On a side note this would be a wonderful wildlife lens especially on a DX body (I'm thinking D7000 here) even without a teleconverter. The 80-400mm VR in my mind is the single Nikkor in need of a refresh over anything else in the Nikon line body or lens. I know AdamZ loves his 80-400mm VR but I believe this was one of Nikon's first VR lenses come on make a refresh its been over 10 years I think!

One thing about hacking up a dead thread like this all the time, is that it shows how excited everyone was a year or more ago about the imminent release of a product that then never happens. Let's let this die again and then hack it back up next January...

Godless said:
If the AF is snappy enough, I´ll get myself one. If not, I´ll get the 200-400 instead.

It's decent if you're already in-range. Slow, if not. Try to find a refurb (I got mine for only $1,050). It's a great piece of glass for the money. Isn't the 200-400mm like a bazillion dollars?

kanuck said:
. . . yes I'm sure it will be F 3.5-5.6 so it would never be a 2,000 grand lens. Shivaswrath seems bang on with the $1499 guess.

I doubt it'll be that cheap. Add AF-S and VR II, and the price could creep way beyond that. I would say, at least $200-$300 more than MSRP (if not much more) than the Nikon USA price for the current 80-400mm. Maybe $1,799-$1,899?

yes I'm sure it will be F 3.5-5.6 so it would never be a 2,000 grand lens. Shivaswrath seems bang on with the $1499 guess. Sure would be a useful lens as long as they control distortion which they didn't with the 28-300. Also there would need to be a high performance at least to 300mm I'd hope.

studio460 said:
The NR blog reported yesterday [06 February 2011] that the 80-400mm update rumor is alive again. My guess is that it'll still be an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G lens, but with AF-S and VR II added.

If the AF is snappy enough, I´ll get myself one. If not, I´ll get the 200-400 instead.

The NR blog reported yesterday [06 February 2011] that the 80-400mm update rumor is alive again. My guess is that it'll still be an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G lens, but with AF-S and VR II added. I would expect a pricing "upgrade" as well. If I had to guess, $1,899 USD. About eight months ago (see post, above), I bought a refurb AF 80-400mm VR for only $1,050, and I think, will still be glad I did.

ted2001 said:
On the blog is a 100-500 f4-5.6 VRIII, ED-IF yadayada, available spring 2010, no price.

Any price estimates - comments?

Why 100-500? Why not 300-500 or something similar? The first 200mm in that 100-500 are unnecessary waste of space and waste of focusing time anyway..

But..if the AF is fast, images are sharp and the price stays low enough, I might consider one.

Ah, the patience...this subject, and for that matter, its resolution, remains a baited discussion of a much discussed "gilded bird" resolutely displaying an insufferable indifference to the continuing angst of those patiently waiting for it to lay its golden egg! Sorry...simply growing a little impatient; it's time for Nikon to either "get-on or off the pot", so to speak on this matter!

ROFL! :D

^^^ What a random bump.

dreaming

There's nothing wrong with adding your thoughts to an old thread. It saves us all from having to repeat ourselves. You're new here but eventually you too will get tired of having to say the same thing over and over again.

And Yes the 100-500 will not be in the same price range as the 80-400.

(Yes, I know this is an old thread, but we're supposed to search for similar threads before we start new ones, right?)

Okay, so fresh off the NikonRumors home page, there's regenerated whisperings of a new Nikkor long-zoom for summer 2010. The old, Thai-forum sourced, "Super Fast 100-500," Nikon one-sheet (posted above) is most likely fake. If Nikon does introduce a 100-500 VR lens, my guess is that it'll be something like a f/5.6 to f/6.3 maximum aperture. And, since NR is also saying that there will NOT be a replacement for the current AF VR Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6, I take that to mean, that there will not be a new long zoom in that price range (e.g., $1,500-$2,000), but, perhaps, much more (which runs a bit contrary to the Nikon VP statement earlier).

It happens that I just bought an AF VR Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 refurb a few weeks ago, and at a street price of $1,500 for a new one, I doubt anything in that focal-length range with added millemeters, or added features will come close to that price point. Surprisingly, the relatively inexpensive, 80-400mm VR I bought turned out to be one of the sharpest lenses I own, even at 400mm @ f/5.6. So, if you want to describe this lens as a "consumer" lens, it's still one of the best lenses I own, regardless. Sure, there's no AF-S, but it still focuses a LOT faster than my AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D (but, about the same as my non-G, AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED). Once in-range, the 80-400mm focus is fairly "snappy." So, even if Nikon does introduce a longer VR zoom with AF-S, I'm guessing it will be out of my price range.

[I just noticed that this thread is in the "Nikon DSLR" sub-forum, and should probably be moved to the "lenses" forum, instead.]

If this lens appears, one day, it will not be as a replacement for the 80-400mm. Why? $$$$, we are talking of a street price of 3500-4500$ compares to roughly 1500$ for a 80-400mm.
Why, you begin with 95mm filter size and 5.6. It means lot, lot of glass.

I'm sorry, I meant to say same IQ as the 70-200. I don't expect anything in this class to have IQ like 200-400

70-200, 200-400 and some other zooms (14-24 ...) have IQ that not only rivals but surpasses many primes.
80-400 is a consumer zoom and if it replacement would have same IQ than it would be better then 200-400 because it will cover more range, but then it will be also be much higher class and much more expensive then current model and that is not going to happen likely.

Why would it be better than 200-400? That's supposed to be the best zoom by Nikon and not just for it's zoom range but IQ is supposed to rival the primes.

Current 80-400 VR can not be mounted on E series TCs (14, 17 or 20) unless you cut a peace from a metal lens mount on teleconverter (you loose warranty doing it).
The lens from the advertisement is a fake, no doubt about that. The image was composed in Photoshop (most likely from 200-400mm VR) with oversized front part and totally illogically positioned focus ring on it. Compare it with what I have done in a couple of minutes:

The new version of 80-400 will be available soon enough but it will be consumer grade as current model (not near as good as 70-200 because then it would be better then 200-400 and that is not likely)

ted2001 - if it's gonna be 100-500/4-5.6 than the TC 1.4 will work, but only on the short end (I mean the AF), as on the long end it's going to be too dark (f stop around 8), as for the performance, I would love to see at least the same IQ as in 80-400 - especially on the long end

This lens, if true, should be sharp wide open and zoomed to the max. The problem us birders have with most zooms is that they don't like being pushed to their limits. Well, that's where we shoot. I don't expect it to perform like the 200-400 but I would only get it if it at least performed like the 70-200.

Adam, if you look at the ad, perhaps fake, regarding this lens at the blog, they indicate; "compatible with tc 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0, auto-focus with 1.4.

If this lens is in a class with the 70-300, then I think pricing under $2000, probably closer to $1500. If this lens is built closer to 70-200/2.8 standards, then I would expect the price to be much higher. 500mm f5.6 is not slow, the old 400mm prime was 5.6 (the bigger compliment to the 300/4) and was not a cheap lens. 5 ED glass elements and all metal and 5.3 pounds don't sound cheap either. It has to be better than Canon's 100-400/4.5-5.6, one of the great wildlife lenses of all time - particularly with birders ($1680) - and I'd bet a 50% premium over the Canon.

I think it should be around $2000 and I also doubt it will work with TC, even the 1.4 as anyway it wouldn't maintain AF

The lens photo and specification is an obvious fake, though something that will replace good old 80-400 is inevitable.
Price should be a bit smaller then new 70-200 around 2000$.

plays w/ tc 1.4

Hmm. Does not play well with TCs? Might be nice lens anyway.