Market for moderatley priced, moderatley fast big glass?

[curt_casteel]

I'm a 25-year amatuer who has been enjoying the Forum for a few months(good job, Bob). I always follow with interest any discussion about the coveted Big Glass, thinking that some day I will be able to afford a 500/4 or 600/4 AF. In researching and listening to others talk about long lenses for nature photography, I believe I've picked up on something. The long, fast prime lenses from Canon and Nikon are, as we all know, incredibly expensive. The market for these is professionals and wealthy amatuers. Another group of lenses from the Big Two, along with a few independent manufacturers, is far more affordable, but much slower. It is typified by, say, the Sigma 400mm 5.6 APO Macro. I've been getting the impression that there might be a fair number of folks out there, myself included, who would be willing to buy a lens that splits the difference, e.g. a Sigma 400/4 APO AF in the $2,000 range, or a Nikon 400/4 AF in the $3,500 range. If this is so, and we can make the manufacturers aware that there is money to be made here, then we might see such lenses some day. Any opinions?

[markci]

I think you're a bit optimistic about what these lenses would cost. A 400 f/4 Nikkor would cost about the same as a 300 f/2.8 -- around $5000. Nikon does make a manual-focus 400 f/3.5 at around $4500.

[ShunCheung]

Minolta does make a 400mm/f4.5 AF APO for about $1900. Of course, it doesn't do you any good unless you use Minolta AF bodies. As far as Nikon is concerned, besides the 400mm/f3.5 MF, there is also the 500mm/f4 P MF that is excellent for wildlife work. In fact, it used to be The wildlife lens in the early 90's. Of course, the main drawback is that it doesn't have AF, which may or may not be important to you.

[bobatkins]

As Mark points out, a 400/4 isn't a cheap lens. Price typically

goes by front element size, which means a 400/4 will cost about the

same as a 300/2.8 in any particular lens line. If anything, a longer

focal length adds a small premium for a given front element

diameter.

 

<p>

 

As Shun says, the Minolta 400/4.5 is available (and is supposed

to be an excellent lens), and there was

a Tamron 400/4 which was also a decent lens and can be found used if

you look long enough. Canon also had a 400/4.5 in the FD mount - a

decent performer, but not APO glass.

That 1/3 stop from f4 to f4.5 can make a big difference in price

(and availability!).

 

<p>

 

Don't hold your breath for 400/4 lenses from major lens makers. It's

not likely to happen IMHO.

[george_rhodes]

The Minolta AF High Speed 400mm f4.5 APO lens has been mentioned. The price out of B&H is just under $2,000. I have been using this lens since it was introduced into the U.S. It is an extremely sturdy, optically superb lens. AF continues to function when the 1.4X APO teleconverter is added. I have been using this lens on the pro model Minolta Maxxum 9xi body. This combination has been helping me to make a living since its purchase and I highly recommend the lens.

[bob_royse]

I own a 500f4 and am an amateur, but certainly am not wealthy! If you really need a big fast lens (and I certainly do) for your photography, then shop carefully for a used lens. There a some good deals out there. Manual Nikkors are the best place to start looking, with many pro sports photographers switching to AF. After-market lenses neither hold their value or can withstand the banging aroud theat they're inevitably subjected to. It has been said many times on this forum that a good lens will hold its value if you should later want to sell it. If you really need a decent big lens for your photography, you'll find a way to come up with the means to pay for it. Spending $3000 or more on a good used lens that you can later sell for the same price when you wish to upgrade to whatever is a better financial and photographic investment that spending less on something that doesn't quite meet your needs and has little resale value.

[sanjoy___]

Just my take on *moderately* priced *fast* telephotos : there are good deals out but you need a LOT of patience to find them! I have bought a used Canon EF500/4.5L recently at a very reasonable price, but I had to wait about 5 months to get one at the price I wanted, and that may not be your cuppa tea. But then I am not a professional, so...

[paul_wilson2]

As others have mentioned, a 400/4 would cost about the same as a 300/2.8. I think this explains why they don't bother since they all already make a 420/4, that is a 300/2.8 + 1.4X TC. Not that I've ever used one of these combos, but everybody says a Nikon or Canon 300/2.8 + 1.4X TC can't be distinguished from a bare 300/2.8 in terms of performance.

 

<p>

 

If you want cheap but fast, I've seen 400/3.5s for less than $2000.