Nikon D5500, Nikkor 300mm f/4, 55-200mm f/4-5.6 pre-order options

Nikon D5500 DSLR camera pre-order
Nikon D5500 pre-order options:

Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens pre-order options:

Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II lens pre-order options:

All three new Nikon products will start shipping on February 5th, 2015.

More pre-order options (including EU links) will be added as they become available. Check this post later for the latest updates.

This entry was posted in Nikon D5500, Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Rick Johnson

    Correction: According to both B&H and Amazon, as well as Nikon USA, the HB-73 lens hood is NOT separate. The RT-1 tripod collar, however, is not included.

  • Ricardo Vaz

    Really? A fuckin plastic hood sold separately?

    • Ricardo Vaz

      Actually admin, it comes in the box, acordding to BH.

  • Paul

    that new 300mm body looks bad ass.

    • Eric Calabros

      and definitely much sharper

      • Roy LaFaver

        Nothing will be very much sharper than the current 300mm f4 AFS. It is one of the sharpest lenses Nikon has ever produced, and it won’t lose any of that just because there is a new kid in town.

        • nwcs

          There’s always room to improve. And the mtf indicates a noticeable sharpness increase. Also more headroom in sharpness when using a teleconverter. The 200 f2 is much sharper than the now old 300 f4. Same as some other lenses.

        • asdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf

          You can’t say this necessarily until you get to the highest resolution cameras. I know people want to think that “36MP” is the limit of what we’re going to see… but… quite frankly, there are already 50MP point-and-shoot cameras out there & a medium format on the way.

          What this means is that Nikon is sure to release a 40-70MP+ sensor just as soon as Sony’s sensor division comes out with one. And Sony will do it, because they are a sensor manufacturing company.

        • Franz

          my bes. friend’s aunt makes $77 /hr on the internet . She has been out of work for eight months but last month her pay check was $13993 just working on the internet for a few hours. you can check here;.R­ead Here.

  • Global

    $2,000……… for a basic prime. Ugh. They put PF in just to gimmick-up the price, didn’t they. This thing better have the bokeh of a 70-200/2.8 VR II. T_T

    • dredlew

      Define basic or how this compares to a 50mm prime…

    • Wade Marks

      er…you obviously don’t know what PF is then. PF is what enables this lens to be this small for its focal length and aperture.

      • asdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf

        No — the key point here is that a 300mm f/4 with VR was possible for $1,000. So where’s the $1,000 lens?

        Nikon immediately jumps to $2,000 every damn chance it gets.

        • neonspark

          could nikon make this lens for 1000K possibly. will it be any good? doubtful. I’m glad they don’t design their lenses for poor people 🙂

      • Soda Popinkski

        I’m sure most people would rather have a lens that’s a couple of inches longer if it meant it’d be $600 cheaper.

        • neonspark

          the same could be said of any nikon lens. If “most” people would design the nikon lenses, we’d be shooting with plastic elements on a wood barrel.

    • mikeswitz

      I think you need to find a cheaper hobby. This lens seems to be very fairly priced for thos that NEED it.

      • asdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf

        I think you need to get a grasp on profit margins and markup. Nikon is supposed to have a STRATEGY for entry-level full-frame, which should theoretically include f/4s and f/1.8s. The f/1.8s are doing a HELL of a GOOD job. But Nikon is woefully harming its options on the f/4 level. I understand that this lens in and of itself has particular value. But where is the $1,000 300mm f/4 with VR, and without the PF?? Nikon jumps to $2,000 every chance its gets in full-frame, and its not an entirely rational number. Theres huge markup at the expense of the very group of customers they had intended to develop with the D600, D610, D700, and D750. Don’t tell me that I need a cheaper hobby, when you obviously don’t value money.

        • asdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf

          Again, the point is that if Nikon keeps raising the price of every lens by 40% they are just going to keep kicking out their customers (just like the guy said, “You need a new hobby” — WRONG, we need a new manufacturer!). If Nikon can’t make full-frame lenses at less than $2,000 per each — then it has no business pushing to death entry-level full-frame cameras like D600, D610, D700, and D750…… WITHOUT a “D400” alternative. Its just shooting itself in the foot, because in the long run, new customers are going to look at these prices and run to Mirrorless.

          When you create a market, you need to support it. This wouldn’t hurt so much if Nikon had a damn D400 out right now and a CROP-BODY 300mm f/2.8 VR or at least a CROP-BODY 300mm f/4 VR.

          • mikeswitz

            This is my last post on this subject, I promise.
            1. Nikon does not “owe” you or anyone else a D400. When the D7000 was introduced they quite clearly stated it was their flagship DX camera. The 7000 line remains their flagship line as of today.
            2. If you (not we) need a new manufacturer, no one is holding a gun to your head, least of all Nikon. I’m sure Canon, Sony, Fuji,etc will love your business. But, you’re right you don’t need a new hobby, you need Ebay where you will find plenty of sub $2000 300mm f/4 lenses, just not this one.

          • ITN

            It is the mirrorless native lenses which are grossly overpriced; DSLR lenses such as made by Nikon are much more affordable for the quality and aperture you get. E.g. For Sony A7 you can get a 35/2.8 … for $800. From Nikon you get a 1.3 stops faster equivalent (35/1.8 AF-S) for less money, and Sigma will give you the class leading 35mm f/1.4 for that, but only for a DSLR. So the mirrorless lens is from three to four times as expensive for the light (and depth of field options) you get. This is very typical. For Micro Four Thirds, you get a 12mm f/2 which is the depth of field equivalent of a 24mm f/4 for about the same money as Nikon asks for a 20mm f/1.8. So the same relationship exists there: you pay a huge premium for the compact size when buying native autofocus lenses for mirrorless. Since mirrorless cameras are all but unusable for telephoto action (with EVF the subject might not even fully be inside the image by the time the exposure is taken if composed by the EVF), Nikon doesn’t need to worry about the price of the 300/4, which is about right given the maximum aperture, compactness and light weight. And Sony doesn’t even make a 300mm f/4. Sony’s 300/2.8 costs $7,498 whereas Nikon’s is $5,719. So basically Nikon is very competitive in pricing when comparing equivalent products.

          • neonspark

            actually no. If you adjust for the value of the yen, and inflation, in today’s dollars had the old 300 f/4 been released today as it was using the cost and bill of materials of the time it would about the same.
            If you buy a house today, you can’t bitch at the realtor why the price isn’t the same as it was 10 years ago. People expecting nikon to produce superior products at prices that are 10 years old is silly considering Nikon’s production costs (suppliers, materials, marketing) take 2014 dollars/yen, not 2004 dollars and yen.

          • neonspark

            actually no. If you adjust for the value of the yen, and inflation, in today’s dollars had the old 300 f/4 been released today as it was using the cost and bill of materials of the time it would about the same.
            If you buy a house today, you can’t bitch at the realtor why the price isn’t the same as it was 10 years ago. People expecting nikon to produce superior products at prices that are 10 years old is silly considering Nikon’s production costs (suppliers, materials, marketing) take 2014 dollars/yen, not 2004 dollars and yen.

        • mikeswitz

          No, I value value. Again, this lens seems fairly priced, your rationalizations not withstanding. There will always be people whining about how much Nikon charges. There will always be people who whining about Canon, Sony, whoever. None of these companies need to worry about what you think the mark up should be. They have no moral obligation to price stuff cheaper. If it sells well, they have done a good job, if not they will reprice it until it does. If you can’t afford it, wait until the price comes down or buy a used one. If you can’t wait, well….find a cheaper hobby.

          • neonspark

            I agree. This sense of entitlement people have that nikon should give me what I want for no profit or they are “screwing me” is silly. Capitalism works by “screwing” people then because nobody works to break even. nobody.

        • David Peterson

          I agree, f/4 lenses should be where they’re trying to offer cheaper options for people. This isn’t a 300mm f/2.8 after all!

          • neonspark

            lol well said. clearly he hasn’t tried to buy a 300 f2.8 lately.

