Nikon new product

[diamler]

Is their a time in the year that Nikon puts out all of it's new product or do they do it when ever they want to in the year? I want to know when they will come out with a 300MM 2.8 VR.

 

[JAM214922]

Nikon is more secretive than just about any company I know. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason regarding their product announcements, much to their detriment, in my opinion. They seem to be more interested in protecting their secrets than letting their customers know what's coming.

I too am interested in a VR version of the 300mm 2.8. About all I can see is that NikonUSA is offering significant rebates on this lens right now, which suggests a new (hopefully VR) version is on the way. But who knows? They've been offering D1X rebates for some time as well, yet refuse to say anything official about their plans for a D2X announcement.

I suppose Photokina next month may yield some news, but I join the growing list of frustrated long-time Nikon users.

Even if they make an announcement, it seems to take forever for their best stuff to reach the retail chain, the D70 being an exception. I'm still waiting to find a source for the 200mm f/2 which was announced many months ago..

Is their a time in the year that Nikon puts out all of it's new
product or do they do it when ever they want to in the year? I
want to know when they will come out with a 300MM 2.8 VR.

 

[K.C.Chan]

Nikon is a bit slow. I could not wait and have bought a Sigma f2.8 120-300mm. Quite good even without the VR. Much cheaper as well.

KC

Is their a time in the year that Nikon puts out all of it's new
product or do they do it when ever they want to in the year? I
want to know when they will come out with a 300MM 2.8 VR.

 

[Oliver Kim]

Nikon is more secretive than just about any company I know. There
doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason regarding their product
announcements, much to their detriment, in my opinion. They seem to
be more interested in protecting their secrets than letting their
customers know what's coming.

Nikon is like Apple. Great secrets, great products, no availability...

 

[Danny Brenner180445]

I have the AF-S 300 f/2.8 II and it's a super lens except for the lack of VR. The VR version for this lens and for the 400 f/2.8 are in the works. I've been told that the 300 VR is just around the corner. Might be announced at Photokina?

 

[Gizmoboy]

Hi,

Given the price of the 200mm VR lens, I shudder at the thought of how much Nikon will charge for the 300mm and 400mm versions!

Gizmo

 

[trend1]

Hi,

Given the price of the 200mm VR lens, I shudder at the thought of
how much Nikon will charge for the 300mm and 400mm versions!

Gizmo

I just purchased the 200mm VR lens, and yes $1600 is rather steep for a non pro like me. Do you think the 300mm would be a couple hundred more?

Tony

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

I don't know Nikon lenses well but I'm sure the 200VR will go for $4k or so not $1600. A 300f/2.8 VR would likely be a bit more, as it'd be both a longer lens and be slightly wider (larger front glass).

Jason

Hi,

Given the price of the 200mm VR lens, I shudder at the thought of
how much Nikon will charge for the 300mm and 400mm versions!

Gizmo

I just purchased the 200mm VR lens, and yes $1600 is rather steep
for a non pro like me. Do you think the 300mm would be a couple
hundred more?

Tony

 

[trend1]

I don't know Nikon lenses well but I'm sure the 200VR will go for
$4k or so not $1600. A 300f/2.8 VR would likely be a bit more, as
it'd be both a longer lens and be slightly wider (larger front
glass).

Jason

Jason, We must be talking about different lenses. This my 200mm VR that I purchased for $1600 not 4 grand.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=274780&is=USA

Tony

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

Jason, We must be talking about different lenses. This my 200mm VR
that I purchased for $1600 not 4 grand.

That is a 70-200mm VR lens, not a 200mm VR lens. The reason someone brought up the 200mm lens, is because it will be a very good first order approximation for the price of the 300f/2.8 VR lens. Lots of $. The 200mm VR lens can be seen here:

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=AFSVR200#

 

[Gizmoboy]

Hi,

The 70-200 is reputed to be a fantastic lens, and is significantly cheaper than the 200MM VR (prime). I am wonder what the super ed glass will add to the opitical quality of the lens. According to Bjorn Rorslett, though he will come out with a review of the lens, "I already know this is one of the finest lenses ever produced by Nikon".

Though I'm excited about the possible quality of the lens, I'm wondering how much of a performance leap it could possibly represent over the 70-200 or 85mm 1.4 (or other host of fine Nikkors). I am keen for the reviews anyway. I am certain of one thing - I won't be able to get this lens, if I do want it, for a long time!

Gizmo

 

[l_ombre_jaune]

The reason
someone brought up the 200mm lens, is because it will be a very
good first order approximation for the price of the 300f/2.8 VR
lens. Lots of $.

the 200mm is a f/2 and the 300mm is a f/2.8, big difference

G. Jobin

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

the 200mm is a f/2 and the 300mm is a f/2.8, big difference

Actually the difference is not too big. One lens has a 100mm aperture and the other lens has a 107mm aperture.

For example look at the 500f/4 vs the 400f/2.8. You've got a 125mm aperture vs. a 143mm aperture. Sure the 143mm aperture is a big more, but it gives a good 1st approximation. I'd expect a 300f/2.8 VR to be 10% more than a 200f/2 VR.

Jason

 

[l_ombre_jaune]

the 200mm is a f/2 and the 300mm is a f/2.8, big difference

Actually the difference is not too big. One lens has a 100mm
aperture and the other lens has a 107mm aperture.

