< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

The new Nikon 70-200mm f/4 lens expected to start shipping at the end of November

The new Nikon 70-200mm f/4 lens that is expected to be announced next week will probably start shipping at the end of November, 2012. The price of the lens is expected to be in the $1,000-$1,300 range (depending on your local currency). I do not have the exact US price yet.

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

    What no D400 or D700 successor rant ?!

    Thx for the update admin !

    • http://www.robertash.com Robert Ash

      It looks like the D600 is the replacement for the D700. I sincerely doubt we’ll ever see 12MP again, especially not in a professional-grade camera. Not that that’s a bad thing…..

      • vFunct

        The D800 is the replacement for the D700.

        The D600 doesn’t have the pro-level autofocus that the D700/D800 has.

        • RC

          They D600 doesn’t need a better AF system. It’s lightning fast!

          • jake

            yeah it is just as fast as the D800 but the D600 has longer shutterlag and when you sell it you will lose significant amount of money because it is already cheap.

            plus the D600 cannot focus well in extreme low light.

          • desmo

            I have a D600 and overall I am highly pleased with it, however it would have been better with the 51 point af.
            In low light and/or using single point af it lags way behind
            my D300s.
            it seems it wants to find faces in auto 39 point more than it wants to do what you tell it when shooting with precision,
            i.e. its a consumer system not PRO

        • inginerul

          No, the D800 is what the D3x should have been. The D700 was a mistake crippling the sales of the D3. Did you see canon doing the same mistake with the 5Dmk2 ?

          Nikon woke up and replaced the overkill D300 with the D7000, and the overkill D700 with the D600.

          The D3x was a sales disaster because of the pro body which made it 7000 and left nikon completely open to the 5Dmk2 megapixel assault. Now they have the D800.

          Questions ?

          • Mock Kenwell

            “Questions ?”

            Just one…are you being rediculous every day or is it only on Thursdays?

            • karl

              actually, what’s he saying makes sense.

              The D800 is the most affordable pro level FX camera, and probably the best DX camera at the same time. It beats the D7000 in DX mode, you know.

            • Discontinued

              >>being rediculous<< ? ? ?

              Quite contrary. inginerul's evaluation of Nikon's previous and current line-up is the smartest I have ever read on NR.

              All that "I am going Canon"-talk is gone now. Nikon must have done something right. And all that stupid "oh my D700 is soooo great and nobody needs more than 12 MP"-responses or "you cheap shit could afford a D3X if you were a real pro"-insults have thankfully stopped too.

              inginerul has nailed it.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Something tells me ingenerul, karl and discontinued are all one and the same person.

              And no, this troika isn’t neither right nor correct, it’s just one of the interpretations of what has happened, with not much substance nor facts associated with.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Something tells me that I didn’t actually write that. How nice it is to have others doing my trolling for me…

          • jake

            exactly, the D700 was a big mistake.
            and even the cheap D600 is a much better camera than the old D700 was.

            • http://micahmedia.com Micah

              Surely you troll kind sir. Nice try. Play again soon.

          • ashwins

            “Nikon woke up and replaced the overkill D300 with the D7000″

            That’s BS. The D7000 qualifies for a D300 replacement only in terms of the sensor technology. Everything else (metering/AF, body, performance etc.) is inferior. If you have been shooting with them both, then you know what I mean.

            The D300s was the replacement of D300 with an outdated sensor, and we are still waiting for the D400.

            • Discontinued

              “If you have been shooting with them both, then you know what I mean.”

              I have and I know what you mean. What you miss is the VF. The one of the D7000 trumps the one of a D300 by far.

              And what you also miss is ingineruls’s point. “Overkill” means exactly what you like in a D300 over a D7000.

            • Richard Pence

              Careful ashwins, ‘Discontinued’ = ‘ingenerul’

              Same guy propping his own posts, one of the oldest tricks on forums and blogs that don’t require a sign-in.

