alcaher: regarding the 200-500: will it be sharper or equal to the 80-400mm in the 200-400mm range?...we have to see the comparisons, but the price of this new lens is a strange move from nikon since it will be almost 1k less than the 80-400.
with the popularity of the tamron and the two sigmas with their wider and longer focal range, the nikkor should have to do quite good on performance if they want to sell alot of copies. The extra 100mm of the third party options still a big deal for many wildlife photographers.
Maybe for many nikon shooters, this lens migh be kind of the 400 f5.6 canon version they were asking for... so in that case, this lens must do great also in the AF performace... and for that price i doubt it.
The D7200s AF system is more advanced than that in the D300s. Comparison reviews indicate it performs on a par with that of the 7DMII, despite its seeming shortcomings on paper.
Lassoni: Very skeptical about 200-500. It's much heavier than Tamron's older 200-500 (maybe due to constant aperture, and addition of VR). Still, way too heavy for my liking. A real shame they chose not to use PF in any of these lenses.
1.2kg vs 2-2.3 kg. I really don't see point in this. PF would've made the lens 1.5kg
I am not an optical designer, but it might not be that easy to implement PF in a zoom lens.
GEDERA GUY: As an upgrade to the D80 , the D7000 is a definite improvement , but build quality is still lacking , next to say, the D300S .
That being sad , the camera handles well ,even if the video function is still an option I scorn .
The main problem I have, is the slow flash sync speed with my SB 600 flashgun - a pathetic 1/60 sec .To utilise the full potential of the D7000 , I need to upgrade my flash gun - not easy when finances are tight .
You should be able to sync at up to 1/320 (FP mode) with your SB600.
Wubslin: I see the usual Internet Warriors have assembled with their tired canards about so-called 'rootkits' - how dreadfully predictable.
Let's get this straight once and for all - there never was any 'rootkit' or any other malware on any Sony product, ever. The people making these malicious and untrue claims will no doubt have to defend their lies in court.
It was a totally botched ATTEMPT at copy protection implemented with code that was effectively malware that left the machine wide open to exploits. So, IT WAS A FREAKING VIRUS. All the anti-virus programs of the day recognized it and cleaned it. Just because you are too obtuse to understand this doesn't make it any less true.
@Wubslin: I don't hate Sony. Heck, I own an RX-100.
They DID plant malware on CDs. I HAD one of those CDs, so I don't need to go to the internet for evidence. You of course, will ignore this, as you have all the other evidence, because you are a troll.
Wubslin is trolling you all.
exapixel: Nikon's recalling and fixing a product, and gets mocked mercilessly, while Sony still can't emit a 14-bit raw file and gets a free pass?
nththo, examples about on the internet. You don't have to look hard. Heck, there are even on the forums on this very site.
Now, I know what you're going to do next: argue that it is rare. Well, so was the D750 flare issue, but that didn't stop you from bleating your horn about Nikon quality control.
The fact is, this problem is EASILY solved with new firmware, if only Sony would do it. Why they refuse to while putting out otherwise very high performance instruments is beyond me. Then again, so is Nikon not producing a D400 and Canon sticking with off-chip ADC.
Head-scratchers abound in this business.
Actually Mike, Nikon gets MORE out of those self-same Sony sensors than Sony does, in large part BECAUSE they produce a lossless 14-bit NEF instead of that bizarre lossy 11+7 bit ARW. Maybe you actually like posterization in high contrast transition areas of your photos, but I'm guessing you're probably the only one.
Vanitas and nixda, you are replying to every single post expressing concern over these new laws, saying there is nothing to worry about.
nixda: The article points out that one would need to ask for permission when posting to certain "social media sites, such as Facebook or Twitter, as those sites carry advertising that is attached to the content of its pages."
Does it not occur to people here that any problem can be avoided by not posting to such sites?
Are people not aware of the fact that such sites strip the user of all rights to their own creations?
Are people so cheap and greedy that they prefer to be stripped of their rights, rather than support regulation that protects the rights of creative people? Besides, there are sites that are free and do not strip people of their rights. Best of both worlds.
