Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G discontinued?


From dpreview:

"My dealer says they cannot buy the 70-200mm 2.8 VR from Nikon anymore."

The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G lens is probably the most speculated lens in the whole Nikon product line.

Can someone confirm this report?

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Richard

    Say what?!

    This lens got to be the best lens that Nikon ever made if you compare the price. I hope this isn’t true.

    • rwpl

      under DX yes, but not as good on FX as one might expect.

    • Zograf

      Good, it was about time. I admit it is an extraordinary lens for the DX sensor and it did target the professional D2x dSLR at the time but it is about time to be updated. Obviously Nikon cannot have objective(lens) lineup without 70-200/2.8 so, discontinuation means new is coming out.

  • Anonymous

    crap no!!!

  • John

    You morons! That lens is so old, this would mean a refresh of course, why is that so bad?

    • STJ

      Calqulated the average time between 80-200mm Nikon introductions (and now 70-200mm) and if that average holds true we should have a new one in…2009 (and I’m not even kiddin!). In my opinion the biggest problem is the size of the thing – people think you carry a Bazooka with that length… Would rather have a “fatter” version.

      • PHB

        Refresh of the 70-200 is entirely believable, but unfortunately the source is suspect. The problem with dealer stories is the same as the problem with repair techs: they don’t necessarily know what they are talking about.

        Nikon has multiple levels of dealer. To sell the pro gear a dealer has to have storefront and provide a certain level of support. They don’t want all the 400mm f/2.8s going to one dealer who flogs them cheap on EBay. So the fact that one dealer can’t get the 70-200 does not necessarily mean its because they are no longer being made.

        This particular lens went missing last summer and then came back. Only reason to not expect a refresh are that the 80-400 AFS must be a higher priority and it may be difficult to improve it without some cost.

        For example, say they put in some asphericals to make the lens sharper, well that will likely muck up the bokeh. And if they deal with the falloff it will likely be even fatter. Any changes are likely to be to optimize the FX performance so the result may be less attractive for DX bodies. Yet another reason to expect the 80-400 to be a higher priority. Even though its an FX lens, it fits in with the DX variable aperture range.

        I would not put too much by what camera body is due out either. The $900 10-24DX is not an obvious match for the $900 D5000.

  • shivas

    i think this was a long time coming, no?

    the 80-200 is in a different league, so I suspect it’ll stick around, and they’ll phase the 70-200 VR out now and introduce a 70-200 VR 2 with some more asphericals to help with that corner softness for FX. . . .

    For us DX uers, that means we can get some sell-off’s from pro’s that are using their D3’s and want the new models – w00t!!!

    • cas

      Yup, I would sell mine to get a VR2!

      • WillyPete

        lol. I just sold mine because I want to clear my credit card and because I expect these to be replaced soon.
        Pristine condition.
        I figured I “rented” mine at £80 a year.

        It has to be their most popular and used pro lens.

    • Anonymous

      A 70-200mm f/2 VR??? This is as likely as a 12-420mm f/1.2 ER.

      First, this elns would be huge, I mean seriously. HUGE, killing the purpose of the lens. Second, did you ever check the price of the 200mm f/2 VR? now imagine that lens as a versatile zoom lens. That would become the most expensive lens in Nikonland.

      (in case you wonder what “ER” means, it’s earthquake reduction)

      • D40-Owner

        ER!!!! That cracked me up.. LOL

      • cencio

        1 can dream.

        • shivas

          i said VR 2 . . .the max ap would remain at f/2.8, there’s no way they could replace it with an f/2.0 and keep it under $2k. . .it would be like $6k!!!

      • Ed W

        Why would it need to be larger than the equivalent Canon lens? The canon lens is shorter and better balanced. Extensive use of computer programs to design lenses is resulting in huge improvements, as well as lower weight. I think that will continue to happen. Unfortunately, the price always goes up.

  • Anonymous

    I love this lens. Now I can get a second one cheap since it’s hard to get it out of my wife’s hands.