          • photoguy

            agreed about the d3x,

            but totally wrong on the d700 vs d3 sales… there were plenty of people who bought the d700 who didn’t and never would have spent the extra double money for the d3. Lots of people who wouldn’t have entered FX at that time did because of the d700. Not to mention the d3 came out, what, a year before the d700, maybe a little more than. The people who were going to buy the d3 probably already had by the time the d700 was released.

            Like you, I doubt there will be another “d700″ between 600 and 800. however, while the d800 is a very very good dx camera, There is still room for a true dx camera with high frame rate, higher mpx. I have a d800 and love it, but i’m sorry, I and many others don’t want to shoot wildlife at 6 fps at 15mpx (d800 dx portion approx). would rather have 8 or 9 fps at 20~ mpx, which is still lower resolution than the cheapest dx camera there is. There is still room for a higher end dx. The only way to get FX to shoot at 20+ mpx in DX is to have a 45+ mpx sensor, which will be very very expensive.

          • MB

            D3x was Nikon response to Canon 21Mpix 1Ds and unsuccessful greedy attempt to sell 500$ sensor for 8000$ (while Sony was selling exactly the same sensor for 2000$ with camera included), Nikon obviously made a mistake considering consumers to be more stupid than they actually are.
            D3 was actually very successful camera, it was Nikon response to 1D. The idea was that customers are stupid enough to buy huge volumes of D3x for 8000$, D3 is just enough for cost sensitive newspaper photographers and D700 is good enough for serous enthusiast (since it would be very difficult to justify D3x insane price if it was using the same 500$ sensor). D700 also proved to be a success and consumers proved to be not so stupid and valued IQ and quality of D700.
            It seem to me that a bit of respect for their customers is the most successful marketing strategy for Nikon.

  • Flo

    interested in what the next gen VR will be like.

    • babola

      Rumored 5 stops of hand-holdability. One stop up on the exsiting VRII.

      Not bad but not sure it will mean that much to most folk. As long as they don’t price it at the premium just because it’s ‘new’ and ‘no other lens maker has caught up with Nikon’s VR III system yet’ kind of reasons…

      • http://focusedbynoah.weebly.com tamron owner

        Tamron VC will always be superior to the Nikon VR.
        WHY, at 300mm the Tamron can shoot at 1/4 second sharp handheld!
        experience. Nikon VR and Tamron VC owner

        • Mock Kenwell

          What?!

          Leave the comedy to the professionals…please.

        • Apollo

          Tamron’s VC horrible piece of shit! Even VR1 can be the latest VC from Tamron! It’s just horrible and it fails all the time. Also, there’s lots of problems with VC when you try to make it work, sometimes it freezes up and that’s it, take the lens off or shut down the camera.

          • http://micahmedia.com Micah

            Tamron’s VC is ok…if you wait like 10 seconds for it to spin up. VR picks up quicker. And VR doesn’t get as jumpy as VC during video.

  • DM

    I have a feeling at that price this lens will be on backorder for a long time, especially before Christmas. I just hope I’ll be able to pre-order and get it this year.

    • http://www.robertash.com Robert Ash

      Absolutely agreed. What a fantastic price point for a wonderful lens! Assuming it’s up to true Nikon quality, which I trust and certainly hope it will be…..

      • RC

        I remember getting the “new” two-collar version of the 80-200 F2.8D when it first came out, and it was just about $1000. These new lenses are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overpriced!

        • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

          And your 80-200 will outperform the 70-200 vr ii where?
          Just stick to your old ais and D lensen if you think todays lensen are a bit pricey

        • RC 2.0

          Agreed, all this stuff is way over-priced. Just isn’t enough competition.

        • babola

          At that time average US salary and cost of living was 1/3 less compared to todays. And US$ was buying a lot more Japanese Yen.

          So not that much of a surprise, really.

    • Nikon Shooter

      The only reason one should consider an f/4 lens is when there is no the f/2.8 alternative. Like the 24-120. Otherwise it’s borderline silly. Saving $1000 over 10+ years of ownership is not that big a deal.

      I’m sure that anyone who’s ever tried the 70-200 f/2.8 will not even look the other way. That lens is simply out of this world. The weight takes some getting used to (mine took a backseat to the 85mm for portrait work for a few months after I got it), but after I took my time with it and got accustomed to the weight and the handling I don’t even notice the bulk anymore.

      To each his own of course and if the f/4 version was available at the time when I bought my first 70-200 f/2.8 I might have considered the f/4 version and possibly even bought it, but now I realize what a mistake this would’ve been.

      • Nick

        You are kidding, right?

        There are plenty of reasons to get the f4 version.

        • Mock Kenwell

          No he’s not. And if you owned and shot with 70-200 f2.8 you would have thought the same.

          There definitely are few reasons for going 70-200 f4, like travelling lighter and shooting primarily outside…but for that fine indoor work like portrature, events, interiors etc nothing comes close, not yet anyway.

          • Nikonhead

            For indoor work I would rather have the f/4 VR III over f/2.8 with no VR. If your subject is stationary VR is more useful. For sports the f/2.8 in necessary. Optically the f/2.8 and f/4 should be about equal.

            • Mock Kenwell

              Sorry, I was refering to a f2.8 VR II, not a non-VR older model.

      • Smudger

        I need genuine 200mm focal length at MFD. Not c. 130mm.

        The 70-200 VRII’s heavy breathing is a deal killer.

        The 70-200 VRI should never have been marketed as an FX lens because of the awful edges & corners. Great DX lens tho’

        Nikon just can’t get lenses in this range right. Further back, remember the huge 1-touch 80-200 with no tripod ring? Not even a bad one.

        • Bavid Daily

          “remember the huge 1-touch 80-200 with no tripod ring?”

          Still got one… works perfectly, blowing and sucking all that dust and dirt in and out.

          Wonderful.

          • Pablo Ricasso

            Yeah man. Beats all my other zooms and most primes too (when shot at f8) and with fantastic colors… But I wouldn’t want to hang my camera on a tripod too long with it on there. And I wouldn’t try to shoot it at any less than f8 either because it gets softer than a series 1. So you have a big long heavy thing that you have to handhold and shoot at f8. Might be amongst the best 300 I ever spent, but almost anything would be an improvement in a practical sense. I’ll bet the new zoom is better and especially at f4.

      • C_QQ_C

        Combined with 16-85 nice holyday lens, where the 2.8 is way to heavy a lot of times…

    • Dave in the USA

      NR said the D600 would be as low at $1500. So, if his source says $1100 to $1300, I think that really means $1700 – $1900, in which case, I’ll just get a used 70-200 2.8 VR I

  • Rob

    For the same price range you can get the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 with stabilization. I have the old version (no stabilization) and I love it.

    Not knocking Nikon lenses, I’m just saying… Same price, and still great quality :)

    I will say this: Sigma kind of sucks in the wide-angle department… I’m hoping to pick up a Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 VR while I still can…

    • http://www.eddiekphoto.com Eddie

      Rob I completely agree with you. I have the Tamron 70-200mm, which doesn’t have VC but it’s great. Also with the news of the new Tamron 70-200mm with VC coming out I think Nikon will have to really rethink the price of this lens. I’m still excited to learn more and hear some reviews though.

      • GQT

        Eddie – Sigma and Tamron are cheaper and are ok in the sharpness dept. but does not offer the same higher caliber in optics as the Nikon. There is a reasonable justification why they are more expensive.

        • http://circa1983.ca Owen

          I’d also say that Nikon has a better resale/residual value than the other brands, thus even further justifying the cost.

          • Worminator

            This is a hugely important point, though if you are buying used to begin with the difference is less striking.

            • Rob

              Really great points all around! It’s so nice to see a meaningful discussion in these comments for once, instead of the usual bashing and trash talk :)

              GQT and Pablo Ricasso: I understand your points, and I agree with you. For what I need (I’m not paying the bills with my photos), off-brand lenses are a great bargain.

