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

By: DaveC

DaveC — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:01:15 +0000

Not this one again. However, I wish they would just update the damn 300 AF-S f/4 prime with VRII already! Let’s go Nikon!! I’m thinking of selling and going to Canon for the affordable lenses with IS they have already for a while.

By: bla

bla — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:09:03 +0000

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.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:17:06 +0000

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?

By: mike

mike — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:59:46 +0000

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…

By: Sven

Sven — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:57:40 +0000

I think this rumor is not true. There is no nano coating. Why would Nikon release I new supper zoom if there is no nano coating?

/Sven

By: Marcos

Marcos — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:53:39 +0000

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

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:36:20 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:31:00 +0000

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

By: nilbert

nilbert — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:19:34 +0000

this thing looks like a big ol flashlight to me

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:51:14 +0000

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.

By: funny

funny — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:37:11 +0000

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.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:48:46 +0000

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…

By: bla

bla — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:43:22 +0000

“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.

By: bla

bla — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:35:20 +0000

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.

By: bla

bla — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:34:03 +0000

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

By: bla

bla — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:31:39 +0000

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.

By: Cesar

Cesar — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:29:27 +0000

Oh please just give us the 16-35 allright?

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:05:14 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:09:20 +0000

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

By: zeeGerman

zeeGerman — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:43:50 +0000

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…