< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

More Nikon lenses (AF-S 100-500mm f/4-5.6 IF-ED VR rumor)

UPDATE: looking at the translation again - I think it says "replaced with" instead of "replacement and", so we are talking about one potential new lens here: AF-S 100-500mm f/4-5.6 IF-ED VR

This rumor is about a new lens from Nikon to be released in Spring 2010 (or around PMA):

  • The current model 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR will be replaced ment and with a new AF-S 100-500mm f/4-5.6 IF-ED VR lens.

NR rating system: 70%

-----

And one more rumor: a dpreview user keeps repeating (in several different threads) that two other lenses will be released with the expected Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR - an ultra wide prime lens and an extreme zoom tele lens.

-----

For your enjoyment (not a rumor): a rare Nikon light grey AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF lens currently for sale on eBay:

Nikon-LIGHT-GREY-AF-S-28-70mm-f2.8D-ED-IF-Lens

Update: yes, there was a 100-500mm lens rumor a while ago. Here is the banner:

nikon rumors

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • johnny

    Aren’t 80-400mm and 100-500mm a little too alike?

    • DNHJR

      Yeah it’s kind of silly to release 2 lenses that close to the same. But Sigma released a 120-400 OS and a 150-500 OS. So you never know.

    • iamlucky13

      I completely agree. No doubt there’s some mixing of info happening here. 80-400 replacement does not necessarily mean another 80-400.

      100-500 seems like it would be pushing reasonable size for an 80-400 replacement. I’d be happy to have the option of buying a 100-400 with that F/4-5.6 aperture.

      I just hope they’re not planning on making it a DX lens on the idea that the extra reach makes up for only having pro-lenses available for FX at that focal length.

      • PHB

        When Nikon brought in its 70-200, it kept the 80-200 AF in the catalog for years. In fact it is still there. I suspect that the 80-400 would also stay if they brought out a 100-500 AFS, at a somewhat lower price point.

        Given the reason the 80-400 has stayed in the catalog this long without modification, I think it even more likely that Nikon will keep it in the catalog. The designer died young, just before the lens was launched. That is why they never fixed some of the usability issues, the designer could not sign off on them.

        I don’t think that there is any chance this would be other than a FX lens. I am a DX shooter and have no intention to move to FX in the near future, the advantages come with significant disadvantages and even if they did not, the advantages are not worth $1000 extra on the price of the body.

        Even so, there is no way I would pay $2000 for a lens that does not perform on FX as well as DX. Besides which the DX shooters need long lenses more than DX shooters. At some point the 24MP FX body will be the current price of the D300s, at which point you might as well go FX.

        I will pay $200 for a 35mm f/1.8 DX because its a bargain lens for the price and going to be worth having even if there is a better FX lens eventually. But I won’t pay $2000 for a lens that is DX.

        If we did see a 100-500mm lens I would bet that we will also see a 24-100 DX lens with variable aperture and pro build (ass gasket, metal mount etc). Then the DX shooter has a magic three that goes from 10mm to 500mm equivalent to 15-750 mm in the FX range. The FX magic three only goes from 14-200 and weighs half a ton.

        That is the range of lightweight zooms folk keep asking for to compete with Canon. Nikon already has better.

    • SoCal Dave

      EXACTLY the lens I have been hoping for!!!! I would order it tomorrow (and put the 80-400 for sale right away as well).

  • DNHJR

    God that 28-70mm lens us ugly. Why Nikon wanted to copy the Canon white lenses is beyond me. Really glad they did not last.

    • Tabitha Green

      I happen to like the light-colored lenses. :P Though not enough to pay a premium to acquire one.

    • http://www.ppl.blastoffnetwork.com/douglas douglas

      The lighter coloured lenses do have advantages for certain types of photographers. For instance, I, as a Sports Photographer, would love a White Nikkor Lens, because i stand out in the sun for multiple hours on end the white lens would absorb less heat and therefor extend the life of and make handling easier of the lens.

      • Stephen

        +1

        The lens gets really hot after shooting soccer games at my school. I sometimes hide it in the shade during time outs.

