Nikon AF-S 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED VR to be replaced in few weeks

This is the first reliable rumor I received in a while: in few weeks Nikon will introduce a new version of the Nikon AF-S 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED VR lens. The improvement will be a new VR and few other minor tweaks. I also got a report from Japan that this lens cannot be ordered from Nikon any longer. Not sure yet if this will be the only new product in this announcement.

[NR] Rating: 90% - everything with rating of 90% or above is pretty much a done deal, however final changes in the release schedule are always a possibility.

Nikon AF-S 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED VR was introduced back in 2003.

AmazonB&H and Adorama all have the current model in stock.

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

    My question is how much. Interresting for football !

    • Banned

      6k lens to shoot your Sunday kiddie football?

      • yrsued

        Well, I don’t shoot Kiddie Football, but….

        Actually Kiddie football is more profitable than NCAA and Pro Sports!!

        My buddy did T&I (Team & Individuals) for 1000 kids… at $40 per kid…

        You do the math!! Only if 50% purchased the package, you are $20K in the red!!! Kiddie sports is where the cash is in!!

        • GlobalGuy

          Anyway, you don’t even need to go that far. Quite simply, if the lens earns its cost back over its 5 years of warranty, then it did its job just fine for any casual photographer. However long it lasts past 5 is cake. This isn’t a business model, but you could justify it.

          50 kids parent’s a year @ 25$ per x 5 years.

          At that point you can sell the lens for $1,000 less, and have earned $5,000. Use the $5,000 to buy a new one with a new investment of only $1,000 total and enjoy another 5 years of shooting.

          No problem.

          • Alex

            But does that make FINANCIAL SENSE? Could you sell as many photos for the same price if you spent less than $1000 for the Tamron 200-500 (or even less 2nd hand)?. I’m sure you could!

          • another anonymous

            hehe i always can’t get the idea why i have 1 year warranty for more money as you have to pay for 5 years… crazy world

  • ZinhaEq

    Great, but it is my personal opinion that there are many more other Nikon lenses that are even older and their updates more needed than this one.

    • Banned

      Correct and that’s why it was easy for Nikon, not much to change.

      • Seppl

        Well, perhaps they upgraded the RSP?

    • Apeman

      Its hard to understand the marketing decision of Nikon sometimes. They clearly need to update some of the lens lagging behind the Competitor like the 35/1.4, f4 zooms, 1.2 primes. Not the one of the kind 200-400mm f4…

      • PHB

        No they don’t. Nikon is Nikon, they take very little notice of Canon unless they have a success.

        There are many constraints on lens releases. A completely new lens requires a huge investment in CAD modeling, prototyping, field testing, production engineering and marketing. Updating an existing lens to the latest VR scheme is a much smaller undertaking.

        I would hazard a guess that updating a large, clunky lens like the 200-400 is even easier from an engineering point of view than modifying one of the smaller lenses where an adjustment is much more likely to impact balance and such.

        Keeping the top end lenses right up to date while rolling out new designs is a good sign. It is not as if the list of ‘missing’ lenses is terribly long at this point. Most people would have no further complaints if they delivered AFS versions of the 85 f/1.4 and 80-400 and called it a day.

        Sure there will always be idiots trolling through the Canon catalog looking at their long list of lenses nobody buys. Their 50 f/1.2 autofocuses (sort of), unlike the nikon manual f/1.2, big whoopsie, they are both crappy lenses. The reason nikon is the brand to go for is that if there is ever a new 50 f/1.2 you know that it is guaranteed that it is going to be spectacular.

        There are lots of lenses that would be nice to look at in the catalog, but not if the cost of doing that is going to be to let the existing products become old and obsolete.

        • Aaron

          if it is what you say i think it still does not make sense to Nikon as a corporation. They should be investing tiny little resources to those prime products that has most impact to the market, concentration makes it successful…

    • yrsued

      Nikon is upgrading the glass that sells!! Not the stuff only a few buy.

    • Such as the 80-400! With the new 200-400, a new version of the 80-400 might never come out :p

      • PHB

        The signs point to the replacement for the 80-400 being a completely new design. So I very much doubt that any of the resources that have gone into updating the 200-400 could have been applied to that project.

        Adding AFS to a lens is not the same as swapping out one VR system for a slightly different VR system. For all we know the difference between the two is a faster processor and upgraded lens firmware. The optical formula may well be identical.

