Breaking: Nikon 70-200mm f/4 lens with next generation VR to be announced next week

Together with the Nikon 1 V2, on October 24th Nikon will announce also a new 70-200mm f/4 lens that will most likely be the first Nikkor lens with the next generation VR system. This lens has been rumored for a while and was supposed to be announced back in 2010/2011, not sure what caused the delay - maybe Nikon decided to pull the trigger after the Tokina AT-X 70-200mm f/4 PRO IF FX lens was introduced early this year (not released yet).

The new lens will be on display during the PDN Photo Plus Expo in New York next week.

In 2011 Nikon filed a patent for a 70-200mm f/4 VR lens.

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM lens currently sells for $1,199 after a $150 rebate. Don't expect the Nikon version to be cheaper.

Back in 1982 Nikon did have a 70-210mm f/4 lens.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • That lens I will buy straight away and good thing will be extremely popular and excellent on the bad size long waiting times and expensive – could be high @ £1200 – £1500, the excellent Canon – few years old is currently running at £990

    This is good news, hope in 2013 we see 80-400 Afs Vr & 300 f4 afs.

    • MB

      Nikon already has fantastic Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S, VR would be most welcomed improvement.

  • michael weissegger

    will there be a 70-200 4.0 WITHOUT VR too?

    I would love to buy this if it’s pricetag is about 600€ (Canon Objektiv EF 70-200mm 4.0 L USM 564€)

    • Pablo Ricasso

      The Canon f4 without IS is much older and a completely different optic. It is nowhere near the quality of the later version. Nikon would have to design two lenses from scratch to offer you a non VR version. You can buy an old 70-210 f4 very inexpensively or you can buy an old 80-200 f2.8 push pull for a little more, but still less than the Canon f4 lens. At f4 the Nikon f4 lens is sharper than the Nikon 2.8 is at the same aperture, but stopped down further the Nikon 2.8 is about as sharp as anything you could want.
      For me to call the new lens successful it will have to be beat the push pull or the newer version of the same at every aperture. I’m guessing that it will. My thoughts are that the only thing you won’t have with this rather than the VR 2.8, other than twice the price and weight, is f2.8 and a little bit of corner sharpness, if that. And we’ll have to see what VR3 is all about.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        Hmm, then again I think I got a little confused, sorry.

        Not sure what I was trying to say 🙁

        • Actual Pablo Ricasso

          Or then again maybe I just didn’t dumb it down enough for your reading skills.
          The early 80-200 f2.8 “macro” (push pull) and the 70-210 f4 lens are both cheaper than a used Canon 70-200 f4L non image stabilized lens. For a little more money than that you can get a later version of that same 80-200 lens. For around twice the price of the non image stabilized Canon, you can get the image stabilized one or the 80-200 f2.8AFS. The Canon lenses look the same but the IS version is newer and completely different inside and much sharper, at least on a rebel. (It has some corner softness on full frames.)
          Because the VR or IS is part of the optics, making the “same” lens without that generally means a completely new design, probably because the choice of ideal design is limited by the need to have a working VR/IS. Subsequently, I doubt that there will be a second version of the lens.
          Regarding the old f4 lens, you will find it as sharp as can be at any aperture until you put it on a sensor that out resolves it. At f4 the push pull zoom is soft in comparison and mostly worthless at f2.8. The newer versions are said to be a little better at fast apertures but I don’t know to what extent.
          I have a feeling that the new lens will beat all the non AFS zooms in that range at any aperture and that it will have a much shorter minimum focus distance than the f2.8 zooms. The third generation vibration reduction will be enough to make it a “no brainer,” so that even someone like you will be able to appreciate it’s utility. Thanks for again reminding me of the caliber of my audience.

          • Real Pablo Ricasso

            Why are you pretending to be myself is beyond me. Stop posting replies to my posts you troll.

            And BTW, you know very little about lenses, as the posts you spray around hiding under other people’s names prove.


      • SiliconVoid

        Obviously a Nikon only user (no offense meant, just perspective) the ‘older’ 70-200 f/4 – non-IS – Canon lens is one of the sharpest lenses on the planet, not sure what you are meaning about not being comparable to the newer IS version. That is also a sore point for purchasers of the newer version btw..

