Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

Started Oct 15, 2012 | Discussions
Glen78 Senior Member • Posts: 1,411
Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

I have recently switched to FX (D600) and own the 16-35 f/4 and am in the process of purchasing the 24-120 f/4. I currently own the Tamron 70-300 VC but would definitely be interesting in purchasing an constant f/4 tele if Nikon were to make one. I know to keep the cost under $2000 it is doubtful they could make a 70-300 f/4 but perhaps 70-200 or 100-250 f/4? I feel like there is a lens missing from the lineup as the constant f/2.8 pro lineup has the "Trinity" but there is not something similar in the f/4 enthusiast lineup.

 Glen78's gear list:Glen78's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D5500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +10 more
mothergoose
mothergoose Senior Member • Posts: 1,235
Re: Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

The Nikon 300mm f/4 is a fine lens on my D800E. No VR though.

 mothergoose's gear list:mothergoose's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon 1 V2 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G +10 more
thomas2279f
thomas2279f Senior Member • Posts: 2,945
Re: Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

Some patients are around for a replacement to 300 F4 AFS to make it VR and I think I saw one for a 70-200 F4 AFS VR.

However we don't know when these come out nor the price but expect to be near to be over £1000 - £1500..

Tempting to get 2nd hand Canon F/4's,e.g.,  70-200 F4 can be have for £600 and a Canon body to match.

 thomas2279f's gear list:thomas2279f's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D850 Apple iPad WiFi +1 more
Skroob Regular Member • Posts: 268
Re: Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

A 100-300 (or 120-300) f4 would be ideal.

Back in may, Nikonrumors posted a patent for a nikon 100-300 f4 FX lens. I hope that one comes true some day.

 Skroob's gear list:Skroob's gear list
Sigma 20mm F1.8 EX DG Aspherical RF
OP Glen78 Senior Member • Posts: 1,411
Re: Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

Do you think they could make a 100-300 f/4 for $2000 or less? There is already a 200-400 f/4 and I think it is in the $6000 range.

 Glen78's gear list:Glen78's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D5500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +10 more
niptate Junior Member • Posts: 45
Re: Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

I have the old 70-210 f4 AF.  It cost me a whopping $169 from KEH and I love it.

AllOtherNamesTaken Veteran Member • Posts: 3,563
Re: Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

Glen78 wrote:

Do you think they could make a 100-300 f/4 for $2000 or less? There is already a 200-400 f/4 and I think it is in the $6000 range.

Definitely. Sigma made a 100-300/4 and it was around $1300 (roughly same price as the Nikon 300/4).  It's a big jump from the 300 --> 400mm long end that is reflected in the price premiums at F4.

lock Veteran Member • Posts: 6,202
Yes they can.

The 24-120 F/4 is more difficult to make than a 100-300 F/4. The former is below 1000 euro.

gonzalu
gonzalu Forum Pro • Posts: 10,392
300mm f/4 doesn't count for you?

What about 200-400mm f/4? Your title is misleading

 gonzalu's gear list:gonzalu's gear list
Sony RX100 III Nikon D4S Nikon D7200 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +20 more
noirdesir Forum Pro • Posts: 13,561
Re: Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

Glen78 wrote:

Do you think they could make a 100-300 f/4 for $2000 or less? There is already a 200-400 f/4 and I think it is in the $6000 range.

Looking at the price differential between the 200 mm f/2 and the 300 mm f/2.8, I except a similar price ratio between the 70-200 mm f/2.8 and a 100-300 mm f/4, ie, roughly a ratio of one.

OP Glen78 Senior Member • Posts: 1,411
Re: 300mm f/4 doesn't count for you?

Basically I was suggesting it would be nice if there was a full "Trinity" of enthusiast oriented f/4 zooms like there is for the Pro f/2.8 zooms (basiscally an enthusiast f/4 constant aperture version of the 70-300 VR). It would also need to be enthusiast in terms of cost like the 16-35 and 24-120, roughly 2/3 the price of the pro equivalent, give up a little IQ and a stop of aperture in exchange for a slightly larger range and lighter weight. The 200-400 f/4 is a $6,750 pro exotic lens and is a continuation of the pro lineup.

The 300 f/4 is a prime so it would not fit this category, although it is certainly a lense that I would be interested in purchasing, especially if they update it with VR.

 Glen78's gear list:Glen78's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D5500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +10 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 2,305
Re: 300mm f/4 doesn't count for you?
1

Glen78 wrote:

Basically I was suggesting it would be nice if there was a full "Trinity" of enthusiast oriented f/4 zooms like there is for the Pro f/2.8 zooms (basiscally an enthusiast f/4 constant aperture version of the 70-300 VR). It would also need to be enthusiast in terms of cost like the 16-35 and 24-120, roughly 2/3 the price of the pro equivalent, give up a little IQ and a stop of aperture in exchange for a slightly larger range and lighter weight. The 200-400 f/4 is a $6,750 pro exotic lens and is a continuation of the pro lineup.

The 300 f/4 is a prime so it would not fit this category, although it is certainly a lense that I would be interested in purchasing, especially if they update it with VR.

Nikon has a 70-200 f2.8, as you know.  I don't know how many would line up for an f4 zoom in that range.  Perhaps Nikon has an idea how many, and perhaps they don't think it is enough to justify production.  That one stop that sounds so attractive because people will feel it's smaller and cheaper - that one stop is a lot, particularly if the lens has to be stopped down.  The Canon is supposed to be good wide open, and the Sigma 100-300, when they were making it, was good wide open.  Perhaps you could find one of those Sigmas on the used market.  According to photozone it was a very good lens.

If Nikon is counting in this thread, I don't want a 70-200 f4.  It will cost more than the 300mm f4, which is climbing up the price chart pretty good.  I like the 70-200 f2.8 VR1 on the used market better than an f4, and the price might be less.