      • GlobalGuy

        I also agree that the white lenses have some advantages in certain situations — out on the beach is exactly one of those situations where all the sand, concrete and hazy blue skies make white a better fit in while cutting down on heat quite a bit (black absorbs visible spectrum energy and converts it to heat, white reflects light and therefore doesnt convert as much to heat).

        Black looks a heck of a lot more dignified, but its not necessarily the better option in all cases. White also has a bit of a “fun” factor when outside. Theres never been anything wrong with white.

        Its blues and reds and greens and GOLDS that are hideous things.

      • funny

        alternatively black lenses work better in cold weather because they keep the lens at a higher operating temperature than white. in very cold temperatures the lubricants in the lenses beging to lose efficiency.

        nikon’s glass is not as problematic as the flourite canon uses in regards to temperature so heat is not a big concern for them.

    • Ennan

      Nikon released the light coloured lenses so that Nikon Ninjas (Nikjas) could move about the Canon users undetected. This allowed Nikja assasins quite a bit of freedom when despatching their Canonite victims. Decapitation was fairly commonplace. The Nikjas would often hide the heads inside a D2h’s battery compartment. This could typically store up to six heads. The heads were then used to decorate Nikon HQ until the flesh had all gone rotten, whereupon the skulls were crushed into a fine dust which is now used to make the Nano Crystal Coating.

      • Tomaocron

        O.o

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/diffusedmind Joe

        Best camera story EVAR.

      • Ravell

        That story is so awesome it MUST be true! :D

      • Soap

        +10

        • Kuri

          This explains the odd sparkly dust everytime I swap batteries on my D3. I put the dust under my pillow and the Canon-fairy swapped it for a Nikon AF-S 200/2.0VR while I was dreaming of a D4x.
          Canon uses the sparkly dust to mess up the AF systems on their Pro bodies. It is invaluable to them, it MUST go into every Pro body. Then I woke up and realised… it was the TRUTH….
          (Queue ominous sounds of Eos bodies hunting for focus…)

          IT IS ALL TRUE!!!

    • nutello

      I completely agree on that.

  • Mike

    Ultrawide DX or FX? 10 mm DX or 18 FX? Hmmm. Looking forward to the releases

    • lesheck

      Maybe 17mm PC or smth like that. Canon’s got one, Nikon not yet.

  • Zograf

    Gee, this gray background is disturbing(to my eyes) – Admin, is there any option we can switch to the original lovely white on black?? OR, is it my browser doing this to me?

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      I second that. Bring back the black!

      • Ennan

        I also agree. Back to black baby!

        • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

          ok, we are back to black – for readers that have problems with the black background: I will publish detailed instructions on how to change it in your browser, in the mean time you can use the comments RSS feed (it is on a white background): http://feeds2.feedburner.com/NikonRumorsComments

          • Kuri

            Yay! Back to Black!
            AC/DC will serenade you!

          • Ennan

            Awesome – thanks admin. You’re the best!!!

    • woble

      Use this Stylish script in Firefox.

      @namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);
      @-moz-document domain(“nikonrumors.com”) {
      .comment-content p {
      background: none !important;
      color: white !important;
      }
      }

  • Alex

    WHERE IS MY 300MM f/4 AF-S VR ?????????
    Do I have to buy the Canon one and change the mount to Nikon ?
    10 years !!!!!!! It’s time to update a very usefull lens.

    • http://micahmedia.com Micah

      Nikon makes a perfectly suitable 300/2.8 af-s vr

      • Stephen

        I think he’s looking to save some cash by getting the f4 version?

      • http://bonzo.com Bonzo

        oh year, at 3800€ it is very nice! is should be!
        you can get f/4 for 800€ and carry it everywhere!

        I would also like telephoto primes more than these open zoom designs which suck dust, are very unbalanced and prone to damage + you loose lens speed.

    • zeeGerman

      Sometimes Nikon is really slow. But until they update their 300mm f/4, why don’t you pair the current one with a monopod? They’re fairly cheap (if you don’t want carbon), light and versatile. Plus they give you “VR” for all you lenses…

    • bla

      Funny, my AF-S 300 f/4 works fine without VR… It’s quite hand-holdable, and you need a fair bit of light or higher ISO. But no issues, since it balances very nicely with a decent body. With a TC14. When light gets too low, the tripod comes out… the 300 f/4 is a gem, I for one will not upgrade to a VR blindly, since VR means more complexity.

