a better predictor of what Nikon will or won't do.

 

Indeed, sometimes Nikon's marketing message can change quite quickly as they want to sell what they have currently available, but what they have available can change and suddenly the new product is the bee's knees.

 

Yesterday I read a post (on a Fuji fan website) by Thom Hogan saying the D6 has noticeably better AF performance than the D850 or D500. That would be something I would be interested in, but it also is just the sort of thing Nikon would hold back for the mirrorless D500 successor.

 

Mirrorless cameras use different autofocus technology from that used on DSLRs, and a mirrorless camera simply cannot use the D6 autofocus system since that's based on mirrors directing light on a separate AF module. It's possible, however, that a Z camera with DX sensor might in the future use technology similar to what will be on the Z9 due out this year.

 

One of the likely reasons there was no D400 was the flooding in Thailand and the tsunami in Japan. Right now there are parts shortages which creates external factors on how Nikon proceeds with their updates.

 

That's possible but all the major manufacturers seem to want to push full-frame as the future and they try not make a high-end DX camera if they can get away with it. Nikon eventually gave in to customer demand and made the D500 but Sony and Canon have not responded to it.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I think you exaggerate Nikon's willingness to close shop.

Rather speculation on my part. And I certainly don't want them to close shop. The appearance of the 500/5.6PF saved me from more seriously considering the option of getting a 300/2.8 together with a 1.4xTC (420/4) and a 2xTC (600/5.6) - though I might have opted for the Sigma 500/4 instead as the price points are quite similar and I am not a friend of using TCs.

The 300/2.8 is essential.

Yet no one makes one for mirrorless (yet) and Nikon chose not to update their version in 12 years. Maybe to keep the cost down and the lens "relatively" affordable?

 

I would look at market forces as a better predictor of what Nikon will or won't do.

That would require a big change in thinking at Nikon I suppose:confused: Nikon seems to habitually underestimate demand - not exactly an indicator of knowing the market and the customer well. And historically the thinking appeared to be more along the lines "the market will consume what we produce" - rather than producing what the market demands.

 

out of the blue the D500 was co-announced with the D5

To everyone's surprise. I don't know how many D500 Nikon has sold - but at the time of the announcement quite a few voices said that a $2000 DX camera wouldn't sell well. Coming up the ladder from D70 - D200 - D300 - D7100 - D7200, the D500 is a cut above not only within Nikon's DSLR family but among all APSC-crop-sensor cameras (with probably Fuji coming closest and m4/3 not something I'd consider anyway). Which says something about a 5-year old camera! A D850 might "almost" replace it for me - at twice the cost; a D5 or D6 are out of my reach. I don't think a D400 would have had a similar impact had Nikon realized it along with the D4 or the D4s. The D7200 was quite OK - just the body ergonomics wasn't to my liking.

 

The D500, the 200-500 and then the 500PF kept me in Nikon's camp - for my FX needs it's been a wash between Nikon DSLR and Sony mirrorless for a couple of years already. In fact, if I were to sell off all my Nikon gear, I could probably just get a Sony A1 and a 200-600:D Though with the Z9 announcement, it's probably prudent to wait.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Dieter Schaefer

[ilkka_nissila]

Yet no one makes one for mirrorless (yet) and Nikon chose not to update their version in 12 years. Maybe to keep the cost down and the lens "relatively" affordable?

 

The current Nikon 300mm f/2.8 is the best lens of its kind so Nikon don't feel pressure to update it. Canon's is significantly lighter but lenscore's 200 MP sensor puts the Nikkor ahead in optical quality.

 

I think they can improve it without increasing the price dramatically. Nikon could improve their lens optically, put in a better SWM (that Brad Hill got better results with a zoom in an autofocus test suggests Nikon could certainly improve the prime), reduce weight with FL elements and not price it so high. I get that the zoom is a way for Nikon to make the lens even more exotic and command a high price premium. But surely the number of people who can afford a 11.5k€ 300mm lens (and are willing to pay that much) is relatively small. Many of us have other lenses in the 120-200mm range that are much lighter so there is considerable overlap.

 

The appearance of the 500/5.6PF saved me from more seriously considering the option of getting a 300/2.8 together with a 1.4xTC (420/4) and a 2xTC (600/5.6)

 

Right, if you want a 500mm you shouldn't get a 300mm. In my case I actually want a 300mm f/2.8 (and I have a 500mm which I may sell). ;-)

[tonybeach_1961]

"...out of the blue the D500 was co-announced with the D5."

Nikon eventually gave in to customer demand and made the D500 but Sony and Canon have not responded to it.

Canon announced the 7DII in September 2014 and Nikon announced the D500 in January 2016.

To everyone's surprise.

The D500, the 200-500 and then the 500PF kept me in Nikon's camp

I remember thinking back then about the possibility of switching to Canon to get the 7DII, but Nikon's announcement put an end to that speculation.

