Nikon to upgrade their remaining high end tele-lenses with fluorite element (FL)

In the next 1-2 years Nikon is rumored to upgrade their remaining high end tele-lenses with fluorite element (FL) currently only present in the Nikkor 800mm f/5.6 ($17,896.95) and the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 ($11,996.95). The list of upgrade candidates includes the following lenses (most of them are currently back-ordered in the three major US stores):

  • Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED VR II (back-ordered at Amazon, AdoramaB&H)
  • Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II (back-ordered at AmazonAdoramaB&H)
  • Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR (back-ordered at AmazonAdoramaB&H)
  • Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED VR (back-ordered at AdoramaB&H)
  • Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II (in stock everywhere)

More information on Nikon's new fluorite coating can be found here.

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

    Hi Admin, Great news! That means lens will have a very high price tag on them. :(( Any news on the 300mm F/2? will there every be made with FL ED VR? With FL they could bring the weight down to less than 5 kilos? Also they should think of reintroducing 400 f/5.6 and 600mm f/5.6 and 500mm f/8? that would be cheaper options for many photographers.

    thanks once again for keeping us uptodate.

  • NikonFanBoy

    Hi Admin, Great news! That means lens will have a very high price tag on them. :(( Any news on the 300mm F/2? will there every be made with FL ED VR? With FL they could bring the weight down to less than 5 kilos? Also they should think of reintroducing 400 f/5.6 and 600mm f/5.6 and 500mm f/8? that would be cheaper options for many photographers.

    thanks once again for keeping us uptodate.

    • Oh yea, the prices will be increased once those lenses are upgraded. I have no other details at that point.

      • Morris

        300 f4 = 3k+

        • Michael Sloan


        • decisivemoment

          No way. Absolutely no way.

          Increasing the price is one thing. More than doubling it, quite a different matter.

          • Morris

            latest VR, DO elements (?), better tripod collar, old price from 1990(sample), is not only fluorite toothpaste :p

      • Alex

        maybe you should update the buying guide. 🙂

      • fjfjjj

        Admin, I’m pretty sure you’re confusing the “fluorine coat” and “fluorite elements.” The 800mm has a fluorite element (FL) but that’s something different from the recently announced coating.

      • neonspark

        maybe FL too?

    • phil

      yep, that fluorine coating alone will increase the price tag by 30%

    • fjfjjj

      Don’t confuse the “fluorine coat” with solid non-glass fluorite elements Nikon calls “FL”. So far the only Nikon “FL” lens in the 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR AF-S.

      • The coating. Fluorite elements would mean a whole new optical formula.

      • neonspark

        actually the 400mm f2.8 is an FL lens so there are two.

  • Merv S

    So much focus on telephoto lenses, I guess this is where Nikon is selling their lenses. Would love to see a breakdown in figures sales of each lens.

    • neonspark

      I’d rather see margins and profits. way more meaningful than sales #s

  • Palitos Chinos

    Would we get to see a new 135mm?

    • Mark White

      Cross your fingers that we don’t see a 135 with FL. Who wants to pay $3,000 for a 135?

      • Eric Calabros

        in days that 50 is $1k, $3k for best ever made 135 is reasonable

        • neonspark

          off course it is. poor people shouldn’t be in the business of FL 135mm full frame lenses.

          • guest

            This is the era of easy credit. It cancels out your ‘poor people’ bias.

            • neonspark

              hey whatever you have to do you do. I’m really tired of people expecting everything for 100 bucks. If Nikon prices bother you, that is why tamrom and sigma exists. go bug them for the discount and let professionals who charge pro rates move on.

            • neonspark, take your elitist bullshit elsewhere.

      • neonspark

        people who have the money and can’t get anything better unless they go to canon or sony. that’s who.

    • Spy Black

      Ask Sigma.

  • Chris Pearson

    Sounds like I need to get saving before Nikon add a few grand for the coating and new light weight designs.

    • peterw

      take your time and save monney, buy second hand.
      the present lenses are as good in two years as they are now: very good.