    • Ryan

      lol that comment can go so many ways…

  • grumps

    Such a bold move. “I SO WANT IT”… to go that is!
    It’s time they have one for FX and the regular V thingy… that’s for hoping.

  • geoff

    Maybe they’ll just take the current lens and widen it a bit to improve corner performance. Notice how the Nikon, which is the skinniest of all the 70-200s on the market, is the only one with corner problems? Widen it a bit, tweak the optical formula a little, and be done with it.

  • Ubiquitous

    I get it now: “Back to the Future.” OK. Here is a new one: “My dealer told me that Carmen Electra is really in love with me.” I’ll be back in a year or so. On second thoughts, maybe my dealer is not that reliable. In that case, I’m not going anywhere.

    • Bjamy

      Carmen Electra in love with you?

      I have had a gut feeling that something was to happen to this lens soon. It is fairly old. I say YAY!

      • Ubiquitous

        That is what my dealer told me – Carmen Elektra while trying to convince me to buy the best lens to photograph… Carmen Elektra.

        Upgrade the 70-200 VR? Why? It is good enough as it is. Oh, yes. The vignetting issue with FX cameras. Well, it is much ado about nothing. I have the 70-200 VR and the D700. It does vignette, sometimes, if you have this insane desire to shoot just sky, all the time. I know it Vignettes, sometimes, when shooting just sky, because I see it in the JPEG thumbnails. By the time I get the whole photo in either NX2 or LR2, I can barely see the vignetting, which is easily correctable in post processing. The reason I know is there, is because…I saw in the thumbnails…otherwise… I guess a lot of reviewers have nothing but time in their hands.

  • The lens is still available on the internet and is still listed on the nikon website. What about asking your dealer why he can’t get the lens anymore?

  • Mervin J. Minky

    does that mean… it has begun?

    • fotosniper

      i say we move all our forces to the ridgeline and attack at dawn!

  • Anonymous

    Can anyone conform this

  • Dan

    Is the much ballyhooed 70-200 2.8 “N” finally coming?
    I think so, a lot of Pros were complaining about the obviously DX tuned current 70-200.

    Can they do something about the 80-200 AFD as well?

  • 70200VRN

    Long awaited, pls replace us with a N(Nano), VR2 and fatter barrel that solve the FX’s corner sharpness hahaha

  • Willis

    Amazon recently dropped the price on this lens by $100… so maybe an update is on the way.

  • chomilier

    no i bought it just yesterday

  • Nikkorian

    I hope they introduce a nice and compact DX equivalent then as well:

    “Zoom-Nikkor AF-S DX VR 50-150 1:2.8G IF-ED”

    The Sigma I have is a gorgeous lens, only missing the VR. If the 70-200 is selling so well and is wanted so much… this one is even better, at half the weight!

    • kristupa saragih

      just curious, how big is it gonna be if they make AF-S 50-135/2G ED IF? I believe it will give almost the same isolation as 70-200/2.8 on FF camera.

      • kristupa saragih

        I mean AF-S 50-135/2G ED IF N DX

        • Nikkorian

          you are right. considering dof-isolation, this would make sense. i also suspect, size and weight and price of a Dx 50-150 f/2 should be similar to an Fx 70-200 2.8. only in the end this would not make so much sense because i could just as well go full-frame then and have the additional advantage of better high-iso.

          so i would rather say, instead of going FX and then only using an f/4 tele-zoom (like canon offers it for 70-200), it would make more sense to use DX with a 50-150 f/2.8!!

          • PHB

            Yes, DX makes a heck of a better format for long range telephoto work.

            I am pretty sure that if Nikon had started with FX format digital sensors and only recently started introducing DX sensors at twice the price we would have people arguing how much better DX is.

            Not that I would say no to a 22MP FX sensor mind you, at that point you have a 10MP DX body tucked away inside your FX beastie.

