Nikon to announce a new Nikkor AF-S 180-400mm f/4 ED TC VR lens soon

Several months ago I reported that Nikon will announce a new Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 lens with a built-in teleconverter. A few months later I clarified that the new lens could actually be 180-400mm.

I can now confirm that Nikon will soon announce a new Nikkor AF-S 180-400mm f/4 ED TC VR pro-level tele-zoom lens with a built-in 1.4x teleconverter (similar to the latest Canon version). The new version will have a very sophisticated optical formula around 30 elements. Expect a very high price tag (the current Nikkor 200-400mm model is priced at $6,996.95, while the new Canon lens with TC is priced at 10,999).

Like: Nikkor Facebook page | Join: Nikkor Facebook group

Check out the latest US Nikkor lens-only rebates

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

    I will be passing on this lens in lieu of a 3 pack of underwear.

    • Ed Hassell

      LOL! Maybe a few pair of socks, too.

  • Joe Prespare

    so is it 180-400 or a 252-560? Or both?

    • Yomura A. E.

      Only one …. Two are not needed …. They would be duplicated and it does not seem like a good idea.

    • Bob Thane

      It’d be a 180-400 f4 with built in tc allowing it to be a 252-560 f5.6 as well.

    • Just the 180-400mm.

      • Joe Prespare

        so the built in 1.4 is to get you to the 180-400 then?

        • Bob Thane

          Nope, 180-400 f4 bare, 252-560 f5.6 with tc engaged. Technically I suppose you could call it either, but since the mode without tc should be optically better that’s the one it’s named on.

          • Reggie

            But, that would be an interesting lens, no? I never thought of it until Joe’s question, but I’d be more interested in a 130-285 f/2.8 with a built in converter to hit 200-400 f/4. I think the matching teleconverters are designed for better optical performance with their lenses than the average converter – so it would likely outperform say a Sigma 120-300 with converter. I think that would be a really cool lens.

            • Bob Thane

              Yeah, the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 covers a brilliant range for sports, and with a built in tc it would be quite interesting. But 400mm is still a little short for wildlife, so perhaps Nikon and Canon are try to maximize their sales by making something that’s suitable for both sports and wildlife, rather than something that’s excellent for one or the other.

              But I agree, if I had unlimited funds I’d rather see a 120-300 f2.8 with built in tc for sports, and a 300-600 f4 with built in tc for wildlife.

            • Brett A. Wheeler

              If you shoot any night time sports, a 2.8 maximum aperture is a must. I’d like to see a Nikon 120-300 2.8, but then the 70-200 2.8 FX lens on a DX body gives the equivalent 98-280 2.8.

            • El Aura

              You do realise that a 180-400 mm f/4 on FX gives you the same DOF and noise performance as a 70-200 mm f/2.8 on DX (in the overlapping AOV range)?

            • No it doesn’t. 70-200 on DX is a 105-300 equivalent. DX multiplier is 1.5x not 2x.

            • El Aura

              Did you not read the part about the “in the overlapping AOV range”? The point being that if you find the 70-200 mm f/2.8 range very useful on DX but also would find a 120-200 mm f/2.8 range on DX still pretty useful, then a 180-400 mm f/4 can deliver the same AOV, DOF and noise performance on FX.

            • Bob Thane

              70-200 f2.8 on DX is the same as f4 on FX (actually a tiny bit worse) since the smaller sensor captures less light. So if the 70-200 on DX works for you, f2.8 isn’t really a must. Indeed, I’ve shot night games at f5.6 – I’d certainly prefer f2.8, but modern FX cameras can handle ISO 12800 well enough that unless you’re making 12×18 prints it’ll look fine.

            • Thom Hogan

              Right. That’s why I wrote what I wrote above. Moreover, with 45mp, >400mm is a bit less important than it was. What I need is really top notch 400mm that’s not f/5.6 (backgrounds).

            • ZoetMB

              Isn’t the DX factor 1.5, so it gives you 105 to 300mm equivalent?

            • Reggie

              Can’t disagree with any of that. I don’t know that the lens that I described would sell better than a 200-400. Part of why it would be more interesting to me is that I already have a 500 f/4, so I wouldn’t need the 560 f/4 converted, though a zoom would be nice.

              I guess there’s a long list of lenses I’d want if I had unlimited funds. 🙂

            • Thom Hogan

              You make an interesting and good point. The 180-400mm with TC becomes something very similar to the 200-500mm when all is said and done (okay, it goes to 560, but that’s insignificant). Thus, the thing I have to look at is whether the 180-400mm is really delivering something totally new and useful. I fear that it’s big claim to fame will simply be 400mm f/4. I’ve got lenses that do better at the other aspects (at what I expect the other aspects to be).

              On the other hand, a 135-280mm f/2.8 with a built-in TC starts to be more interesting, especially if it can be made smaller and lighter via FL or PD. In theory I still get my 400mm f/4, but with a 300mm f/2.8 that zooms. Much more interesting to me.

            • ITN

              The 200-500 zoom ring is intolerably heavy and slow to adjust and changes center of gravity so not well suited for gimbal use. The 200-400 is easy to adjust quickly and zooms internally with less shift in cog. The 200-400 focuses down to 1:4 and excels in close ups, and focuses fast. The 200-500 is not as good at close distances and focuses poorly at close distances.

              Presumably the 180-400 inherits all the best sides of the old 200-400 and improves long distance image sharpness and TC performance. Because an update without answering to those criticisms would be pointless.

            • Ed Hassell

              My ideal setup with the 200-500/5.6 & D500 is on a monopod with ProMediaGear’s tilt-head (which I like better than either of the ones produced by Kirk & RRS).

            • outkasted

              Post a link mate.

            • outkasted

              I think these new lenses need two things to separate them from say a 200/500mm.
              1.Focus Speed
              B.micro contrast
              C.weight (Carbon fibre)

            • Ed Hassell

              Excellent idea. The 180/200-400 plus TC just doesn’t appeal to me either; however, a variant of the Sigma with built-in TC sounds like a brilliant concept. It could even be slightly more restricted as Thom suggests, like a 120-280/2.8 or even 135-280/2.8 with built-in TC. I’d place a deposit for either version today.

        • No, 180-400 without the TC

    • mok

      Both, as Canon version. Applied with a lever switch.

  • Plug

    The 1.4 converter bit better be good. I love my 300 f4 PF, brilliant with a D500 for birds in flight. Stick the latest version of the 1.4X converter in between? You are better off cropping.

    • The 1.4x works extremely well with my 400mm 2.8E. Even with the 1.7 it is better than cropping. Not sure about the 2.0. I need to test that to be sure – though my gut says yes.
      I think that Nikon had the 400mm 2.8G/E most in mind when they designed the teleconverters. I can imagine that there would be lenses where they would be sub-optimal – such as the 300 f/4.0PF. If they include a 1.4 built in, you can be sure that it will be optimally designed to work with only that lens and that the results will be much better than cropping.

      • Plug

        Yes, I am sure the converters are really for the bigger faster telephotos. The built-in solution is intriguing.

        • Bob Thane

          They could do with an update though, or perhaps Nikon needs to revise their overall strategy when it comes to TC compatibility. While the 1.4 TCEIII is great with the 400mm f2.8E, it has significant vignetting with the 600mm f4E, whereas the 1.4TCEII did not. Also Canon seems to have a significant edge over Nikon in terms of quality with TCs, especially with the 2x TC. The 1.7x TC is a great option and should get an updated version, and the 1.4 and 2 could also do with improvements despite being more modern.

          But yeah, the built in TC should be exceptional. Similar to the 1.25x TC that comes custom made for the 800mm – when it’s made for one lens it can be truly excellent. The 1.4x TCEIII + 400mm f2.8E is similar, I think they were made hand in hand.

      • Pablo And-Jennifer Gabetta

        Yes, my 200-400 f4 with my 1.7 is horrible, I mean horrible x2! But the 1.7 with my 300 2.8 is amazing and yes, better than cropping.

      • outkasted

        I am still on the hunt for purchasing this dream lens. I was wondering if you have any links to the use of the 400mm/2.8 E. I’ve looked at everything else but they don’t appeal to me.

    • Spy Black

      In this day and age nobody can afford to make a shitty lens, especially if it’s gonna be a top tier optic. This is especially so for OEMs, who have new real competition from the likes of Sigma, Tamron, and even Tokina.

      I’m sure rhis lens will kick ass. Failure is not an option.

      • Bob Thane

        Agreed. It may cost $12k, but it’ll almost certainly be incredible. The 105mm f1.4, 70-200 f2.8e, and all the new telephoto primes are testament to that.

    • Davo

      The matched TC’s are normally pretty good. Eg. On the new Panasonic-Leica 200mm f2.8 that comes with a 1.4TC (although not built in), there’s said to be little to no discernible drop in optical performance with the TC on.

    • Thom Hogan

      Not been my experience with the 300mm+TC on a D500. But then TCs have always been hit or miss. I’ve seen good combos and bad combos with the same lens/TC, just different samples. In theory, that’s what you don’t have with a built-in TC: it should be tolerance matched. The Canon 200-400mm f/4 with the built-in TC pretty much shoots without penalty when you flip the TC in. But it’s also an expensive lens.

      • Mehdi R

        Just curious, have you tried Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 with TC 1.4 on crop body?

        • Thom Hogan

          Yes, don’t do it.

        • Ed Hassell

          I’ve used Nikon’s old 1.4x teleconverters successfully with the ancient 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4P, 600/4 and 800/5.6 AiS lenses. And the current 70-200/2.8E, 200/2G, 300/4D, 300/4E PF and 300/2.8G lenses work well with Nikon TC14E II and III versions (I do not have AF versions of the super-teles). I’ve never much liked the results with 2x TCs on any of these lenses — only for emergencies. Generally I use the 1.4x and crop as needed.

          And none of them work well with the 200-500/5.6E, sadly. Cropping appropriately appears to be the better way to go. It’s a great lens — especially for the money; however, it just doesn’t play well with other optics.

      • Plug

        I’m saving, and am nearly there, for a 500 f4 E, so maybe I have a subconscious bias! But I was not entirely impressed by the 300 + 1.4 on a recent trip to Ethiopia (brilliant destination for birds). On that point, I am one of those who prefers primes to zooms but it will be interesting to see this new zoom, particularly if the focus and zooming are internal so it doesn’t change length.

        • Thom Hogan

          Did you AF Fine Tune your combo? In my experience, virtually all TC+lens requires AF Fine Tuning.

          • Plug

            No I didn’t and I need to do some experimentation. Thank you for the suggestion.

          • Tony Beach

            My original 70-200/2.8G VR and TC-14eII didn’t need an AF fine-tune on my D300. Curiously, I have different copies of those now and on my D800 the zoom needs a slight adjustment but with the TC attached it doesn’t.

            Still, I gave you an upvote here because it’s definitely something that should be paid attention to.

      • manattan

        Someone once wrote about the 300pf: “Is a 300mm+TC workable and usable? Most of the time, yes. But in
        virtually all cases I’d just rather have a 400mm lens in the first

        I have to agree with that person 😉 and @Plug’s comments. On a D500, anything smaller than f4 is not activating all AF points, and perhaps depending on the AF mode used to shoot bif’s would lead to worse results.