-- hide signature --

Roy

Zardoz
Zardoz Senior Member • Posts: 1,249
Re: Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

Hey bro,

I'd rather they concentrated on important pro use, like me. I'm hanging out for a 14-300mm f/1.2.

hikerdoc
hikerdoc Senior Member • Posts: 2,176
Re: Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

if it does not need to be Nikon both Sigma (1250 USD) and Tamron (new model) have 70-200 f/2.8 with stabilization

 hikerdoc's gear list:hikerdoc's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/21 Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM +5 more
OP Glen78 Senior Member • Posts: 1,411
Re: Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

I will look into these, I would be very interested in the Tamron if the price/performance is right. I will readily admit though that I like the idea of having matched sets and psychologically would feel better if they were all part of a Nikon entusiast lens lineup that included 3 f/4 constant zooms but alas I will probably not get my wish.

 Glen78's gear list:Glen78's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D5500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +10 more
em_dee_aitch Veteran Member • Posts: 3,675
Re: Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele

Glen78 wrote:

Do you think they could make a 100-300 f/4 for $2000 or less? There is already a 200-400 f/4 and I think it is in the $6000 range.

100-300 would end up being about as large as a 70-200/2.8, which is not what a lot of people want. Most of us want something like Canon 70-200/4L IS in a Nikon F mount. Part of the attraction of F4 is to have a smaller and lighter lens for backup and travel purposes.

-- hide signature --

David Hill
http://www.sanfranciscoweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead

em_dee_aitch Veteran Member • Posts: 3,675
Re: 300mm f/4 doesn't count for you?

BackInTheGame wrote:

Glen78 wrote:

Basically I was suggesting it would be nice if there was a full "Trinity" of enthusiast oriented f/4 zooms like there is for the Pro f/2.8 zooms (basiscally an enthusiast f/4 constant aperture version of the 70-300 VR). It would also need to be enthusiast in terms of cost like the 16-35 and 24-120, roughly 2/3 the price of the pro equivalent, give up a little IQ and a stop of aperture in exchange for a slightly larger range and lighter weight. The 200-400 f/4 is a $6,750 pro exotic lens and is a continuation of the pro lineup.

The 300 f/4 is a prime so it would not fit this category, although it is certainly a lense that I would be interested in purchasing, especially if they update it with VR.

Nikon has a 70-200 f2.8, as you know.  I don't know how many would line up for an f4 zoom in that range.  Perhaps Nikon has an idea how many, and perhaps they don't think it is enough to justify production.

It's a huge seller for Canon. See them all the time.

-- hide signature --

David Hill
http://www.sanfranciscoweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead

PatrickP Contributing Member • Posts: 716
nikon was probably about to announce one when the Tsunami hit.

16-35/4 was announced Feb 2010. 24-120/4 was announced Sept 2010. Then March 2011 the Tsunami happened. NOT A SINGLE LENS announced since then was marked "made in Japan". Even the 800/5.6 VR only had a development announcement  Had the Tsunami not hit the region, it was a logical guess another f/4 tele zoom should have followed. If anything it was a miracle the supply for the big guns (the Trinity for instance) was not seriously disrupted for too long.

On every single trip I've made in the past few years I lament the absence of a AF-S 80-400, that would have been precisely what I needed. I use the 70-200VR2 plus the TC-20E III on my D800E, but the IQ is only very, very mediocre.

Patents for 100-300 f/4, 80-400 AF-S VR, and even 100-500 VR has all been filed in the last few years. I bet on either the 100-300 f/4 or AF-S 80-400 showing up very quickly once we see new lens design coming out of Japan again. But when would that happen is anyone's guess. 2013 maybe?

-- hide signature --

D800E
Nikon Zooms: 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8, 70-200 VR2, TC-20E3, 28-300VR.
Nikon Primes: 24/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8.

 PatrickP's gear list:PatrickP's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR Nikon 85mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR +8 more
dennis tennis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,783
Re: Nikon needs to make a constant f/4 tele
1

Zardoz wrote:

Hey bro,

I'd rather they concentrated on important pro use, like me. I'm hanging out for a 14-300mm f/1.2.

I'm waiting for my 8mm-1200 f0.95 VR power zoom pancake.

Joe Marques Veteran Member • Posts: 5,963
Re: 300mm f/4 doesn't count for you?
1

em_dee_aitch wrote:

BackInTheGame wrote:

Glen78 wrote:

Basically I was suggesting it would be nice if there was a full "Trinity" of enthusiast oriented f/4 zooms like there is for the Pro f/2.8 zooms (basiscally an enthusiast f/4 constant aperture version of the 70-300 VR). It would also need to be enthusiast in terms of cost like the 16-35 and 24-120, roughly 2/3 the price of the pro equivalent, give up a little IQ and a stop of aperture in exchange for a slightly larger range and lighter weight. The 200-400 f/4 is a $6,750 pro exotic lens and is a continuation of the pro lineup.

The 300 f/4 is a prime so it would not fit this category, although it is certainly a lense that I would be interested in purchasing, especially if they update it with VR.

Nikon has a 70-200 f2.8, as you know.  I don't know how many would line up for an f4 zoom in that range.  Perhaps Nikon has an idea how many, and perhaps they don't think it is enough to justify production.

It's a huge seller for Canon. See them all the time.


Exactly what I was going to post David, you beat me to it by 15 minutes.  I owned the Canon 70-200 f4 and LOVED it.  Incredible value.  Just as sharp as any 70-200 2.8, speedy AF, and 1/3 the price (without VR).

Joe

 Joe Marques's gear list:Joe Marques's gear list
Sony a6000
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads