I just bought the AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6g IF-ED VR lense and in the literature that came with it stated VRII even though the lens is stamped as a VR. It is tack sharp on both my D300s and D90.

It would be nice if Nikon released one, but at this time there are no rumors of one coming.

Any chance of a 70-200 f4 VR? Something to compete against Canon's offering.

Hi, when I say "wildlife" I was generally referring to birding actually. When I had it I just found it to be barely faster than the old 80-200 ED push pull. I guess I am just spoiled by the 70-200 VR. Your right it isn't an AF-S. The 70-300mm VR still seems like the best option right now for the money.

28-300 will came out next month, with 24-120 Nano.

I have the 80-400mm and regret buying it. I do not think it is worth the money over the 70-300mm (which I have also).

LDawson, I would actually recommend going the other way for traveling in Europe. I also have the 14-24mm and use it a lot in the cities and towns. Paris has lots of open spaces, but if you leave Paris and go into smaller towns you will use it a lot.

kanuck - I have the N80-400 (got it recently for $800) and really don't understand the problems people have with it, sure it's not extremely fast (not an af-s lens), but it's fast enough to do wildlife (maybe not birds, but other animals/mammals yes) and the IQ is far better than the sigma 50-500 one (f5.6 on Nikon is usable, while f6.3 on S is not)

pma was last month. They released the new 24mm 1.4 and 16-35 f4.

Thanks...I have considered the Sigma but from all reports it seems quality control is 50-50...

When is the next PMA show..I presume Nikon would announce it there..

Hi, the 70-300mm VR is a great light walkaround lens and is nicely priced. You can use it for FX and DX which is also a bonus. Great deals on the older VR I now as well. People hint that a new 80-400mm VR will be out soon. I'm surprised it hasn't been released already because its about as old as the 17-35mm and in my opinion just as useful. The old 80-400mm VR is horribly slow and there is no way you could use it for wildlife photography. No wonder there is the $5 grand 200-400mm.

Have you considered the new 50-500mm Sigma? I have heard good things about it and yes some third party glass is great. Something to consider...

I have heard about this new version of the 80-400 for quite a while. Everything from a 100-500mm upgrade...And that the new version will be out one 2010?

Any ideas when that date, even approximate timeline, would occur? I am tired of renting a 200-400...

Thanks,
Phil

jonnyapple said:
Could it have something to do with it being the first VR II lens? It fooled me, too, until mb pointed it out.

Yeah, I think so. Did I mention Nikon's inconsistent?

Thanks, johnnyapple....that of must been where I saw it.

Bland said:
Nikon just came out with their new 70-300 lens, VR II. So I wouldn't think they'd have a newer model for several years to come.

Edited to add:
Guess I'm wrong, I just went and looked and the 70-300 doesn't come in a VR II yet.
I could of sworn I saw it on Nikon before, my bad.

I think you were actually right the first time, bland. Even though the VR symbol on the lens is red and they didn't put VR II in the name, it's listed as VR II in the specs. http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2161/AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-70-300mm-f%252F4.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html

Could it have something to do with it being the first VR II lens? It fooled me, too, until mb pointed it out.

Thanks for all the responses! And, unfortunately, not close to Poland. It's Paris! Anyway, the budget is in the $700 range. It sure sounds like the 70-300 lens is the way to go. I promise to post some pictures!

I think everyone was about to write something close to what you were going to write NikoDoby.

Whatever. I ain't got a clue about the sausages themselves. Probably I don't need to know either.

Like I said, the only reason I brought them up was because you guys talk about them enough that they must be funny. I think they are too—I just don't know the whole story I guess. Whatever.

alphanikonrex said:
Is there a bad side to the polish sausages?

LOL LOL LOL

I wrote something really funny but it's not safe for alpha so I just wrote this instead! Thanks for the laugh alpha!

Is there a bad side to the polish sausages? All I know is that they've come up enough on the forum that they're worth mentioning ;^)

But yeah, you guys have been a really bad influence on me :^(

OMGosh that did not just come from you alpha! This forum is definitely a bad influence on you! Let me talk to your mother.

adamz said:
and what it has to offer.

Like polish sausages ;^)

The 80-400 isn't a bad lens, but it really could use AF-S, since many people who are interested in the lens are wildlife photographers on a budget.

Johndbr said:
I think you will see a replacement for the 80-400 very soon. I have the 70-300 VR and a 200-400 and have been very happy with both. I traded the 80-400 in on the 200-400 and then bought the 70-300. I wasn't all that happy with the 80-400 that I had.

NikoDoby said:
The 80-400 update is rumored to be one of the new lenses coming in 2010.

Hopefully we'll see a nice update, but it's been so long...

Besides, I don't see why it's a bad lens at all. Sure, it may be behind a little in technology, but so what?

Oh, yes, welcome LDAWSON!

If You want to take the lens for traveling, than I would suggest to stick to this what You have, unless Nikon will bring up sth new.BTW: where in Europe You gonna stay? If You have some time, come over to see Poland, You will be really surprised, how beauty this country is, and what it has to offer.

The 80-400 update is rumored to be one of the new lenses coming in 2010.

What is your budget LDawson and welcome to the forum.