              I’ll be the first to admit that autofocus on my previous-generation Sigma 70-200 (without stabilization) is a little slow… I haven’t had a chance to try the new OS version, but I have used the Sigma 105mm macro with OS, and it’s amazingly fast outside of the close-up range!

            • http://loewald.com/blog/ Tonio Loewald

              Another argument is long-term reliability. Nikon seems to build lenses to last — even its cheapest lenses seem pretty well constructed.

              I’m hardly an expert (I only own five lenses, none of them “pro” quality) but when I read reviews, which I do obsessively, two of the chief gripes with Sigma and Tamron is that the lenses break down and have poor quality control. E.g. I was seriously considering buying a Sigma telephoto (which is highly rated) but several independent Amazon reviews complained that the AF motor fails. One reviewer said it had failed for every sample of the lens owned by members of his club.

              That said: I do own the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, which is rock solid. (But I rented one before buying.)

        • Trappistmonk

          Interesting point of view, I have been wondering if I should get the D600 with the kit lens or the tamron f2.8 28-70 and I have decided for the tamron

          • desmo

            keep making good belgian beer
            leave photo toNikon

            • C_QQ_C

              Agree, those Japanese do not know how to brew Beer..:-)

            • Trappistmonk

              For the beer, I’ll stay with what the Belgians provide … For the lenses, given a fixed budget of $500 and looking for a zoom, the faster Tamron lens was the better choice for me over the slower Nikon kit lens. I am interested in this zoom though if the price is right.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        I would pay extra for the f4 just to have the incredible Nikon Color. Tamron color looks similar when the light is just perfect. Otherwise it looks Tamron. I also doubt either it or the Sigma are as sharp at f4 as the new lens, much less at f2.8. If I were cash limited I would rather have a good f4 lens and a prime like either 85 f 1.8. If weight was the big factor, I would choose between that and the zoom. I doubt the image quality will be distinguishable from the f2.8 zoom.

        • desmo

          +1 1/2

        • Andrew

          “I doubt the image quality will be distinguishable from the f2.8 zoom…”

          Of course it will, don’t be silly. Weather you’re good enough to see it that’s another thing. Not pointing a finger at you specifically, but there are far too many off the cuff comentators who just about bagged the f2.8 version even before Nikon released f4.

          Take Canon for example – they have f4 version of 70-200, it’s good lens, but sure as heck it ain’t as good as their IS II f2.8. It’s a fact, accept it and can on. There’s little reasons for me to believe Nikon will create anything different, certainly not a lens that will surpass their current f2.8 model.

          • Geoff

            I wouldn’t say that so soon. The Nikon 85mm and 50mm F1.8’s are both sharper than their more expensive f/1.4 brothers.

            When I had the nikon 80-200 I almost always stopped down to 4. So if it’s light and has outstanding image quality I’ll probably grab this lens.

            • Ken Mockwell

              The new f4 will most likely be close to f2.8 performance but no cigar, sorry.

              Canon is a good example.
              Also the primes you mentioned are a different cattle of fish as both the 50 and 85mm f1.4 for example were created a long time before the f1.8 version release. The 70-200 f2.8 is a new lens (3 years old) using all the best and latest technology Nikon has on offer today, so don’t expect f4 to surpass it.

      • Delayedflight

        Had the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 used it on my D7000 for a while and it performed poorly wide open not to mention autofocus just couldn’t keep up.
        Switched to Nikon’s 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 – the difference is day and night I could shoot wide open with next to no sharpness issues, no halos, no softness and best of all the autofocus could keep up with what I was shooting. VR is also a useful bonus for panning.

        • d800e_finally_here

          The Nikon f/4 series also have nano-coating as well. Which is reserved for $1000+ zooms. Pictures from these nano-coated lenses do look more saturated and with better clarity.

    • http://www.jackypoon.org Jacky

      Yeah sigma do some great lens (when you get a good copy) but the f4 is going to be lighter and smaller so it would be great for traveling photography… Otherwise you can find a good condition f2.8 VR1 secondhand, probably even less than the f4 new!