      Maybe you need to learn how to handle the lens, rather than shouting about VR solving the problem of your making.

  • http://www.pbase.com/jctangney John

    Since you list a “replacement” for the 80-400 and a “new” 100-500, isn’t it possible that the 100-500 IS the replacement for the 80-400?

  • SBGrad

    I’d take either a new 80-400 or a 100-500. I’d pick up a new 300 f/4, as long as it has VR. Hurry up, Nikon, my $$ is yours if you’ll just deliver.

  • 芽依

    100-500mm would be awesome birding lens !

  • Tim

    I’d definitely think Nikon would want to keep an 80-400 type lens in its arsenal. It’s a very popular, and relatively affordable, option for the great outdoors. So it should sell well. I’d guess a 100-500 would be double the price, as it will use much bigger glass. Pushes it from a popular to a specialist optic, with lower sales… and profit. Not too convinced this is the way Nikon will go, but they could still surprise us. I’d rather see the new version of the 200 micro hit the shelves alongside an 80-400 AFS VR.

  • Andreas

    I wouldn’t say it’s rare. You go to tokyo and there is a giant nikon store in ginza that has several white nikon lenses.

    I think I saw 7 70-200 f/2.8 VR’s when I was there in april.

    • WillyPete

      I owned a tropical grey 70-200. They’re not rare, just issued mainly for the more discerning Japanese market.

      • ZoetMB

        The gray Nikon lenses may not be rare in Japan, but they have been long discontinued in the United States (and I presume some other countries.) Even when they were available, they were special order only and they were not eligible for rebates.

        And come to think of it, I don’t think they appear any longer on the Japanese site, so that makes them rare in Japan as well.

    • M!

      i agree on these comments.

      i happen to have these lenses too ;P

      as well, ebay often have listings of those. why does nikon rumor advertise for this particular seller?

      • Kuri

        If you want RARE, try finding the AF-S 2.8/80-200D in grey.
        Only ever seen one…

  • Tim

    Oh and here are links to some previous rumours about the same lens, from 2007 and 2008. Seems to be making its annual re-emergence…

    http://shashinki.com/blog/2008/06/23/rumor-nikon-nikkor-af-s-100-500mm-f4-56g-ed-if-vr-iii/

    http://www.photographybay.com/2007/05/31/nikon-af-s-100-500mm-f4-56-ed-if-vr-iii/

    • Jason

      I remember that first one – I thought at the time that it was just someone’s dream specification. 500/f5.6 is quite close in size to 400mm/f4, so this lens might not be much less expensive than the 200-400mm/f4 if it’s real.

      • Anonymous

        The logical market comparison lens will be the Sigma 150-500mm. Yes the Sigma is F6.3 but it’s also less than $1,000. If Nikon prices the vapor 100-500 VR like the 200-400 they aren’t going to sell many copies. Hopefully it will come out around $1,500, if it’s much more than that it better be a hell of a lot better than the Sigma.

  • Tinkthank

    WHERE ARE THE FF PRIMES?!

    • bla

      Available in many shops. Maybe go to one instead of shouting here.

  • Olaf

    Look at the leaked roadmap. There is a 120-450 mm lens comming up in Q1 2010. That rumor of the 100-500 mm lens is around a couple of years.

  • Laurentiu

    What about an AF-S DX NIKKOR 100-500mm f/4-5.6G ED VRII?

    • bla

      There is no advantage to making lenses this long DX only. The “smaller lens because of smaller sensor” advantage is essentially only for the shorter lenses, and even then, there differences are not that huge.

      • mike

        Not that huge? The difference between the 18-35 and 18-70 isn’t that huge? are you serious? I wonder what a 10-24/3.5-4.5 would look like on FX…

        • bla

          Wow you managed to take the least convincing example there… the 18-35 with a 77mm front and a rather smallish body versus the 18-70 with a 67mm front and a rather smallish body….

          Yes, I am serieus. Except for the ultra-ultra-wides, the difference in lens size is not that huge. The aperture still had a physical size to adhere too, so the diameter of lenses does not go down that significant. And for long lenses, it becomes less and less difference, and therefore less interesting to make them DX only.