  • New line?

    Nikon should produce UV filters with fluorine coating… for the rest of our lens. New revenue stream…

    • Tadao_Isogai


    • jonycliff

      go for B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (007M), and you will got excelent dirt and moisture repel.

      • decisivemoment

        Yep, did that during the winter and one of the best purchases I’ve made in a long time. No more lens-penning encrusted oily leftovers from raindrops and snowflakes on the front element. Other than that these are the first filters I’ve had with digital that did not noticeably degrade the image, the really amazing thing is how the B+W Nano filters avoid getting fingerprints. Quite incredible, and — at $70-something for the 77mm UV and double that for a polarizer — not expensive.

    • neonspark

      it wouldn’t be a bad idea for some lenses. for once in history would a clear filter make any sense.

    • JXVo

      The long tele primes typically have enormous front elements and no filter thread so the B+W XS-ProClear option is not possible on these.
      What they do have is a an optically neutral protective “meniscus” glass as the front element. If the lenses don’t change optically, then hopefully one could upgrade just by replacing the front element with a new fluorine coated one. This will be expensive but considerably less than a new lens.
      The rear element is not so problematic because it is normally covered by a cap or a camera but I regularly have to clean the front element on my 500VR.

  • doge

    So I guess this means Nikon has decided photography is an elitist activity for professionals and/or the incredibly wealthy. If you want to take the best photos with their best equipment then you better have the best disposable income.

    And for the rest of us slobs who are only causal hobbyists and don’t/can’t afford $3000+ glass, we can go fuck ourselves.

    I guess they’re really trying to separate DSLR photography from the ever closing gap of cell phone photography. Phones will never have the quality of a 300,400, 500, 600 f/2.8, so Nikon figures they can increase their high end prices and people will still want it because ‘you can never get that shot with your phone’.

    Maybe they see a future where the only way to survive is to be a high end product, like a Leica, leaving the rest of the photography world to smart phone companies and point and shooters.

    • Mark

      Nikon is simply updating their highest end lenses, why is that a problem? I’m sure a lot of professionals will welcome the upgrade, and many of those folks are Nikon’s best customers. Obviously the people with the best equipment are going to be the ones with high disposable income or professionals, that goes for anything.

      What is stopping you from buying perfect condition used lenses? Or high bang for the buck lenses like the 300/4? Or many of the great third party lenses? Or the plethora of great lenses under $2000? You imply that everything below the pro teles or $3000 is garbage and you might as well use a cell phone. Nikon only has a handful of lenses over $3000, the overwhelming majority is below that.

      Nikon has released FAR more consumer equipment than they have ‘pro’ equipment in the last 1-2 years. We got the D7100, 80-400 VR, D600/610, V3, J4, 18-300, fantastic 1.8 primes, etc. etc. You don’t need $3000 for any of that.

      You’ve come to a strange blanket conclusion from a single Nikon announcement to upgrade their pro lenses over the next 1-2 years. I welcome the upgrade – maybe it will trickle down to cheaper lenses in the next while.

      • doge

        I’m just saying that their best of best is becoming astronomically priced, and it doesn’t help someone who wants to stay in the Nikon system.

        And you do have to look at 3rd party or used glass if you want to really separate your images from the rest of the pack, and that really shouldn’t be the case. Nikon should be offering their own fast DX primes, fast DX zooms, etc…You shouldn’t have to look to 3rd party.

        I’m looking/thinking long term with Nikon trying to separate from the pack with these various ‘upgrades’ as you call them and their associated increased costs.

        In the end, who knows. Maybe they’ll start offering some incredible products at reasonable prices. But for right now, I don’t really see a lot of it. $1200 for a V3 is not reasonable. and then another $1000 for the 1 system 70-300. Or $240 for the FT-1 + $600 for the regular 70-300, or like you mentioned $2600 for the 80-400. I don’t know about you, but that is adding up to $3k plus for glass that people consider dark. And if you’re using it on the V3, forget about it.

