Official 1 Nikkor VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 annoucement

Started Mar 13, 2014 | Discussions thread
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,292
Re: Official 1 Nikkor VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 annoucement

_sem_ wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

Cyrille Berger wrote:

Sonyshine wrote:

Its probably still cheaper to buy an FT1 and a 70-300VR AFS lens?

The MSRP is set to a 1000$, so yeah, cheaper to buy a FT1 and FF 70-300.

...but it's larger and heavier, and also lacking full AF support... So there is a price for everything. If the V1 would be my only camera and would not have the FX version together with several other FX lenses I would seriously consider this one.

I wouldn't consider full AF support a particular advantage of the N1 70-300, rather a flaw of the FT-1 adapter & N1 cameras.

You are wrong. Full AF support is an advantage, limited AF support with the FT-1 is a necessity or a deliberate decision, I don't know. Never the less, full support with the CX lenses is an advantage.

The DX 55-300VR is not so much bigger and heavier.

That's a matter of opinion. In my opinion it is considerably larger and heavier. Not as large and heavy as the FX 70-300, but none the less, larger and heavier than the CX 70-300. The 550-300 is 123mm long and the CX is 108mm. The CX version does not need that FT-1, the DX and FX versions need it, making it uncomfortable to hold, long and heavy. Also, I think the CX 70-300 is better build than the DX 55-300, which is a pretty weak lens both optically and mechanically.

I don't regard the 55-300 as a lens I'd be interested in at all.

And the real competition is mFT cameras with the Pana 100-300 and Oly 75-300, and also APS-C mirrorless cameras when similar lenses show up (appropriate cropping applied). Because of the incompatibility of flashes, limited compatibility of lenses, and other design issues of the N1 system, Nikon DSLR owners don't seem to show much brand loyalty when they pick smaller mirrorless cameras.

Those are not compatible lenses. Besides, the Oly is worse already from 150mm, I don't know the Panny, but it is much larger than the CX 70-300, so this is really apples and oranges.

I think at this price this lens makes sense only if it gets close to the Canon 70-300L IQ-wise.

That lens needs a camera also... Besides, it is not better than the Nikon 70-300GVR, quite the opposite, considerably worse.

In other words, if my only options were the ones you listed, I'd still go for the Nikon 1 (V2) and if I needed a lens with this focal length I'd buy the CX 70-300 but only if I had no Nikon DSLR, in which case I'd buy the FX 70-300GVR instead on the DX55-300. Forget about the Canon and the MFT. If I'd buy those cameras I'd still not buy those lenses because they aren't very good, quite poor indeed.

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