        Anyway, it is about damn time Nikon releases some options in its zoom range!!! The primary reason I have held on to my Canon body is because Canon does not make me spend ~$2500 for their f/2.8 IS version due to having no other options – like Nikon does.. This will be a welcome addition to my Nikon N glass (assuming it is of the pro grade variant..)

        Perhaps/hopefully the time is coming to leave the Canon gear behind….. =)

        • Pablo Ricasso


          3 lenses tested, one in two formats, in order of superiority.
          Damn right I don’t shoot Canon, but I know one who does for some inexplicable reason, and I help him find his stuff.
          I have found that photozone agrees with my findings of what I have shot, so I trust what they say about the rest of it.

          • Pablo Ricasso

            Oops. This was meant to be the second on the roster…


          • SiliconVoid

            Yes, indeed. I am familiar with Photozone. It is a great site and source. I have contributed review data to their site several times over the years.. =) You do know the difference in resolving power between an 8mp cropped sensor and a 21mp full frame sensor, yes? (as it applies to Imatest) I have used the 70-200mm f/4 (non-IS) for years and I can tell you, my copy at least, outperforms the IS version and at a few focal lengths outperforms the f/2.8 IS version as well..

            However the main point, and this thread, is that this new 70-200 f/4 Nikon lens will have a far greater impact on the community and financially for Nikon than many people are aware. It is a greatly welcomed addition (and much needed option) in Nikons zoom lenses.

            I think there are a great many users unaware of the difference between FX and DX in regard to depth of field equivalency and light sensitivity. Slower lens performance on DX bodies has given many the impression that something like f/4 is just too slow to provide action photography, too slow for indoor photography, etc.. when the reality is that their DX sensors are what is impacting the result, not the aperture setting.
            f/4 is not that slow on full frame even at low ISO settings, and especially not slow with an FX body that offers great performance up to 3200-6400 ISO..

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Well the first two (or rather, the first and the one I gave on the next reply) were comparing the latest 2.8is against the f4is on a full frame and the lower two were comparing the f4 lenses against each other on the rebel xt. It’s the only way I could provide the side by side comparison. I wish they all were on full frame.

              But the image stabilized one beat the regular one when on the rebel and the newest 2.8 clobbered that when they were used on a full frame, so I think it is fair to say that 2.8isII>4is>4, at least for the ones they were using.

              But you do have a point about variability. They even discussed variability when reviewing the old f4 version, saying that they ran into several defective ones. My own experience causes me to believe there might be a lot of variability. Almost every review said the 50-200L was less sharp than the 70-200, but I saw one available and I liked the price and the colors in the photos that I saw. I had my friend buy it because he had a Tamron 20-40 and this would allow him to have the whole range in only two lenses instead of three. And just WOW. I can’t imagine your lens being any better. It’s as good as the 18 megapixel crop sensor anyway, and the colors are incredible. In fact, it’s the only thing I’ve seen that allows the 8 megapixel sensor to produce good colors, so it stays there mainly.
              Let’s hope this new lens is even better than these.

        • Joe

          > The primary reason I have held on to my Canon body is because Canon does not make me spend ~$2500 for their f/2.8 IS version due to having no other options – like Nikon does.

          There are lots of options for every budget: You can still buy the AF-D 80-200/2.8 new today, as well as the third party lenses. And you have the used market with lots of AF/AF-D/AF-S 80-200s as well as the older 70.200 VR.

          • SiliconVoid

            Primarily because those older lenses do not perform on par with the current f/2.8 VR.. and like anyone else I would prefer to have modern equipment and technology if available (reference to manufacturing and materials, not optic grouping or design).

            On your other note – I do not buy third party lenses as an alternative or substitute.

  • WQ

    Anything below $1500 would be surprising. My vote is $1499 :). Now where it that 100-400 or 80-400??

    • RoyL

      I think $1499 is a pipe dream. Probably more. A used 70-200 f2.8 VR1 is a better option, IMO. F4 can’t do f2.8. I don’t see the attraction for slow lenses, but I think the Canon people buy them, so perhaps Nikon users will buy them as well.