        • I think historically, the “best of the best” has always been astronomically priced. Wasn’t Nikon’s 13mm like 10 grand when it came out in the 70s? Or look at Canon’s big beast, their 1200mm, I think is around $120k. Those lenses are “best of the best”, and you gotta pay for it.

          I know what you’re saying. These prices are clearly out of the average prosumer’s hands. That point is taken. But the trouble is, Nikon can’t make the prosumers happy. Superzooms for days, and then exotics getting updates that add large figures to the already high prices.

          However, keep in mind, these lenses provide a living for many pro photographers. Try this math. Buy a brand new exotic, the day it comes out. Shoot with it for YEARS, and then sell it. The chances are you could shoot with it for say, 3 years, for 3 grand? That’s about $85/month. Not exactly expensive. You tie up capital, yes, so you’d have to figure that in, but really, its not a crazy amount of money, if you’re turning any sort of an income off these lenses.

          • doge

            A 13mm or a 1200mm are outliers. Those will always be expensive because they don’t sell enough to justify low prices/large production runs.

            But 300, 400, 500 and to an extent 600mm glass is very common among both professionals and amateurs. And Nikons problem is they don’t have anything for hobbyists. You either have a medicore superzoom on the low end, a decent superzoom at about $3k, or very expensive fast glass. They really have no upgrade path for new users in their system. So why should a new user stay a Nikon user when they want to dabble in the fast glass, long tele arena. They’re not going to spend $12k on glass. They can make prosumers happy with an upgrade path. f/4, f/5.6 glass on the long end at prices real people in this real economy can afford.

            Of course pros don’t really worry about price. It’s an equipment investment that they plan to make a return on with their final products. Everyone understands that. But consumers who want options, just don’t currently have them if they want to stick with Nikon.

            • What about something like a 70-200mm or a 300mm f4 with a teleconverter? That’s in your price range, and will produce acceptable results for an amateur.

              I agree that the path for upgrading is limited. But its certainly not a case of having no options at all.

              I think it’s fortunate that there are indeed so many good third party alternatives now. It seems that if Nikon hasn’t bothered to fill the gaps now, they may never really get around it it.

            • Dpablo unfiltered

              Take 400 bucks and get the old 300 f4. Or take about a thousand more and get the newer one and a converter.

            • guest

              Why do you keep looking to the equipment to improve your photography?

            • neonspark

              ha ha. So many folks do that. curiously all of them complain about price. I think you nailed it.

            • peterw

              buy second hand, and upgrade step by step.

              it worked for me.

              (First I had a 600 F5,6 ai-s IF-ED. I paid 2000 euro in 2001 and got 1400 in 2007. In 2006 I paid less than 4000 euro for a 500 F4 AF-S (first version) – had a great time going to Switzerland to test it with the enthousiastic seller -. When the price of the VR went down to less than 7000 euro I sold the good old for 4200 euro.
              Sigma, Tokina and Tamron lenses don’t sell like that.)

              Otherwise, buy Canon. I don’t like the ‘feel’ of the cameras, but a lot of photographers wouldn’t want anything else :).

        • Simba

          Canon is not charging any less. Jumping ship won’t help if money is an issue.

        • neversink

          Given inflation, I think these lenses are reasonably priced and may actually be cheaper in inflationary terms over the years. i have to buy these lenses for my photo business. If i need a lens for a shoot, I’ll either rent it or buy depending what is more cost effective. Usually I buy it. Every business has expenses and equipment, the art of photography is no different. Do I like spending that much money on a lens. Nope. But I like the checks my clients send me, and I love using great glass.