      I have to say though, I’ve a really sharp copy of a sigma 24mm 1.8, with added bonus of macro focus! Would be good if Nikon wide-angles could do macro too…

    • David

      I bought a used 70-200 VR I for less than the price of the Sigma 70-200/2.8. To me, that’s the most sensible idea. It’s official Nikon, so no problems with compatibility or repairs. And those lenses are almost bulletproof – incredibly well made professional lenses so buying an old one isn’t a problem at all.

    • WQ

      I cannot agree with you because of two reasons:

      The advantage of f4 is size. While Sigma and Tamron both have 2.8 lenses that might be cheaper, they are big. If you had ever held a Canon 70-200mm f4, you would not have said that. Also, a side point would be that while the Tamron is excellent optically, it lacks a fast USM motor while the Sigma doesn’t get sharp till f4 (weight of f2.8 and performance of f4).

      • Rob

        WQ: interesting point on the size issue. I had not considered that, and as someone else also pointed out it makes a lot of sense for travel photography.

        On my copy of the Sigma 70-200, f/2.8 is actually quite good, but yes, f/4 is a little bit sharper. Maybe I got lucky with a good copy, but I’ve never had a problem at f/2.8! :)

        I’ve also never used an f/4 lens, but wouldn’t the same argument hold true; wouldn’t “wide open” at f/4 be less sharp than stopping down to f/5.6?

        Thanks for the insight, and I look forward to hearing your response! Like I mentioned, I’m considering the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 :)

        Cheers!

    • desmo

      I don’t want a Sigma

      • Jismo

        Me neither…they may be good lenses but they ain’t Nikkor glass…

      • Axel

        Exactly,

        that is why I never use a tissue that is not Kleenex © … Never …

  • Joe King

    My prediction is $1,499.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/altamiranopics/ Aldo

      Maybe… but for that money I would rather to way a little more and just get the 2.8 one…

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/altamiranopics/ Aldo

        I meant, wait )

        • RC

          Why are we ok with this ridiculous pricing? When I bought the original 70-200 F2.8, I paid $1453 for it brand new. I even bought a used one in perfect condition in 2005 for $1209.95, and now we have to pay an extra $1000 for what? They know we’re willing and able to pay…that’s why.

    • KT

      I suspect it’ll initially be offered at the top of that $1K-1500 price range till after the holidays and all the back-orders are cleared, then the price will settle at the $1K point. Feb sounds like a good point to make a purchase

    • Thom Moore

      This is definitely an exciting lens. I may sell my 70-200mm f/2.8. It is too heavy to take casually.

      This guy states $1299, and half the weight of the 2.8 VR-II.

      I am looking forward to pre-ordering in hope I can get it before xmas!

      • Kim

        Is the picture of the AF-S 70-200mm f4 in that report for real???

        • desmo

          appears not to be,
          its just schlepping people to his website

  • http://www.jackypoon.org Jacky

    Take my money!!! It’s going to be great for some sweet travel photography!

  • Cashed up

    I think this lens will be very sharp to suit the new D800 and 600, as sharp as the 70-200 2.8 at f5.6, maybe 2 ED glass elements, big demand (it’s a poor mans 2.8) and VRIII at 4 (real) stops.
    Will sell like iPhon….err..Galaxy3’s!!

  • http://opticlust.com Geoff

    Man if this is light and sharp enough and the price comes in under $1500, it will definitely be on my Christmas list.

  • MrMister

    waste of money imo. Might as well just save up for the 85mm 1.4d or the 24-70mm.

    • Worminator

      If we are doing “this-not-that”, then my vote goes for the AF85/1.8 D or S. Smaller, sharper, lighter, cheaper, faster…

      But then, some people just *have* to have that zoom ring.

    • desmo

      with 24 -70 might as well buy buy 50 f1.4
      and take 1 step forward 2 steps back

      • RC

        You can’t always step backwards…or forwards.

      • D800E_finally_here

        For a 24mm landscape shot encompassing vistas a few miles out you might have to step back ONE MILE or more with a 50 to get the same FOV. How many steps are there?