For example look at the 500f/4 vs the 400f/2.8. You've got a 125mm
aperture vs. a 143mm aperture. Sure the 143mm aperture is a big
more, but it gives a good 1st approximation. I'd expect a 300f/2.8
VR to be 10% more than a 200f/2 VR.

Jason

since the VR will introduce some addtional lenght in the lens design, the difference in front element area will be a lot more.

G. Jobin

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

since the VR will introduce some addtional lenght in the lens
design, the difference in front element area will be a lot more.

The length of the design has nothing to do with the front element area at this focal length. The extra length will be in the area toward the rear where the cone of light has been compressed quite a bit. Take for example a 200f/2.8 and a 400f/5.6 prime lens. They have nearly identical front element size, and for a good reason. All they have to do is capture enough light to satisfy their aperture ( 71mm) and not cause any angle of view issues with filters etc. At 200mm and beyond this FOV aspect of the equation becomes an insignificant part of the size.

Jason

 

[l_ombre_jaune]

since the VR will introduce some addtional lenght in the lens
design, the difference in front element area will be a lot more.

The length of the design has nothing to do with the front element
area at this focal length. The extra length will be in the area
toward the rear where the cone of light has been compressed quite a
bit. Take for example a 200f/2.8 and a 400f/5.6 prime lens. They
have nearly identical front element size, and for a good reason.

not the same aperture at all, 2 stop from 2.8 to 5.6

All they have to do is capture enough light to satisfy their
aperture ( 71mm) and not cause any angle of view issues with
filters etc. At 200mm and beyond this FOV aspect of the equation
becomes an insignificant part of the size.

Jason

you will have to explain it better to me.

since :

-the lens will be longer because of VR addition
-the additional VR elements will introduce some (small) light loss

-the circle of light illuminating the sensor/film will need to be bigger since it will move because of the VR, not a lot but still

how come the front element wont be bigger ?


G. Jobin

 

[l_ombre_jaune]

since :

-the lens will be longer because of VR addition
-the additional VR elements will introduce some (small) light loss
-the circle of light illuminating the sensor/film will need to be
bigger since it will move because of the VR, not a lot but still

how come the front element wont be bigger ?

wont the VR in itself need a bigger front element ? How can VR work without clipping the corners (vignetting) if the front element is the same as a non-vr lens ?

G. Jobin

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

not the same aperture at all, 2 stop from 2.8 to 5.6

Of course they are not the same f/stop, neither are the 200 and 300 we're talking about so who cares?

Here we go, all drawn out:

400 divided by 5.6 = 71mm
200 divided by 2.8 = 71mm

They are the same, so their front elements both have the same 71mm contstraint. Look at samples of these two lenses, you'll see they are almost identical in size. Often they'll be a hair larger than this, partially to accomodate the AoV as I mentioned.

Now:

300 divided by 2.8 = 107mm
200 divided by 2.0 = 100mm

In this case you've got a slightly larger front element on the 300, and the price is going to be very close to proportional to that difference. There are other factors, but as a first order approximation. We can say with pretty good confidence that the 300f/2.8VR will be about 10% higher in cost than the 200f/2VR. I don't have good prices for the 200f/2 to multiply by 1.1, so I'll just say between $4000 and $5000.

-the lens will be longer because of VR addition

Actually, the lens may or may not be longer. There is no physics that says it has to be longer (such as the physics that determines the minimum front element size). As an example many Canon IS lenses were shorter than the lenses they replaced. In the case of Nikon the lenses they are going to replace are a bit more optimized for size so they may grow a tiny bit in length.

However, the length is not an issue for anything we're talking about here. The lens I'm basing my cost equation on is a VR lens, so it should be "longer" just as well. Yes, a 300f/2.8 is going to be longer than a 200f/2. However, this is accounted for in that 10% I quoted.

-the additional VR elements will introduce some (small) light loss

That is the Tstop, and that has nothing to do with anything here. If you try to compensate for this by changing the f/stop you will screw up your DOF functions. 35mm lenses are rated in f/stop, and not t/stop, and that will not change any time soon.

-the circle of light illuminating the sensor/film will need to be
bigger since it will move because of the VR, not a lot but still

The size of the circle of light has nothing directly to do with the f/stop or focal length. An Olympus 300f/2.8 has a circle of light 1/4th the size of the Nikon 300f/2.8, yet the front element is almost identical. Enough said? This issue is we're at a long focal length where this increase in angle of view is not going to change the front element significantly. If this were a wide angle lens, it would (as in the case of a lens with tilt/shift).

how come the front element wont be bigger ?

At this point we're starting to lose track of the topic, and the question. Bigger than what? Why isn't the front element of a 300f/2.8VR bigger than a 300f/2.8? I've answered that above.

Jason

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

wont the VR in itself need a bigger front element ?

No.

Ho> w can VR work

without clipping the corners (vignetting) if the front element is
the same as a non-vr lens ?

The size of a front element does not determine it's ability to "see" (really to let light in) across an angle. As a great example (sorry to use it so many times) the Nikon 300f/2.8 can "see" twice as wide as the Olympus 300f/2.8, yet the size of the front element is the same.

Jason

 

[daveg155330]

What are the odds?

It would make me sooooo happy.