  • Juha

    This f4 lens is most propably intended for new FX-body owners, the ones who allso appreciate image quality. So expect good or excellent IQ. Because pro sibling with f2,8 and good weather sealing exist, there is no urgent need for good weather sealing and pro quality lens barrel. If it has pro quality construction and at least good image quality at full aperture, many who must carry a lot their equipment will buy this lens, price is not the most important factor over quality and size. If IQ at 200mm/f4 is excellent, many recent f2.8 owners may be reluctant to swap their lenses to a more compact one, I think. So there is an empty niche waiting to be filled with a new kid in the block 😉

  • Zaphod

    Nikons lens portfolio is far from canons. But at least they are quite cheaper. Little hard to see what space it going to take. I will wait for the 80-400 replacement. Of if I feel a urgent need I will buy sigma. But not an other 200…

    • Pablo Ricasso

      In what way???

      • Pablo Ricasso

        Oh cr@p, I’m starting to sound like a troll…please don’t hate me, it’s the genes.

    • Jabs

      Canon might have a few T&S (Tilt and Sift) lenses plus a few other lenses that Nikon lacks or needs to update but Canon does not have more available lenses to use on their bodies.

      Too many older Nikkor lenses still around while you can’t use the older Canon FD mount lenses on your current Canon bodies.

      Myth busted then by real Nikon lens availability too – lol

      Show us the manual focus lenses for the current Canon bodies made by Canon then???

    • Richard

      Nikon lenses are cheaper????
      Almost all the nikkor lenses currently in production are pricier than Canons, new or used, as long as they are not in the exotic telephoto primes category (200mm, 300mm, 400mm 500mm, 600mm etc.). For everything else under 300mm (except the 50 1.2 and the 85 1.2), nikkors are pricier than Canons.

      • Nikonhead

        Canon lenses are less expensive because Nikkor lenses are better quality from the build quality to the glass. The Pro quality Canon lenses are nice but the consumer lenses are basically crap compared to Nikkor.

  • 120-300os for Nikon

    Nice but to late but when oh when the D400 i still have time next year may planned to buy next Camera body.

  • Finally! Well hope its gona be smaller than the canon version… Just sold my VR1 so cheaper and lighter f4 is good to go for travel photography, niceee!

  • Ralph

    I’ve been waiting for this lens for so long, now they stick bloody VR in it. I want a light lens not another obese monstrosity. The 2.8 has VR, if you need it, it’s here. I have the 2.8 and hardly ever carry it due to the weight.

    Give us some light lenses to go with the D800 for landscape.

    How the hell did we go to 77mm lens barrels as standard, they are all so heavy.

    End of rant.

    • RedMangrove

      The weight is in the 2.8, not the motor that moves the element. Maybe a little but not really valid to your complaint.

  • friedmud

    I’m currently in the process of switching from Canon to Nikon (for the D600) and one of the most painful things I had to do was sell my 70-200 f/4L IS. I _love_ that lens. I use it mainly for landscape work and it is unbelievably sharp… while still being light enough to put in a backpack while hiking.

    I was bummed to find out that Nikon didn’t have an alternative… so I’m _really_ hoping this is just as good if not better than the Canon version!

    • MB

      Nikon actually do have an alternative to Canon 70-200 f/4L IS, it is called Nikkor ED 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF it has VR and is more or less the same thing with 100mm reach bonus and it is only a bit more than 500$.
      This new lens should have really excellent optics (something like 300 f/4) to make sense.

      • Williams

        Forget about this Nikno 70-300VR. The Tamron 70-300VC is much better , sharper, and cheaper.

      • Richard

        Whether it is intended for the new FX customers or DX customers or existing FX customers who want something smaller/lighter, it will be a welcome addition…not to mention that it will cost less than the 70-200 f2.8 VRII which means there should be a good many people buying it and that’s good for Nikon as well as their customers. Now, what about those other lenses Nikon?

      • SiliconVoid

        Don’t get me wrong, I love my 70-300G VR, it is the very lens that will not allow me to validate spending $2500 on the 70-200 f/2.8 VR… BUT it does not compete nor come close to any of Canon’s 70-200 L lenses – no even almost..