  • T140Rider

    Luckily some ‘b*****d’ knicked my 80-400 at Magny Cours last week. It was my oldest ‘pro’ lens and really was slow to focus compared to the AFS lenses. The insurance (new for old) is coughing up so a decent replacement with AFS-II arriving soon is an ideal replacement.

    The 100-500 sounds interesting but I do worry about the cost.

  • http://www.bibliopix.se Ola Forsslund

    500mm / 5.6 = 89.3mm
    Such a large front element would be very expensive. Also you would not be able to use 77mm filters.

    Thus it cant be a replacement for the 80-400.

    I cannot see where such a lens would fit. Expensive but not very fast. And there are other solutions:
    If you want that focal length and (slow) speed, the expensive HQ solution would be the 200-400/4 with tc14, an inexpensive (slightly slower) solution would be the 300/f4 + tc17.

    The only benefit would be the large zoom factor, but at this price point you could afford a second body with a shorter lens.

    • Runcajsz

      I agree. The 150-500 Sigma at 500mm is f/6.3 (as I remember 82mm filter size), so a 100-500 zoom with f/5.6 at 500 would be an enormous/heavy and expensive lens.

    • Joe R

      A large front element doesn’t make it expensive. The front element is almost always the cheapest fix on a lens… which is common justification for not using a UV filter for protection.

      I’m sure a xxx-500 f/5.6 would be expensive but not because of the front element. It would be a niche lens and not sell as well. That means a bump in price.

      • PHB

        I was originally thinking that this looks like a $2500 lens.

        I really don’t see why you think that a f/5.6 would be an issue on a 500mm lens. You do not need a large aperture to get shallow depth of field on that focal length, it comes for free.

        And you probably don’t go birdwatching or go to autoracing or sports meets or air shows at night.

        It would be interesting to know what this lens would deliver in the range 200-400mm. If there is only 2/3rd of a stop difference a lot of folk would probably prefer the extra reach.

        I suspect it will turn out to be not quite as spectacular as the 200-400 but in ways that are easily fixed using post processing. The 200-400 has 24 elements delivering that performance. You can stick a TC 14E on and get a similar focal range.

        This could be an awesome lens for photographing soccer matches. You can probably get both ends of the field with that zoom range.

  • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

    UPDATE: looking at the translation again (as some of you have noticed already) – I think it says “replaced with” instead of “replacement and”, so we are talking about one potential new lens here: AF-S 100-500mm f/4-5.6 IF-ED VR

  • carad

    that means we will have one 100-450… and I want one ;-)

  • Neil

    Man, if they put out that 100-500 I will buy one immediately. Those specs are exactly what I’ve been looking for to be inbetween the Tamron 200-500/Sigma 150-500 and the 200-400. I’d expect it to be around $2000-2500.

    • Anonymous

      It’s clear competitor is the Sigma 150-500 at $999 Nikon would be crazy to price their variable aperture zoom 100-500 at $2,500 unless it provides vastly, dramatically, obviously better IQ. If it does then birders will flock to it (haha), if not there will be endless threads and posts of people bitching about it online.

      • metalorange

        Sorry but it seems they ARE crazy. Just take a look at the price of the 10-24mm Nikkor and compare it to the competition from Tamron, Tokina and Sigma with better or identical image quality.

        • Anonymous

          True enough. The $2,400 price tag on the new 70-200 doesn’t bode well for any new lenses from Nikon being sanely priced. They must not feel any pressure at all from Sigam, Tamron, and especially Canon.

    • f/2.8

      As someone above already noted, f/5.6 at 500mm means the front element is close to 90mm. To fit it under $2000 there would be no corners left uncut.

      • GlobalGuy

        How did you calculate this, btw? Can you provide a link to calculating the size of a front element based on f/stop and angle of view/mm?

        • pulu

          to get the actual physical aperture size, divide the focal length by the max aperture. that’s why it’s notated as f/5.6, because you take the focal length (=500) and divide it by the aperture setting (=5.6) to get the actual aperture size. the front element has to be at least as big as the max aperture.

      • Anonymous

        And as someone else above pointed out a large element doesn’t automatically mean an expensive one. It’s going to depend on where Nikon places the lens, they could use a cheap piece of plastic like it seems Tamron does on their bottom end lenses, or something that would make Zeiss jealous, we don’t know.