        • desmo

          whats left of your vista a mile away at 24mm
          should I bring my loupe
          a really big one

  • http://yuisotozaki.com ysphoto

    If this lens doesn’t come with weather sealing, I will be really disappointed.

    • desmo

      more or equally important is compatability with nikon teleconverters

      • Victor

        I have a feeling it’ll be compatible with the TC-20 III.

        Maybe Nikon held back on producing this lens because neither the D700 nor D3-series were able to AF at f/8? The new generation of bodies can AF at f/8, so f/4 minus two stops means that AF is still possible given good lighting.

  • http://www.tayvinknightphoto.com Taylor Garvin

    This will be the only zoom I buy for my Nikon gear. I need a travel lens, so I hope it’s as good as the Canon version? I’m betting the US price will start at $1,400.

  • Nikonhead

    Canons IS version is $1,200 – $1.300. Nikon will be atleast $1.500. If they were smart they would come out with a non VR version for $700. The f/4 should be a good walk around lens since it is not too heavy but you still need f/2.8 for sports or any type of motion photography.

    • http://www.robertash.com Robert Ash

      Not really. It’s only a 1-stop difference so just increase your ISO by 1 stop. There aren’t many cases where that won’t work just fine given the outstanding high-ISO of Nikon cameras nowadays.

      • RC

        I’m not willing to give up the shallow DOF. Sometimes you just need F2.8.

      • Nikonhead

        I shoot with a D200. ISO isn’t half as good as the newer models. I also meant to say VR is useless with sports amd motion shots or when using a mono or tripod.

  • erik

    Admin, any idea on whether or not there will be a non-VR version?

    • AM

      Get the 80-200mm f/2.8.

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

      I don’t think there will be a non-VR version.

  • Jon

    I own the 2.8 VRII and will be buying this new one in addition, because it will be smaler, lighter, and easier to use for travel. I have looked at the other VR zooms that are f/4.0 like the 24-120 and they all have distortion issues. If this zoom gives pristine images, it will be fantastic.

    • D800E_finally_here

      All the nikon f/4 zooms so far perform at a similar/slightly better level compared to the Canon counterparts. 24-120 performs pretty much like a 24-105L, while 16-35/4 performs almost as well as the 16-35/2.8L outside of distortion.

      Seems like Nikon would be giving us a real deal this time.

    • babola

      It still won’t give you 24-120’s wide angle.

      And as far as the distortion, how many times we need to bang on this drum – correct it in post! That is if you find yourself needing to. I own 24-120 f4 and I hardly have to correct for the lenses.

      Too many people too quickly hang up on those few early 2010 reviews that bagged this otherwise sharp, fast and overall great performing lens.
      Time to stop the nonsense.

      • Andrew

        As a 24-120 f/4.0 owner, I couldn’t agree with you more.

        There may be some distortion at widest and furthest telephoto, but which 5 x zoom lens doesn’t have it?

        I ignored those few early negative reviews and went and bought it, and loved it ever since. So much so that it pretty much retired my 24-70 f/2.8, I hardly ever shoot with that lens.

        • desmo

          I’ve been very happy with the color, contrast and sharpness of my 24-120Vr F4 ,

          fully agree with above, too many magazine or blogger reviews are written by people who never really used or properly tested what they review

  • Kyle

    I think it will be higher than 1K – 1.3K USD. However, I hold my decision until the lens tests and image samples are available. Let’s see.

  • An rresistable user

    Do you guys think that there will be 70-200 2.8 N VRIII ?

    • Kenny

      That’s why I always prefer in-body image stabilization.

      • KnightPhoto

        But in-body stabilization on a mirrored camera wouldn’t stabilize the viewfinder. A stable viewfinder with the super-teles is invaluable in my experience.

        I wonder, do the mirrorless Panny’s with sensor stabilization, do they stabilize the EVF view or does stabilization only occur at point of exposure? That’s the only mirrorless I can think of that has sensor stabilization.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        “That’s why I always prefer in-body image stabilization.”