        As I commented above though, this is great news! This new 70-200 will definitely find its way into my lens bag assuming it is priced and performs appropriately. I would hope N quality optics, and anticipate a ~$1500 price tag. All Nikon has to do is start shipping it… =)

      • Nikonhead

        Nikkor 70-300mm VR is just an average lens and is in no way, shape or form remotely close to Canon’s 70-200mm f/4 or even a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 non VR.

  • Mike

    I’m getting this… this is awesome.

  • Abraham Collins

    ,,,and I bought the 70-200 2.8 VR2 in May.. it hasn’t even paid for itself yet 🙁

    • babola

      Me too, and believe me buddy…what ever this 70-200 f/4 ends up being it won’t be as good as your f/2.8.

      So you made a good choice as well as investment if you ever decide to flip it.

      • Abraham Collins

        I don’t regret buying it, it’s such an amazing lens, but if Nikon would have released this earlier I wouldn’t have been put through such a squeeze over the slow summer.

        Thank you for the kind words, I’ll never sell this lens 🙂

    • Mine did 🙂

    • Richard

      f:2.8 70-200mm on D3s weighs in at 3.7 Kgs, which I find quite heavy on my neck! What will the “new arrival” weigh, on, perhaps, a D600?

      • Pablo Ricasso


  • jake

    great then, I will get this one in addition to my 70-200f2.8VR2 and if this new 70-200f4vr is better (sharper at 200mmf4 than my 70200vr2), I will sell my 70-200f2.8VR2.

    I think I prefer lighter f4 zooms backed with some Zeiss and Nikon primes.
    Even an F2.8 zoom is compromise anyway.
    Now, I need a D800 with the D600 sensor, I ‘ve been comparing my D600 vs D800e and I don’t want to admit but I much prefer the D600 sensor ,which has a bit better DR at mid to high ISO settings and wider color depth than the D800e sensor.
    But anyway, this is a great news , now I can hike lighter.

    • Mock Kenwell

      “…and if this new 70-200f4vr is better (sharper at 200mmf4 than my 70200vr2)…”


      Stop smoking that weed, it’s not doing you any good.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        I wouldn’t discount the possibility. It is easy to make a zoom in that range if you only need f4. I hate repeating myself, but I tried the original f2.8 with the 95 filter and bought the first 77 filtered version, which was sharp, but only at f8. At anything faster it could be matched or beaten by any number of inexpensive zooms. The ones I remember are the 70-210 f4 and the 50-135 f3.5 manual focus. Both used 62 filters, making them much more desirable for general purpose usage.
        I know that that lens is still made, with several slight tweaks. I also know that there have been three AFS lenses issued, each making a slight improvement in one area or another. But the fact that my old zoom still stands up to the new glass at f8 and that the cheap old lenses beat it at faster speeds leave me optimistic that it is completely possible to produce a smaller slower lens that is equal or superior at every aperture.
        This has been Nikon’s weakness in comparison to Leica. In addition to having a mirror to contend with, Nikon tends to put all it’s money and effort into designing the fastest lens at the expense of the slower versions. A fast lens is a compromise as is a zoom. The two things that make that even workable are the fact that those focal lengths are easier to design zooms for and the scale of production makes them cost effective. And my experience has shown me that, with a couple of exceptions, that the fastest Nikon glass is the best and that most Nikon zooms in that range can beat lesser primes, at least at a reasonable subject distance. However, this does not negate the fact that slower lenses are easier to design and that even a prime lens reaching 200 mm would require a front element that is about the size of your f2.8 zoom to be that fast, which means that getting the most out of the glass is incredibly difficult.
        If Nikon is willing to put the same amount of work into the new f4 lens as it has the f2.8 lens, then it will probably be a little sharper, and around half as expensive or more.

  • wow…next gen VR…does it mean the 2.8 (70-200) version will also updated with new VR? hopefully the 16-35/2.8 will follow after this…

    • This is what I’m a bit worried about. I’m about to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 for my event photography, and I really need f/2.8, but I’d like to wait for the new lens if one is about to be announced …

      Any idea when they might update this lens?


  • Bob the Builder

    What about the 100-300 f4??
    I thought it was going to be out soon.

    • Spacedog

      I use the Sigma 100-300 4.0, but it´s discontinued. You can but it at ebay for about 650 €, good price for a good lens. But I also wait for Nikons 100-300 4.0 because i hope it will have a fast AF and a focus limiter 2,5m-oo.