  • Prasad

    I am not sure Nikon will come up with that spec.. Rumor talks about F4-5.6. It will be very big in Size, Price will be arond $1800 – $2000…

    I wish to see Nikon to launch “AF-S 120-400mm F4-5.6 VR-II” with around $1200 – $1400 max price mark. This will reduce the size and weight…

    let’s see..

    • Neil

      It would be big but probably not much bigger in volume than the Bigma or Tamron 200-500. The Tamron has an ~86mm front element and it’s not unweildy at all. As long as Nikon doesn’t use a lot of metal I could see it at 3.5-4 pounds.

  • Zorro

    More DX primes needed – only one so far. There are already lots of primes for FX cameras,

    • Bob Jobson

      Which you can use on your DX camera.

      Nope, what we NEED are updates to the FF wides, with nice big apertures – 24, 28, 35 and a decent quality 50mm instead of that slow-focussing plastic crap they just came out with.

      • pulu

        agreed. i’m just hoping mlammarse’s “ultra wide prime” really means wide fast prime. why would they release an ultra wide prime opposite an ultrawide zoom?

      • mike

        FX primes are too big and expensive, and most (all but the 14/2.8) can barely be called wide on DX.

        Nope, what we NEED are (entirely new) fast DX wides. A 14/2.8 DX about the same size as the 20/2.8 would be nice. At the moment, the closest thing to that is Tokina’s 11-16/2.8. At least you FX users have the old primes, and even the 14-24! Besides, they had a 28/1.4, and no one bought it. What makes you think a new, more expensive one is going to be more profitable?

  • http://nikonkrab.multiply.com/ HDZ

    Gray version not rare, you can order it in the same price.

  • DNHJR

    Thanks for the update. This sounds more like it. A 100-500mm VR is very much needed for Nikon as lots of poeple are getting the Sigma 150-500 OS and that means money Nikon is not getting. If Nikon was smart they would try to keep the price about $1500. If this lens is ture and it has IQ as good as the 80-400 VR or better then I may have to sell my giant 200-400 VR.

    • Anonymous

      If it’s around $1,500 and better than my Sigam 150-500 I’ll sell it and get the Nikon.

  • objur

    I am saying thumbs up for this lens. 100-500MM was leaked out several years back. But didn’t make it.

    Now my greed waits for 800 AF-S IF ED VRII F/5.6 to compete against canon. I hope they are listening…

  • nobody

    I have a feeling some people have crazy dreams of the cost of such a lens if it turns out true. The front lens diameter is 90% of the 200-400 f4. That means maybe 70% of the amount of glass. That lens would cost definitely more than €/$ 3.000, maybe rather 4.000.

  • SimonC

    This lens seems unlikely (though, I’d love to be wrong). The dead giveaway was the front filter diameter size needed:
    500 / 5.6 = ~89 mm.

    It could be done with a 52mm drop-in filter (same as the 200-400), I guess.

    • Anonymous

      Look at the front element of the Tamron 200-500

      • SimonC

        86mm filters get pretty pricey ;-) For the rumoured Nikon 100-500 f5.6 lens, I think the next filter size up would be 95mm – possible (I guess) but quite expensive.

    • Kwartjuh

      That equation works with the Aperture i think, not the actual front element size :)

      • Soap

        It does, but are you suggesting a front element smaller than the aperture?

        • Kwartjuh

          Nono, absolutely not, its just a detail.

  • ICE CREAM

    DOES THIS RUMOR BEING IN JAPANESE MEAN THAT THIS WILL BE RELEASED IN JAPAN FIRST? IS NIKON TRYING TO TELL US SOMETHING?

    • rhodium

      They’re STILL trying to tell you that caps lock is on.

  • David

    That looks like a rattle can job, somebody spray painted that lens!

  • http://bonzo.com Bonzo

    Aperture 5.6 at 500mm means that the lens is very big! Imagine 340mm f/4.0 with tc14e. That big + zoom mechanism = too big. If you add open design like 80-400 (in contrast with closed 70-200 zoom design) this lens would be unpractical and very front heavy.