  • Anonymous

    Great, this lens is exactly for those power users with D60s.

    Logically, this lens will be for the worldcup. This means Nikon is still telling for those who wan’t high res affordable FF to f_ _k off. At least this time they did not send a creepy Nikon exec to say we will bring you new products. 🙂

    This company is getting full of bs.

  • C

    Wonderful! I just want to buy this lens but afraid of a new update… That’s sound great and I can wait and buy version II directly!

    • David Haselblaff

      You better wait a little longer. There might be a version III in a couple of years.

  • Anon

    Admin, what are the chances of a D700 replacement being announced at the same time? (I know I’ll probably get heckled for asking, but it’s worth a shout!)

  • Duff

    In 2003 you say?

    Aand when was the 24-120 VR introduced? Or the 28-105? Or the 85 1.4? Or the 85 1.8? Or the 35 1.4?

    Why can’t nikon realise they have to make priorities?

    End of rant, surely it will be a great lens, but one that most people will never use or need.

    • Anonymous

      don’t forget 80-400 and 300 f4

      • mike

        Enthusiast lenses like those seem to take longer to get updated. It took 12 years for the 300/4 to get updated to the AF-S version. At that rate, the next one isn’t coming until 2016. I don’t think we will see FX updates to the f/1.8 primes since those are “amateur”, and FX is pro. We’ve seen a bunch of patents for f/1.4 primes already, so presumably Nikon is just sitting on them for some reason. The 24-120 should be updated already, and to f/4 (since apparently Nikon are now open to the idea of f/4 zooms).

        As for the 80-400, people seem to think it’ll be some thing like 100-500? Sounds too big to me. If they announce it, I am going to have to try to convince my wife to let me get an 80-400 before they become hard to get.

        • ArtTwisted

          They dont update some lenses because there is little need too. Nikon primes are amazing lenses, i would like a 35 1.4 but in terms of replacing the 85 and 35f2 i dont see the need, it would increase the price, weight, size, and most likely give little improvement in iq since especially the 85 is known to be very sharp and have great bokeh and colour.

          • mike

            35/2 was updated over a year ago (35/1.8), and I think we’ve seen a patent on a new 85/1.4, so there you go. We’re just waiting for Nikon to start selling the damn thing.

  • josh

    When it rains it pours. Now I’ll have to read through eveyones long focal lenght wish list after reading all the 35 mil wish lists. Thanks for the tips. Keep up the good work.

  • low

    now im going to stick with nikon, especially with all these rumors!!!!!111

  • lunar

    if they dont announce a d700 replacement along 200400v2 im going canon fo sho

    • Banned

      What a great idea. Seeya (not.)

      • Anonymous

        i know so many of you people say “go ahead and switch to canon, moron”, but the more people who say/do this because nikon is not delivering, the less people are buying nikon’s stuff, which means less revenue they can put back into R&D.. So people, just keep that in mind when you are telling people to “shove it, who needs you.” i’m not going to switch myself and actually dislike canons, but if truly enough people do, then nikon’s gonna be screwed. every customer counts.

        • Arne

          How much do Nikon need your rants? How much do I like sifting through them?
          / Arne

        • AA

          I just wonder why NIkon instead of losing market to Canon, learns from Leica (M9) or Pentax (645D) and comes with products that are simple, useful and last.
          Somehow, this starts to sound like Microsoft stuff, no sooner you install Windows Vista, you have to go for Windows 7, both similar both annoying with constant updates…
          On the other hand you open a Mac and simply it works.

  • mogando

    let’s just hope this new version fixes all the problems that ThomHogan mentioned in his review. it sux to buy a $6K lens that still have flaws.

    but then, why nikon thinks updating this over those ancient AF-D primes is beyond me.

  • LuMax

    Price? >1 appendage?

    *shuddering just thinking about it*

  • ffip

    I’m not a pro. I hope Nikon will update 80-400 VR instead. It woud be even better if Nikon gives APS-C camera users like me one or more DX telephoto zoom lenses that have a longer reach (say up to 300 or even 400 — why not?) than the 55-200 VR — and like 55-200 VR, are light, compact, and with decent image quality. Why can’t a D5000 or D300s user who shoots wildlife or sport take full advantage of the APS-C system by using long telephoto zooms that are light and easy to carry around?

    • donde?

      The 70-300 VR maybe?