To me it seems that social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have people in a stronger bind in many instances than some totalitarian regimes. Go after those sites first.
@nxia: Read Stephan's reply. I couldn't have said it better myself.
So, we should bully and harass everyone taking photos of landmarks and skylines with half-decent cameras in order to protect the rights of those very few "creative people" who make their living from photography? Really? I hope you do understand that these laws are very rarely about protecting individual artists, and always about corporations extracting rents from their existing portfolios.
sportyaccordy: They should have
- updated the 17-50 2.8 with VR and weight reducing tech- made this F/4 through the FL range and made it cheaper
or my favorite
- used these resources to make some wide fast DX primes. No way am I gonna pay $700 for an FX prime to use on a DX body when the 35 1.8 DX is $200. They need an 11 2.8, 16 2.0 and 24 1.8 in DX to go with that.
They're both 2.8 on the wide end. The 16-80 is probably at f/3.5 or 4 at 50mm. THAT is why it is smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 17-55 f/2.8.
With 7 blades, I wonder if it will make sunstars, stopped down to f/16 or f/22?
Exactly HOW would constant f/4 make the lens smaller and cheaper? The iris still has to open to f/4 at the long end - that's your limiting factor for size, not the f/2.8 at the near end - that's just determined by whether or not the designer allows the iris to stay open. Granted - some of the rear element glass could be skimped on a bit, but I don't see that cutting the cost or weight THAT much.
Nikon charges $1000 for this because they CAN, not because the design forces them to.
saeba77: ahhaha 1000$ ? sigma 17-70 is out for 399$ and used u can buy for 250$.May be the only use is in bundle with the d7200 for 1700$ (hope)Damn i had big hope for this lens
"In most of the shared range even the Nikkor 18-140 is sharper than this Sigma. I would be really surprised if this 16-80 is worse. :)"
At the same apertures? IIRC, the 18-140 is f/3.5-5.6.
nikkornikon: Dear Nikon: You got this 100% Wrong. Over Priced and not needed. And...DX.
IF a DX user was smart...Pay for the Sigma 50mm Art and Cheaper Price for an Excellent Lens....and for a zoom...Use your feet.
Apparently, pkosewski lives in buildings without walls, or perhaps names Harry Potter amongst his friends, so he can continue to back up even as he reaches the limits of his spaces.
pacnwhobbyist: Thom Hogan mentioned on his website that Nikon sent out a survey to existing registered Nikon users about what sort of DSLRs they would like to see in the future. He said that was usually an indicator that Nikon is about to have a major release. Maybe that in combination with this lens announcement in an indicator that the D400 is around the corner?
Thom also wrote that there are rumours Sony is having some issues with the latest round of APS sensors, in both yields and performance, which may have caused a delay in the release of a D300s replacement. It makes sense; this is the perfect lens to kit with a new APS flagship.
How would a constant f/4 be any better? The maximum iris would be the same, so that means it would just be throwing away two stops of light you get for free by allowing the aperture to open all the way throughout the range.
wootpile: These samples make me buy Ricoh GR
The Nikon Coolpix A can be found in the $300 range on Amazon right now... almost makes me wish I'd had a look before buying the RX...
Jefftan: People who are interested in RX100 IV should seriously consider GM1, this is written by a happy new owner
way exceed my expectationsharp lens, excellent IQ, fast auto-focus, good image stabilization,fast operation
Mainly because of the great sharp lens, to my great surprise IQ even beat my NEX-5N with Sony 10-18mm F4 lens (already much better than the garbage 16-50mm kit)
why by this overpriced camera? just for being a little bit smaller?
And tolerate lower IQ and much more expensive? It is your money but I really can't understand
"If I'm not worried about whether a camera can fit in my pocket, the GM1 is super. The GM1 and a few small primes make a very versatile kit. Of course, that would cost more than a III, but perhaps about as much as a IV if you buy the right primes secondhand."
Yes, and then you're swapping lenses instead of just zooming and firing away. I have nothing against the GM1, but it simply doesn't meet the needs I have for the kind of pictures I expect to take with a pocket zoom. When I want to get serious (or as serious as I can get), I have my D7000.