      If focus speed dosen´t matter, then sigmas lens is a wonderful tool.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        Yeah, I can’t help but wonder what people are talking about with those 70-300s. If you really want a zoom to shoot at 200 then the Sigma probably beats them all. It only gets a LITTLE soft cranked out at 300 and wide open, but much better at f4.5 or tighter. At closer lengths is seems to PEAK at f4 or 4.5.

        For the kind of things I use that one for, VR doesn’t even count. And I’ve found the focus to be really really fast and more on than not. Possibly it hunts a little in dim light, but once I’ve snapped a frame it seems to follow quickly moving things almost perfectly. (a lot better than I could)

        But yeah, probably not for weddings much…

  • Shy

    Anything xx-200mm F4 at 1k will find a hard time competing against the great 80-200 f2.8

    • desmo

      it will have AFS and VR even with bodies that support AF-d AFS works better

  • Smokin Crackwell

    It is confirmed once again that I made the right choice to buy the Sigma 150-500 instead of waiting for the 80-400 AFS

  • Simone

    I’ve got the old 70-210mm f/4. Mine’s a hit and miss in sharpness/focus accuracy. It’s mostly misses though.

    Tokina really should have had theirs in the shops already.

    • `/1nc3nt

      Also got the old 70-210 f/4 E in my drybox. I don’t know about sharpness in the newest body yet, but it is damn good with vivid colors. Never regret with this. It was a cheaper option to 80-200 f/2.8 that time.

  • Simon

    Have anyone considered Nikkor AF-180mm/f2.8? It is a classic. I was told that it shared similar optical formula with Leica 180mm made in 1930’s for Olympia 1936.

    It is relatively light compared to AFS-70-200mm/f2.8 zoom.

    • Dr Motmot

      I have the 180mm f2.8. It is acceptably sharp but not bitingly sharp like my 105mm f2.8 VR. The auto focus is a little slow and noisy but is useable – I got OK shots of fast moving bikes at a motocross. I would not buy this lens new, look for a good second hand one. It is also a good focal length and size for street photography.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        The AIS “ed” version is best.

    • Sahaja

      180mm 2.8 – I love it as a portrait lens.

  • SNRatio

    One of the most interesting questions to me, is how fast this lens will autofocus. My pessimistic guess about this, is that IQ will be very good, so to differentiate it vs the f/2.8 version, plus maybe press price a little, Nikon uses a simpler autofocus.

    In many ways, 70-200/4 lenses create a niche on their own. I really don’t think many of those who mention the 70-300 VR as an alternative has used it much for action under challenging light conditions. @200mm, it is for all practical uses, f/5.6 even if it nominally may be a hair faster. If the real difference to the 70-200/4 is close to an f-stop, it makes a huge difference in practice.

    And it does not have to be that much small and lighter than the f/2.8 version to make a huge difference in practice. I have used a poor man’s version, with a Sigma 50-150/2.8 + 1.4TC (gives FF coverage then), and I’m looking forward to trying the original.

  • Stew

    Why are Tokina waiting for Nikon before they release their 70-200 f4?

  • matt

    Where my wide-angle primes at? I can’t believe Nikon doesn’t have a 35mm equivalent for DX at this point in the game, or an updated 2nd tier 35mm for FX. All the hot cameras have a 35mm eq! Canon M, Sony RX1, Fuji X100, etc. I mean, hello??

    • ausserirdischegesund


      Nikon must be careful not to overdo it with forcing people to FX. Many serious DX users are really really missing wide DX primes, and changing systems might be cheaper than upgrading to FX.

      • SiliconVoid

        Not sure why anyone thinks that Nikon, Canon, or anyone else with 35mm digital sensors is going to continue traditional SLR bodies with cropped sensors.

        Cropped sensors were ONLY developed and produced because of the cost involved with manufacturing 35mm digital sensors and the resulting product retail price. The reality is that they offer no tangible benefits.. As costs and economy provide the opportunity to produce full frame digital sensors that is the direction manufacturers want to move in.

        Let us take Nikon for example.. one of Nikons biggest selling points (referenced everywhere) is their extensive line of lenses made through the last ~60yrs. Unfortunately the majority of those lenses are hindered when used on DX bodies. Few of those lenses are any kind of selling point for buying a DX body.