            The real problem with FX is not the extra cost of the body, its the size and weight of the lenses necessary to do it justice. Put the 70-200 on a DX body and you have a 100-300mm lens – and no teleconverter loss! Of put the 200mm on and you have a 300mm f/2! Who needs more than ISO 400 if you are using the lens outside (and how many places are big enough to use a 200mm inside).

            Still, the whole range will eventually go FX because at some point Nikon will be able to make 22MP FX sensors for only $100 more than the DX sensors at which point you might as well get the D3x with the built in D300 mode. Only by that time we will probably be up to 55MP.

          • donde?

            I recently bought the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 HSM II and it’s a good lens! The sharpness is excellent, AF is quiet and it’s priced moderately. The only thing missing is optical stabilization, but at 150mm it’s still not _that_ critical.

  • Michael

    That would be the perfect lens to be announced with a new D3s…

  • low

    i hope the new one vignettes even more!! this lens is puuuuuuuuuurfect!

  • bill mcdaniels

    The camera store I work for had 4 delivered on the 17th, and our re-order did not go to a back-order status, so I think it is crap.

  • specs

    The same story again?
    I heard this before I bought my lens (somewhere around oktober 2008). After I bought it, it came back in stock. The price became even lower, etc..

    But if you read the reviews you’ll guess Nikon really wants a good AF-S 70-200/F2.8 for the FX camera’s. Keeping stocks low and building limited series of the lens seems like a good option for Nikon.

    If you need it for a DX you’ll see the lowest price, get it when you think it’s affordable. It won’t get much cheaper. If you need it for a FX, I’d rather wait.

    • Soap

      If you can afford to wait, then it’s not a “need”, eh?

      • specs

        If there is a real “need” there is no question. You choose between the 80-200/f2.8 without VR and the 70200/f2.8 VR.

  • shivas

    so did the 17-35 ever get discontinued??

  • Nicky Nikon

    Fugly lens, good riddance. Downgrade from the 80-200 AFS optically.

    Hope the replacement is better.

  • Anonymous

    Dealers say this stuff all the time when they can more readily get a lens in stock with better profit margin. When I worked at a shop they tried getting me to say it.

  • Segura

    Just sold mine last week for a profit . . . good timing!

  • funny

    there is a rumor of the replacement for that lens everu 3 months….and every time I hope it is true….and once again I do.

  • Jeff

    I find it strange to discontinue before a new one is out though….
    no doubt an update is needed for FX and since this is a pro oriented lens it will be coming. But really, when has nikon discontinued a lens before the replacement was announced? My bet is what he meant was stock is low so he can’e get any, and Nikon might discontinue it soon so they’re not letting dealers stack up huge back orders which they would be required to fill. so my guess is announcement of replacement in a bout 6 months to a year.

  • bigmouth

    too bad I still can’t afford a 80-200 AF-D! I get constantly bullied by my friends (canon users) that I don’t have the option to buy any of the following:
    70-200 F4L USM, 70-200 F4L USM IS, 70-200 F2.8L USM, 70-200 F2.8L USM IS.

    Now with the introduction of the new 70-200, it will be $1900 again…

  • yrsued

    I own two 70-200 AF-S lenses, IMHO, they are doing a great job for me, but OTOH the lens could use a refresh!! Especially for the FX Bodies. I would welcome the new lens, but would keep my older lenses, just to have around

  • Sea Cat

    How about dumping the “VR” part already? With the low-light abilities of sensors there is no point putting VR on lenses anymore.

    • Jay

      So, just use the excellent and significantly less expensive 80-200 f2.8?

      • Sea Cat

        Just as soon as you dump all of your AF-S glass for lenses that don’t focus as fast. VR doesn’t add nearly as much value to the lens as the AF-S does.

        • What’s your point? The newest 80-200 *does* have AF-S.

          • readily available as new is only AF-D. For 1000Eur here. Lot of people would scream happyness, 80-200 was not only better overall but also much nicer.

          • You got me there. I hadn’t realized that it wasn’t readily available.