        • Thom Hogan

          I’d always prefer a fixed lens to lens+TC combo. A TC is always a compromise of some sort.

          I had to go back up and see what I was responding to in the first place. The line was “you’re better off cropping.” Not in this particular case, no.

  • 30 elements!?! Holy mother of god!

    • Graham Blaikie

      It would need state-of-the-art coatings for sure. There would be some veiling flare with that number of elements. But how many groups? Fewer groups would help.

    • Adam Fo

      The Canon 200-400 f4 has 33 elements when the converter is switched in !

  • Bill M

    If only I had about $10,000 lying around somewhere, time to check in between the cushions for some loose change 🙂 I’m sure the lens will be amazing, but I can’t justify spending that much. I’d rather have a 400 f/4 PF VR that I can manually throw a TC on for half the price.

    • Eric Calabros

      Nobody can justify that, at least not with current cameras. This lens is made for feature sensors, around 60MP or higher.

      • Bob Thane

        The convenience of being able to flip on the TC in an instant rather than spending 2 minutes fumbling around will make the lens very valuable to wildlife photographers especially, even if they’re using the D5. And the 200-400 isn’t bad, but at long range especially it shows some softening and the D850 can really highlight that.

        Certainly great lenses will become more useful to everyone as pixel density decreases, but I know a few people who might be justified in buying this lens for their current set-up.

        • bonem

          Can you or anyone explain why a lens would produce softer images at greater distance even when using the same focal length? And nearly the same position in the focus ring (near infinity)

          • Bob Thane

            Lenses that focus internally have to change the relative positions of the elements in order to focus, so the optical path at close focus is different from the optical path at infinity – similar to how the optical path is different if you’re at the wide end of a zoom versus the long end. Thus the performance will differ at different subject distances, and in most cases this means that performance for distant subjects is worse.

            • bonem

              Thanks for the explanation. I’ve noticed my tele lens is always softer the farther the subject and never understood why. Will “fine tuning” the lens/camera body fix or help this?

            • bonem

              I’m also thinking the farther the subject the more air condition interference there is possible as well. So many factors.

            • Bob Thane

              There’s definitely a lot of causes for softness, and fine tuning can help if that’s part of the problem.

              The main issue is the simple fact that there’s more air between you and the subject – more dust particles, more heat haze, more atmospheric distortion – no getting around the fact that distant subjects will just plain be softer.

              Focusing can definitely change at different focusing distances though, I have a Nikon gold ring lens that needs -3 AF adjustment at close focus and +1 at infinity – which is why Sigma’s dock and Tamron’s console are so exciting to me, lenses often need more than one calibration value. So it’s definitely worth experimenting with fine tuning settings for different focusing distances to see if that’s the case for you.

              Another issue is that distant subjects often fill less of the viewfinder, and so the AF points have less to work with. It’s a lot easier to nail the focus on the eye of a bird when it fills 15% of the viewfinder rather than 1% – this is an issue both for the operator (needing to be very precise with AF point placement) and with the camera (being less capable of focusing when there’s a smaller area to work with). While you can minimize operator error, there’s unfortunately not much to improve the AF precision.

              Then there’s the previously mentioned problem where some lenses are simply less sharp at different distances, also not much you can do there.

              And then the last thing is that we crop images of distant subjects more often, and that’s going to exaggerate any motion blur, camera shake, lens imperfections, and all the issues mentioned above. If you photograph a bird that’s 200 feet away and crop in, you know that you’re missing feather detail. But if you photograph a bird that’s 10 feet away and crop in, you don’t know what you’re missing. You see the feathers and you’re happy, because you don’t know what micro details you’re missing. So there’s a psychological aspect of it too.

            • bonem

              That all makes great sense. So many factors and a lot of times more than one at a time.
              The lens I have this with is the Tamron 150-600 g2. I’ve been considering buying the dock. I’ve also considered sending it in to Tamron for fine tune and maintenance.
              So my issue with fine tuning at long distance is… How do you do it? I can’t put a big enough target 200 feet away to calibrate with. Is there a way to fine tune the long end of your focus range?
              Thanks so much for your response, by the way. They’re very insightful.

            • Bob Thane

              Awesome, thanks to the console the Tamron will be super easy to fix if that is an issue.

              First I’d test to see if there is a consistent front or back focus at range. Stick the lens on a tripod, and in manual focus mode and liveview zoom in on some distant subject (whatever distance you usually shoot at) and snap a shot. Then mess up the focus, manually refocus, and take another shot. Repeat this a few times – you want to capture the sharpest shot possible, and having several attempts at it will maximize your odds. Take a few shots using the liveview autofocus as well – it uses an AF method that isn’t prone to error so it might manage to get the sharpest shot too.

              Now defocus the lens, flip to the viewfinder AF mode, and get it to focus normally and snap a photo. Defocus again and repeat the process several times. Then do the same, but defocus the other way – like set it to close focus for the first several, then infinity for the next few – sometimes AF systems do better coming from a certain direction.

              Now head back to the computer and pick out the sharpest image from the manually focused or liveview focused images to act as the benchmark. Comparing it with the autofocused shots, do any even get close? If they’re very close it’s probably fine, or might need very minimal adjustment. If not, it’s time to move on to trying to fix the focusing issue.

              Repeat the process of putting it on the tripod, getting a control image, and then taking photos with AF. But this time dial in various AF fine tune settings in the camera. If it was really bad maybe only adjust in steps of 2 or 3 and cover the full -20 to 20 range, if it wasn’t terrible then steps of 1 from -8 to 8 should work. Make sure you also get the default (probably 0, or whatever you currently have it at). Once you’ve gotten several shots for each AF value, check on the computer and see which setting seems to have gotten the best images. It might be hard to tell – if a few values look identical I’d just go with the middle one, or whichever was closest to your default.

