Rumormill- New Nikon 70-200/f4 coming?

Lihkin

Senior Member
Messages
2,849
Reaction score
1,618
Location
Los Angeles, CA, US
I'd like to think it could be true but I won't be selling my 70~200 f2.8 just yet!!

When Nikon released the 16~35 VR they said they responded to what customers demanded. Well they have long been asking for a 70~200 f4.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
 
Nikkor had a fabulous zoom, the 80-200mm f4.5 AI that latter was changed to an f/4 version.
I used both they had fabulous Image Quality, and they were small and light!
 
I guess it's mainly targetted at users who want a constant aperture lens, yet are not willing to fork out that money for a f2.8 lens (provided that the 70-200 f4 is cheaper!)
I would love one of these. Doing weddings, I'm sick of holding a 70-200 VR11 to my face for extended periods because of the weight.

Canon's f/4 is a particularly good lens.
 
When the 16-35vr came out Nikon already had a constant f4 zoom in the same range, albeit Dx , similar price but much smaller. Will any new f4 zooms be smaller or cheaper? Will Nikon copy Canon on ranges or give us some new ranges for Fx?
Will they be Fx or Dx?
Cheers,
--
Tom
http://taja.smugmug.com/
 
When the 16-35vr came out Nikon already had a constant f4 zoom in the same range, albeit Dx , similar price but much smaller. Will any new f4 zooms be smaller or cheaper? Will Nikon copy Canon on ranges or give us some new ranges for Fx?
Will they be Fx or Dx?
On wide angle lenses, smaller and cheaper are very hard to achieve since the most important aspect of the lens is to have a large enough image circle to cover the sensor. On longer lenses, the glass size is determined by a formula that will dictate the size of the primary objective lens. This is focal length / F-Stop = Diameter of the objective. For a 200 F2.8, that glass needs to be 71.5 mm in size. For a 200 F4.0, it needs to be 50 mm in size. A 120 mm F4.0 lens would only need a 30mm front objective. A 105 mm F4.0 lens would only need a 26.25 mm lens. On both of these, I'd think the 24 F4.0 will dictate the size of the lens rather than the long end. On the 70-200 F4.0, it will be the long end. I have an 180mm F4.0 manual focus lens that is tiny and stunning sharp. Certainly the new zooms won't be that small since they will have AF-S and VR but the longest will be at least 2/3 the size of the current lens.

In fact, Nikon could make a 70-300 F4.0 lens that matches the size and weight of the current 70-200 F2.8 lens. Both the 70-200 F4 and 70-300 F4 would have lots of buyers.

--
Tony

http://www.pbase.com/a5m/ http://AnthonyMedici.naturescapes.net/
 
I'd like to think it could be true but I won't be selling my 70~200 f2.8 just yet!!well they have long been asking for a 70~200 f4.
I agree that is one lens I never should sold. I agree with Slimandy when he says "I won't be selling my 70-200 f2.8 just yet!!"

terry





--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://grahter.sasktelwebsite.net
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham
Photography on the North American prairies & plains:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise.
 
The Canon 70-200 IS f4 weighs just under 27 ounces, almost exactly half the weight of the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR II. It's obscenely expensive for what it is, at $1,200 -- but nonetheless, that also happens to be exactly half the cost of the current generation of f2.8 telephoto zooms.
 
The Canon 70-200 IS f4 weighs just under 27 ounces, almost exactly half the weight of the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR II. It's obscenely expensive for what it is, at $1,200 -- but nonetheless, that also happens to be exactly half the cost of the current generation of f2.8 telephoto zooms.
I don't know about obscenely expensive, considering the alternatives. But if you look at photozone, you can see that while the Canon 70-200/4 isn't quite as good as the 70-200/2.8, it is very good.

On Nikon, the main alternatives (weight and focal length wise) are the long-discontinued 70-210/4 which has a so-so reputation, and the 70-300/4.5-5.6 which is good but not great and considerably slower by 200mm.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
 
For most people f/4 is all they will need in this type of lens. So why pay more and carry twice the weight for an extra stop?

There are photographers that absolutely need that extra stop, but they are typically advanced shooters and know exactly what they need already. For the average Joe, an f/4 lens is lighter, cheaper, and delivers roughly the same image quality.

For landscape shooters it's a no brainer. You are going to be shooting at f/11 or so, why would you carry the extra weight and pay more for a 2.8 lens?

There is definitely a large market for it. In fact, I would say that if anything the market is greater then for the 2.8 lens, which is really only required by certain shooters for odd photographic niches.
--
http://www.southfloridapics.com
 
Why not just buy the 70-300mm F5.6 VR instead? It closely matches the 70-200mm f4 L in the same range and is more versatile with 300mm to play with. IMO you'd be throwing money away by purchasing a lens that's 100mm shorter and $600 more expensive.

Yes, I've owned 2 copies of Canon's 70-200mm F4 L classic and while very good it wasn't worth 2x more than the Nikon 70-300mm VR.

--
Some of my stuff here...
http://www.modelmayhem.com/11581
 
I guess it's mainly targetted at users who want a constant aperture lens, yet are not willing to fork out that money for a f2.8 lens (provided that the 70-200 f4 is cheaper!) Well I just hope it's great optically :D
Actually, not really!!

I had enough $$ to get two 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and one VRII, but I would jump into a couple of f4's in a NY Minute!! Most of my work is shot in bright daylight and I mostly shoot at f/5.6 like this, when a little extra DOF is very useful.

 
Tony, a 70/100/120 -300 f4 was one of the lenses in my mind. Also something in the 50-150 ish range if small and good. I would awant them for FX but would obviously use on DX as well.

I would also want them to take a TC1.4!
Cheers,
--
Tom
http://taja.smugmug.com/
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top