      • Yes

        but it’s so slow. We need (want) some DX f2.8s

        • mike

          400/2.8 already exists, and it’s basically perfect. If that’s what you want, just buy it. If you want a zoom, there is Sigma’s 300-500/2.8, but I think it’s discontinued now (with good reason) … If you are talking about a DX 50-150/2.8, then yes, I think Nikon should make one, but 1) I don’t think they are going to make one, and 2) that’s not what the OP was asking for anyway.

          If you think that DX superteles would be smaller than FX superteles, then you are mistaken. I can think of only one DX lens from any manufacturer that only has focal lengths greater than 70mm, and that’s the 85/3.5 DX VR macro.

  • The invisible man

    I had a dream…..
    Well, an other Nikon lens for rich people !
    Anyway, even for free I don’t want it, I’m still waiting for the 300mm f/4 to be updated.
    Funny how Nikon relase lenses that nobody want but don’t give a dime on cheaper good lenses that would make huge sales and good money for them !
    Va comprendre Charles !

    • Anonymous

      totally agreed.. everyone and their brother would buy an updated 85 1.4… so long as it’s an improvement on the original and not a big change. like.. limiting it’s reach to allow closer focus. how many people second guessed the 70-200 VR II because of that?

      • ArtTwisted

        1, everyone and there brother is STILL buying the 85 1.4 , which means pure profit for nikon, why rush something out the door when the old and good lens is selling, which any quick look around the web or photographers bags will tell you it is.
        2, do you really believe a 300 f4 is a mass selling lens, im sure if they updated it that it would sell great, but would it be the numbers nikon needs ?

        • mike

          I am pretty sure it sells more than the 85/1.4. But like I said earlier, the current design is only 6 years old. The last update took 12 years.

          • PHB

            The 300 f/4 AFS has sold about 12,000+ copies since 2006 while the 85 f/1.4 has sold 39,000 in the same space.

            The 300 f/4 is a great lens, but without VR I would not consider a lens that long. The 80-400 is at the same price point with VR and its a zoom. It is a somewhat slower lens, I would guess f/5 at 300mm but has sold 60,000 copies in the same time.

            An updated 300mm might sell better. But Nikon really should go for a 400mm f/4 instead if it is going to do anything in that region. And updating the 80-400 to AFS is still long overdue.

            The serial numbers site is not always accurate, but its much better than guesswork:

          • mike

            Would a 400/4 be much better/smaller than the 200-400? Would it be cheaper? Canon doesn’t make one without DO glass, so it’s hard for me to tell. I thought what people wanted in that range was a 400/5.6, but then you can get that with a 300/4 and a TC.

  • Stilllife

    I own version 1 an I use it in wildlife as well as portrait work and it’s heavy but it is crisp and sharp all the way thru unless the operator screws up ie me I use the 1.7 teleconverter and it works as Nikon says in manual mode it auto focus with the 1.7 but very sluggish and it’s off more than on but the 1.4 works…

    • Jeremy

      Wow, that was like 1 sentence.

  • Photokid

    This is great, the 200-400 is one of the best lenses available for wildlife photography, and now it’s going to be better.

  • Kevin Y

    geez crazy news with this new 200-400 and the 35mm patent approval

  • David Haselblaff

    It’s strange that Nikon is releasing all these pro lenses lately. They will need 1 or 2 lenses to announce with a new pro/enthusiast body …
    Are they hiding that many lenses from us?? I guess the only Nikon camera we will see this year will be the D3000 replacement.

    • nobody

      Really! VRII instead of VRI on a $6000 sports and wildlife lens! Great news! How much have we been longing for that to come!

      And I have even more news: the 200mm f2 will get the same upgrade also. That is important because all the sports photographers that turn off VR anyway are longing for better VR.

      Sadly this will mean that there will be no 300mm f4 with any kind of VR for a long time, and no 80-400 AFS either. But all of us loyal Nikon customers understand these decisions very well and admire Nikon for their incredible wisdom, don’t we?

      • Mike


  • Johnny

    Is it a coincidence that Thom Hogan only recently finished his long overdue reviews of the 85mm f1.4 and 200-400mm f4? After all, he claims to have a reliable idea of what lenses are soon to be released, but understandably wont tell which ones in order to protect his source.

    Maybe he wanted to finish those reviews before they become “old designs”?
    I want to believe.

  • longtimenikonshooter

    Just in time for FIFA World Cup.