        • neonspark

          the best of the best is priced like the best. so? If you want cheaper go get sigma, tamron, whoever. That’s why those brands exists, for el cheapo person who can’t make 3K NET with a gig or two.
          as a business expense you can deduct it from taxes, you can deduct depreciation, and you’ll get most of it back when you sell it. And you’ll hopefully make the money back in less than a year. Given the 16K beast may take longer, but if say you’re a plumber, your tools and car will be a bigger investment and sure as hell won’t hold that much value and will be more expensive to maintain.

          plus, when you factor in Yen to dollar value, plus inflation, it really doesn’t mean things are more expensive. not only is your understand of photography all f-ed up with bad assumptions, even the notion something ought to cost the same as it did a decade ago is not just nonsensical, but downright ridiculous.

        • JJ168

          I would love good products that affordable. However, your rant is a bit much and unfair. You are not forced to buy the 80-400 if it is too much. Nikon also offer the 28-300, 70-300 or 300 f4 that are more affordable and excellence! What else do you want?
          The v3 surely sounded expensive to me. But with the EVF, FT1 and the kit lens you get for the price it has got me thinking about it. In the end, i would wait for the price to comes down further. See, it is still expensive for me, but i do not think it is reasonable enough to whine about it. If you think nikon is out of their mind with the pricing, try find the equivalent system that reach 810mm in full frame.
          I welcome the news. Although i do not have and not planning to own any of the tele lenses, it is great to know that the system i am using is just as good as the competitor (exotic lightweight tele).

    • kotozafy

      This is very welcome news :
      1) It can bring the “old” models more frequent and more affordable on the used market.

      2) If it actually increases Nikon’s revenue, there should be more chances to see updates of the lower end models.

      Nikon is in great economical difficulty today and seems to restrict they efforts to high margin products and mass market models.

    • Kynikos

      So, you can’t afford $3,000 glass.
      OK, I can’t either. Boo hoo.
      Why should we care in the 400/2.8 costs $9,000 or $12,000?

      If it helps a pro get better shots, I’m all for it. Eventually, this tech will help us all and won’t cost thousands per lens. Bring it on.

      • doge

        A 400 f/2.8 has been around since 1985 in some variation. Where’s the trickle down 400 lens that average consumers like you and I can afford? The closest product is the 300 f/4 and that was introduced in 2000 (the AF-S version).

        • neonspark

          You can get an older 400 f2.8 for much less that the state of the art version and it will work just fine for an average consumer who doesn’t do this at a professional level. I don’t know who in da hell you think an average consumer is that wants to haul such beast but whatever.
          the smarter buy of an average consumer is to buy into APS-C and use the 1.5 crop multiplier to achieve the same FOV. Will it be the same as full frame? no, but since when has that stopped anybody from making great images.

      • wnbe nikon bif shooter

        sad thing is, it’s only us nikon users who can’t have the 400 for reasonable price. Canon offer 100-400 zoom and 400 for reasonable prices, and that is considering new, its cheaper used. What does nikon have to offer for same price range? Nothing. Do your research pls

        • neonspark

          the 100-400 canon is a terrible lens. they are begging for a replacement. I agree that a 400 f5.6 is in the “gap” just as canon has a gaps too. But let’s say you’re serious about this, just invest in an older 400 or 500. You’ll be so much happer than with that mediocre 5.6 zoom crap.

          • Kynikos

            This. Just because Canon has a 100-400 doesn’t mean it’s any good.

            • neonspark

              and it’s push and pull lol. it’s like jacking off to a lens!

            • Kynikos

              Well, if the 200/2 with Fluorine came in under $7K, I’d have impure thoughts…

          • wnbe nikon bif shooter

            You say I should “invest” into older glass? But I don’t find it good idea when the said older glass probably has slower auto-focus than newer glass. Not so much fun for BIF shooting or?

            I’m going to have to go with the tamron 150-600, but I really wish nikon could in future make something equivalent to a 400 5.6 (2k lens is max for me atm). I’m sure there’s plenty of ppl who can’t afford the nikon’s current tele market. Heck, this is noticeable in dpreview “gear list” when checking what ppl have, just notice their teles are either sigma, or their best “tele” happens to be a 70-200 (which isn’t “cheap”, but isn’t really the 400mm+ I’m looking for).