        You can bet that once full frame sensors make their way down to the D3200/D5100 tier you will not see DX sensors in anything but mirrorless and p&s….

        • ausserirdischegesund

          According to Thom Hogan about 90% of all Nikon DSLRs sold are DX. I don’t see that change within a year or two.

          I’ve heard the “when FX is cheap, DX will be obsolete” meme years ago. Unfortunately FX is still not cheap, and most likely will not be within the next few years (10?). Even the cheapest FX cameras cost a lot more, than most casual DSLR users are willing to pay.

          I completely agree with you, that as soon as a FX camera costs e.g. $500, DX will be obsolete. I disagree however that this will happen soon. It will be years, if this happens at all.

    • Mike

      Very soon Nikon will be releasing the new DX range of cameras, and if the OM-D is anything to judge by, the new DX sensors will be phenomenal.

      I am sure Nikon will pair these releases with a couple of lenses that are designed to compete with the mirrorless systems. I expect at least a 24mm f/1.8 DX and a 16-85 f/4 DX.

    • Will F

      Why are people complaining about the lack of DX-Specific wide-angle primes?
      FX lenses work perfectly fine on DX.
      (I’m not criticising anyone here, I am genuinely curious).

      • EnPassant

        It has been told a thousand times.
        AF with older lenses doesen’t work on the cheaper D3x00 and D5x00 cameras.

        The ONLY Nikon AF-S wide-angle prime that will give a moderate 36 mm equivalent wide-angle on DX is the 24/1.4 that is both too big and expensive for the smaller DX cameras.

        • Will F

          That’s the only reason? No AF on low-end bodies?
          Most people I see complaining about it are higher-end DX users (D7000 and up). This is not really that big an issue. The 20mm F/2.8 is a great little lense.
          I agree, it would be nice to have a little more selection, but I never saw the need for DX-specific lenses. Why not just more wide-angle, AF-S primes, that work on both FX and DX? Yes, I’m aware, price is a factor, but just because it’s an FX lense, doesn’t make it *that* much more expensive. Take a look at the 35 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8. They are all affordable for your average DX user.

          I can see your point though. More AF-s would be appreciated, though you pay the price for it…

        • desmo

          i know your asking about primes , but
          buy the AFS 10-24 dx
          at 24mm its IQ will surpass most primes and
          you’ll have the up to 10mm ultrawide as a bonus

      • ausserirdischegesund

        No, FX lenses do not work “perfectly fine” on DX bodies.

        a) the primes in the “right” price range (24mm f/2.8, eg.) do not focus without body motor
        b) the 1.4 primes are far too expensive for DX bodies
        c) these lenses are not optimized optically for DX, are too expensive (because of larger image circle), too heavy, too large for DX. Some of them are old and not up to current image quality expectations (like the cheap 2.8 primes).

        Just look at the 35mm f/1.8 to see what difference a dedicated DX prime makes. Compared to the 35mm f/2 AF-D it is cheaper, sharper, lighter, and it does focus on cheap bodies. Just like the 35mm f/2 has got a 35mm f/1.8 sibling, the 24mm f/2.8 needs a 24mm f/2.5 DX version, and a 14mm or 16mm f/2.8 is needed as well.

    • Ovas

      24mm on DX is very close to 35mm on FX. Works nice on my D300s!

      • EnPassant

        Sure. But only with manual focus on my D5100.
        The old 24 mm is also only 2.8 instead of 1.8-2 as a DX 23 or 24 mm would have.

        And what Nikon AF prime lens do you use as a 24 mm equivalent on your D300s?

        • Pablo Ricasso

          Get a 15. You’ll want a full frame sooner or later.

