80-400 quality is great.... this lens is great, unfortunately too slow due to lack of AF-S

Not to be pedantic, but 5.6 is < 2/3rds of a stop slower than 4. ;)
All other things being equal (which you're right - they likely won't be) I can live with that.

If Nikon makes a 100-500, you can almost bet that it will have consumer level performance. It will be something like 4.0-5.6, of course this is hypothetical. My point is, that it will be medium speed when zoomed to it's max and therefore will not be able to provide the kind of performance an F4.0 lens could provide. It will also likely, like all consumer grade lenses, be somewhat softer wide open and when zoomed to the max. It would be great if it were to provide quality like the 200-400 as mentioned earlier but those of us hoping for that (which includes myself), are not in touch with reality. We'd be lucky to get 70-200 quality out of it, however I think it will be more like 70-300 or 80-400 at best.

Adamz: Yes the Sigma 150-500 and Nikon 100-500 was more an idea for the original post about a longer Telephoto Lens. The Nikon sounds promising if it will ever get made, yes it will be as heavy as my 70-200 but newer the less a great new way to get to 500mm. I hope that it is sharp, fairly fast and that the VR function will be as effective as the latest 70-200 VR lens

Pete

Yeah, don't worry, I'm not implying the 70-300 is anywhere close to the 70-200 in performance. It's just that my budget does dictate what I buy.

Does anyone have a 20mm 2.8 the old AF version? I wonder how that one is. I'm sorta interested in it.

http://www.jr.com/nikon/pe/NKN_20MM_SL_2_dot_8D/

Maybe I should start a new thread...

...I have both lenses and I am disagreeing with the above. You either want performance or weight. Trust me, you'll performance if you're doing anything that requires speed and decent performance in poorer lighting...

totally agree with You Gentoo on this one

bmxdad - as for Sigma 150-500 it's still bigger (or at least not smaller) than 70-200/2.8

as for 100-500 it can be a hit, if the price will be around he price of 80-400 (or not more than $300-$400)

Wasn't aware that you were getting something for your son to use just for fun (I think). Sorry, I misunderstood completely lol.

My point was performance is worth the extra weight. If weights with this gear is really an issue for a lot of people, they have other issues I won't get into LOL

Gentoo: I do have the 70-200 2.8 VR and I love that lens. It is the best sports lens that I have ever owned, sharp, fast and the VR function is great, but it is also heavy right. So I might get a 70-300 or the smaller 55-200 for my son to use with his D80 or just to have something light

Or the Sigma 150 - 500 is a not to bad choice if you can get a good copy, but again big and heavy like my 70-200. Maybe the new Nikon 100-500 if it performs great, cost OK and it actual gets made

Pete

["NSXType-R for all around shooting I would get the 70-300 VR any day over the 70-200 2.8 VR."]

bmxdad, I have both lenses and I am disagreeing with the above. You either want performance or weight. Trust me, you'll performance if you're doing anything that requires speed and decent performance in poorer lighting.

["I have watched Moose Peterson's review of the 70-300 VR, he seems to like it a lot, enough to praise it repeatedly. Maybe it would be a good starting point for me. It's no exotic 2.8 lens, but it's certainly more portable than a 70-200 with a 300 2.8 lens combination."]

I can speak from experience that it is a good starting point and for it's price, it is a very good lens. It's great WITHIN IT'S LIMITS. That's the key thing to remember is that it does have limits and there will be shooting situations where it will not be adequate as all.

That said, if you're not a mainly wildlife shooter it may be all you need. If you really get into shooting real wildlife (especially birds and especially small birds at that), you will need a minimum of a 300mmF4.

["a lot of us pine for things like 300/4 and maybe that 100-500 with 200-400 quality for less than $2,500?"]

What a dream that would be!

Yeah, I'm gonna look into it when I get the money for it.

NSXType-R for all around shooting I would get the 70-300 VR any day over the 70-200 2.8 VR. It is a lot lighter, more balanced on a smaller camera and it has longer reach. I would get this one from a store and check that you are getting a good copy, make sure that the 300mm area is sharp.
I plan to get a 1.7 converter to get my 70-200 up to 340mm, but it will make it even larger to haul around

Pete

I had a 70-200mm that I traded in on a 200-400mm. Then I bought a 70-300mm VR. I haven't missed the 70-200 so far. I agree with Moose about the 70-300mm. The one I have is very good.

I would hang the camera backwards on my neck with the camera set on time lapse, one photo every second while I run away from it. :D

That would have been cool, photographing a bear.

I have watched Moose Peterson's review of the 70-300 VR, he seems to like it a lot, enough to praise it repeatedly. Maybe it would be a good starting point for me. It's no exotic 2.8 lens, but it's certainly more portable than a 70-200 with a 300 2.8 lens combination.

I think the 100-500/4-5.6 VR(II...) would be a real success. A lot of Canon wildlife shooters use their 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS. I don't see the Nikon's 80-400 having as many fans. The big primes can never have the higher volumes given their extraordinary prices. Bull Moose might think it imperative to travel with 200/2, 200-400/4 and 600/4 along with assorted D3... bodies, but a lot of us pine for things like 300/4 and maybe that 100-500 with 200-400 quality for less than $2,500?

heheh, and I would love to shoot bear at 50mm, although don't know the outcome of this encounter :)

BTW:
last year when going through Chitwan Royal Park we were at this kind of distance to a wild bear - unfortunately I was third and the bear was behind trees and was scared more than we were :) - never heard such a roar before

Nah, I haven't started even looking at wildlife photography. Street photography is a little more easy to approach, since the city can only be so far away. :D

Animals are a different story. And I would hope that I'm not shooting a bear with a 50mm lens.

The only way I'd do that is if I were at a zoo.

mb - indeed they cost a lot, but OTOH You can easily get almost the whole range of long tele Canon lenses in BH. I also know that lenses are delivered in batches, but as 600/4 is rather unique lens, 400/2.8 is more common and should be fully available. Therefore my ideas that there will be an update soon. Moreover, just checked Adorama and the situation is quite similar - either out of stock or on backorder.

NSX - for wildlife 70-200/2.8 is not enough (unfortunately) - but it's a great lens anyway

Man, I'd personally go for the 70-200 2.8 before I even begin to look at those lenses. It'll look odd on my D40 for sure. :D

I think Nikon does a production run of these lenses every once in awhile. It may be they are in between runs.

Chances are.

They are just to expensive to have them in stock all the time.

Yay! More new lenses I can only dream about!

If they are updated, I would expect them to have more than VRII. The 70-200 ƒ/2.8 got updated with better corner sharpness, right? And what about the 200 ƒ/2 and the 300 ƒ/2.8? Don't they deserve VRII too?

As I'm watching the prices of long telephoto lenses on BH, I recently found that:
- 400/2.8
- 500/4.0
- 600/4.0
are either not available or back ordered - will we have an update in some near future, VRII maybe?