            Canon 400 is really good prime. It can be 1.4 tc’d , and it’s still sharper than the tamron (which I’m bound to buy), while also being 750grams lighter. It’s big deal imo.

            • neonspark

              actually I never said “invest” buddy so please do not make up things.
              What I’m telling mr clueless above is that if you’re an “average consumer” you really don’t need an 400mm 2.8FL lens. You can get a 400mm prime lens from a few models back (up to you about that compromises you want to make on the features as well as condition) and still get amazing images.
              if you’re looking at doing this professionally and have no money, focus on your photography before thinking equipment makes you better. Just rent the glass first, build a customer base, and then go crazy with the latest and greatest.
              However, suggesting an average consumer needs a telephoto that requires a monopod or tripod to use simply doesn’t fly to begin with. Get a cheap DX body, slap a 300 f/4 and have fun on the cheap.

        • RGB Man

          80-400 VR kretin canon boy…

    • Bokeh Monk

      Stop whining ! High end technology isn’t cheap. Just because these WILL be completely out of your price range is no reason to disparage the PRO who makes enough to easily afford these lenses – THEY’RE TOOLS, and then to assume Nikon won’t make something for you as well is just idiotic! I guess you’re waiting for that Nikon Dxxx ( whatever the fuck people are whining for now camera )!

      • reductron

        +3.14. Agreed.

    • neonspark

      if you define elitist activity as being a professional who earns a living in photography and not some bum then yes. If you’re not clearing enough to afford these, maybe you’re in the wrong business. Realistically 3K for an investment that lasts about 10 years is really good. A car costs 5 time more and sure as hell won’t last that much without at least 3K in maintenance. And sure as hell won’t sell for 50-80% of its value in 10 years.
      this proves you’re clueless about both business, photography, and life in general.

      • doge

        Your reading comprehension is basically at a negative value, making you incredibly special. Congratulations.

        • neonspark

          and yet you somehow expect Nikon owes you a favor and must product lenses with no consideration of inflation, exchange rate, costs, just because you, who apparently think better equipment will make you a great photographer, yet can’t afford any of it (tells us you’re really bad at it), feels entitled to this.
          so ok, if I have negative reading comprehension, I’ll take that over the boatloads of money I apparently make over you because if I want to get a 135 f/2 FL for 3K, all I have to do is call my accountant.

      • Nelson Barley

        How long do you think Nikon would last if guys like you constituted their entire customer base? Or to put it another way, how much do you think Nikon would have to charge if your lot was all they had to sell to?

    • Me

      Sorry but things roll out in the pro gear first and then — eventually — the consumer products. Nikon and Canon sell a lot of pro telephoto lenses that take a battering. This is the sort of thing that makes a difference in that market.

      Consumers won’t care about a magic coating. It’s nice but for their eight-bit jpegs of the ball game and the birthday party, it won’t matter. Besides, the margins are razor thin on consumer gear so that’s hard to explain to them and doesn’t matter much anyway since the camera is nearly never out of the bag, and not being sprayed with seawater, won’t provide much of a benefit.

      It will get there once the cost of manufacturing falls. Until then, pros, who are somewhat less price sensitive, will get it first.

      It’s called economics.

    • decisivemoment

      Your last paragraph. Nikon have a Hobson’s choice here; they can try to cater to an ever-more-economically pressured middle market, or they can pitch products at those in this economy who have money. Absent a major change in government policy, one that would tax dividends more but tax work less, they really have to pursue a strategy of separating the coupon-clippers from their money — there isn’t any space for yet another plastic DSLR with an 18-xx kit lens. And upgrading their long glass is definitely a good way of doing it.

    • Doge…that was my thought also. The better-heeled amateur has traditionally been the one that kept Nikon in the game. Now they are pricing their high end equipment above the better-heeled customer. What’s changed now is the fact that the better-heeled and medium heeled amateurs now have other options like Nikon’s 200-500 or Sigma’s 150-600 Sports lenses. Fast lenses for sports aren’t quite as critical anymore since the high end ISO capabilities of today’s latest generation sensors are getting pretty good.