              Now you have the lens dialled in for distant subjects at a certain focal length, but does that setting work for the other focal lengths and focusing distances? Test around a bit – doesn’t need to be super formal, but if there’s a certain focal length or subject distance you use a lot I’d do the manual focus vs autofocus comparison on the tripod. If you do find that other focal lengths or distances are now worse, it’s time to grab the Tamron console and get more specific – it’ll take time to test each of those focal lengths and focusing distances, and unfortunately for a telephoto you’re pretty much stuck with the trial and error approach outlined above, but ultimately it’s a small price to pay for ensuring maximum sharpness. Of course, it may not be necessary if you’re lucky, or if the image quality issues aren’t caused by the focusing.

              Hope that helps, best of luck!

            • bonem

              Wow, that’s quite the explanation for checking and fixing focus. Thanks! I’ll try that out and see what kind of results I get.

    • I would rather get a used 400/2.8 for that money.

  • Plug

    Presumably with fluorite elements to make it significantly lighter than its 200-400 predecessor. All the same it will be a bit of a beast..

    • ITN

      Nope. The TC and insertion mechanism along with the housing for the TC increase weight.

      • Plug

        We’ll see. My bet is about a 10% reduction in weight through modern materials and fluorite glass and more importantly a better balance with the centre of mass closer to the camera body. That is less of a weight reduction than in, for example, the 500 f4 E but there is the matter of the TC mechanism.

        • ITN

          Canon have been using fluorite for many decades and their 200-400 is notably heavier than Nikon’s. You may be correct that the new lens may not be as front heavy as the old. But it will be heavy.

  • Al Eisen

    Seven grand? Yeah, OK….I think I will stick with my 200-500 on DX. Great IQ, no need for a TC and far less expensive.

    • The current 200-400 costs 7 grand, the new 180-400 will probably be priced similarly to the Canon 200-400 😉

      • AnotherView

        Probably a bit higher.

  • Hans Bull

    No AF-P? And E?

    • Not sure.

      • Mistral75

        Either E or G I would say, definitely without aperture ring.

        • Jeremy Allen

          I’d be shocked if it was anything but an “E” lens.

          • Graham Blaikie

            Could be a “P” lens for fast AF.

            • Thom Hogan

              It may or may not be P. Nikon has long had different AF-S motors on the big exotics. There’s nothing wrong with them for DSLRs. If this lens were P, it would be more a statement about Nikon’s future mirrorless plans than an improvement for DSLR shooters.

        • yes, I was not given the full model name

    • ITN

      Not AF-P. Stepper motors cannot give enough torque for fast focusing of large teles.

      But I am sure it will be E.

  • 180-560 makes it a little over 3:1 zoom. At least that is better than a 2:1 zoom. I have found out from experience primes are one option but if you want a zoom lens, get one that really zooms. For me, 3:1 doesn’t quite make it. I own the 200-400 AFS, and while a quality zoom lens, I rarely use it anymore.

    • Bob Thane

      Interesting. In my experience 3x zoom is pretty insane – the 2x zoom of the 14-24 is dramatic, the 2.92x zoom of the 24-70 is very impressive, the 2.86x zoom of the 70-200 is hugely useful, and the 2.5x zoom of the 200-500 is obvious. While the 24-120 and 28-300 zooms are even more insane, I find that they sacrifice too much optical quality to be useful outside of travel.

      Of course, it’s very subject dependent. If you shoot osprey fishing on lakes you’ll probably want a 600mm prime, and likely teleconverters. But if you’re shooting a sports game, or if you shoot a variety of wildlife a zoom is very useful, unless you have a 600mm prime, a 400mm prime, a 300mm prime, a 200mm prime, and bodies for each (in the case of sports at least).

      • Oops, I meant for telephoto zooms. My Sigma 12-24 A (2X) and Nikon 16-35 (for travel), are excellent. However, I really like the 4X range of the 150-600 Tamron G2 and Sigma S lenses. I use the Nikon 80-400 for college football. The quality may not be quite as good with the zooms but you’ll capture more actions shots, especially from the sidelines. Nikon is no slouch when it comes to zooms. In the 70’s, Nikon owned the market with the 180-600 and 1200-1600 zooms. Nikon used to be very innovative.

        • marymig

          “used to be”

        • outkasted

          Do you remember the slogan that ‘8 out of 10 professional use Nikon camera and/or lenses/ equipment? ” I remember these ads in the popular photographer magazines in the 90’s! One of the reasons I wanted Nikon.

          • I think that was before Canon changed it’s lens mount and introduced an onslaught of image stabilized telephoto lenses. They literally stole the sports market away from Nikon.

      • Dino Brusco

        It’s also true that if Leica makes a 24-90 for their SL system, it means that you can make it for at least half of its price without touching optical quality. It’s all a matter of will. Actually, I do hope a 21-90 will eventually come out instead of a 24-105 or a 24-120. But it’s me.

        • Allen_Wentz

          And me.

      • outkasted

        its just those pesky low light conditions that warrant that holy grail 2.8 glass.

  • animalsbybarry

    The old200-400 was a very good lens but very heavy.
    I expect this one will be even better and lighter.

    I also expect this lens will be desighned to perform well with the new Nikon Mirrorless camera when it comes out

    • Nyarlathotep

      Maybe, but if Peter is right, going from 24 to 30 elements and adding a teleconverter is going to make it hard to also shave weight over the current version.

