I suspect that the ‘defects’ in the older zoom are mostly the result of optimizing it for a future DX-only lineup with FX support being something that is provided on telephoto lenses because there are still some film shooters out there and the cost of supporting them on a lens 70mm or longer is negligible.

So now they are back making FX lenses, a version of the lens optimized for FX makes perfect sense.

I would be buying one, only I have the 10-200 focal length range covered pretty well and would prefer to get something that covers 200-400 or better yet, 200-500. And after that my priority will be a lens with the best possible bokeh, which is likely to mean a prime rather than a zoom.

Would be very interested to see how the bokeh of this lens stands up to the 85mm f/1.4 which seems to be the gold standard.

“It is important to note that the new lens also eliminated the fringing and ghosting that is so evidently shown in images from the 70-200 VR lens. Pay attention to the groom figurine to see my point.

 In this particular test, I find the VR2 give details and sharpness at f/2.8 that the VR can only match at f/8.”

This is in line with my experience using that lens.

I, too, have the D700, and the difference between high iso shots with NR on and those without NR is pretty significant. That alone is enough to skew the results dramatically. I am not saying this test proves that the D3s doesn’t perform better than the D700. But you cannot say that it proves the D3s IS better if you’re basing your point on this same test. I imagine the D3s is better, but by how much no one knows until a true test is performed. With the mistakes Will Cheung made in this series of test shots, I’m surprised he published the results at all.

This test is the equivalent of testing a 2009 model Chevy Truck 4×4 against a new 2010 model which has better 4 wheel drive capabilities. Except the new (2010) truck has chains on for the test, while the old one doesn’t. Clearly, this would make any results completely irrelevant.

I’ll leave the color issues alone since they’re not as big of a deal, but c’mon – they are completely different, and frankly the D700 looks miles ahead on the skin tones. Again, this is somewhat less relevant, but still looks really bad from a testing standpoint. This isn’t a test anymore, but flawed conjecture.

And for the record – I don’t look at the aggressive noise reduction on the D3s shots as a plus – if there is no option to turn off that NR when using the normal iso range (up to 12,800), then I call foul on Nikon for turning their high iso photography into nothing more than a gimmick, just like Canon. I suspect this isn’t the case, and that the NR was set on high only because Will was using the D3s in JPEG mode.

The original “source”: http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/jpn/profile/ir/ir_library/result/qa/2010_2q/index.htm

http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/fb/pdf/fb2009/09fb_e04.pdf

Page 13 : Imaging Company – Shipment / Sales Units of Nikon Cameras and Interchangeable Lenses … (In Thousand Units)

… sorry for being that “rough” with You

+ check out their financial results reports from 2008… 2007 … …

+ just think twice about the number “98 million units” … can You imagine what an unbelievable number of total units (compact digital cameras) worldwide would have to be sold each year, if that number would be for Nikon compact digital cameras only?… Nikon even isn’t the number one in compact cameras worldwide… … add Canon, Panasonic, Sony, Kodak, Olympus, Casio, Sanyo, Samsung, Pentax, Ricoh… (etc) … compact digital cameras to that number…

“Regarding estimated market size for the current year, we have upwardly revised our forecast for digital SLR cameras and interchangeable lenses to 10 million and 16 million units, respectively, and have revised our forecast for compact digital cameras downwards to 98 million units.”