        • neonspark

          OTOH, a lot of people consider the 1.8 primes overpriced and would like them to be even cheaper f2.0 versions. They can’t please everybody, cheapos will be cheapos and nikon shouldn’t follow them to the bottom. The canon 300 f/4 retails for 1500 MSRP and it is a very old lens. If canon were to make it without DO, it would also retail around 2K, seeing as how canon’s 24-70 and 70-200 jumped in price, it wouldn’t be crazy to see canon jack up the price to around 2K if not more. For reference, the Canon 400 f/4 retails for almost 7K. So in fact nikon’s loss of 100mm at 5K dollars in savings is actually a good deal.
          Quite simply Nikon decided to target a market which can afford such lens. Nikon cannot make every lens for every price point, it has to make the ones that make the most money for them. After all, they are not in the business of selling lenses, they are in the business of making money.
          You need to understand that while in an ideal world nikon would put out a 300 f/4 in 3 variants, some with PF, some with FL, some with ED, they cannot do that and keep making other lenses which are in need of an update.
          Ultimately this lens fills two gaps: PF lightweight which many wanted nikon to do, and a 300 f/4 with VR. And instead of wasting time on a new 300 f/4 w/o PF, they are probably working on another lens which for which an update has been due, of which there remain many:
          200mm macro
          any 400mm affordable prime
          135, 105 prime
          16mm fisheye update
          14mm prime update
          24-70 VR
          surely there is no shortage. Nikon cannot afford to waste time on yet another 300 f/4 to save people a few bucks.

    • HotDuckZ

      2,000 for lightest.

      • asdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf

        The weight-drop is impressive, to be sure.

    • Danzig

      The price is shockingly low considering the specs, as Mike suggested I would find myself a cheaper hobby if I were you. Basic prime? A 300mm F/4 lens with the newest VR and lighter than the 24-70 and almost as big is a basic prime?!

      • The price is lower than I expected. The size and weight reduction is impressive.

        • manhattanboy

          I agree. Bought it already last night.

        • sieno


          Are all tele prime lenses gonna get the PF feature also the relatively new 400 2.8 VR III prime lens which was released in May 2014?

          And will be the 200 f4 micro (PF VRIII) the next due to the fact that it is the oldest???

          Which camera next the d7200 or d7500 or the d 3500 ??
          And in midsummer/autumn the successors of the d610 and DF right before christmas???


          • D7200 should be next, most tele photo lenses will be updated, not sure if they will all have PF.

        • ZoetMB

          Yes, but considering how high the US$ is against the Yen (119 Yen to the US$), the lens should have been cheaper. It was 100 Yen for the full 2014 fiscal year. And the $100 increase on the 55-200 is completely unwarranted.

          • neonspark

            1) the 09 crisis hit the dollar hard so the current price is right in line with how it should be. The yen isn’t low, it is back to normal.
            2) Nikon cannot pay the 2009 costs, they pay 2014 costs. Everything costs more due to inflation everywhere.
            3) Nikon’s target yen price has some buffer. Should the yen keep falling, they may cut prices. What they don’t want is if the US economy follows the EU into another recession and the dollar falls, have to raise prices. They would eat into the margins for as long as they can, as such some buffer is wise.

        • iamlucky13

          The price is exactly what I expected, but a lot more than I hoped. Granted, my hopes aren’t necessarily realistic, but this price pushed the lens from the border between pro and hobbyist budget ranges solidly into the pro realm. Only the most dedicated (or wealthy) enthusiasts can justify spending what for most Americans is several months rent for a prime lens.

          The amazing size and weight reduction (just barely larger and heavier than the 70-300 VR when that lens is fully retracted) at least are a major solace…if one I’m now pretty certain I won’t be taking advantage of.

          I’d have never guessed a fresnel lens could be used for photography without significantly affecting sharpness, but their MTF charts suggest otherwise. I’ll be curious to see how lesser characteristics like bokeh are affected. Nikon does say it creates some flare issues.

          I’m not sure what I think of the powered aperture. I guess it’s been working for Canon for quite a while. Supposedly it’s for the sake of video shooters. It seems to me if video shooters want to adjust aperture while shooting, what they really need is an aperture ring, maybe with a switch to engage detent vs. smooth aperture adjustments, but I’m sure Nikon would never give us that again.

      • asdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf

        That comment came before the weight was understood. Keep in mind that there are tons of 300mm f/4s on the market at around $500, used. So the question of “Where is a 300mm f/4 Nikon with a VR at $1,000” is valid. Not EVERY lens should be $2,000.

        Everyone noticed the weight by now.

        • neonspark

          I’m not sure what you’re getting at. first of all you cannot price something new based on something used. Used cars sell for as little as 1 thousand dollars. It doesn’t mean new cars have to.
          Nikon’s 300 f/4 sells for $1350 today. I don’t have historical price data for 2000 when it launched, but say the price was around 1200 USD. Adjusted for 2013 inflation, it would cost 1603 dollars to buy the same based on the CPI inflation. As such, a 400 dollar increase on a lens that will serve you for the next decade isn’t really that much.