          • geoff

            The 80-200 AF-S was a significant improvement over the 80-200 AF-D. A used 80-200 AF-S still costs more than a brand new 80-200 AF-D, because the AF-S is a great lens and the AF-D is a piece of crap. Trust me, I bought the AF-D and returned it within a week. Wide open, it’s as soft as my $225 Promaster 17-50 f/2.8 (rebadged Tamron). The 80-200 AF-S and 70-200 AF-S are tack sharp wide-open.

            I really don’t understand all the love for the old 80-200 AF-D.

    • Anonymous

      Bzzz, wrong. VR trumps high ISO. Why shoot at ISO 3200 if you can shoot at ISO 400 with VR? The D700/D3 have great high ISO performance but it’s not like the image quality gets better as the ISO goes up, ISO 200 is still better than ISO 1600.

      • Anonymous

        Because higher iso freezes action, and VR doesn’t.

        • Am I the only one that finds it slightly amusing that “Anonymous” is arguing w/ his/herself?

          • lololol!

          • aFrIcanSH

            actually I posted the VR doesn’t stop action bit but never occurred to me I’d be Anonymous too. When I look at it, it IS amusing.

      • twoomy

        Bzzz wrong? You clearly have never done any event or sports photography. Try it out some time and learn.

        • another anonymous

          yes, you’ll completely right, just note that not all people shoot sports or fast action.. that VR has its place and either alone or in combination with the higher iso when it comes to image quality in low light.. i’m also happy user of both and as for fast action as for any other.. in my case with d300 and 70-200f2.8 😉

    • Micke

      To dump VR just because of high ISO-capabilities is retarded. Why not use both at the same time? Then you’re suddenly shooting in total darkness and still making sharp results. Just like I’d like to see VR-operation on ultra-wides (such as the 14-24 f/2.8). Then you’d get sharp results at times up to 2 seconds. And at times you don’t want VR, you can turn it off!

      • Soap

        Exactly. VR only gives, it doesn’t take. If you want faster shutter speeds, crank up the ISO, VR doesn’t prevent that.
        Look at the 18-55 or 55-200 prices in comparison with their VR brethren. VR’s cost is a drop in the bucket for a pro lens. There is no reason not to add it. If the ~$100 price differential is honestly swaying your purchase decision on a pro-level lens, then I rather suspect you don’t really _need_ the lens.

        • specs

          VR takes!

          It adds move parts to a system that could have been static.
          It increases the complexity of the lenses.

          It drives up the price and/or shortens the life span of the lens.
          Summary, you pay more money, but it does give you advantages.

          • soap

            “Adds more parts” – unless you have reliability numbers showing the increase in parts = increase in failure rate then I don’t care.

            “Shortens life span” = ditto

            Drives up price = as I demonstrated – the price difference is negligible at the low end and invisible at the high end.

          • Anonymous

            I could of sworn swear that VR can mess with Bokeh sometimes…

          • soap

            If you’re afraid it messes with Bokeh – turn it off.

  • Jay

    Still in stock @ B & H as of 1624 today; Maybe the dealer who can’t get it really means his credit is tanked and they won’t sell to him until gets straightened out.

    Just a thought….

  • John

    This rumor has been going on for 2 years already…just get prime lenses, much sharper, faster, and not so damn heavy! Ever heard of having a fixed focal length and moving to get your shot, it forces you to compose a better composition.

    • David

      John, ever heard of sporting events, where you’re standing on the sideline with spectators behind you and players in front of you – not every photographic situation allows you to move. Same with event photography etc etc.

      • Ravell

        Would be fun to watch though!

        Give all the sports ‘togs at the next football game a 50mm prime only and watch them run around the playing field, after the players to get the shots they want! :p

        • that made me seriously lol

        • Nikkorian

          lol, they would feel like they lost their pants running aroung with 50mm primes 😀

        • That makes for a seriously hilarious scene. Would LOVE to see that! But you know, only us photographers would understand what was funny about that scene 😉

      • Anonymous

        Ever heard of shooting from a blind, or scaring off wildlife, or alerting dangerous animals to your presence.