  • FredBear

    Great idea.
    Does this mean negative comments on build or IQ won’t ‘stick’ either?

  • Adam Montana

    And what about the 200mm micro?

    • What?

      Just get either of the Sigmas.

    • Kynikos

      The existing lens is awesome. If they can improve on it, that’s great. If they don’t, what they have is amazing.

    • neonspark

      hell no. we want a new lens. why would they update a damn screw driver lens.

  • Adam Montana

    And what about the 200mm micro?

  • jk

    this coating really really works I know it from my experience with my Canon 70-300L and 24-70L they both have this sort of coating and it really works as advertised, so I cannot see this Nikon version of this coating has any sort of issue. I just want Nikon to put this on the wide lenses that do not accept any sort of filter.

    • neonspark

      14-24 with this coating yes!

  • Robert

    Going lighter is good IMHO. If Nikon releases lighter lenses and cameras without compromising IQ and build quality it is an excellent move. Who wants photo equipment that has to be moved around to be unnecessarily heavy? I AM LIGHT 🙂

    • nwcs

      They sure can and will raise the prices accordingly.


      • Robert

        Yes that is likely, but there is no such thing as a free lunch, and as long as we like to use Nikon gear it is good for us as well if Nikon manages to stay profitable, because it keeps them in business to provide us with more good gear and improve it over time.

    • Bluemoon

      Nah, no thanks. Lighter only means more plastics have been used. Good glass should have some heft to it, and that metal shine can’t be replicated.

      • nwcs

        I don’t care if my lenses shine on the outside. I’ll trade off metal that can dent for plastic that’s lighter and more resilient.

        • neversink

          It’s more than just plastic. A lot of Carbon fibers can be stronger than denotable metal….

          • Robert

            That is what I mean. With a choice of materials that give us the good with metal and takes away the bad (mainly weight) we can get the same or better performance with lower weight. Note that I personally do not want a smaller body than the D800 for good ergonomics and I realize that good optics does require its physical space, so I am not suggesting Nikon to go smaller, just lighter. There is also the balance between bodies and lenses to think about so Nikon should design both to become lighter.

      • Dpablo unfiltered

        Um… It means that they went from something light like aluminum with steel bolts and replaced it with magnesium and titanium bolts. That’s the majority of the change. The newer coatings and glass alloys can also mean thinner elements. However the newer designs seem to have more and more of them, so that much is probably just meaning that it’s lighter than it would have been…

      • chromed L glass

        metal shine, hooah!

      • neonspark

        who da f*k cares about shine when you need a Sherpa for it.

    • neonspark

      FL, lighter. Surely worthy updates. I don’t see why not. After all they are competing with a competitor that did this and their users love it so makes total sense for Nikon to not let canon define the conversation. I fully support the FL and lightweight move.

  • nwcs

    At least with fluorine I know my lenses won’t get cavities.

  • Zesty

    The pessimist in me says……What is amusing is that when the world ends….and it will some day, your pro coated lens and all the photos you took with it won’t mean shit!!!

    • zoetmb

      Neither will anything you do, say. create or own. So what’s the point you’re trying to make?

      • Zesty

        My point is…enjoy life, not objects. Lighten up Mr serious I was kidding.

    • neversink

      Kaboom!!!!!!!! The world has just ended. See you on an Earth-like exo-planet in your next life!!!!!
      Kaboom!!!!! Oops, there goes the universe. See you in some black hole somewhere!!!!!

      • Dpablo unfiltered

        You won’t see anything at all. Those things really suck.

    • neonspark

      I dunno man, I’m sure the aliens will dig them out someday and wonder about WTF you did just as we dig around those cave paintings.

  • Chris Weller

    I’m not sure how insightful this rumor is. It seems fairly obvious to me that Nikon will continue to enhance their lenses over the next 1-2 years.