I don't know how many D500 Nikon has sold - but at the time of the announcement quite a few voices said that a $2000 DX camera wouldn't sell well. Coming up the ladder from D70 - D200 - D300 - D7100 - D7200, the D500 is a cut above not only within Nikon's DSLR family but among all APSC-crop-sensor cameras (with probably Fuji coming closest and m4/3 not something I'd consider anyway). Which says something about a 5-year old camera!

Initial demand was strong, but it tapered off. I see a lot of people posting that they can get a D750 for less than a D500, which seems largely true; but if you don't recognize or care about the differences between them then the D500 is not for you.

 

At this point in my life I could live with my D500 and a D850 (or even just my D800) along with an IR converted D800 as my last cameras. Nikon has a ways to go to convince me otherwise, and right now it's still going to be with a DSLR and not with a mirrorless camera.

[ilkka_nissila]

Canon announced the 7DII in September 2014 and Nikon announced the D500 in January 2016.

 

Right; what I meant is that Canon did not respond to the D500 by making a new/updated camera in this segment. Furthermore their APS-C mirrorless cameras have a different mount from their full-frame mirrorless cameras, which makes the situation quite complicated.

 

At this point in my life I could live with my D500 and a D850 (or even just my D800) along with an IR converted D800 as my last cameras. Nikon has a ways to go to convince me otherwise, and right now it's still going to be with a DSLR and not with a mirrorless camera.

 

I don't see anything wrong with continuing to use those excellent cameras for the foreseeable future.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Right, if you want a 500mm you shouldn't get a 300mm. In my case I actually want a 300mm f/2.8 (and I have a 500mm which I may sell). ;-)

Nikon releasing the 200-500 was a major turning point for me - all the 300mm f/4 lenses were compromised when even a 1.4x TC was mounted; the AF-D 80-400 was only OK up to 12MP sensors; the AF-S 80-400 was a major improvement over the older version but by itself not all that good either. The 1st version of the 200-400 was considered but several reviews gave me pause; the 2nd version was already too costly (and again 400 isn't 500 and either version of the 200-400 was deemed not to work well with TCs). So, in fact, the "300/2.8 together with a 1.4xTC (420/4) and a 2xTC (600/5.6)" option was already off the table when the 200-500 appeared, and no longer a consideration by the time the 500PF was released. The weight of the 200-500 also convinced me to no longer pursue the Sigma 500/4 as a valid option - I like to walk around a lot and favor hand-holding over tripod work.

I could live with my D500 and a D850

I am living quite happily with D500 and D810 - don't feel the need to trade the D810 for the D850.

I remember thinking back then about the possibility of switching to Canon to get the 7DII

The thought of switching to Canon crossed my mind twice - once when the 40D came out and again when the Canon 7D MKII looked liked the Nikon D300S successor Nikon didn't produce. I was even in the store checking out the 40D with the 400/5.6. Just can't seem to get used to the Canon UI.

[mike_halliwell]

We're almost back to a Z9 + Z900 co-release........;)

 

So, what market is the Z50 aimed at?

[tonybeach_1961]

...the AF-S 80-400 was a major improvement over the older version but by itself not all that good either.

Thom Hogan speaks highly of it. I'm looking at it for daytime reach where I still want to be able to zoom back to 80mm (whales and dogs doing Agility). It looks like it expands on the effective focal length range I can get from my NIKKOR AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR, is reasonably enough sized to be handheld, and a used copy is fairly affordable.

[mike_halliwell]

the AF-S 80-400 was a major improvement over the older version

Indeed, but 4.5/5.6 for a lens of such focal length range is pretty slow. I'm guessing it was pretty much 'replaced' by the 200-500mm 5.6

[Dieter Schaefer]

Thom Hogan speaks highly of it.

Thom Hogan writes: (Which Long Telephoto Zoom? | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan)

The 80-400mm is the loser in this race. That older lens is actually quite good up to about 300mm, but it starts losing its punch beyond that. I haven't quite abandoned mine, as it's more hand-holdable than the 200-500mm, but I'm far less thrilled with it given the budget telephoto zoom lenses Nikon has put out after it. We really need a 100-400mm f/4-5.6E AF-P now.

 

He compares the AF-P 70-300, AF-S 80-400, AF-S 200-500 and AF-S 180-400/4 in this race. In his review Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR Lens Review | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan a year or so earlier, he is indeed a bit more positive. But comparing the AF-S to the older AF-D version isn't exactly fair when one is talking about 24MP DX and 36MP FX bodies as test vehicles. The initial price point of $2700 for the AF-S was quite high; even now it sells for $2300. Not an easily justified expense when the $1400 200-500 is clearly the optically better lens - but heavier, bulkier, with an awkward zoom ring and a slower, less powerful AF-S motor.