      Edit Note: Current Nikon version is 3,360g, current Canon version is 3,620g

      • Bob Thane

        Very true. If they use fluorite I think they could still manage 10-15% weight savings, if not I’d expect a 10-15% increase in weight.

        • ITN

          Canon already use fluorite and all the tricks in the book in theirs. And it is heavier than the Nikkor.

      • PhilK

        I don’t know what details Peter saw, but the “30 elements” figure could include the elements in the teleconverter section only, which of course would not be in use if it was used in native focal-length mode..

        • yes, that could be

      • DJI, the drone maker, is now producing very good lenses using carbon fiber. That might shave some weight.

    • I am sure it will be better, I just don’t know if it will be lighter. Those 30 elements will have some weight.

      • Eric Calabros

        Of course all of those​ 30 are not gathered at the front 🙂

        • IronHeadSlim

          The big ones probably are. ; )

      • Davo

        Plenty of fluorite elements might make it not as heavy as expected?

        • Could be, I don’t know.

  • Tim

    I’ve been hoping that this would be soon, but if it turns out to be as heavy as the Canon version then I’ll stick with the 500mm FL since it is already lighter than the Canon 200-400 F4.

  • NikonFanboy

    In Jan CES 2018? shocking to see no D500S and D5s in the pipeline

    • IronHeadSlim

      I wonder if both Nikon and Canon are stretching out their flagship update cycle time as they both should have had an update to D5/1DX for Winter Olympics.

      (Canon has their top model on sale for $500 off, maybe they will have an update.)

      • John Albino

        They might believe the current models are good enough for the Winter Olympics, and are aiming more (with, say, “s” upgrades) for next summer’s soccer World Cup, the following year’s women’s soccer World Cup, and the big enchilada, the 2020 Olympics (which,as Thom pointed out, IS in the Home Country). Updates later in 2018 (eg, D5s) would put things on a better cycle for a major new version two years later for the Olympics.

  • Ed Hassell

    I had the old 200-400 — the OLD AiS version. I found it unwieldy and didn’t keep it. I’ve never used the AF-S versions. Back in the beginning of the AF and AF-S era, I got a chance to buy all four of the AiS versions of Nikon’s super teles (400/2.8, 500/4P, 600/4 & 800/5.6) used but in near-mint condition for a flat $8K. I jumped on it. Thank you Jorge Mora!

    • outkasted

      wait you mean 8k for all? OMG!!!

  • Duncan Dimanche

    It would really be interesting to know how many of those sub 6-7k lenses are made and how many they actually sell. I can’t possibly imagine that they make money off of those lenses….

    But maybe i am wrong

    • Bob Thane

      I know the Canon 200-400 is fairly popular, at least as popular as a $11k lens can be. The key with lenses like this is the slow refresh rate, and minimal changes between iterations. The Canon’s been out for almost 5 years now and is still a dream lens for sports and wildlife shooters, it’ll likely last another several years before it needs a refresh. And refreshes of lenses like this are rarely substantial – look at Nikon’s telephoto primes for example. Even the old D versions of those lenses were optical superb, and the VR and VR II versions made little to no changes to the optics, just adding new coatings and electronics. The FL versions are the only major redesigns of those lenses in over 20 years.

      So they’re very expensive to create initially, but with the long lifespan and minimal refresh costs they can still make a profit off of those lenses. Plus it’s lenses like that that sell cameras – the people buying a couple new D4/D4s/D5 cameras every two years need a system with big glass, and those cameras are very profitable.

      • Are D4,5 cameras profitable? I’m not certain the profits are that high as they make them in relatively small quantities. I’d guess they make most of their profits on the low to mid range cameras. But the flagships sell to the pros, the fact that pros use that system improves the companies status, meaning higher sells in general.

        • John Albino

          That’s a good question. The days are long gone when large organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Sports Illustrated, etc., had staffs of 20-25 photogs and outfitted each of them with a couple of D5s or equivalent.

          Not sure how many independents (read: day-laborers 😉 ) can afford regular top-end gear upgrades.

          Wonder what Getty, etc. provides their shooters with, if anything?

        • ITN

          It is the cheap ones which are no longer profitable; the high end gear is where the manufacturers are moving towards because of profits.

    • ZoetMB

      I’d bet that margins are quite high and they’re very rarely discounted. There’s a web site ( where they track reported serial numbers and they try to extrapolate how many have been sold. How accurate that is, I have no idea. It was last updated on 12/13. Unit sales are pretty low, but remember that if you sell 10,000 units of a $10,000 lens, that’s $100 million at retail. so it adds up quickly.

      They’re showing the following units counts:
      400 2.8G 7394, 400 2.8E 3670
      500 4.0G 8787, 500 4.0E 1656
      600 4.0G 9295, 600 4.0E 2524
      800 5.6E 1923
      200-400G VRII 11,667
      200-500E U.S.: 28,053, 200-500E Rest of World: 63,347

      By comparison:
      70-200 2.8 VR 272,416
      70-200 2.8 VR II 472,239
      70-200 2.8 E VR 13,445

      I’ll leave you to your own conclusions as to why the E versions don’t seem to be selling well (if the numbers are accurate): fewer pro photographers, general market collapse, high prices, satisfaction with earlier versions, etc.

      • Allen_Wentz

        Higher usable ISOs today (plus price/weight of course) are the big reasons that many photogs today will buy a $750 f/4.5-5.6E 680 g 70-300mm AF-P or a $1400 f/4G 850 g 70-200mm instead of a $2,800 f/2.8E 1430 g 70-200mm.