        • Nikkorian

          me, i would get more scared seeing a baseball bat-like zoom lens than a stubby 50mm prime ;-D

        • That’s the problem- they’ve *heard* of it, but’ve never *done* it.

      • TTI

        Normally for such sporting event… I carry my 300 F4 :P…
        My 70-200VR is stick up to my 2nd body when the players come running closer to you…

        Normally, for football (soccer) event that our newspaper covered in Thailand… it’s either 400/500 F2.8 (of course provided by our company) as a main shooter… and either 70-200 or 80-200 (depending on how quick you can request for the optics you want :))

        So, I don’t think that for sporting events, your argument is not 100% valid… but of course for marriage or other events, it is proven to be quite useful…

        We don’t use zoom as a ‘main’ lens… and for savannah… it is also primies that >300mm… not just a zoom with the range <300mm…

        Just a thought…

    • Yes,

      us DX wildlife shooters would love to have a 700-800g lightweight 200mm f/2.8 VRII lens instead of hauling 1.5kg heavy and long zoom. It would be much better with TC’s and since lighweight it would also go along in the backpack with longer/heavier glass. Adding 1.5k to already heavy backpack is a nightmare and going 1kg lighter without a zoom would be great!

      When NIkon? When!!! Or should I buy Canon instead???

  • Ryan

    DON’T FALTER TO CANON BONZO!! hahaha… seriously. as a student this would almost be awsome for the pure fact that it would be alot cheaper, i get a big discount, but if pros and semi-pros are getting rid of that stuff because of a new one, im sure it would be even cheaper.

  • Tony M

    I was really hoping they would come out with a 10 -> 1000 mm lens at a constant f1.4, VR and nano coating.
    Supplied accessories would be a bionic arm and a pick-up truck with mounted lens case 🙂

    • Nau


    • Adam

      LOL, that made me laugh really really good 😀

  • zee german

    I doubt it. There isn’t really anything wrong with this lens, other then when you test it under lab conditions. Many fast tele lenses are soft in the corners wide open. So what? 98% of the pictures shot at the long end wide open won’t be sharp at the corners anyway. Look at the 85mm f/1.4 it’s also quite soft in the corners on FX, but it doesn’t matter. The pictures you shoot wide open are supposed to have a buttery bokeh, and the only thing sharp is usually one single tiny spot, like an eye or something. If you want corner to corner sharp stock pictures, you shoot at f/8 anyway.
    There are other lenes than this one that need to be replaced, reintroduced/introduced.

    Any of these I would would appreciate a lot more:
    17mm f/3.5
    24mm f/2 / f/1.4
    28mm f/2 / f/1.4
    35mm f/2 / f/1.4

    Me persionaly, would love to see a versatile f/4 zoom line.
    24-105mm f/4 VR, the only thing I envy Canon users for.
    80-300mm f/4 VR, I actually do have hopes for that ever since the entry here on the site about the fact that it’s not really there anymore on
    And finally a 17-45mm f/4 VR. Nikon if you read this, please seriouls think about it. This would be a KILLER! It would be a light filter accepting wide angle lens for FX shooters, and no real competition for the 14-24mm f/2.8. For speed and focal length. But more importantly, this would be a perfect standard lens for DX shooters. Those who have DX camera now are very keen on having a FX one, but they are expensive. And the problem is that beside the DX 17-55mm, there isn’t really a good option for a standard lens. And non pros won’t pay that much for a non FX lens any more, actually I doubt that there were any news ones sold at all since FX was introduced.
    This lens would give people the freedom of going with another DX body today, getting a decent standard zoom, knowing that they will use the same lens as a wideangle lens later on their FX body.

    zee german

    • STJ

      When you use your lens for say landscape it really does makie a difference if your lens is sharp to the corners. Have you tried to stitch pictures with soft corners? It you “only” make portraits then the current one is probably fine, but not everyone has those needs. A new “sharper” lens would be the right tool for more photographers simply.

