New Rumor of replacement to 80-400 AF VR Lens.

Started Mar 4, 2013 | Discussions
PatrickP
Contributing MemberPosts: 713Gear list
Like?
Re: Don't think I'd spend $2K or more for ....
In reply to jhinkey, Mar 5, 2013

Perhaps Mr. Lammerse does know via first hand knowledge about the IQ and focus speed . . .

Maybe he does

But frankly, ever since the D3 there has not been a single $2000 and up Nikon lens with a gold ring that disappoints.

If what NR said about "Nikon had the design ready for a while but just holding it up" is correct, I rather think the performance is rather decent for the money, to a point it might threaten the sale of 200/300/400/500 exotic super teles.

-- hide signature --

D800E, 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8, 70-200 VR2, TC-20E3, 28-300VR, 24/1.4G, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G.

 PatrickP's gear list:PatrickP's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nunatak
Senior MemberPosts: 2,316
Like?
Re: Once upon a time...
In reply to JimPearce, Mar 5, 2013

JimPearce wrote:

... Now I'm not so sure it adds much to a kit including a 70-200 f2.8 VR, a 300 f2.8 VR and a 500 f4 AF-S. ...

-- hide signature --

Jim

today, while shooting BIF, i encountered a murder of crows. they were in a swirling trance as they climbed high over me. a vortex of epic magnitude — well over 50. by the time i swapped out my 500mm f4 and swapped in my 70-300mm — they had climaxed and exploded into pairs that spun off in vastly different directions. this is one moment where i wished i had a super-tele zoom over my high end prime. c'est la vie.

-- hide signature --

design guy

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
apaflo
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,854
Like?
Re: Don't think I'd spend $2K or more for ....
In reply to M Lammerse, Mar 5, 2013

M Lammerse wrote:

Shotcents wrote:

Jim F wrote:

... for a variable aperture zoom lens regardless. While we don't know what the real US price will be, likely it will be close to or more than $2K. I think I'd opt for a 70-200/2.8 with some TCs instead of paying $2K for a new, slow lens. I've already got enough old, slow lens as it is.

A 70-200 is not going to get to 400mm with reasonable IQ. If the 80-400 can and the newer VR keeps things under control then it will be useful for certain types of shooting.

Robert

Hi Robert,

Absolutely indeed.

I've not owned the old lens, but the major complain I understood of many users is it's slow focusing and not th image quality itself.That seems to be over with the newer version.

Michel

The 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII with the TC2EIII is as good as the current 80-400mm AF-D lense.  That certainly is "with reasonable IQ", though at 400mm neither of them competes with a Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 for sharpness.

And yes, the 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 AF-D can focus too slow.  The 70-200mm f/2.8G with a 2x TC (note that it works very well with the Kenko 2x 300 PRO DGX  TC as well as with the Nikon 2x TC) focuses faster than the older 80-400mm.

Hence, if the new G version has better VR and fast AF-S, being at all useful with a Nikkor 1.4x TC would be an extra.  Nobody would buy it just to use with the TC, but many who would jump at a faster focusing 80-400mm will also use a TC with it if that produces moderately acceptable results.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rich Dykmans
Senior MemberPosts: 2,532
Like?
Re: Once upon a time...
In reply to nunatak, Mar 5, 2013

nunatak wrote

today, while shooting BIF, i encountered a murder of crows. they were in a swirling trance as they climbed high over me. a vortex of epic magnitude — well over 50. by the time i swapped out my 500mm f4 and swapped in my 70-300mm — they had climaxed and exploded into pairs that spun off in vastly different directions. this is one moment where i wished i had a super-tele zoom over my high end prime. c'est la vie.

-- hide signature --

design guy

We don't even need to see an image you described it so well!

Hopefully the optics are getting a major improvement along with VR and faster AF. I'd pay $2K+ for that

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rich Dykmans
Senior MemberPosts: 2,532
Like?
it's official now!
In reply to thomas2279f, Mar 5, 2013

thomas2279f wrote:

Rumour announced today:-

http://www.cameraegg.org/af-s-nikkor-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6g-ed-vr-to-be-announced-on-march-14-2013/

Price at $2999 equivalent to £2000 or 2100 Euro, I wait 6 months or so and price will be around current 70-200 AFS F2.8 mk 2 and then it will be similar to Sony 70-400 lens in price

Well it's official now

maging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/telephotozoom/af-s_80-400mmf_45-56g_ed_vr/index.htm

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Knute
Regular MemberPosts: 461
Like?
Re: New Rumor of replacement to 80-400 AF VR Lens.
In reply to thomas2279f, Mar 5, 2013

$3,000 for a F/5.6 400mm zoom? No thanks, I'd rather get the Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 and 1.4x TC for just a little more.

I hope it ends up being a stellar lens for those who buy it though.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bflood
Contributing MemberPosts: 585
Like?
Re: New Rumor of replacement to 80-400 AF VR Lens.
In reply to thomas2279f, Mar 5, 2013

Seems to me that this lens will sell a lot of Bigmas for about half the Nikon price.  I have an original, and don't plan to buy the new version.  If I was in the market for such a lens, this would make the Bigma an obvious choice for me.  The difference in price is a trip to Alaska to use the lens!