      • ITN

        I believe the older lenses have more accurate data since it takes time for users to report numbers and most users don’t do that at all. Over time more numbers get reported as the lenses change from owner to owner. For sure sales of these lenses are down because (1) the pro sports and wildlife stock photography market has collapsed, (2) many of the E FL lenses are significantly more expensive than earlier Nikkors or equivalent Canon lenses and it takes some time for the new lenses to gain a reputation, and (3) Nikon in general has experienced a decline of sales.

  • Tieu Ngao

    I don’t like big and heavy lenses.
    I wish they’re making big progress at Harvard regarding the new material (titanium dioxide arranged in microscopic nanopillars) that can replace glass. The first version was announced in summer 2016 but that lens could focus only one color at a time.
    Excerpt from the news: “If the material was further developed to work for all wavelengths in the visual spectrum of light, from red to violet, it could radically change the design of cameras.
    The material could also potentially be cheaper to make than a traditional glass lens.”

    • I believe there is also some technology out there with fluid trapped either between or within elements.

      • There’s an idea for a perfect astronomical telescope mirror that involves spinning a molten platen of aluminum at a discrete speed that would yield a perfect parabola. Of course, you can only look at the zenith, but hey.

      • Tieu Ngao

        Something flexible is good because it can change the thickness in similar way as the pupil in human eyes.

    • Potentially cheap, perhaps. Cheap within our lifetime? Probably not.

      • Tieu Ngao

        If you’re 80 years of age or older then you’re probably right, otherwise I hope that you’re wrong. LOL.

        • I share your excitement, but at 63 and having worked in the semiconductor industry for many years, I’ve fallen prey to the promise of technology in the lab that is claimed to be “just around the corner” too many times.

    • Toecutter

      Would they pass the savings on or just enjoy the increase in profit margin

  • catinhat

    So, for each hundred $ of a regular TC price, it will be about a thousand for a built-in? Built-in is nice, but for this price difference I would volunteer to attach TC myself.

    • Bob Thane

      To be fair, you *should* get a corresponding increase in quality, since the TC will be specifically designed for the lens and vice versa. Plus the advantage of being able to activate the TC at the flick of a switch rather than having to pull it out of your bag, remove the lens, attach the TC to the lens, and then remount the lens shouldn’t be understated – I know I’ve missed shots due to not getting a TC off on time, and other times I’ve just left the TC at home because it’s a hassle.

      With that said, the price will put this out of reach for most people, likely myself as well at least for the next several years. But hey, the current 200-400 isn’t getting any worse.

      • John Albino

        Matching TCs and lenses can produce great results.

        I remember back in the film/MF days the 300/2.8/TC 1.4 were supposedly designed and matched to each other, and (at least my versions of the two) the combination produced a 420/4 that was critically sharp wide open.

  • Kob12

    30 elements? Will probably have at least T5.6!

  • sgredsch

    this lens is going to be awesome, and extremely expensive. my bet is on 9.999$

    • Ed Hassell

      I’d guess more like 12K . . .

      • A. F.O.

        with that kind of Money I would buy many things…none of them would be such a lens.

        • Bob Thane

          If I made $250k/year I’d buy it. One day…

  • Aldo

    200-500 is good enough.. I’m sellling a copy =)

    • A. F.O.

      really? how much is it and how good has it been care? 🙂

      “and now something completely different”…I’ve just read the last 5 articules by Tom and I must agree with him…Nikon is somewhere but far far away from reality.
      DXs primes buzzzz.

      • Aldo

        Yeah… just asking 1k for it. Mint. No hood though

        • Allen_Wentz

          I will be buying a new tele ~ in February, and the 200-500 is on my maybe list. If it is still around then we should chat.

  • Dino Brusco

    Oh my !!!! This is truly a dream lens for sport ! Maybe will they add another PF element to make it lighter?

  • bgbs

    $10K? Nikon is lucky that it is launching this lens after tax cuts announcement. I suppose it will be a hot seller in the US under the Trump economy.

  • Claude Mayonnaise

    Why bother? For this price the smarter choice would be to buy a giraffe, a small pride of lion, slap on a cheap 50mm for a photo shoot in your back yard and have money to spare.

    • spam

      You forget the food and medical expenses over time. Probably not that easy to sell the animals again.

      • fanboy fagz

        it would be as steaks and cold cuts.

      • And a very hefty shovel.

  • Elbert Jan Achterberg

    This would definitely be a great Safari lens. I had the first iteration 200-400 and really liked its versatility. The Fox in the image attached was all over the place and without the zoom I would have missed a lot of opportunities. The lens was not so good at infinity and barely usable with TC14. When I switched to a D800E I traded it for a 300mm2.8, I love the extra stop and shallow DOF, also for non wildlife subjects.

  • Veselin Gramatikov

    I like the idea of well priced 200-600 5.6 VR lens.

  • Ed Hassell

    The D500 / 200-500 combo is a little weak at 500 (but still good). The edges don’t hold up quite as well on full-frame. Still, it’s an amazing lens and an exceptional bargain.

  • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

    Interesting lens and novel TC adaptor built in, expect the price to be £12000 / $12,000 and slightly more than Canon’s one at rrp of £9999.99 in UK

    Hope we see Nikon updating some of the older F mount lenses like 200mm F4 Macro, 105 Afs VR Macro and possibly improve the Nikon 24-120 F/4 AFS before we see Nikon diverting more and more attention to the new Nikon 2 – mirrorless system.

  • Plug

    The other innovation that I would like to see Nikon make with these big lenses is Arca Swiss compatible feet. It would be so easy to do.

    • ITN

      Even arca don’t use their old system any more – they made one that is slightly different. There is no standard in terms of quick release plates.

      • Allen_Wentz

        That is why I put RRS on everything.

  • James R Mercer

    That’s a lotta money for a zoom… just sayin’

  • MarkVII88

    With a price point like that, Nikon isn’t going to be eating into their sales of 200-500mm f/5.6 lenses.

