chuck

Wouldn't price drop on the d810 and d750 suggest a follow on to those bodies are in the works?

The Chinese brand Neewer offers a $19 replacement tripod foot for the 70-200 2.8 VR-2. I have it and I don't think it is significantly less well made or serviceable than Kirk's $140 alternative. I hope Neewer will offer a tripod replacement for the 200-500 as well. I think there is really almost nothing to the design and manufacturer of a replacement tripod collar or foot. I am guessing real cost of a replacement tripod collar is in the 10-30 dollar range, and some lesser known brand is bound to undercut the seriously inflated prices from the likes of Kirk.

Okay, thanks

Does Nikon continue to honor the warranty if a lens is resold within the warranty period?

<p>Hmmm, a little soft with the TC, but I can live with that degree. Add one TC-14EIII to the budget.</p>

Out of sheer curiosity, I wonder how this lens performs against Pentax FA 250-600 f/5.6. That was a $7000 lens from 1990s, in 1990s $. Difficult to test for the moment, I know.

1. Smaller and lighter than Df 2. Retain full functionality with existing FX lens 3. FX adaptor doesn't cost arm and leg 4. Eye level finder

Mary, thanks. If you have the 80-400 VR II as well, could you give an evaluation of how this lens stack up against the 80-400 in terms of of the range where they overlap?

It's very greasy aluminum.

Mary, would you have had a chance to use the lens with a 1.4 teleconverter?

How does the lens feel physically? Does manual focus feel sloppy? Is the tripod mount sturdy enough for its weight?

Does this only happen with one lens? Is it possible the lens is faulty and reporting the wrong maximum aperture to the camera?

Sunny 16 would say using ISO 250, the exposure should be 1/250 at F/16, would it not? That would say a image exposed at f/3.5 ought to be 4 stops over exposed, not underexposed?

<p>Hmmm, I would think that is not an oversight by B&H's web master. Has anyone bought the 300E from B&H? Is Nikon distribution network favoring retail channels other than B&H in the allotment of initially limited supply of new products?</p>

I notice B&H still hasn't taken it off of pre-order

just think, these more expensive Zeiss lenses for Nikon might all become obsolete if Shun's prediction about Nikon's wholesale switch to E aperture come true.

Having found my sample of 70-200 VR required large amount of AF fine tunning on the D810, I decided to calibrate the focus of every AF lens I have using the D810's focus fine tunning feature. Having spent a whole day doing this, I have several suggestions for Nikon: 1. Record the amount of AF fine tunning used with the lens in shooting data. 2. Instead of having the user dial in different amount of AF fine tuning via trial and error, The camera should allow the user to focus manually with live view, and then record the focus position the user entered, and when the user switch the camera back to phase detection AF, the camera should automatically determine the difference between the manual focus distance and what the phase detection AF thinks ought to be the focus distance, and calculate the equivalent amount of AF fine tuning to go from what the phase detection AF thinks is the right focus, and what the manual focus position actually is. In fact, it should allow the user to repeat this procedure several times, and the camera should then average these to AUTOMATICALLY arrive at a best average AF fine tunning value.

Shun, Sigma lenses were likely always structurally designed to be easily adaptable to all three major mounts, so as to minimize the cost of offering each lens with three different mount options. This is likely why it is easy to convert a sigma lens from one mount to another. For Nikon, canon and Sony/Minolta, that is probably not the case. Their lenses were probably structurally optimized for their own mounts, and we're not designed with easy conversion to another mount in mind. I don't think any adaptor with a stepper motor for the aperture lever would have to be particularly big. I believe it would only be a little bigger than the Nikon 1 adaptor. I think the requirement for fast acting aperture only applies to SLR. it would not apply to mirrorless bodies. This is because accuracy of contrast detection AF is indifferent to aperture size. Only phase detection AF needs a wide open aperture for best performance. A mirrorless body that relies on contrast detection focus can operate in aperture stop down mode with no ill effect.

If the mirrorless body requires an adaptor, then E lenses will be in much the same shoes as any other f-mounted lenses. But if the adaptor can support all current lens functions, and the new system/adaptor allows existing lenses to be used with their intended field of view (ie basically the same sensor size), then I don't think the inconvenience would be very great.

The blogger seem to say the lens is better than the 80-400. I was just at B&H yesterday. Even their Nikon rep havae still never seen the lens in person. So it definitely hasn't arrived here in the states yet.

I am using Lightroom 6.