where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
TaoTeJared said:
Just couldn't sleep tonight, it will be a hell of a monday.Figure currently:
135mm is $1,400
70-200 is $2,400
85mm 1.4 is $1,700
35mm 1.4 is $1,700VR about $1,000, f/1.8 another $1,000, Nano, etc. etc. $400. = $3,800 and that's my final offer! ;)
I'm sticking to $3395.95.
mm Its gonna be intresting.
Sony / Carl Zeiss make a 135mm F1.8 that sels in the US for around $1600,-
Comparing prices for s 85mm 1.4 from Sony, and from Nikon , there is also not a huge difference between those..
So Nikon might just want to sell the 135mm 1.8 (if it ever comes...) also not to far off from Sony....
Gareth said:
there's no way it will cost the same as a 200/2. the main reason people will buy it is that it will be smaller and faster than the 70-200. may be the best reason yet for me to sell mine.
I too, look forward in seeing this bad boy come to life. As for price, I tend to be leaning on TTJ offer :P
Whichever every way this turns out, I will never sell my 70-200 2.8 for it.
DutchNikon said:
mm Its gonna be intresting.Sony / Carl Zeiss make a 135mm F1.8 that sels in the US for around $1600,-
Comparing prices for s 85mm 1.4 from Sony, and from Nikon , there is also not a huge difference between those..
So Nikon might just want to sell the 135mm 1.8 (if it ever comes...) also not to far off from Sony....
Yup, but I think the VR function is in the Sony camera not in the lens....
And somehow I think if Nikon brings out a fancy piece of glass like this with a 77mm front filter ring... just like a 24mm, f/1.4 and the 24mm is about $2400 without VR, and another $1000 for VR, well there you have it.... $3395.95
This thread is absolutely without merit..... but funny...
Godless said:
How come? Is this not what a Nikon forum is for?
Humor, but I agree, the forum is to allow us to "shoot the breeze" and enjoy each other's opinions without malice. What I am referring to (I think) is that we are all just speculating on something which may not ever materialize. But you are right on, that is exactly what the thread is for. I guess that is why I am posting a reply.
Actually, I need to go so I can start holding my breath for the new toys coming soon....
Appreciate your comments Godless. I do wonder what your nickname means, however. Oh, check on the "Security when shooting at night" thread as I see you are into dogs.....,
the canon 135mm 2.0 is $1000
the nikon 135mm 1.8 is $3500...
i think just under $2000 is a good guess.
OK, More guessing. This lens will weigh in at about 35 oz if constructed like the 135mm f/2.0. Or, if they use the newer materials, it could be a bit less. But with a filter size of 77mm, this is a huge lens. I do not know how much weight VR actually adds, but it must be something. It is the basic design which suggests the megabucks like TTJ has hinted at. WIth 15 elements in 9 groups, compared with the current 135mm f/2.0 which has 7 elements in 6 groups, it is almost a given it will be nearly twice what the current lens costs. That would be $2700.
So, I am still in the $2000 plus range. Go look at the patent....
$1500-1600 based on the other 1.8G lenses and the 105 F2.8.
One thing I would expect to come in on the light side is weight. The 35mm f/1.4 is a top-of-the-line lens in Nikon's mind (and in mine too) and they were not ashamed to use high-quality plastic for the barrel. Some people will complain about the feel but I expect Nikon researched the target demographic quite carefully. So I think they'll make this as light as possible, eschewing the heavier construction materials of my beloved 135 f/2.
Guessing may be foolish, but I'm surprised how the price guesses are all-over-the-map. I have no opinion, but I thought that those who did have opinions would find consensus.
You must log in to post.