    • nikkor_2


      FIFA World Cup is driving this release, in my opinion.

  • Chris P

    If this rumour is correct then the one thing that it perhaps does prove is that someone with a senior position within Nikon does take notice of Thom Hogan. After seven years he publishes his review of the 200-400, in which he states that it is not that good optically when focussed near infinity, and within weeks a new version is announced. It will be even more interesting if the one big difference is a much improved optical quality when focussed near infinity.

    • Eric

      Hmmmmm. NOT!
      I’m pretty sure it would take more than a few weeks to redesign a $6k lens.

      The reason being the Soccer World Cup is much more likely.

      • Chris P

        Re my post, please look up the word ‘irony’ in a dictionary

  • Daniayr

    Nikon needs to get their priorities straight. How many $2k+ lenses that don’t need an update will they keep updating? First it’s 300 VR II, now 200-400 VRII. Do these guys really need an extra stop of VR? Both lenses are already legends and I understand it’s a cheap update for Nikon since they hardly do anything to these lenses except new VR, but there are so many other lenses like 80-400 VR, 24-70 VR, 300mm F4 VR that really do need an update. They will make lots of money with World Cup coming up, but they are pleasing less than 1% of their customers, that’s just not right.

    • deano

      Trickle down theory….
      People with big bucks buy this stuff and it pays for the development costs and the technology trickles down (and becomes less expensive) to the “average Joe” stuff.

      So, Nikon, go invent and build $6K lenses, sell them to NASA and as many people as possible make your money there, and I’ll wait for stuff like the 16-35 f/4 VR to come out for my use.

    • T140Rider

      Well, I was out on Monday photographing an Amateur Rugby game under floodlights using the 200-400 F4 on my D700 with the ISO set to 3200.
      Bear in mind that the light levels are way below that use in Pro Rugby or Footie, I did get dome reasonable shots with the shutter speed down to 1/40 or 1/15.
      Here, the VR does give you (Along with the D700’s ISO Capability) the ability to take piccies. Some of the Canon users gave up btw because of the very low light levels and pushing the ISO any hight, would just give them noise.

  • eru

    we need an 80 400 replacement, not a a 150.000.000 $ lens replacement for the 0,00000000000000000000001% of the market, not even other useless DX .
    It seem that the prosumer target has been left behind

    • SBGrad

      Agree with you completely, but it is clear that whomever makes decisions at Nikon refuses to let the market dictate what happens.

    • Jose

      I agree with that most of us would like to see a new 80-400, but your reasoning seems wrong: DX/APS-C has (and will in any foreseeable future) more market and dollars than FX/FF.

      • PHB

        The 80-400 is pretty much a DX lens in my opinion. Sure you can put it on an FX body if you have to, but then its only a 80-400, not the 120-600 I would get on my D300.

        Nikon’s two priority markets are the D90 owners and the D3/D3x owners. Everyone else has to expect less than perfect attention. Sure there are a lot of D700 owners here on the boards who make a lot of noise, but they are like the folk who bought a Dino and thought they had got a Ferrari. The D700 is a great camera body, but to make use of that greatness you have to buy primes starting at $1,200 and up and zooms that cost $2000 and up. You got a cheap room at the Savoy, but guess what, the restaurant still costs the same.

        The 200-400 is one of the all time great Nikon engineering achievements. Like the equally astonishing 18-200 and the 80-400 it does not deliver absolute optical perfection, but it goes somewhere you really wouldn’t want to touch with a Canon. Sure you might not be in the $6000 lens class, but most Nikon owners prefer to enjoy 7.2 lb lenses vicariously as opposed to in person anyway.

        Nikon might come out with a set of lenses aimed at D700 owners in the future, or they might well think that they already did and that folk who want lighter weight lenses should simply buy their excellent VA designs.

        • Char

          “The D700 is a great camera body, but to make use of that greatness you have to buy primes starting at $1,200 and up and zooms that cost $2000 and up.”

          Sorry, but this is just not true. I do own the 35/2 AF-D, 50/1.4 AF-D, 85/1.8 AF-D and 135/2 AF-D DC lenses, and none of them cost me even close to the 1200$ you mention, with the 135/2 coming closest. Also, there are a variety of zoom options available for less than 2000$ if you look for them. The 70-300 VR should perform really good on a D700 or even D3x and make a nice, light landscape tele lens for example. The 16-35 should be quite good on a D700, too. I have no idea how my Tamron 28-75 would perform on a D700, but I guess it would not be too bad, especially stopped down. The 28-70/2.8 is much less than 2000$ if bought used.