    For sure I wouldn’t buy it, and I am a birder. I would prefer 300/4 with tc’s, just add VR some day hopefully!

  • http://www.pbase.com/jctangney John

    People have mentioned the Tamron 200-500 above. Unfortunately, it, like the Sigma 150-500 is F6.3 at 500. However, I would jump at a 100-500 F4-5.6 from Nikon, even if it was twice the price of the Sigma, IF its IQ justified it!

    • Neil

      When I mentioned the Tamron it was because people were saying a 90mm front element won’t happen. The Tamron has that big a front element. The fact that it’s body construction limited it to f/6.3 just means the overall weight is reduced from what a f/5.6 would be.

  • Dave

    That thing look huge, and total impractical to travel with. I am hoping that some reasonable replacement for the 80-400 comes along, but this does not look to be it.

  • Pat

    MSRP at US$2499 ??

    It’ s a huge amount of glass for zoom that can get to 500mm f/5.6. There’s no way Nikon would want to charge anything less than US$2000. The new 70-200 f/2.8 VR-II Nano at $2399 is a good indication of what’s to come. I don’t really see a 100-500 being any cheaper….

    • nobody

      A 4-5.6/ 100-500 would be larger in length and diameter and weight than the 2.8/70-200. It would contain more glass. Think of a filter diameter of 95mm as opposed to 77mm. And they would sell less units. These figures indicate a price well beyond € / $ 3.000. If… it’s true at all.

    • Anonymous

      if that is truly what that lens looks like, it looks to be constructed more closely to a pro level lens than a consumer like the 80-400 is. Keep in mind nikon 500mm f4 is an astronomical amount of money, pushing $7000 if not more. a 5.6 500mm max zoom is still going to be expensive, and if it looks like the one shown above (full pro level quality), i bet it will be a quote a bit more than 2400 dollars. I wouldn’t be surprised if nikon actually releases the 100-500 f4-5.6 that they also offer an 80-400 replacement directed more toward consumers. maybe the initial wording was correct?? I think there are enough people who want the 80-400 that would not buy the 100-500 becuase of the huge size and price increase. But i still think there is a boatload of people who would buy the 100-500 over the 80-400 regardless of price and weight even if they both were produced. I would… it’s tough to say what nikon is thnking here.

  • Alex

    A quick estimation give 92mm diameter if we compare it to Bigma, and the weight should be about 1.25 the wight of the Bigma.

    Don’t know if this will be the new Nikon replacement, but the ad is only a fake refresh and I don’t expect any official compatibility with their TC for a f/5.6.

  • rhlpetrus

    There will be a WA prime as well, launched with D3s and the other two lenses: 100-500mm and 16-35 f/4. November.

  • Anonymous

    That drawing has been circulating for years now. I’m not saying the rumor is wrong (or right), but I wouldn’t bet too much on the ad giving you any real insight.

  • Bernardl

    No way the posted image is real, Nikon is not going to equip its telephoto lenses with an arca swiss compatible tripod foot.

    Cheers,
    Bernard

  • jon

    the new 100-500mm with VR 3??? damn..i have been duped up by preordering the new 70-200mm VR2…

  • Pat Mann

    A 100-500 f/5.6 is a significantly different lens than an 80-400 f/5.6. 400/5.6 is about 72mm, while 500/5.6 is 90mm, putting this lens in a class near the 200-400 f/4. I would expect a price of $2800 – $3500 for this lens and a weight double that of the 80-400, reaching a much different market than the 80-400.

    This is the perfect lens short of the giant glass for birders on DX. Fabulous – I hope this is not just someone’s dream (and that the focus is much quicker than that of the current 80-400).

    • PHB

      The flyer purports that it weighs 5.3lb which is less than twice the 3lb of the 80-400 but in the same ballpark.

      I would say $2500-3500 would be the price point as well. The 80-400 is $1650 at the moment and no way would this one be less on introduction.

      So the maximum aperture is not so large? Well if you look at the D3s compared with the D2 era we have an extra three ISO stops and if you compare to film is seven to ten!

      Sports photographers took perfectly good news photos with ISO 100 film, they are not going to have a problem giving up an ISO stop to have a smaller, more flexible lens as an alternative to their fixed length 400 or 600mm superprimes.