    • Adam

      yup I agree you, the one thing that is holding me back from switching to Nikon (I am in love with their pro FX glasses, body features and build quality, flash system and ultimately the color produced) is that their pro FX glasses is at f/2.8! I wish they would introduce pro grade f/4 glasses (cause I don’t need everything to be at f/2.8) and would appreciate the lighter weight and cheaper price.

      Also would be great if they can make their SWM motor or whatever (similar to Canon USM) faster then the current ones which are proven slower then their screw drive motor counterparts (50mm anybody?)

      And no, I would prefer to pay for constant f/4 FX lenses then a f/2.8 DX lens.

      • RumpelHund

        Regarding the 50mm I sold my AF-D and D80 to get myself the AF-S and a D700.

        In the end they seem both equally fast to focus, though I don’t have them at hand for a side by side comparion. And both are too slow to track my children running at me from 5 to 2m, both on D80 and D700.

        Once used D2X bodies for some surveillance application and it blew our quick 20amps-fuse when focusing. There has to be quite some horsepower to the pro motors, and I guess that’s where the AF-S fails to compete.

        Question: Can anyone recommend a combination to get running children on the last 10m focussed with 50mm wide open? Does it really take a pro body? Are they better in this domain?

        • zee german

          if you can live with 2.8 the AF-S 24-70mm will do the trick.

        • try to keep distance. no lens focusing so fast it can track it in last meters. specially wide open, focus is in centimeters. either use wider lenses or keep bigger distance, at best both

          • to add.. of course there are tricks to achieve that (prefocus + bursts), but than you are spending more time behind camera (and later behind pc) than with kids.

          • RumpelHund

            Do you mean with 180mm and far away tracking is more reliable than 50mm close for the same field of view and same aperture (say 2.8 or 4.5)?

            Would not have guessed such, but quite possibly true. Will start enlarging our house right away 8~)

          • more far you are and/or wider lens you use, the better. also bigger distance pays out for shalower DOF on longer lenses.

            if you would say using 35mm and crop, you would have in house distances about 1m in acceptable focus, that is enough even for manual focusing on kids. 20mm lens is often hyperfocal at about 3m, there you dont need to focus at all.
            but, if you stay at higher distances (and either crop or keep it so), then every meter they run is percent-wise is smaller chance of overall distance. so let say that with 50mm and distance of 5m you focus harder then 200mm and 20m distance. at same distance from subject longer lens will be worse but if you can use that distance it is better.

        • Adam

          yup, well check out DPReview, of course it being slower; AF-S then AF-D wont really affect capturing the moments, but heck, this is suppose to be some sort of futuristic tech, how the heck is it slower. And in fact, even the Nikon users I know, admitted that Nikon AF-S is slower then Canon USM. I love Nikon Body AF function, but I have no idea why their lens AF is slower then Canon.

          • Nikkorian

            even worse, in the 50mm prime, the AF-S is not much faster, maybe even slower, than the in-body motor AF.

        • STJ

          Have you considered that Nikon might have traded fast AF for precise focusing at f1.4 for the 50AFS? Several lenses with f1.4 have been critisiced for un-precise AF at f1.4 – Nikon did not want that with the new 50AFS apprarently. If you take pictures of running kids and sports try using say f5.6 or more. However if you want to take more artistic pictures of less speedy subjects and use f1.4 I’m sure you will be very happy with the new 50AFS. Using f1.4 takes a lot of practise and even the best autofocus system will not be able to do magic. And concerning general Nikon AFS speed – I haven’t heard that the current 70-200mm should be any slower than equivalent Canons.

          • Adam

            Well no AF can be as precise as MF, so no, I don’t think Nikon traded fast AF for precise focusing at f/1.4. And yes, using at f/1.4 requires lots of practice. And ain’t AF-S means it has A/M mode which is equivalent to Canon FTM (Full Time Manual Focus)?

          • Adam

            which mean easier to pre focus the area you want and turn the manual focus ring to fine tune the focus?

  • mike

    Oh FFS. Can Nikon just give us a nice, fast, wide!