    I’m hoping for the 500mm as quickly as possibly, I sure hope it’s not 2 years.

  • Arthur Tazo

    I get my fluoride from my toothpaste.

    • saywhatuwill

      I heard that if you gently rub toothpaste on the front element of all your lenses that your camera bag will have a fresh, minty smell.

  • SPfan

    If it’s business as usual, they will add the coating, adjust the price, and the new versions will still be backordered in the U.S.

  • Frank

    Would be nice if they would simply offer replacement protector elements (that all of these super tele lenses ship with by default) with the coating, rather than expecting people to replace a $5k+ piece of equipment just for this coating.

    • Jim

      Folks (and OP) – As with the new 400 f2.8, this is not just fluorine coating on the front and back elements, it’s a redesign and includes actual fluorite lens elements that make for a better and much lighter lens!

      • Frank

        Fair point, I guess I took the rumor a bit to literally. I guess it makes sense that introducing this coating will go hand in hand with other improvements to these lenses.

        Still, would be nice if they would offer fluorine coated replacement protectors. Although I guess those wouldn’t be exactly cheap either.

  • thl

    The 14-24 is the lens that needs fc in my Collection…

  • neversink

    Seriously… This is good news. i can sell my 500mm and probably spend another 3 or 4 grand on a new 500mm. I just can’t wait.

  • Curtis

    Why does it cost more to put fluorine on my lens than it does to put flooring in my house?

    • neversink

      Why does a woman’s purse cost more than four new tires???

    • Jon Irving

      Because the fluorine is ‘grown’ in a laboratory !

      • jojo

        Don’t confuse “fluorine” coating with “fluorite” lens elements

  • saywhatuwill

    Wait…can you hear it now? CHA-CHING! The cash register just made another sale on a new, more expensive FL lens.

  • Low cost work around – brush your teeth and then breath on the lens … Wait a minute I seem to remember a Nikon advisory not to do this. Conspiracy?!? : )

  • whisky

    so, will the new (delayed) high grade 70-300mm Cx lens be fluorine coated as well?

  • lorenzo

    So, Nikon expects to survive for the next two years 🙁

  • nikon sucks for wildlife

    canon has 400 f5.6, that is both LIGHTWEIGHT and VERY SHARP. This lens can be used with a TC 1.4 or post crop to around 600 AND IT IS STILL BETTER THAN TAMRON’S 150-600 THAT US NIKON USERS ARE STUCK WITH. How about that, you get a lens that has worth of so much, it even weight a good 750grams less.. you really don’t have an idea how heavy that tamron is?

    Not to mention canon also offers that 100-400 , which is priced reasonable. Those 2 lenses alone are reason for BIF shooters to stick with canon atm, or prefer canon over nikon. This is coming from a d800 user who plans to buy the tamron 150-600 as soon as possible for shooting birds in flight. I know the situation is very bad for nikon system when evidently some ppl go as far as to buy used tokina 300 2.8 from internet. That just shows how bad the nikon offering is for 1000-2000$ price range

    • neonspark

      good for canon, but a 400 f5.6 for wildlife is a poor man’s setup. The 100-400 push pull canon is a joke, in bad need of an upgrade. They would pay extra to get something as good as the Nikon and if you head over to CR, every month they drool about such lens.
      and with the canon 70-200 greatest and latest being very pricy as well as their other revamps, if you’re expecting canon to be the cheap alternative, he he. good luck.

      • nikon sucks for wildlife

        what are you on about? I pointed that for the price range I mentioned, 2k dollars or something, you can’t get good wildlife glass from nikon. That’s the thing, you can get from canon. The money you spend on similiar, or what you describe “better” nikon, you can use the same money to buy equivalent canon. I haven’t done comparisons with nikon and canon teles, but they should be very much equivalent. Only thing not equivalent is the canon’s offering for the 2k price point, which nikon camp can do nothing about.