    • Pat Mann

      What? This totally makes my 200-500 obsolete. If I didn’t have the D850, Profoto B1X, 28 f/1.4 and Tesla at the top of my tax cut upgrade list, I’d be on it.

  • James R Mercer

    That’s a lot of money for a zoom. Plus… not sure how the Nikon bodies will handle AF adjustments if you toggle the built-in TC on and off.

    • Graham Blaikie

      I guess you would be using it with one of the latest cameras and the Auto AF Fine Tune would get a workout.

      • Bob Thane

        Auto fine-tuning every time you flip on the TC would be rather a pain, probably faster to just memorize the best settings and manually dial it in each time.

        But I’d hope that on a lens like this Nikon would have it properly set up so that the TC doesn’t change the alignment.

        • Graham Blaikie

          Yes, as the TC is optically matched to the lens it should keep alignment.

    • My guess is that they would do it the same way as they do with regular TCs – allow you to set a value for when just the lens and then the lens with the TC flipped on.

  • AnotherView

    Nikon can have my money right now…it’s the perfect lens to supplement my 600.

    • I currently have the 400 2.8E with all the teleconverters. I am waiting for Nikon to update the 200 2.0 which I will buy when they do.

      • outkasted

        How is that 400mm|2.8 E buddy? Really looking for feedback as it is a lens that i’m truly interested in.

        • Just buy it. There is nothing better at 400mm – it is as good as it gets. The only review I found that seemed worthwhile is the PhotographyLife review.

          Your second choice is the 400 2.8G and you will save some money. You will also lose a small amount of sharpness but it is still insanely sharp. You will, however, gain some weight, which counts a lot as it is at the front.

  • Jacob Smith

    Wasn’t Nikon done with the AF-S lenses.

    • Bob Thane

      Nope, very few lenses are AF-P since older cameras aren’t compatible with it. Odds are they’ll stick with AF-S for most lenses for at least another couple years. Plus AF-P still hasn’t been tested for high performance lenses, it’s hard to know Nikon’s ready to put that kind of tech in a lens like this.

    • ITN

      No. AF-S is the best for fast focusing of large elements that need to move quickly.

  • John Albino

    I wouldn’t mind an update to the classic 180 f2.8 ED-IF to AFS or P and nano coating, with or without VR, for maybe half or a bit more of the price of the current 70-200 f2.8. The AF-D version is a little long in the tooth these days. I really loved the original MF 180 f2.8 ED and made a lot of money with that lens back in the day (‘course, that was almost 40 years ago, and that “lot of money” would be more of a pittance these days… 😉 ).

    • Ed Hassell

      I still have my 180/2.8 AiS. Wouldn’t give it up for the world. I skipped the AF-D version and bought the 200/2G when it came out. I still use the old MF lens, though.

  • I owned the previous version but sold it when I moved to “lighter”E/FL super primes. Now a new version is coming out — which is great, but what will it weigh? Will it be E/FL too? And, just how sharp will it be and how quick will the AF be -particularly compared to the 200-500 and/or Tamron G2 150-600

    • Coffee

      When I read the 30 elements, I also questioned the weight issue. Outside my budget…

  • Thanks for finding and posting that. I’d forgotten about this instrument and that it used mercury.

  • mikerofoto

    let see what the price tag will be, even though I’m more looking at the Sigma 500mm sport for now

    • Bob Thane

      I’d wager roughly double the cost of the Siggy. Most people would probably be better off with the Sigma 500mm f4 plus the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sport – heck, I’d bet you could throw in a 150-600 on top of all that and still end up with a cheaper kit than this Nikon.

      I’m open to being pleasantly surprised though!

  • Pat Mann

    Oh, No! My 200-500 obsolete after only a year! If I had only known.

  • MonkeySpanner

    Has Nikon 100% lost interest in the consumer market? For the past 2 years all we get is super high end pro equipment or slightly warmed over (snapbridge added) DX bodies. This kinda sucks. Need more DX focussed primes. A small 22/2 would be nice

    • ITN

      Consumers stopped buying Nikon cameras and lenses.

      • Oh, right, that’s why they’re like the second thing you see at Costco when you get in the store.

    • Are you sure fast, wide-angle primes are what consumers are looking for?

      • Ed Hassell

        I’d love to see 4 DX primes. They don’t even all have to be that fast. How about a 10/3.5 (~15mm), a 14/2.8 (~ 21mm), an 18/2.5 (~27mm) and a 70/1.4 (~105mm portrait lens — I don’t really like the 58/1.4G all that much). Were Nikon to announce these four lenses tomorrow, I’d be waiting at the camera shop door with my checkbook.

        • Yeah, well, the 58mm on a DX camera just seems like total overkill. I use one on my Df and it’s pretty special at f/1.4 or thereabouts. At slower apertures I’m not sure it’s any better (or even as good as) the 50mm f/1.8G. It’s a little bulky as well, so it’s not a travel lens or anything like that. But, it can create uniquely beautiful images once you understand how to use it.

          • ITN

            I felt the 58/1.4 is a perfectly balanced lens on a D7x00. It is lightweight and has excellent manual focus (an unusual characteristic in a modern Nikon lens). What you probably mean it is too expensive for a DX camera. Maybe. But I think works really nicely on one.