  • shumin

    I wonder if the 80-400mm will ever get a refresh.

    • STJ

      Seems to be about 10years overdue already… I think it was one of Nikons first VR lenses and due to the span from 100mm to 400mm they had to make it slow to make it somwhat precise at focusing making it really hard to use for sports. This lens could use some Nikon “magic” from the team that made their other good zooms… Thom just wrote again that he believes it will come this year, but apparently Nikon dosn’t see a large enough audience for it yet…

      • shumin

        i’ve been waiting for a replacement for sooo long. Since 2008 there has been speculation but no concrete information so far.

        As a Nikon user i envy Canon’s 100-400mm, Sony’s 70-400mm. I could go down and get a Sigma 120-400mm but its just too big, heavy with restricted wide angle.

        I really hope this is the year the 80-400mm gets a refresh instead of the 70-200mm. Just my opinion.

        • tokina makes a 80-400mm
          sigma 150-500 OS
          sigma 80-400 OS
          sigma 50-500

          • Neil

            Don’t forget the Tamron 200-500

  • Jesse

    Please let it be true this time.

  • Antaeus

    I just bought the 70-200 and wouldn’t mind if this rumor were false… 😉
    If a new version comes along, well, so be it – there will always be replacements for everything.

    • litebyte

      @Antaeus: There will be new version but it has not same reach, more I cannot say unfortunately

      • Adam

        huh? what you mean by not same reach? 70-200 length is more then enough perfect for portraits and reach as far as I care. So what you mean by not same reach?

      • STJ

        70-180mm macro maybe…??

        • Adam

          Nah, I prefer the extra 20mm reach, 70-180 just sounds weird, 70-200 now that’s sound much nicer, maybe a 70-200 f/2.8 VRII Micro? Since their competitors are all have some sort of macro eventhough not true macro.

  • rad

    I think the admin knows this is a super hot topic and posted this to ensure lots of traffic without him being here to post new rumors 😉 Admin brilliant move!

    • I just reported on something that I read online.

  • Zoetmb

    It’s in stock at B&H, J&R, Adorama, Abe’s of Maine, Calumet and Best Buy, just to name a few. If the lens were no longer available for ordering at Nikon, at least some of these places would be out-of-stock unless there are no customers for this lens. I don’t think anyone keeps a lot of these in-stock.

    A year or two ago, it was out of stock everywhere for a really long time and people thought it was going to be replaced. It wasn’t then and I don’t think we’re going to see a replacement in the next year. There are many other gaps for Nikon to fill first. But I’ve been wrong before.

    It has gotten very expensive. It now sells for $1900. I paid $1450 a few years back.

  • I think big retailers like (amazon, adorama, B&h, etc..) probably had an opportunity from the reps to buy these in huge bulk before the price increase. Thats why they can offer such cheaper prices compared to brick & mortar smaller stores. They are stilling selling lenses from before the price increase. If there is a replacement soon these will still be readily available for some time.

  • Mircea

    Bla, bla…

    “i said VR 2 . . .the max ap would remain at f/2.8, there’s no way they could replace it with an f/2.0 and keep it under $2k. . .it would be like $6k!!!”


    Nikon is still sleeping…why not a 70-200/4 VR? Why not a cheeper prices? Why not better photos?:) Sure will improve something new in our photos this new VR2 system…sure…sure…the bird will came directly in our jpg files or in NX…

    • Neil

      No need for the 70-200 f/4. The 70-300 VR is basically that lens with more reach.

  • low

    why not leave this lens alone? its as good as it is the way it is…..

    • funny

      if so you say, why do you care? the current lens won’t suddenly vanish in thin air because a better one is made. if you own it or like it so much, go get it and let the rest of the world move on. enjoy.

      • low

        yes i do own it and use it and love it. do you even own this lens? or are you one of the many that gripe about it being flawed as well?

        • Adam

          well you got a point about this lens is perfect as it is but heck, things will always need improvement and one of the improvement that this lens need is to be build using a FX body in mind instead of DX. Cause if you compare on the MTF graph, this lens perform badly in FX then DX. Heck even the 80-200 is sharper.