 

I still want to be able to zoom back to 80mm

Have a look at the Sigma 60-600 Sport then - even heavier than the 200-500 and about at par with the older (but still available) 150-600 Sport. But you are right, in terms of size and weight, it's hard to do better than the 80-400.

 

So, what market is the Z50 aimed at?

My guess is a little above where the D3xxx and D5xxx bodies were aimed at - but not quite reaching D7500 level.

 

I am not sure why Nikon even bothers with mirrorless DX. All that push in the last decade to get people to move up to FX and the almost total neglect of higher-end DX lenses - and now a repeat of that for the Z system? Sony tested their mirrorless idea with the APS-sensored NEX and the alpha 6x00 Series - but none of them comes close to what their current mirrorless FX bodies offer. In fact, their APS-system almost appear abandoned.

[Dieter Schaefer]

We're almost back to a Z9 + Z900 co-release

I doubt Nikon has the guts...

But more importantly, they don't have the native Z-mount lenses yet to support the Z900. Granted, one can adapt the F-mount lenses - but as Ilkka already pointed out, AF requirements are different and a F-mount lens on a Z-mount body will never be as good as a native Z-mount lens. One can only hope that it'll be "good enough". But can we expect that a 200-500 or the 500PF works as well on that fictitious Z900 body as they do on a D500?

[mike_halliwell]

Makes you wonder if Sigma made an affordable 300mm 2.8 OS with the current Mount-Change option, they'd sell quite a few, esp. if Nikon Z is added to the list.:cool:

[tonybeach_1961]

Thom Hogan writes: (Which Long Telephoto Zoom? | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan)

The 80-400mm is the loser in this race. That older lens is actually quite good up to about 300mm, but it starts losing its punch beyond that. I haven't quite abandoned mine, as it's more hand-holdable than the 200-500mm, but I'm far less thrilled with it given the budget telephoto zoom lenses Nikon has put out after it. We really need a 100-400mm f/4-5.6E AF-P now.

 

He compares the AF-P 70-300, AF-S 80-400, AF-S 200-500 and AF-S 180-400/4 in this race. In his review Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR Lens Review | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan a year or so earlier, he is indeed a bit more positive. But comparing the AF-S to the older AF-D version isn't exactly fair when one is talking about 24MP DX and 36MP FX bodies as test vehicles. The initial price point of $2700 for the AF-S was quite high; even now it sells for $2300. Not an easily justified expense when the $1400 200-500 is clearly the optically better lens - but heavier, bulkier, with an awkward zoom ring and a slower, less powerful AF-S motor.

Thanks for that. I have a DX version of the AF-P 70-300, and its not useful for anything other than slow landscape work because I have to stop it down to around f/11 at 300mm. Mine is the non-VR version, which at $90 was dirt cheap, and its light weight and small size make it a good choice in my landscape backpack (considering replacing it with a 150mm macro lens).

 

For action I need a fast AF-S motor and an easy to handle lens. The price (around $1000) for a used copy of the AF-S 80-400mm zoom seems about right relative to what I can expect from its image quality (i.e., better than what I can get from my current gear with cropping). It doesn't seem to me any of the other lenses in Thom Hogan's comparison checks all my boxes.

Edited March 15, 2021 by tonybeach_1961

[FPapp]

At this point in my life I could live with my D500 and a D850 (or even just my D800) along with an IR converted D800 as my last cameras. Nikon has a ways to go to convince me otherwise, and right now it's still going to be with a DSLR and not with a mirrorless camera.

 

I'm in complete agreement with you!

[Dieter Schaefer]

The price (around $1000) for a used copy of the AF-S 80-400mm zoom seems about right

I hadn’t realized they came down that far - still expected them to be around $1500-$1600.

[tonybeach_1961]

I hadn’t realized they came down that far - still expected them to be around $1500-$1600.

I think this brings us full circle back to the original topic of this thread. Whether or not there will be a D7 or not, or any Nikon DSLR updates for that matter, which isn't that relevant to me. What the migration to mirrorless represents for me is an opportunity to pick up F-mount bargains which will breath some new life into my "old" cameras.

 

It isn't just the AF-S 80-400 zoom that's come down in price either, I see a lot of deals at KEH such as the NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G VR in good condition for about $400 (I'm fine with my NIKKOR AF-S DX 16-85mm f/3.5-5.8G VR that weighs less and cost me about $200), or the deal I got on a brand new Tokina AT-X Pro 14-20mm f/2 for about $400 (I think the original price was over twice that), so in general I think prices on F-mount lenses are coming down.

[mike_halliwell]

When the new Z mount 400mm 2.8 S and 600mm 4 S come out, I'm sure people will be dumping the old FL versions and I can pick up a bargain...:cool:

 

So, no D7 thank you!

[BeBu Lamar]

I started the topic without any intention of saying whether the existing of the D7 or not would make any difference. I just want to make a guess which I think have more than 90% to be true.