        What? So you can need to buy a new camera?

        • Pablo Picasso

          “…you can need…”

          Oh my…

  • Turbo

    I hope that it is a peer to Nikon AF-S 24-70/2,8 G ED. That it’s sharpness matches fix lenght lenses in the range.

  • Jackie

    $1 = £0.62

    Therefore if us Brits are to subsidise the US Nikon market again this translates to:

    $1300 = £1100

  • Jo

    The price may be similar to Tamron’s new yet to be released 70-200 2.8 VC.
    Tokina also has had a 70-200 f4 concept that may offer an alternative if they ever actually make it.
    Nikon should be careful asking to much for this lens. More than $1K maybe too much for me at least for this otherwise welcome lens.
    There are many fabulous fast primes under $1k (AU$, HK shopping) in this zoom range:
    85 1.8g, 105 f2.8 macro VR, 105 and 135 f2 DC…

  • Big J

    I remember posting a reply to someone mentioning that there would be a 70-200mm f4 in the near future. Of course I retorted in a sense thinking about what Canon did that they moved from f4 to f2.8. Glad I was wrong in the end. Also this would compliment a lot of people looking for a very nice (most likely light) tele. Wonder though that when this comes out, they’ll stop the production on the 80-200mm AF-D since it’s in the same price range (somewhat). Wouldn’t mind knowing about the dimensions, weight and build quality of this lens. Although for traveling I think I would stick with the wide angle prime and 70-300mm AF-S.

    • Nikonuser

      They better keep making the popular 80-200/2.8. Canon makes 4 lenses, a 2.8 without IS, a 2.8 with IS, and an f/4 with or wothout IS too. There is room for all three Nikkors.

      • Big J

        Well let’s hope they do. I own a 70-200mm VRII. But I admit when I tested out the 80-200mm AF-D on a friends D700 (who’s a huge photographer in Miami, FL) the lens felt nice. I don’t get the noisiness comments that people tend to post on forums about it. Making it sound like a jackhammer-level noise at times. I like the fact that it’ll last you forever a lens like that since parts like AF-S and such won’t need to be serviced unless it’s for a quick clean, built like you’re gonna fight with it and also it’s sealed well I read about it against dust. Ya never know. If they discontinue it, prices on it WILL go up on it and chances are they will divert productivity to making newer DX and/or CX lenses.

        • Big J

          A bunch of typos I apologize, so late in the evening to give a crap about it.

          • desmo

            never know used price may go up if discontinued
            especially if there is a loyal following

            kinda like AFS 80-200 which is probably sharpest of nikon
            lenses in 80 or 70 to 200 class

            • Nikonuser

              Used 80-200/2.8 D prices would likely increase if it’s discontinued…not due to a scarcity, as there are tons out there. Rather, due to upward price pressure from the 70-200/2.8 VRII and forthcoming 70-200/4 VR. The days of finding a used 80-200/2.8 D two-touch for $700 in like new condition may soon be over if Nikon ceases production.

              Pricing structure we would likely see in this case would be:

              70-200/2.8 VR II: $2400 US (new)
              70-200/2.8 VR II: $2100 US (used, like new)
              70-200/2.8 VR I: $1700 US (used, like new)
              70-200/4 VR: $1400 US (new)
              70-200/4 VR: $1200 US (new)
              80-200/2.8 AF-S: $1200 US (used, like new)
              80-200/2.8 D two touch: $900 US (used, like new; $1100 new if still made)
              80-200/2.8 D one touch: $600 US (used, like new)
              80-200/2.8 AF one touch: $400-500 US (used, like new)

            • Nikonuser

              Correction: line 5 should read 70-200/4 VR (used)…not new.

              In any case, let’s hope the current 80-200/2.8 D stays in production…it’s a relative bargain compared to the 2.8 VR II.

  • http://www.photospots.dk/ Torben Christiansen

    Really looking forward to this lens as it completes a great f/4 range

  • Where is 300mm f/4G?

    When will we get the updated Nikon 300mm f/4 lens?

  • Back to top