  • The invisible man

    Every times Nikon upgrade a lens, the price also get upgraded !

    • donde?

      Precisely. On the one hand you wait for a new lens and then you are turned off by its steep price. It will be the same with the 80-400 successor. It’s currently not the cheapest and it will most likely become even more expensive.

  • I_want_a_d700x_

    Apparently the only thing that Nikon cares lately are top end glass and wide angle lenses:

    top end pro grade releases

    200-400 AF-S VR Mk II
    300 f/2.8 AF-S VR Mk II
    70-200 f/2.8 VR Mk II
    24 f/1.4 AF-S
    wide angle zooms:
    16-35 f/4 VR
    10-24mm DX

    I think the 200 f/2 VR would be the next to get updated before anything else! It is the only $2000+ telephoto prime who don’t have VR-II and nano-coating!

    • The invisible man

      I love you name o:)

    • PHB

      I am sure the 200 f/2 will be upgraded as well. Looks like they are doing the same upgrade across the range.

      Nikon lost the pro market to Canon until the launch of the D3 due to the poor AF performance of the AF and AF-i exotic telephotos. I can see why they might be anxious not to let that situation repeat.

      At this point Nikon has refreshed their pro zooms, their tilt-shift lenses and all but one of their exotic teles and released a brand new fast wide. I can’t see anything desperately missing from the pro lineup other than the 85 f/1.4 and 80-400.

      Nikon’s next priority should be to release more DX wide primes and look to provide some sort of crossover lens in the 24-105 f/2.8-4 range that is a good DX lens and an acceptable FX lens. Another notably missing lens is something to compete with the canon 10x microscopy lens.

  • Steve

    I don’t know – just because they do some quick updates to some expensive glass doesn’t mean they aren’t ALSO working on the 300 F4, 85 1.4, etc, whatever, at the same time. Might have a team updating expensive pro glass and another working with a different set of lenses.

    I mean, there’s gotta be more than one guy in their lens dept doing this stuff, so I wouldn’t worry too much that because lens “A” got an update lens “B” won’t.

    • nobody

      Of course Nikon are working on more than one lens at a time. It’s just their priorities, their decisions which lenses to bring out first, that seem downright crazy.

      Nobody asked for improved VR on the 300mm f2.8, while many people are waiting for any type of VR on the 300mm f4. What have we got? A new f2.8 VRII. And still no f4 with any VR.

      Nobody asked for improved VR on the 200-400, while many people are waiting for AFS on the 80-400. And what will we be getting apparently? A new 200-400 VRII. And still no 80-400 AFS.

      BTW, Canon have been offering a 300mm f4 and a 100-400 for ten years now. Both have IS (=VR), and both have USM (=AFS). Obviously, Nikon don’t see the need to compete. And that is really crazy!

  • Ronan

    Sold my V1 a couple month ago. My fav lens by far but it didn’t get the usage it deserved 🙁

    • Joe

      This lens is probably equiped with an anti-gravity device to make hand holding a breeze

  • Jeff

    I am not a Pro photographer or camera engineer, but couldn’t Nikon implement a great Vibration Reduction system into the DSLR body, and accomplish the same thing as VR in their lens lineup or would that be to easy and eliminate these money making lens updates?

    I personally would like to see the 85mm F/1.4 refreshed as well as VR in the 24-70mm F/2.8

    Anyone know of any dealer stocking a D3s at a reasonable price? B&H said 2-4 weeks wait with advance payment, they said Nikon can’t build the D3s fast enough, good problem to have if your Nikon.

    • longtimenikonshooter

      VR is only effective for stationary/still subject when you hand hold the lens. If you shoot on a tripod or high shutter speed, you don’t need VR.

      • GLC

        Not so! This is what VRII is all about, you can use it on a tripod and it is very effective. I used to believe this until I got my 600 f4 VRII, what a difference in image sharpness. So much difference that I am going to replace my 300 f2.8 because it does not have VR II, image quality has a night and day difference.

        I was going to get the 200 – 400 f4 until I realized it did not have VRII, I for one am glad they are coming with a new edition for this lens. I will be first in line. For wildlife I can always use an extra stop or 2 of light.

