where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
I've been somewhat regretting the switch to Nikon mainly because I knew they didn't have a 70-200/4.0. I almost bought a 70-200/2.8VR (1st version) but will wait on this "official announcement" to see price and MTF charts. Who thinks the price will be below $1,500??
What do you think price will be? Will they announce a 300/4.0VR prime next?? And how many are interested in this new lens?
Now all the Canon fanboys can switch and not complain about not having a 70-200 F4 :) Oh sorry birdman ;)
Interesting lens...they have to keep the price far enough away from the 70-200 F2.8 or it will compete. I might have to pick one of these up eventually...would fill the gap I need and hopefully not empty my savings account.
I guess $1200-$1300.
birdman said:
What do you think price will be? Will they announce a 300/4.0VR prime next?? And how many are interested in this new lens?
No idea about the price.
I wish for either the 300 f/4 VR or 80-400 VR update coming next, followed by a G series 20mm f/2.0 prime.
We shall see how good these new 70-200 f/4 lenses are when the reviews appear.
If the AF speed and accuracy is on par with the f/2.8 version, I will probably get one.
And the price determines whether I will find the Tokina offering more appealing.
I would prefer they make a 120-300 like sigma, but make it F4 to knock a few $$ off the price.
A 300 F4 VR would be nice and I think would sell well, but I think the price would be a bit much. MSRP on the old version is $1500...so add nano coating and VR would push it to around $2000. I hate to say it but I think the actual price of the 70-200 F4 might be more along the lines of $1800+.
Yeah, I believe the price will be in the area of $1800 USD. The 24-120mm f/4 is $1300USD so the 70-200 f/4 will have to be a bit higher. If they price it at $2000 then it's a no go for me. At that point I'd reconsider the f/2.8 for the extra stop and reputation. I also wonder if it will work well with Teleconverters -- at least the 1.7x. If so, then it's possibly a strong buy for me.
How many takers will there be for this lens if the spread in price to the f/2.8 is effectively 25% or less? This will clearly be lighter, but where the f/2.8 is so revered, who would opt for this instead if the price difference is on the small side?
shawnino said:
How many takers will there be for this lens if the spread in price to the f/2.8 is effectively 25% or less? This will clearly be lighter, but where the f/2.8 is so revered, who would opt for this instead if the price difference is on the small side?
Agreed. Maybe I'm missing the reason to even need a 70-200 f/4 over a 70-200 f2.8? Anyone care to shed some light for me, please?
Very interested in this lens if it performs as well as the 2.8 version. The Canon F4 lens is one of the best lenses in their lineup.
Also hope the Nikon one is priced in a similar fashion to Canon, where the F4 lens is about 60% of their 2.8 II lens. I'd hope for sub $1400, but I'm not optimistic and with the others guessing it'll be closer to $1800.
The only reason for me to really consider this lens is if at 180-200mm f/4.0 it is SHARP and produces smooth bokeh for portraits. If sharpness is sketchy and bokey is jittery then me no buy.
Darkhost said:
Agreed. Maybe I'm missing the reason to even need a 70-200 f/4 over a 70-200 f2.8? Anyone care to shed some light for me, please?
There are a few reasons. Canon makes one...and everyone at Canon complains that Nikon doesn't have one and everyone that switches whines that Nikon doesn't have one. That and the price. It is really the one F4 lens Nikon was missing from their lens. If you want a suspected lighter and maybe a bit cheaper lens then that is the audience for the lens. However the price has to be right. I mean even for $1600ish you can get the VRI version of the F2.8 version...still a hard sell to me unless it offers some outstanding differences or better performance.
OK, so looking around, the 70-200 competition appears to be (all prices B&H for sanity's sake...)
Nikon f/2.8 $2400
Sigma f/2.8 $1400 currently rebated lower
Tamron f/2.8 $770 No VR, not really sure how apt a comparison that is, although both the Tamron and Sigma have largely positive ratings with over 100 reviews each.
If the f/4 comes in around $1500, there's probably some niche for it. If t comes in closer to $2K, well, I don't get it at all.
Darkhost said:
Agreed. Maybe I'm missing the reason to even need a 70-200 f/4 over a 70-200 f2.8? Anyone care to shed some light for me, please?
No one claimed it would have better optics, but if this is not your most used FL (I stay below 85mm mostly) then for a telephoto landscape lens a lower price is preferred. It will be lighter, as well. Certainly will be better than my 70-300VR. And there's no reason, besides price, that it can't compete with the 2.8 version in sharpness IMO
$1479.95 My guess....
Yeah, the price has to be comparable to the Canon. That $ difference, plus the size/weight savings over the 2.8, is what draws my attention.
Just compare the Canon versions in person and you will see how much smaller the F4 lens is/feels.
Here's an image for reference: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Z/00ZWnT-410299584.jpg
It depends on the build quality, 1300$ if it's like the 16-35vr, 1600$ in case of metal outer parts.
birdman said:
No one claimed it would have better optics, but if this is not your most used FL (I stay below 85mm mostly) then for a telephoto landscape lens a lower price is preferred. It will be lighter, as well. Certainly will be better than my 70-300VR. And there's no reason, besides price, that it can't compete with the 2.8 version in sharpness IMO
Tracking. Thanks for your response, Birdman!
I have to add this release has to be a direct component of the D600. People want more budget friendly lenses to go with their FX body. The 70-200 F4 makes it more complete.
The old 70-210 f/4 is a pretty good lens available at a bargain price on eBay. No VR, but for the price difference, that may not be a bad trade off.
Darkhost said:
Agreed. Maybe I'm missing the reason to even need a 70-200 f/4 over a 70-200 f2.8? Anyone care to shed some light for me, please?
A lot less weight to carry around. Probably better performance at max.aperture than the f/2.8 versions. If I need a larger aperture, I use the 24mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 pieces.
Darkhost said:
Agreed. Maybe I'm missing the reason to even need a 70-200 f/4 over a 70-200 f2.8? Anyone care to shed some light for me, please?
I had just come to the long overdue conclusion that nothing less than the trinity will do for me, and the addition of a cheaper (that bit is welcome) but slower lens does nothing to change my mind.
Godless said:
Probably better performance at max.aperture than the f/2.8 versions.
I hope not and doubt that - what makes you say it will probably be so?
Godless said:
A lot less weight to carry around. Probably better performance at max.aperture than the f/2.8 versions. If I need a larger aperture, I use the 24mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 pieces.
In theory shouldn't the 2.8 version outperform the F4 when the 2.8 is at F4?
Glass generally don't perform their best at max apertures.
shawnino said:
OK, so looking around, the 70-200 competition appears to be (all prices B&H for sanity's sake...)
Nikon f/2.8 $2400
Sigma f/2.8 $1400 currently rebated lower
Tamron f/2.8 $770 No VR, not really sure how apt a comparison that is, although both the Tamron and Sigma have largely positive ratings with over 100 reviews each.If the f/4 comes in around $1500, there's probably some niche for it. If t comes in closer to $2K, well, I don't get it at all.
Tamron has a VR version announced but not released - If I'm not mistaken the price was expected to be around $1,700 (equal to sigma) but I'm sure it will settle around $1,500.
Tokina also will be coming out.
As Rx4Photo and others have said, the 24-120vr & 16-35mm f/4 is $1,300 - My guess it will be about the same or a bit more. Thats about 46% less of the 2.8.
You must log in to post.
