f/4 would be nice. but they instead gave us a crap load of overlapping DX zooms. I hope april 14 will at least bring a new FX lens. Anything at this point is greatly needed, even if it is a replacement for current aging lenses like the 70-200 or 80-400.

Kiki I don't think that Nikon is goin to replace the 70-200/2.8 as it's a great lens, and when stopped down by 1 You will probably don't see any difference and You won't have any vignietting problems on FX. However, that's not the topic. As for Nikon I would love to see new Nikon 300/f4 with VR and maybe 400/f4 VR.

Bingo! F/4 Pro lenses for FX format would fit the bill for me exactly. VR would be very nice, too.

With my D700 I am shooting a much higher ISO's--up to ISO 3200--anyway, so I don't need the 2.8 speed.

The recent price rises have left me reason to pause on the 70-200/2.8, even though I have the money. That great lens is long-in-the-tooth and has issues with vignetting and noticeable softness in the corners. It's due for a replacement.

I'd die for something like a 100-400 f4 VR or even 120-400 f4 VR but I guess we all have wish lists and Nikon being a manufacturer cannot cater for the specific whims of every customer.

+1 on all that said

I think its the biggest issue with Nikon this days... some lenses just not there
I mean coooooooooooome on new cameras are great but ffs give us something to shoot through

I'd love to get a AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G IF-ED VR, and an AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/4G IF-ED. I wouldn't mind them weather-sealing the lenses like Olympus, and Canon do though.

There is the 200-400/4, but yeah, I know what you mean. I'd love to get a 24-70/4 with the same IQ as the 2.8 (or a 70-200!).

Hopefully this is something Nikon offers in the future.

There are a lot of advantages to shooting with a Nikon, but one of the downsides is that Nikon doesn't make f/4 pro zoom lenses.

For example the Canon f/4 70-200mm zoom:
• costs $600 less than their f/2.8 model
• weighs 1.7 lbs (almost half the weight of their f/2.8 model)

Don't get me wrong, f/2.8 is amazing, but I just don't need it 99% of the time. And if I do need a wide open aperture, I would rather have it in a prime lens that could open up to f/1.8 or f/1.4.

I could also see a real advantage to a f/4 ultra wide zoom (f/4 14-24mm). It would shave several hundred dollars of the price tag, and I never need f/2.8 with an ultra wide lens. Generally I use ultra wide lenses for landscapes and architecture. Both of which usually require deep depth of field.

I'd like to hear other photographers thoughts on this. Thanks!