        • KnightPhoto

          The “cheaper” Canon lenses you reference are both overdue for replacement by Canon and the price will go up substantially; using Canon’s oldest telephotos as an example isn’t a strong argument – for example the 400 f5.6 lacks image stabilization. In all seriousness my advice is if you want good telephoto optics, raise the necessary funds by 1) selling some existing equipment to add to your savings, 2) work overtime at your day job, or 3) take on some photography jobs to raise funds.

          Have you ever read Thom’s articles about the upgrade ladder for tripod’s, the same very much applies to telephoto lenses! I.e. guys get on a treadmill buying the Sigma 150-500, or whatever low cost options. Then they sell it a few years later and get something better, then they repeat a third time, etc. Costs a lot of money going up that ladder buying and selling. Better to start at the top of the ladder and buy once, much lower total cost of ownership!

        • neonspark

          Nikon can certainly produce such lens if it deemed demand was out there. but realistically for wildlife shooters, that lens is entry level at best.
          it’s also an older lens. so it will be cheap off course. if canon re-designs and updates it as surely will, it will go up in price, just as their 100-400 refresh will. It isn’t canon has specifically targeted this, you’re simply seeing the benefit of a lens which hasn’t yet been refreshed. This happens all the time. You can say canon has a gap in the 24-70 space because Nikon’s is cheaper. Well Nikon’s is much older so off course it was produced for the demands of the time. Nikon’s update to the 24-70 will in turn likely out price canon’s to meet the more demanding sensors.
          There is really nothing “wrong” or “right” with this. All camera OEMs have these price gaps.

    • JXVo

      The 300 f4D AF-S with a 1.4TC IIE is Nikon’s 400 f5.6 and it works really well on my D800.
      I also think the new 80-400G VRIII lens is way better than either the old 80-400 or Canon’s 100-400. I’ve used all three and I find the new 80-400 to be sharper, faster to AF, better stabilisation and more comfortable to use. Ok so it is a bit more than $2000 but I haven’t heard too many complaints from upgraders or new owners to date.

  • legimate question?

    Now why would i want to pay more to have this kind of coating, when I could just get a uv filter to protect the lens ?

    • peterw

      silly question one could say,
      however only so if you ever had one of these in your hands.
      which you obviously didn’t
      The filter diameter of these huge lenses is only something like the five centimeters. That’s because you drop them in somewhere at the rear end.
      The front element of these lenses is to be considered as a built in protection ‘filter’. Its the element that holds the coating and is at present meniscus shaped to avoid internal reflections.
      Probably one could spent 1000~2000 euro to have a FL coated front element in ones somewhat older super tele. (A lens hood for these lenses costs something like 500 euro. I know someone who replaced his broken Canon 500 F4 hood with a piece of sewer pipe).

  • Sam

    To nikonrumors : No new fx lens soon?

  • JimP

    Only on NR. Are we talking about FL lenses, fluorine coating or both?

  • Neopulse

    Wonder if they plan on using this new lens tech on the next iteration of the 24-70mm and 70-200mm VRII that will make it lighter and have better image quality. One can only hope.

  • Steve

    Want to know a secret? VR is a gimmik on a long lens and is not needed 99% of the time (500, 600 and 800mm). Buy a used AF-S (non-VR) for a fraction of one of those new.

    • peterw

      Nice gimmick:
      VR increased my rate of keepers from 1 out of 10 to 9 out of 10 at 1/100s, 500mm or 700mm (tc14EII), close range. I don’t need a rice bag anymore for photography from a car at 1/40s.

      at speeds 1/20s VR could respectively should be switched off.

      I agree, that the older Nikkors without VR or even AF-S or AF-D can be great value.

  • MB

    Would be nice if Nikon is to offer that upgrade to existing users … it is just a front protective glass replacement with fluorine coated one so it shouldn’t be too much trouble for service center …

  • Looks like I may have to buy a 300mm f/2.8 VRII used then, because there’s no bloody way in hell my pocketbook is going to absorb the cost of a FL VR.

  • Back to top