Internal chatter about the 300mm f/2G ED VR II

Started Jun 27, 2010 | Discussions thread
SNRatio Regular Member • Posts: 476
Re: Not agreeing at all

Grevture wrote:

Photography could have the same philosophy as Perl programming - there is more then one way to do it

Agreed!

And I think the notion of a 300/2 AF-S VR can be underpinned quite rationally: Nikon should work on the whole spectrum of possible lenses, with a sensible allocation of resources to each part. Which of course means work to design new kit zooms, update economically important bestsellers (18-200 MkII) and key enthusiast gear (80-400 VR), release both inexpensive and high end primes (35/1.8 DX and 24/1.4) and keep the pro zoom line updated (when will we get the new 17-35/2.8?) But the whole spectrum also includes exotics like the 300/2, and how much resources have been allocated for such things the last 25 years? Not very much, it seems, so I think it may be time for Nikon to do at least one. It would be about 1/200 of all releases. And I think it would pay - but don't overestimate the sales volume - the 200/2 seems to sell at less than 1000/yr, and the 300/2.8 at around 3000. (Compare to the 18-200 VR at ca 200000/yr, to get the relative importance.)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow