Comments on: Nikon AF-S 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED VR to be replaced in few weeks

By: fxed

fxed — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:03:03 +0000

The Bigma imo is not worth $1600 even with OS or upgraded glass. I had the non OS version. Aside from blurred shots (on a tripod) there was the dreaded purple fringing. If you think OS will help this lens keep dreaming. It’s a heavy lens plus the lens is not “EX” but you like it so buy it. Just hope you don’t pixel peep.

By: fxed

fxed — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:47:37 +0000

Yea sure. A cheap piece of plastic like the 70-300 and the Tamron 200-500 (if you ever sampled the Tamron would notice this) and f/5.6. More folks would pay for a redesigned 80-400 for 2K to 2.5K than junk for 600-800 bucks to put on their high end DX and FX camera’s.

By: Past-Prime

Past-Prime — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:08:42 +0000

The best way to explain it is I didn’t have grey hair when they last updated the 80-400! I’m tired of waiting. I just may order the new Sigma 50-500 with OS (decent glass, Bohka, reasonably priced and, Sigma seems to respond to its customers needs…). Just goes to show you, in real life, you begin to observe there are no corporate truths, only rationalizations.

By: mike

mike — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:59:16 +0000

Would a 400/4 be much better/smaller than the 200-400? Would it be cheaper? Canon doesn’t make one without DO glass, so it’s hard for me to tell. I thought what people wanted in that range was a 400/5.6, but then you can get that with a 300/4 and a TC.

By: AA

AA — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:15:59 +0000

I just wonder why NIkon instead of losing market to Canon, learns from Leica (M9) or Pentax (645D) and comes with products that are simple, useful and last.
Somehow, this starts to sound like Microsoft stuff, no sooner you install Windows Vista, you have to go for Windows 7, both similar both annoying with constant updates…
On the other hand you open a Mac and simply it works

By: AA

AA — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:12:54 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:06:55 +0000

I think Nikon has given that market to Sigma.

Who wouldn’t love a 200-500mm f/5.6 Nikon with the same build and image quality of the 70-300 VR at a reasonable price? I’m sure they would sell 10x as many of those as they will the 200-400 F/4.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:04:45 +0000

$6000? That’s the current price, you can bet the ‘new and improved V2′ version will be WAY more expensive.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:03:29 +0000

Great, now the 200-400 will cost $8000 or more judging by how Nikon jacked up the prices on other “improved” lenses like the 70-200.

Can’t put VR in the 300 f/4, or AFS in the 80-400 for an extra hundred or two, but they can improve a crazy expensive lens and put it out of reach of even more people.

It’s no wonder Canon has a bigger market share.

By: GLC

GLC — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:24:40 +0000

Not so! This is what VRII is all about, you can use it on a tripod and it is very effective. I used to believe this until I got my 600 f4 VRII, what a difference in image sharpness. So much difference that I am going to replace my 300 f2.8 because it does not have VR II, image quality has a night and day difference.

I was going to get the 200 – 400 f4 until I realized it did not have VRII, I for one am glad they are coming with a new edition for this lens. I will be first in line. For wildlife I can always use an extra stop or 2 of light.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:45:29 +0000

exactly

By: another anonymous

another anonymous — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:41:06 +0000

hehe i always can’t get the idea why i have 1 year warranty for more money as you have to pay for 5 years… crazy world

By: Victor Hassleblood

Victor Hassleblood — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:41:53 +0000

A good pro-lens has become a VR II-upgrade. Nothing wrong with that and not a revolutionary news either. Anything left to say ? ? ? I just don’t get the discussion and amount of comments, kicked up by this.

By: Char

Char — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:26:07 +0000

“The D700 is a great camera body, but to make use of that greatness you have to buy primes starting at $1,200 and up and zooms that cost $2000 and up.”

Sorry, but this is just not true. I do own the 35/2 AF-D, 50/1.4 AF-D, 85/1.8 AF-D and 135/2 AF-D DC lenses, and none of them cost me even close to the 1200$ you mention, with the 135/2 coming closest. Also, there are a variety of zoom options available for less than 2000$ if you look for them. The 70-300 VR should perform really good on a D700 or even D3x and make a nice, light landscape tele lens for example. The 16-35 should be quite good on a D700, too. I have no idea how my Tamron 28-75 would perform on a D700, but I guess it would not be too bad, especially stopped down. The 28-70/2.8 is much less than 2000$ if bought used.

By: The invisible man

The invisible man — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:09:31 +0000

Mine also, 25th

By: T140Rider

T140Rider — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:52:28 +0000

Well, I was out on Monday photographing an Amateur Rugby game under floodlights using the 200-400 F4 on my D700 with the ISO set to 3200.
Bear in mind that the light levels are way below that use in Pro Rugby or Footie, I did get dome reasonable shots with the shutter speed down to 1/40 or 1/15.
Here, the VR does give you (Along with the D700′s ISO Capability) the ability to take piccies. Some of the Canon users gave up btw because of the very low light levels and pushing the ISO any hight, would just give them noise.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:40:54 +0000

if it is what you say i think it still does not make sense to Nikon as a corporation. They should be investing tiny little resources to those prime products that has most impact to the market, concentration makes it successful…

By: D300user

D300user — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:51:09 +0000

Would it be logical to introduce a new flash/SB-700 for the World Cup? In light of the recent report about low SB-600 availability…

I also agree with that there are many other lenses that need an update. Most of us just can’t cough up the 6000 USD for this lens.

By: Cesar

Cesar — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:18:35 +0000

Yes! I’ll buy one as soon as it comes out!

By: Andrej

Andrej — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:22:45 +0000

Nobody said the replacement for 80-400 won’t be introduced at the same time as the revised 200-400/4 …