Any rumours about it ?
CU
Nikon 300 f4 vr II
(12 posts) (8 voices)-
Well, we would need a 300/4 VR first before we would get a mark II version I would think.
An update to the 300/4 is long in waiting indeed, but while there are always a few sporadic rumors about it, there doesn't seem to be anything serious about it yet.
Posted 1 year ago # -
jerl said:
Well, we would need a 300/4 VR first before we would get a mark II version I would think.An update to the 300/4 is long in waiting indeed, but while there are always a few sporadic rumors about it, there doesn't seem to be anything serious about it yet.
VRII has nothing to do with versions of a lens the VRII is the 2nd generation of VR.
I think there should be a 300 f/4 VRIII, hand held shots at 1/5!!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
He's right. VRII is latest technology. I am really surprised Nikon has not made this, or a 70-200/4.0 VR. Canon has them beat on this side.
I know Nikon has upgraded most of their wide and medium telephoto lenses. With the 28/1.8 rumored, we are getting spoiled. I shoot both Canon and Nikon, so I can pick best of both worlds.
Nikon will start revamping all of their missing lenses in the next 2-3 years....I know it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm thinking about buying this lens, but then again maybe the new version will be out soon..
Posted 1 year ago # -
multon said:
Lucky you to have both Canon and Nikon equipment ! I do hope that Nikon will start revamping all of their missing lenses in the next 2-3 years, I even would like them to do it faster !!I don't get the need for a 70-200m f/4. Basically unless I am missing something the f/4 version from Canon is basically priced the same as the 80-200mm f/2.8D so... you lose 10mm but you gain f/2.8. I am pretty sure that is the only reason Nikon choose to allow this to still exist and they discontinued the AF-S version so people would go to the 70-200mm. Also yes I know it won't AF on entry level bodies but how many entry people ever expand pass the kit lenses or 18-200? You don't really mount the lens to a D3100, you mount the D3100 to the lens.
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
Well I have the canon 70-200 f4 (non is) and it is cheap and really sharp! The other f4 they produce is with IS. Then, as nikon, they have the 2.8 non-is which is around the same price as the f4 IS version. The point of not going with the 2.8 is that weight, and if you don't need the extra speed, then why not shoot f4? I love the f4 versions for hiking and tight landscapes.
Posted 1 year ago # -
200/f4 is not 300/f4 - two different lenses that can't be really compared
Posted 1 year ago # -
I wish Nikon would make a lightweight and relatively cheap 400mm f/5.6 with VR.
I doubt they will do so during this century, however. The 300/4 update would be the next best thing for me. While waiting, I guess I´ll have to get a Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS and TC for birding.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