          • ausserirdischegesund

            I don’t want full frame. I simply want a single wide prime (24mm f/2.8 or something) in a decent DX version.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              I don’t know. Those wide zooms make me kind of envious, until I notice the light fall off and I think some of them have a lot of distortion to go with that.
              Sure they could make some DX only lenses that are either a little smaller or faster, possibly even a bit of both. But the corners would be a lot darker than if you used a prime lens that was made for full frame. And as of now there isn’t even an AFS prime wider than 28 for ANYTHING, excepting a 24 f1.4 that costs two grand. The sharpest lens beyond that point is a zoom and I don’t hear the full frame people complaining.
              It takes much less space and money to carry a full range of zooms than it does to have a bag of primes, and considering that the DX format is being squeezed into a niche where price and size are the important considerations, why should the company devote it’s resources into developing primes specifically for it when full frame lenses go right on there? Especially when it has full frame primes that need updated?

  • Eugeniu

    Now … if Canon can make the 14-24mm f/2.8 that would be awesome

  • Rhyan

    Now that’s the news we’re all being waiting for since…oh my,… forever?!


  • John

    I’m all in on this lens. My 80-200AFS is just too large to carry around in the back country and my 70-300VR just is not up to the task IQ-wise near the long end (plus the VR is not all that great). Hopefully it will be able to take the TC14E.

    It had better have stellar sharpness across the frame – distortion I can handle, but lack of sharpness is hard to make up for.

    • Richard



  • EastOtGratiot

    I do think this lens will need to prove it’s extra cost compared to the 70-300 VR. The 70-300 has decent VR capabilities and is quite sharp up to about 210mm (then loses it). If the new f/4 is bigger that the 70-300 and costs twice as much I’m not sure what good it would do me. f/4 isn’t that much faster than f/4.5-5.6.

  • Ovas

    I am shooting SONY and they have VR on anything, I have 70-210mm F4, very good picktures. My NIKON D700 + D300s + 14 lenses stays at home together with my tripod! This new NIKON is not wanted by me at all!

  • Nikonuser

    This looks like but can’t be a legit pic of the lens…
    http://www.btobey com/nikon/nikon-70-200mm-f4-review.php
    No gold ring like on the 16-35 and 24-120.
    Something’s not right here.

    • Flo

      What is up with the A/M – M/A – M focus switch? Never seen that on a nikon lens.

    • this is an old fake – nothing new here

  • snarfy

    oh thank god the evil death face of the spider is no longer at the top of the page.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      No man, that’s the lens system for the next generation mirrorless camera.

  • This is a great news! It was a big gap in Nikon’s lineup. The most interesting thing is its price 🙂

  • Matthew Kieffer

    This is for outdoor nature shooters and such… completely different market than the 2.8 VR-X. Keep in mind your AF benefits a ton from a larger aperture… and is pretty much a requirement for a low light (most indoor) weddings. It is not like you can strap a Maglite to your body to achieve focus. Plus, if you know what you are doing, you will have your AF in continuous servo when that bride walks… no red predator AF assist from your SB-whatever. That would look tacky anyway during the ceremony. It is not a cheaper alternative to the 2.8… it is for a different consumer. But God bless em’, those start out wedding photographers are going to go ahead and buy it anyway. All the best.

    • I think you are fairly close in that opinion Matthew. The 70-200 f4 is dfinitely aimed at a different photographer than the f2.8 is. The price of the two lenses are the real reflection of that. Nikon is expnading their line of f4 lenses so that photographers who use FX bodies and aren’t complete full professionals and dont have the expense accounts and financial resources to afford the pro f2.8 lenses can afford real pro grade lenses to do what they need to do until they can afford to step to the true pro lenses. If they still want a true pro grade f2.8 in the 70-200 range, but can’t afford the $2400 price tag of the Nikon version, I know several guys who use the Sigma version and I have had the opportunity to compare test shots done with both lenses and I have to say that I was completely blown away and very impressed by the optical quality of the Sigma lens. Unless you are a cpmlete expert in the Nikon lens, you can’t see the difference in the test shots between the two lenses, even at 100% crop. And the Sigma lens is about the same price as the new Nikon 70-200 f4, so I think if a photographer wanted and had to have the ability of going up to f2.8, the Sigma is a very good choice. However, unless they are doing a lot of indoor low light work, they need the f2,8 and I would go with the new Nikon f4. I am very seriously consider one myslef, because since I primarily do outdoor nature and landscape work, I don’t need the f2.8. Plus I have a fairly steady hand and the VR works great in helping you do lower light work hand held. I can do shot hand held down to 1/4 sec with my 24-85 VR with no blur.

  • Back to top