          But what about real world terms where it matters? This lens is as perfect as it is 😀

          Heck the quality is already good enough for many purposes. Maybe Nikon will upgrade this lens for its D3x 😀 Which possibly means D800 or whatever it is called might have 20+ mp to better compete against 5D Mark II, or maybe Nikon will play better image quality by making D800 as 15mp-18mp?

          • low

            i dont have a problem with this lens being soft at the corners or even the vignetting. school of thought, there is a lens that matches up for the job.

            whats got my head spinning is the constant griping of how this lens was ‘broken’ from the beginning. just because this lens was pre-digital fx means that it wasnt designed correctly? cmon folks, get a grip… there are many lenses that were designed before the digital age that get the job done right today on a d3, d700 and d3x. have photogs today lost that ability to recognize the right tool for the job?

            im all for upgrades too, but to say this barrel of glass is in dire need of one is astonishing. heck, i dont mind if the 70-200 f2.8 vr goes the life the 85 f1.4, 15 years and counting!

  • Glenn

    They are still selling them here in Japan. I am whishing for a new model though.
    A 70-250 f2.8 ot 70-300 2.8 would be nice. 🙂

  • Kickmatic23

    I hope they come out with a better, newer version.. I wanted to get one

  • gcardinal

    There will not be a 70-200mm VR II, any time soon.
    Only newbys and tech freaks bitch about that stupid B.S. about corner softness – I own one. There is no corner softness what so ever. I did a test with D3x and it rocks 24mpx sensor.

  • Chris P

    Not just newbys and tech freaks. The first comments about the 70-200 f2.8 not being sharp across the frame that I saw were published in the British Journal of Photography (BJP), as part of a comparision test between the D3 and the Canon 1DSMkIII. The BJP is a very respected photography magazine here in the UK and the comments were backed up by hard facts and illustrations.

    I tried a sample of the 70-200 at the Focus on Imaging show in February on my D700, when I got home and checked the images the edges, let alone the extreme corners, were not sharp at f4. Not ‘soft’ just not sharp. Everyone has their own opinion, mine is that i am not prepared to pay the price that Nikon wants for the current 70-200.

  • Daf

    Corner sharpness review by Mr Rockwell:
    70-200 VR does come out worst BUT he also says :
    “These lenses are all very sharp. I’m doing something stupid to make them look this bad. I’m misusing these lenses, and showing which are most resistant to misuse.”

    • D40-Owner

      Be careful, Daf.
      Once you get into Mr. Rockwell’s Church of Ken, it is very hard to leave. And everyone else will try to shoot you on sight (not with a camera). 😛

  • Ken Elliott

    I wonder if Nikon might leave the 70-200 alone, and create an updated 80-200 aimed at the D3X. Actually, I’d rather see them put everything they have into that (at any cost) and reduce the price of the 70-200. My thinking is the 70-200 is nearly perfect for portrait and sports, but not for landscapes and panos (“soft” corners are harder to stitch). So build a 80-200 with Nano coating and VR II (III?) with super sharp corners. The increased weight and any loss of bokeh quality might be acceptable for landscape and pano shooters. By doing this, Nikon lets us pick what we want for the type of shooting we do.

    But having said this, I’m fine with my 70-200 as-is, and would be unlikely to replace it. It is nearly perfect for my shooting and the corners have only been an issue on testing, not in real world photos. I would rather see an update to the 80-400. Adding AF-S, VR II and sharper @ 400mm would cause me to sell mine and buy the new replacement.

  • PhotoDude

    The lens is currently available pretty much everywhere — Adorama, B&H, ephotocraft, Costco (gasp!), and at both of my local shops. Nikon makes their pro lenses in batches, so there are always ebbs and flows in availability.

    I bought one about 4 months ago, and price has gone up about $200 since.

    • Ed W

      I checked the costco website today, its gone- sold out.

  • Back to top