will join You kyoshi

I should sit in front of Walmart and ask people to donate to the underpaid photographers fund for zoom power... :)

i just hope the autofocus "issues" on the long end have been addressed - I haven't used personally, but I've heard and read in reviews it's a rather inconsistent lens.

The new VR2 will be a HUGE improvement if it's anything like the VR2 update on the 70-200 2.8.

If I had the $$ and the need, I'd be all over this, probably great for the pro sports shooter - MTF's are wicked nice wide open.

But alas - I have no sports assignments that could pay me enough to cover the cost :-(

Awww shux. Trecki, if you had just logged on a bit earlier, I woulda got the dontation before your wife shut it down. Rats.

Warprints your dedication to serving the group is admirable, where do we send the donations...ohh, never mind. The wife just said I can order my own. SORRY :)

Hmmm...should I get this lens or pay my car off? Actually I have less on my car. Might look kind of dorky walking around with a $7000 lens on a $500 body :)

I don't think the cost is wrong, special if they have improved the lens, this test by Thom showed problems with longer focal lengths, mostly where you would use this lens

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

Pete

I am willing to accept monetary donations to purchase one of these lenses so that I can report on whether it is really worth almost $7000. Cash and money orders preferred, but bearer bonds will be accepted.

still - I prefer to carry 200-400/f4 than 200-400/f2.8 :D; as for the price, I guess that the street price will be around $6700, so still around 10% increase over the old version

shouldn't this say new Nikkor?

or atleast something so it doesn't sound like a new body was announced!

(haha, not that a $7000 body is something I am considering anyway)

NikoDoby said:
No I got the press release a few minutes ago.

http://press.nikonusa.com/lenses/afs_nikkor_200400mm_f4g_ed_vr/

Yes, Yes, I know that. I was just poking fun at all the people who keep saying they want f4 lenses because they are smaller and cheaper, etc.

Yeah, when it comes to telephoto zooms, having F4 doesn't much much difference at all. Then again look at the prime lenses, the 300mm F4 is lighter, smaller and cheaper than the 300mm F2.8. That may change if they ever upgrade the 300mm F4, which is now a 9 year old design.

So if you wanted top of the range Nikon body and lenses to do landscape, protrait, sport, macro and indoor, what are we talking about - $30,000? $40,000?

Ridiculous - but I sure wish I could afford it...

gone stop commenting on Nikon lens prices looks like every lens that comes out this days is more thn expected ... will need few *** to get use to it : )

nau said:
aaaaaaaa mmmmmmmmmmm typo?

No I got the press release a few minutes ago.

http://press.nikonusa.com/lenses/afs_nikkor_200400mm_f4g_ed_vr/

PB PM said:
The 200-400mm F4 always was expensive, not sure why this comes as a shock.

Yes, Yes, I know that. I was just poking fun at all the people who keep saying they want f4 lenses because they are smaller and cheaper, etc.

The 200-400mm F4 always was expensive, not sure why this comes as a shock.

aaaaaaaa mmmmmmmmmmm typo?

Just one lens though, the 200-400mm f4 ED VR II.

I thought f4 lenses were suppose to be cheaper!

http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2187/AF-S-NIKKOR-200%E2%80%93400mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR-II.html