  • eru

    if they upgrade an already ultraGodly lens like a 200 f2 which is 10000 mileas ahead of any 200 in the history I think they are crazy. There is a super need of 80-400 and 300 f4 upgrades , how much improvement can be done on a 200 f2?

  • cheesegrater

    Dear Nikon:
    Please update the 300/4 as well.

  • Chris

    This is really pissing me off now. Much as it’s lovely to aspire to a 200-400 i ain’t gonna happen for most of us.

    Prosumers need an 80-400 replacement. The Canon 100-400 shits all over it. Get your bloody fingers out Nikon.

  • ed nafzger

    Yes Yes and Yes again finaly this has to be my next lens to buy thank god if it´s true 100-500 or this i take the 200-400 vr 2 rep with a d3s unbeateble may the force be with admin and me.

  • The invisible man

    New Nikon with 14.2MP, HD video, monitor ACL HD !
    Available now for less than $300 !!!!
    Order one today, the Coolpix S8000 !
    Finaly a new sensor ! Thanks Nikon !

  • ed nafzger

    Well mr. Moose Peterson and sir Ken Rockwell where is your response on this one?

  • ed nafzger

    Oh and compatible with tc 20 e 3 ha ha don´t make me

  • ed nafzger

    Oh god i have the sollution my wife a new kitchen and i the new lens

  • ed nafzger

    By the way next month is my birthday

    • The invisible man

      Mine also, 25th

  • zschow

    what happened to updates of affordable lenses for the rest of us? not 5000+ bucks worth of lens (in Malaysia it’s closer to RM18k, enough for a small car)

    • Anonymous

      I think Nikon has given that market to Sigma.

      Who wouldn’t love a 200-500mm f/5.6 Nikon with the same build and image quality of the 70-300 VR at a reasonable price? I’m sure they would sell 10x as many of those as they will the 200-400 F/4.

      • fxed

        Yea sure. A cheap piece of plastic like the 70-300 and the Tamron 200-500 (if you ever sampled the Tamron would notice this) and f/5.6. More folks would pay for a redesigned 80-400 for 2K to 2.5K than junk for 600-800 bucks to put on their high end DX and FX camera’s.

  • I don’t believe it. I think you want one and are just trying to get those who own it to put theirs up for sale and drive the prices down. 😉

  • Nobody said the replacement for 80-400 won’t be introduced at the same time as the revised 200-400/4 …

  • Yes! I’ll buy one as soon as it comes out!

  • Would it be logical to introduce a new flash/SB-700 for the World Cup? In light of the recent report about low SB-600 availability…

    I also agree with that there are many other lenses that need an update. Most of us just can’t cough up the 6000 USD for this lens.

    • Anonymous

      $6000? That’s the current price, you can bet the ‘new and improved V2’ version will be WAY more expensive.

  • Victor Hassleblood

    A good pro-lens has become a VR II-upgrade. Nothing wrong with that and not a revolutionary news either. Anything left to say ? ? ? I just don’t get the discussion and amount of comments, kicked up by this.

  • Anonymous

    Great, now the 200-400 will cost $8000 or more judging by how Nikon jacked up the prices on other “improved” lenses like the 70-200.

    Can’t put VR in the 300 f/4, or AFS in the 80-400 for an extra hundred or two, but they can improve a crazy expensive lens and put it out of reach of even more people.

    It’s no wonder Canon has a bigger market share.

  • AA

    I just wonder why NIkon instead of losing market to Canon, learns from Leica (M9) or Pentax (645D) and comes with products that are simple, useful and last.
    Somehow, this starts to sound like Microsoft stuff, no sooner you install Windows Vista, you have to go for Windows 7, both similar both annoying with constant updates…
    On the other hand you open a Mac and simply it works

  • Past-Prime

    The best way to explain it is I didn’t have grey hair when they last updated the 80-400! I’m tired of waiting. I just may order the new Sigma 50-500 with OS (decent glass, Bohka, reasonably priced and, Sigma seems to respond to its customers needs…). Just goes to show you, in real life, you begin to observe there are no corporate truths, only rationalizations.

    • fxed

      The Bigma imo is not worth $1600 even with OS or upgraded glass. I had the non OS version. Aside from blurred shots (on a tripod) there was the dreaded purple fringing. If you think OS will help this lens keep dreaming. It’s a heavy lens plus the lens is not “EX” but you like it so buy it. Just hope you don’t pixel peep.

  • Back to top