      • dclivejazz

        There’s no need for these “find”…”a cheaper hobby” comments. They might not be meant as snide, but they come across that way.

        In face of high prices, one can wait for sales, wait to buy used, seek out cheaper third party alternatives, rent as needed, settle for the 70-300, etc. I might think the price is fair for what’s offered and recognize that indeed top quality glass and photography equipment is expensive. But there’s no need to lord over somebody else that maybe they shouldn’t be doing this “hobby.”

    • neonspark

      seems right in line with the cost of similar pro equipment. what were you expecting? And BTW, the 70-200 2.8 is a massive pig in comparison, and only 200mm. You could call it a basic zoom :p then.

    • neonspark

      I agree. The 800 f5.6 is also a basic prime and 13K for it, oh the nerve!. It’s like BMW charging 100K for a basic car! crazy! And Boeign charging millions for a basic 474! I’m mad! so mad!

  • ValenzTa

    Guys i need your help, just like the 5000 line has a kit lens: The 18-55mm what cheap fx can i use on the 750. I have primes but i need a lens that is not a telephoto or fixed focal lenght lens.

    • Eric Frame

      your best bet will probably be the older tamron 28-75mm. I think they’re about $500 new?

    • JP

      The 24-85 is cheap and light FX alternative.

      • ValenzTa


      • true

        I don’t think I can recommend the 24-85. I think the sigmas 24-105 has both better range, build and image quality. There’s not enough difference in aperture @ lower zoom range of 24-85 to justify having it over sigma, but I’m not sure whether there’s much weight difference between the two. I will say tho, that from testing a tamron 24-70 VC and a sigma 24-105 OS on the shop, I think I found the sigma’s OS to do better job. Don’t know how that info relates to VR of 24-85, but I’m saying sigma is pretty good.

        • EnPassant

          The Sigma 24-105/4 may be good but cheap and light it is not. The difference in weight is 420g and in price at B&H $302 more compared to Nikon’s 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR.

          • true

            The nikon is definitely lighter, but it isn’t very cheap either. Where I live, it costs 599€, whilst the sigma costs 749€.

  • Spy Black

    The 55-200 is a bt high. I think I paid ~$225 the previous version for my D5100.

    • preston

      This lens is the same length and weight as the 70-300VR, so no need for a tripod collar.

      • Spy Black

        Have you ever shot with a 300mm?…

        • preston


  • nek4life

    Does this mean no 24mm 1.8g? 🙁

    • fandilatiffsg

      I think 20mm 1.8g is even wider which is better for landscape. And 20mm is not wide enough. For portraits, 24mm is no good anyway.

  • fandilatiffsg

    Can’t believe the new 300mm f4 is only 5.81″ long since its picture suggested longer than that.

  • Neopulse

    At least it is still sub-$2200-2500 which some thought it was going to be more. Don’t understand why the $500 jump from the initial 300mm f/4D version. Could have sworn with the yen going down the price would have been close to the previous version.

    • Danzig

      VR, Nano coating, half the weight, much smaller, maybe sharper and faster AF. I think these are worth more than $500 🙂

      • Neopulse

        Yeah, you are right though. Also there’s 6 more elements compared to the one before. So I guess this lens is going to kick ass.

  • catinhat

    The closer you get to “perfection” the more you pay for little gains. Something that can probably be well described by an inverse exponential function.

  • Louis-Félix Grondin

    Holy s****. I find it really insulting to sell a 2000$ lens and charge 170$ for the tripod colar that normally comes with a telephoto lens and that probably costs less than 10$ to make.

  • Dave

    Nikon seem to be coming in at $500+ more compared to canon lenses. The canon 100-400 and 300mm f4 are both far cheaper than the Nikon versions. Yes, the Nikon sensors are better, but for anyone new the cheaper lenses might start to sway people.

    • ITN

      Cheaper lenses such as the EF 200-400/4 Extender at $11,799? It seems to even out in the end, some lenses cost more, others less.

  • ZoetMB

    For those who are interested in the D5500, I think B&H has an error on the price with the 18-140. It should be $1397, but they have it at $1197. Pre-order it fast if you want this price. Nikon’s list is $1400.

    • They fixed their pricing:

      • ZoetMB

        I hope my post didn’t alert them. And I also hope that at least a few people here got their order in, if there was anyone here who actually wanted that body.

        • That’s a good point, did anyone here bought the D5500?

  • Back to top