There's also the risk that the optical improvement, combined with AFS and VR, could take sales from the 200-400. That will depend heavily on the optics at the 400 end of the range.

I've never seen why Nikon would modernize the 80-400. AFS, new VR, and some optical improvement would have to push the price into an area beyond what most hobbyists will spend, me included. I can't see many D3100/D3200 owners buying one, and relatively few D5100/D5200 owners. At $2800, the audience has to be considerably smaller than for the original.

It has been formally announced (see Nikon's USA website) for $2799.  20 elements (the original has 17), AFS and newest VR.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nunatak
Senior MemberPosts: 2,316
Like?
super ED element?
In reply to Rich Dykmans, Mar 5, 2013

"...a new optical design utilizing four ED lens elements and one super ED lens element, Nano Crystal Coat, which effectively reduces ghost and flare, a vibration reduction (VR) function that enables compensation for camera shake equivalent to a 4-step increase in shutter speed (tested in accordance with CIPA guidelines at a focal length of 400 mm), and a Silent Wave Motor (SWM)..."

the only other nikon lens i'm familiar with that has a super ED element is the super-sharp, super-bokehful 200mm f2 AF-S ... not that this guarentees similar performance.

OTOH, it looks like a tripod collar and mount is an additional option. just as well. given nikon's poor track record ... an RRS or Kirk addition might be a more solid addition.

-- hide signature --

design guy

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nunatak
Senior MemberPosts: 2,316
Like?
apples for apples
In reply to bflood, Mar 5, 2013

bflood wrote:

Seems to me that this lens will sell a lot of Bigmas for about half the Nikon price.

maybe. or it might inspire sigma to finally build a decent alternative that can compete at the long end. if the MTF charts are accurate, the new nikkor appears to be optimized for the long end, whereas the sigma VA super-tele zooms (all of them) are optimized for the short-middle.

it boils down to what's "good enough", and higher rez sensors demand high rez glass at the most important focal lengths.

-- hide signature --

design guy

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
M Lammerse
Forum ProPosts: 10,929
Like?
Re: Don't think I'd spend $2K or more for ....
In reply to jfriend00, Mar 5, 2013

No,

I don't know about the image quality, because my colleague did not finish the article about this lens yet, but I know he explained that the focusing speed is much quicker, which was a major complaint with the older version.

I only mentioned the focusing speed, I do not mention the image quality, they are not ready with their review yet.

Michel

jfriend00 wrote:

M Lammerse wrote:

Hi Robert,

Absolutely indeed.

I've not owned the old lens, but the major complain I understood of many users is it's slow focusing and not th image quality itself.That seems to be over with the newer version.

Don't you think we kind of need to wait for the lens to be announced and reviewed before we know much about its image quality and focus speed?

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

- To observe without evaluation is the highest form of human intelligence -
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.fotopropaganda.com/blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9240992@N05

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
M Lammerse
Forum ProPosts: 10,929
Like?
Re: Don't think I'd spend $2K or more for ....
In reply to PatrickP, Mar 5, 2013

The old 80-400mm could not be ordered anymore by a large Japanese retail and wholesale electronics company from Nikon itself since Jan. 2013. For a popular lens as the 80-400 it is usually a sign it will be replaced by a newer model in a comparable zoom range.

Michel

PatrickP wrote:


Perhaps Mr. Lammerse does know via first hand knowledge about the IQ and focus speed . . .

Maybe he does

But frankly, ever since the D3 there has not been a single $2000 and up Nikon lens with a gold ring that disappoints.

If what NR said about "Nikon had the design ready for a while but just holding it up" is correct, I rather think the performance is rather decent for the money, to a point it might threaten the sale of 200/300/400/500 exotic super teles.

-- hide signature --

D800E, 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8, 70-200 VR2, TC-20E3, 28-300VR, 24/1.4G, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G.

-- hide signature --

- To observe without evaluation is the highest form of human intelligence -
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.fotopropaganda.com/blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9240992@N05

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Skroob
Regular MemberPosts: 268Gear list
Like?
Re: New Rumor of replacement to 80-400 AF VR Lens.
In reply to bflood, Mar 5, 2013

Well, its going to keep me away. I was just looking into long end lenses, and had always assumed a 80-400 was coming soon. But not at 3k to get it out of the store.

Like you mentioned, the Bigma looks real nice now.

 Skroob's gear list:Skroob's gear list
Sigma 20mm F1.8 EX DG Aspherical RF
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TheronFamily
Forum ProPosts: 19,983Gear list
Like?
Re: apples for apples
In reply to nunatak, Mar 16, 2013

nunatak wrote:

bflood wrote:

Seems to me that this lens will sell a lot of Bigmas for about half the Nikon price.

maybe. or it might inspire sigma to finally build a decent alternative that can compete at the long end.

it should read that Nikon finally (possibly) have an alternative to compete to the Sigma at the long end.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-EO-Moores-Law.html#mozTocId471088

Long end being 400mm in direct comparison (Sigma even beats it at its own game)

 TheronFamily's gear list:TheronFamily's gear list
Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads