Update: this one is BUSTED! This is a PS job from this Ken Rockwell's image (thanks GlobalGuy).
This just in: Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR. Don't know much about the origin of this picture, still working on it:
rumored Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR lens
The golden letters are inconsistent and the lens appears to be too thick around the mount. I am not even sure if this will fit on a F-mount - this it could definitely be a PS job.
Maybe after the release of the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR lens, Nikon will deliver a full line of new f/4 lenses.
Related posts:
145 Comments
Hooo… I’ll love if this come true!!!. I have good memories from my old 80-200 f/4. I think it would be a great lens for wildlife & nature photography as a f2.8 is too much weight to the added bulk of big glass. I’ve seen many many times Art Wolfe working wiith its Canon equivalent and it seems so light and compact.
We ought to be careful this next few days. A lot of fakes are going to pop-up from people who dream of a full-line of professional f/4 lenses, after the 16-35 f/4 has been announced. The truth is, it makes no sense from Nikon to confuse the market with 2 versions of the 70-200 (one at 2.8 and the other one at 4). Most likely, if Nikon is going to release an f/4 tele, the focal length will be different (more encompassing).
I don’t understand. Why would it confuse anyone. Canon has 4 70-200mm lenses and people don’t seem to be confused. The f/2.8 cost $2000+ and a f/4 will $1200 or so. I would love a 70-200/4 VR.
Well I for one would be rather confused by a lens series that has a 16-35 and a 70-200. What goes in the middle?
Overlap might make sense, but hardly on a lightweight series. More logical would be to partner it with a 35-105 or a 35-135. Possibly completing the set with a 100-300, though that is likely to be a lower priority given the likely launch of a 80-400 replacement.
As fakes go, a rather pathetic one.
Why doesn’t it make sense for Nikon to have two 70-200mm lenses, when it makes sense (and money!!!) for Canon to have four 70-200mm lenses???
Because Nikon (and any company) wants to make their line more appealing and differentiation is a way to do that. If they had made a 17-40/4 Nikkor without VR, no Canon user would consider jump ship (or go double system). There is no sense in replicating all Canon does just because it made money to them in the past…
I disagree. So many people, myself included, say that they would have switched to Nikon for cameras like D700 (and D300 before the 7D was announced) if only Nikon offered the same lovely lenses which Canon has. And often the lenses referred to include the F4 zoom range and the fast primes. For me, Canon still has a few very nice lenses but no D700 equivalent, which is what I really want. ButNikon has the best cameras, not accompanied by Nikkors of a really high quality but not so high price, which is achievable at F4.
Too bad this is a busted rumor, I just hope this lens is in the making…
They used KEN ROCKWELL’S image:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/70-200mm-vr-ii/D3S_9084-1200.jpg
This is a hack of Ken Rockwell’s image.
Its completely fake.
busted!
Compared to Ken photo, they definitely different. Look at zoom skale mark, the picture above indicate the lens is at 105mm. Check Ken’s picture, it’s somewhere between 105mm and 135mm. The lensa design especially near lens mount also different.
If this picture is photoshop work, I really appreciate his effort. But I wish this lens is actually released, Nikon needs a value professional tele.
Okay, i think i busted this rumor too quickly. It should have been more fun… lol…
But, the lighting is exactly the same. You can photoshop and 3-D mesh individual parts (like numbers and positions of markings) — but you cannot easily get rid of signature lighting.
The lighting on this lens was Ken Rockwell’s.
Do we know that this is actually Ken’s image? If there’s one thing Ken does often it’s reviewing lenses he’s never touched, using stock photos in the review (Admittedly I can’t seem to find any other images like Ken’s at this point).
If you look closer to the “fake” image you will see a sort of “photoshop-smudge” mark just below the 70mm-marking.
Compare that spot with the “original” image and you will see it is in te exact spot where the original 70mm mark should be. (use the nikon-tag-plate for height reference)
They do look similar but I also noticed the different zoom settings on the lenses.
In any case, this does look like a “skinnified” version of the 70-200 f/2.8 lens markings, name plate and all.
Unless it’s £500 cheaper and 500g lighter, I can’t see the point – and Nikon wouldn’t do that…
The Canon 70-200 f4 IS weighs in about 50% of the 70-200 f2.8 IS. That would be similar with a Nikon lens.
Under £500? You’ve got to be kidding! try £800 at the absolute minimum, I’m thinking more like £1100 initial hype price, if such a thing were released. settling at £950
Oops, read that wrong. It’d definitely be £500 cheaper. Well it damn well ought to be anyway.
If true, must be Nikon’s answer to a cheaper 70-200VR lens. Like that it seems to have internal zooming unlike the 70-300VR. Still, hoping for a 28-300VR (the FX version of the 18-200VR) someday. Yeah, probably never see that one.
hmm im gonna have to check on my peeps for this one.
Hmmm. I don’t really know. Seems like a nice lens, but then again, I am not quite sure what I would do with it. For landscape photography, the 70-300 VR seems fine in the 70-200 range, no? You would use f/8 most of the time anyways. However, other people seem to be very happy with such a lens, the canon version sells pretty well AFAIK…
Because Canon’s 75-300IS sucked. The 70-300IS is a bit better but leaves much to be desired.
seems like this is a PS job with a 70-200/2,8 as a base. the white markings nr. 2+3 from the left don’t make sense to me. On the 70-200 they mark the position of the tripod mount but I can’t see one on this lens.
It’s just the middle part of the 70-200/2,8 with something attached to either side.
I just tried, and I can’t see the tripod mount of my 70-200 when looking at it from the same angle.
It’s a fake!
I hope Sigma adds OS / VR to its 70-200 2.8. The existing non-OS version is just brilliant…
Doesn’t make sense …
this would be a more logic f4 line:
16-35 — 35-105 — 100-400
nah, look at the Canon lineup, if Nikon is making a budget F4 lineup, then 70-200 makes great sense. A 100-400 F4 would not be cheaper than the 70-200 F2.8
Why would a longer lens be cheaper than the 70-200? We are talking 80-400 replacement
It would not. So if we are talking about a budget line-up here, the 70-200 would be more reasonable.
The 80-400 replacement is a whole different story…
A 100-400/4 could be cheaper/about the same price as a 70-200/2.8 — consider that the 70-400 is 3.5-5.6 and is $1,000 cheaper than the 70-200/2.8 II.
For $1000 bucks they could make it constant and it already had VR, so no excuses about adding VR either. Getting rid of 70-99mm would help as well. And “newness” is not a true cost when market data shows it will sell a mass market worth.
But would you really want a 100-400/4 instead of a 100-500/3.5-5.6? FX suffers on the long end, and a variable extended superzoom would be nice.
Whatever they do, if they could optimize it for long-end sharpness, it would be nice, if thats possible.
Just try to find out what a 200-400 f4 Nikkor costs, and you might get an idea what the price for a 100-400 f4 might be.
No clue at all what you’re talking about, eh?
There is no particular cost in extending the zoom range at the wide end. it will probably mean reduced quality as the lens elements cannot move past each other, but its not going to mean bigger glass.
Increasing the aperture at the tele end is a totally different issue. It would increase the price dramatically. A 100-300 f/4 is maybe practical, but it could easily cost $2000.
None of my current lenses cost $1000, but I will probably get the 80-400 replacement. I doubt that I will ever be wuite up to the 200-400. And if the 80-400 replacement is good, it could easily be the better lens to have. The 200-400 looks way to heavy to me. If I have the money and want to carry the weight, I am thinking the 400mm f/2.8 would be the better choice.
You don’t have to do everything with zooms… Fast primes make a smaller zoom quite acceptable.
Overlap in a f/4 line makes a LOT of sense for convenience. Remember the 17-35 and 28-70 days? OVERLAP, baby!
The picture is definitely fake, but an F4 lineup may very well be in the makings! I would still save up and purchase a 2.8 for that focal length though.
Btw Nikon, make this one affordable, alrite?
Does it have the Nano”metal” coating like his big brother ?
)
If it is real, Nikon will charge $1600 for it since the Canon one is $1100. Just like the Nikon 24mm 1.4 is $200 vs. Canon’s $1700 24mm 1.4.
Then people might as well go buy a used old version of the 70-200 2.8
or for under a thousand you can get an amazingly sharp 80-200 f2.8 nikon which will have better build quality then any budget zoom. Honestly, this thing if it comes out will be just a bit cheaper then the 2.8 and im guessing like the previous f4 release it wont be much smaller or lighter. Waste of time.
I have to agree with those who say that it doesn’t make sense. Why would Nikon offer a 70-200 VR with a constant aperture of f/4?
I might understand if the only other long zoom were the 70-300 VR, but it seems that anyone who is looking for a new, constant-aperture long lens would go for the 80-200 f/2.8 if they can’t afford the 70-200.
I reckon the 80-200mm is due for a replacement (14 years old), it would make sense to replace it with an f/4 version, i.e. 80-200mm f/4.
I was always under the impression that its intended replacement (the 80-200 AF-S) was itself replaced by the 70-200.
I will certainly agree that it’s kind of surprising that Nikon has kept the 80-200 around as long as it has, but I still don’t see a 70-200 f/4 as a replacement for it.
Then again I’ve been expecting a replacement for the SB-600 for over a year, and that hasn’t happened either.
He’s talking about the 80-200 AFD lens. Which I can see this f/4 lens replacing.
Yes, that the lens I’m talking about. I don’t think Nikon need to replicate Canon lens for lens, we don’t need 5 versions of the 70-200.
I think a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and a 80-200mm f/4 would compliment each other well with some compromise but at least we then have a choice. If you want f/2.8 or VR then just get the 70-200mm, need only f/4 then get the 80-200mm.
If a 80-200mm f/4 was released I’d upgrade from my 70-200mm without question.
I think the only reason Canon has four different versions of every lens is so that they can pad out the range. Is it seriously very likely that there is a significant market for pro-quality f/2.8 non-VR 70-200 zooms?
If you discount all the duplicates and the lenses that are there for pure marketing, Canon’s range is not that large.
Guess what, I have a 70-200 f2.8, and I would love to replace that boat anchor in my bag with an f4 lens!
Huh? The 70-200/4IS ain’t really smaller or lighter than either 70-200VR.
The Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS is much lighter than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS at 760 grams vs 1470 grams.
The Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS is also shorter by 25mm than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.
I would definitely get a Nikkor 70-200mm f/4.0G VR if it was half the weight and an inch shorter than the f/2.8 version.
makes total sense. the canon sells well. so would the nikon. an complete f/4 line is one of the reasons people shy away from nikon. addressing this point gives them more competive power. they are not in the business of making sense. they are in the business of making money.
I can’t quite see Nikon coming out with a 70-200 f/4 and a replacement for the 80-400 in the same year.
I can see Nikon going overboard and producing multiple f/4 lenses rather than a single duo or trio series. But not in the same year. Nikon’s next priority has to be a 35-100 f/4 so that they have a pair of kit lenses for a lower cost FX body.
seems fake, but I would buy it if it was released.
An 70-200/4 VR absolutely makes sense! Look at the Canon Lineup and here it is my absolute favorite lens on rallyes. I prefer it above the 70-200/2.8, because it has only half weight of the 2.8 and it is really brilliant.
In nikon´s portfolio a f4 lineup is an open hole and absolutely missing. Ig Nikon would also do an 70-200/4 VR and something like an 24-105(or -120)/4 VR the System could get really interesting for me.
yeah, pretty sure it’s fake. you can see the sampled “clone” areas if you go into photoshop curves, and pull the curve to make the image very bright.
though i could be wrong… 50-50 on this.
Its KEN ROCKWELL’s image — just photo-chopped up:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/70-200mm-vr-ii/D3S_9084-1200.jpg
Fake boobs, fake flowers, fake lenses, what a world !
Fake names
I/We can hope…
67mm filter thread?
this is the new 70-300 VR Reported 2 weeks ago. more stuff coming revised lenses etc. + new grip in testing has some issues, might have data logger option.
Yeah just what they need to produce, another 70-200 right after releasing another 70-200.
I predict that Nikon will next release a 70-200 f/1.4, maybe even a 70-200 PC?
NOT!
Maybe Nikon is serious about fleshing out f/4 into a full line. They already have 200-400 f/4, this would be the lens right below that one.
Doesn’t matter to me either way, I have an 80-200 f2.8, so 70-200 f/0 not interesting for me. I’m still waiting for 800-400 replacement.
“800-400″? I didn’t think anyone made an “inverted” zoom!
Duh, the more you zoom in, the larger the aperture!
Why?
What is the point in these f/4′s?
??
Easy! They are smaller, they are lighter, they are (a bit) less costly, while they can deliver the same image quality as the big, heavy, and costly f2.8 lenses.
Not everybody needs f2.8.
the point is to make money.
********** OK, HERE IT IS *********
I hope I won’t get fired for that.
The D900 (comming soon) have a all new sensor (captor) very (VERY) sensitive with 3200 ISO looking like 200 ISO.
That’s why Nikon relase pro lenses with f/4 aperture, don’t need f/2.8 with 3200 ISO.
That make the lenses cheaper (still high quality), lighter and smaler.
There will still be f/2.8 lenses for professionals who need the 2.8 broken.
Now I’ll get fire,
The new captor is actualy a 3 colors captors (red green blue) with “only” 14.7MP each , but the colors, contrast and sensitivity will be incredible.
The price will be around $3800 due to the complex prism necessary for 3 captors.
Sorry but no video this time.
And your source is?
my dreams
)
Oh yeah, and a 200/2.8 too!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonrumors/3921134169/
This is too good to be true….. i wish nikon is really in the progress of making this lens! i’m willing to buy this lens at $1300!!
This lens is desnecessary!!! Necessary is 80 or 100-400 f/4 VR or 24-70 f/2.8 VR… Other necessary is 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 VR
Hmm . . . I took out my 16-85 AFS which is pretty fat at the back end and it looks about the same diameter relative to the mount – it appears that this certainly would/could still mount on my D300 as there is plenty of room back there.
Hopefully it isn’t a PS job!
- John
Even if it is fake, based on comparing the mount size to the 16-85 (as I mentioned above) and now the 70-300VR (both of which I have) the back end diameter does not appear at all to be too large. Although long, the diameter does not seem to be out of whack for a 200mm f/4 lens.
Hopefully it’s not fake – although the “N” on the side means it won’t be cheap!
- John
I think is fake.
but it make sense such a lens…
why make a 100-400mm F4 if there is already a 200-400mm f4??
sorry about my inglish
im from Peru
Hola !
have you priced the 200-400 F4 ? thats hardly comparable to the other f4 zooms people are talking about. A 70-200 f4 would be a travel zoom and a good option for hobbyists and broke photogrpahers(wether or not i think its a good idea). The 200-400 is a PRO lense no doubt about it, cost like one, weighs like one, as big as one. People have to stop comparing these damn lenses.
And they wouldnt make a 100-400 your right, they would replace the 80-400 which sells for a fifth of the 200-400.
it is fake.
but not a bad idea if its in consideration. do we have any 70-200mm f4 patents?
I’d rather like to have a 35-150mm f/4 lens or 50-150mm f/4, FX or DX.
The start at 70mm for DX – a bit too long for my needs.
70-300 is a very good lens already for the 70-200 zone.
I’d say 50-150mm f2.8 AF-S DX ED VR, and then if you add a 1.4TC, you would get a 70-210mm f4 AF-S DX ED VR. Therefore, more flexibility in terms of focal length, and to cater for times when you badly need f2.8 at 150mm…
i just want a fucking new 85 1.4. after that nikon can do whatever the f they want
For me: 135mm f/2 AF-S
I want both the 85mm f/1.4 VR and 135mm f/2.0 VR!
I just want a fucking new 35 1.4, after that nikon can do whatever the f they want.
yeah those two lenses would be awesome too. great addition to my 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 (VR1 :<), 200 2VR, 50 1.4g, and stuff. the 85 cause i need a lighter creammachine
Try the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX on an FX body. If you like what you see (minus the vignetting), then you will like the new Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G DX when this comes out. Going by this test, I will definitely like the 35mm f/1.4G DX when this is released!
But Nikon will not release this possibly sub-$1,000 lens until everyone who can afford the 24mm f/1.4G have bought one!
So we will have to wait till late this year or early next year. 
Nope, the 35 f/1.8 is a hybrid aspherical design, very different from what I would expect an FX fast prime to be.
There is not much point in having two lenses that are the same
Try the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX on an FX body. If you like what you see (minus the vignetting), then you will like the new Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G FX when this comes out. Going by this test, I will definitely like the 35mm f/1.4G FX when this is released!
But Nikon will not release this possibly sub-$1,000 lens until everyone who can afford the 24mm f/1.4G have bought one!
So we will have to wait till late this year or early next year. 
”Maybe after the release of the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR lens, Nikon will deliver a full line of new f/4 lenses.”
well the Polish site fotopolis.pl in the article introducing the 16-35 states, that the press materials delivered by nikon said that the 16-35 IS the begining of a series of f/4 lenses which are supposed to be characterised by their good price to quality ratio.
the original, if you need it:
W materiałach udostępnionych przez Nikona możemy dodatkowo wyczytać, że to początek nowej serii szkieł o stałym świetle f/4, które mają się charakteryzować dobrym stosunkiem ceny do jakości. http://www.fotopolis.pl/index.php?n=10378
oh, and the next sentence, if youre wondering says
Na razie nie wiadomo jakie konstrukcje pojawią się w dalszej kolejności. Ze szczególną niecierpliwością czekamy na obiektyw klasy 70-200mm f/4…
which means: for now, we still don’t know which lens will be introduced next. we are particularly eager about an 70-200 f/4 type lens
it’s a fake. It totally looks like my 2.8 vrII after a photoshop gone wrong. but I hope nikon pays attention at the sales #’s for this f/4 model from their rival. it’s a worthy lens to bring into existance and profitable one too.
I am now using my third version of the Nikon AF 70/80-200mm f/2.8 zoom lens and recently picked up an old AF 70-200 f/4.0. I will be very happy if Nikon releases a new f/4.0 200mm zoom. Why bother with a f/4.0 when I have the f/2.8? Size and weight. The old 80-200 AF-S was a tank at 52 oz but my little 70-200 f/4 weighs half that and unless I need that extra stop for sports or more subject to background blur it does quite well. If I were backpacking I’d take the little lens hands down. I take my f/4 zoom instead of my f/2.8 one for most of my portrait assignments because I’m shooting strobes @ f/8. As a result the little zoom is easier to hand hold and plenty sharp at that aperture.
It’s also easier to make a sharp f/4 zoom than a f/2.8 one so the lens isn’t just smaller and cheaper it could be optically better than it’s big f/2.8 brother is. The Canon f/4 70-200 is much better than their f/2.8. So to me the f/4 is perfect for anyone who doesn’t absolutely need the extra f/stop.
Why would any company especially Nikon feel the need to follow the white lens company. People who whine about f4 are simly wimps. Get a real lense 70-200 2.8! Or if you really are going to shoot faster, then get any of the dime a dozne veraiable zoom. If it is important suck it up and put down the $ and lift some weights!
“Why would any company especially Nikon feel the need to follow the white lens company.” – Because they want to make money?
“People who whine about f4 are simly wimps.” – Yes, I am a whimp, and I want that lens
Chuck:
Are you still walking around with the Motorola DynaTac Cell phone?
http://www.herecomestheboss.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/a030625_rudi_krollop_motorola-dynatac__n.jpg
That’s big enough for people that did some weight training. I agree about the f/2.8 VS f/4, but the size and weight issues with the 70-200 is not trivial. If there is such a thing like a 70-200 f/4, let’s see how much it weights first, because the 16-35 f/4 is not much lighter than the 17-35 f/2.8.
It is not much lighter, but that’s because at 17-35 you don’t have VR.
So i think that in many cases the f/4 combined with VRII would be more usefull.
Let’s see: for a long time people used F2.8 lenses on APS-C/DX sensor cameras and seemed to achieve great results in tricky light conditions such as weddings or photojournalism. In terms of high ISO performance those cameras were 1-1.5 stops worse than the FF cameras from Canon available at the time (1D/1D2 and 5D). DX sensor cameras with F2.8 lenses gave an equivalent of a little more than F4 on FF cameras in terms of depth of field.
After the D3/D700 was released, the high ISO ability improved, compared to the DX sensors, by 1.5-2.5 stops. And the depth of field on a FF camera with an F4 lens is of course F4.
So, if a Nikkor 70-200mm F4 was released, you could have a bit shallower depth of field (F4 v. F4.5 equivalent of a F2.8 lens on DX) and between 0.5 and 1.5 stops better high ISO performance (even if one uses an F4 lens on an FF camera v. and F2.8 lens on DX).
If people were able to shoot weddings and other stuff with F2.8 lenses on DX cameras (and many continue doing so), I don’t see any reason why the same could not be achieved, with even better results, with an F4 lens on a FF camera. I do see, however, how such lighter, sharper and cheaper lenses could have a great appeal and the Canon 70-200 F4IS is the best example.
BTW the 16-35 F4 makes sesne in many ways. F4 makes a superwide and affordable zoom. They already got the 14-24, the 17-35 is old.. and adding VR is a huge plus and who the hell shoots super wide wide open anyways?
yep let the new f4 series roll on, only wish would be they are razor sharp at f4 already!
Looks like a PS job of 70-200 VR II plus 300/4 AF-S.
But I’ll bet the real 70-200/4 will look very similar to this.
The fake 70-200 2.8 II was pretty close to the real thing:
http://www.thaidphoto.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=269333&stc=1&d=1215889492
Its KEN ROCKWELL’s image — just photo-chopped up:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/70-200mm-vr-ii/D3S_9084-1200.jpg
THE SHADING & LIGHTING IS AN EXACT MATCH.
thanks – I updated the post. I should visit KR more often:)
UMM NO! Can you see the lens is zoomed different in each picture. Its not the same picture. NIce try tho
And I thought you were going to describe him the effects of prolonged exposure to KR website
Its not the same lens…
KR one has 3 zoom/focus rings..:S
Unfortunately I bet once this lens is realized, it will be slightly more expensive than a 80-200 2.8D and only very slightly lighter. In which case I’ll stick with the fast lens.
Its likely that this will be priced higher than the current 80-200mm f/2.8 even if it is a constant f/4 lens (if Nikon produces one that is). The VR, the improved optics, and nano-coating – these alone guarantees that this lens will cost more if produced. But if it is as good as the Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS, then it will be worth the price.
I say Nikon .. bring it on!
Why not an AF-S 75-150mm f/3.5 VR instead? It’d be smaller, lighter, faster, sharper, and cheaper.
The Series E lens is one of the best telephotos (and zooms) Nikon has made, and the focal length range is excellent on both FX/film and DX. It’s my go-to telephoto for my D200 and F3 over the 105mm f/2.5 and 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S. I even got rid of my 70-210mm f/4 E and 80-200mm f/4.5 because I always took the 75-150mm over both of them.
The only reason for Nikon to come out with an f/4 range is so that they can push up the prices of the f/2.8′s
Looks like people just want to play head games. This is what makes me made, when people go half cock and make false statements with photos. They don’t back it up. That’s why I prefer people would get the right info. before they submit their statements to the forum. Tell me, is it so hard to get the right info.?
And here I thought Nikon was actually paying attention to my tweets!
http://twitter.com/Ground_Rat/status/8881961970
That would be a most welcome lens… Would outsell the 2.8…
I might be the minority here, but I actually believe this picture is real, or at least, represent a very authentic look-alike image of a real product. at least the zoom setting on this picture and KR’s is different.
a real AF-S 70-200 f/4 VR Nano would likely cost US$1399 (~70% of the MSRP of 70-200 VR2). speculating from the fact that the 16-35 f/4 VR cost ~70% of what 14-24 ask for.
This lens @ $1399 would be perfect. The image might be fake, but I hope Nikon is paying attention.
nikon 70-200 vr f4 with little flakes.
70-200/4 will be the lens that will cease my “no-more-Nikkor-purchases” policy
my freind is manager in the nikon factory
tell that this year we will have new 24-120 VR
but dont know f or nano so may be 3.5-5.6 3.5-4.5 or fixed 4
and surprise we will have 28-300 3.5-5.6 too
and may be new line of FX in a smaller body
u know the mid product made in thailand
and why the rumor from here not to spread world wide but nearly to be fact
do we know the same guy?
may be if he told the same , not if he told different
he told that he cant confirm the spec until see the finished product
but now they’re on the line so he can estimate about the spec
and they’ll be annouced with new FX body
I’m actually hoping it’s gonna cost 800-900$. And no nano coating ,that’s just unnecessary.(excuse the english)