      The weight is slightly less than the 300mm f/2.8 paparazzi special. Combined with the VRIII, this particular lens starts to look like another paparazzi staple. That is, if it exists.

  • King of Swaziland

    This lens sounds awesome. Buying 500 for my 500 wives would be too expensive, so I believe that it will never happen (and the fact that I don’t believe in a million years NIkon would put out a lens like this, they would just add a dull update to the 80-400, and double the price).

  • donde?

    I don’t care what lens Nikon will release, because it will be overly expensive anyway. Sigma and Tamron have much more affordable offers. The Sigma 120-400 is half the price of the Nikon 80-400 and still expensive at about 700€.

    Nikon needs to make some cheaper lenses finally.

    • bla

      “still expensive at about 700€.”

      Maybe you need to get a better idea on what good lenses really do cost. Beggars can’t be choosers.

  • Astrophotographer

    If you use the 80-400 as a basis, a 500 is 25% more aperture and meaning 156% more glass area. So a 100-500 5.6 will likely be $2600 -$3000.

    • Anonymous

      Who cares about glass area? What matters is glass volume… ;)

  • Anonymous

    So many FF lenses. How about a 15-80 f2.8 DX under 1.5K, I’d buy it.

    • Anonymous

      24-120mm FF equivalent? You are probably looking at a 95mm front element too – since your hypothetical lens needs to go from wide angle retrofocus to medium telephoto. Price? No less than US$3k if it were ever built.

  • Ken Elliott

    I thought this might be real, until I saw the tripod foot. It looks practical, and the text says it will fit an Arca-Swiss clamp. Since it is _NOT_CRAPPY, it must be fake. Crappy tripod foots (feet?) are a new tradition at Nikon. Heck, if this is real, it means anyone could get sharp images. I prefer the flex foot, since morons will think the lens is bad and sell it to me cheap. A call to RRS fixes the problem at a fraction of the price of the lens. Man, if Nikon actually puts a rigid foot on this thing, I’ll never be able to afford one.

    • Crabby

      I agree about the tripod foot and its restriction to Arca mounts won’t happen. Also, the VR III is also clearly wishful thinking, given the amount of reduction stated in the ad. Someone just put his wish list into the right format and marketing language.

      I expect the 80-400 VR to be replaced with an 80-400 VR II. Other changes will range from utterly minimal (nano coating of the existing elements?) to a completely new lens formulation and a very lightweight lens somehow, perhaps just more plastic in the body. This will be a lens to sell to people who want more reach than the 70-300mm VR provides without making their camera bag too heavy.

      I expect a 400mm f/5.6 prime intended for the DX market. (My impression is that long lenses don’t have a vignetting issue for larger sensors, but I’m no lens designer. True?) This will come with VR II. Or will it be f/4.8 and be unofficially able to AF with a 1.4X TC on a very sunny day, like the 300mm f/4 with a TC 1.7X?

  • Gordon

    So…ummm…any new rumours on D700X or MX format? :D

  • Jason

    If just one character in that leak/rumour is a typo or an honest mistake on the part of the leaker, this could be a 100-400mm lens. This would tick all of the boxes: replacing the 80-400mm lens, coming in at the same sort of price, less zooming means fewer compromises in performance, still uses 77mm filters. If it has fast AF-S focussing and effective VR, it would find customers waiting with their cash in their hands.

  • http://www.cesarkoot.nl Cesar

    Oh please just give us the 16-35 allright?

  • Paul

    Did anybody noticed the last picture of the 100-500mm lens? It is written 5.5 stops with compatible camera bodies incorporated with Nikon’s O.B. VR or 4 stops with conventional camera bodies. O.B = on body? Vibration Reduction…

  • nilbert

    this thing looks like a big ol flashlight to me

  • http://www.lightpaintphotography.com Chris

    The pic of the 100-500 4-5.6 looks like alot like a 400 f4

    • http://www.lightpaintphotography.com Chris

      the image says that a 1.4tc will retain AF, but not 1.7 or 2.0tc . for nikon to say that it would need to be a f4 lens right? no that the image is real or anything.

  • Marcos

    That is fake and old… check this link back from June 2007 on dpreview… two years back. I think someone wanted to re-start this rumor again.
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=23524289

  • Back to top