          • KnightPhoto
            • I agree that it’s a good FL for DX and that it does have a good deal of personality at any aperture. But, the lens earns its money at f/1.4 -2. I do a lot of portrait work for a couple magazines. I’d been shooting them mostly with an 85mm f/1.8D on a Df. The publications prefer kind of a “waist up” portrait, so I’m a little ways back. Over time I had developed a lot of comfort working with my subjects at that distance. Then I saw some work done with the 58 and decided I had to have one. Because I was comfortable at the greater distance in terms of the social aspect of the shoot, I tended to remain a ways back with the new lens, otherwise I seemed too close to their “personal space” (clearly a psychological effect). I did come in a bit, but the results of my first couple shoots was that I had to crop them considerably. Despite working at f/1.4, I wasn’t really seeing the magic and was left scratching my head. Having noted that I was too far back, I moved in closer for the next shoot. THAT is when things got more interesting. Because of the closer working distance the separation from the background was not only more profound, but the pictures were taking on that 3D effect the lens is famous for. So, I think with DX and the need to step back to frame your subject you’d lose a lot of that character. I can’t show a portrait due to copyright issues, but here’s a recent shot from our living room that shows some of the lens’ unique qualities.

            • I agree that it’s a good FL for DX and that it does have a good deal of personality at any aperture. But, the lens earns its money at f/1.4 -2. I do a lot of portrait work for a couple magazines. I’d been shooting them mostly with an 85mm f/1.8D on a Df. The publications prefer kind of a “waist up” portrait, so I’m a little ways back. Over time I had developed a lot of comfort working with my subjects at that distance. Then I saw some work done with the 58 and decided I had to have one. Because I was comfortable at the greater distance in terms of the social aspect of the shoot, I tended to remain a ways back with the new lens, otherwise I seemed too close to their “personal space” (clearly a psychological effect). I did come in a bit, but the results of my first couple shoots was that I had to crop them considerably. Despite working at f/1.4, I wasn’t really seeing the magic and was left scratching my head. Having noted that I was too far back, I moved in closer for the next shoot. THAT is when things got more interesting. Because of the closer working distance the separation from the background was not only more profound, but the pictures were taking on that 3D effect the lens is famous for. So, I think with DX and the need to step back to frame your subject you’d lose a lot of that character. I can’t show a portrait due to copyright issues, but here’s a recent shot from our living room that shows some of the lens’ unique qualities (lacks a bit of sharpness in the center because it’s and held and I was on my second glass of wine.)

            • Michiel953

              Pete, yes, getting in close is the secret with the 58. I prefer head filling frame portraits, so I need to get get close. 1 meter is distant…

          • KnightPhoto

            And I do use the 58G as a travel lens, sure there’s some bulk there but in general the lens is light as a feather, so you can toss it in a coat pocket, pack, or bag without feeling it…

            • Hmmm, more adventurous than me. I carry an old 20mm f/4, a 28 f/2, 50 f/1.4 and an 85 f/2. All MF, all Ai-S. They’re all pretty compact and not too heavy. And of course they marry up well with the Df.

          • Michiel953

            @ f4.0 (at very close distances, think 70cms) that special rendering is still very much there I can assure you.

        • Ed Hassell

          I should clarify: The 58/1.4G is an excellent lens; however, it has two “personal” strikes against it. 1) I generally prefer a slightly longer lens for portraiture — on FF, the 105; and, 2) I prefer the 58/1.2 Noct to the 58/1.4G — it doesn’t bother me that the Noct is manual focus and un-chipped.

          The 105/2.5 Nikkor-P was one of the first two Nikon lenses I purchased way back in 1967 (the other was a 35/2 Nikkor-O). I currently own both the f/1.8 and f/2.5 versions in AiS, the f/2D DC and the new f/1.4E. So, yes, I’d love to see a 70mm f/1.4 D/G/E DX AF-S (and if Nikon wants to throw in the DC defocus control, I’d be ecstatic). If such a lens shows up from Voigtlander or the Sigma Art series, I’ll buy them, too.

      • ITN

        It’s one of the first lenses that any new system comes up with: the moderate wide angle prime. It was also the preferred lens in fixed focal length compact cameras and mobile phones also have a moderate wide angle prime. It is the most obviously needed lens and yet missing from Nikon DX DSLRs.

        Admittedly the 20/1.8 (FX) can now be used but it could probably be a bit better, smaller, and cheaper if made as a DX lens.

        • I totally get what you’re saying, I just wonder if that happens when a person turns from “consumer” to “beginning enthusiast”.

        • Sebako

          Or rather, the AF-S 24mm 1:1.8G. That’s the equivalent to the classic 35mm tourist/street focal length. If you have a DX camera with an AF motor, you could also get the old AF 24mm 1:2.8D. It’s much smaller and lighter and you can get it super
          cheap, it’s just not as good optically as the fast, gold-ringed new model.

          What’s missing much more are really wide-angle primes, like a 16mm or 18mm. Nikon knows it’s useful, look at the Coolpix A. And of couse it would be nice to have small and compact AF-S lenses for the small and compact D3xxx/D5xxx bodies. But it’s not going to happen, Nikon evidently made up their mind long ago (probably when they realised FX was a viable thing).

    • Sebako

      2017 brought the AF-P DX 10–20mm 1:4.5–5.5G and the AF-P 70–300mm 1:4.5–5.5E, 2016 brought the AF-P DX 70–300mm 1:4.5–6.3G and the AF-P DX 18–55mm 1:3.5–5.6G, and while 2015 may have been a bit lame, we got the AF-S DX 16–80mm 1:2.8–4E and the AF-S 200–500mm 1:5.6E which are both expensive and not exactly consumer grade, but surely also not super high end pro equipment.

    • Allen_Wentz

      “Has Nikon 100% lost interest in the consumer market?” is an inappropriate question when we are talking about the zoom lenses that most consumer gravitate toward. Nikon currently has FIVE (two DX)70-300mm lenses ranging from $175 to $750, with the latest FX AF-P actually a good modern lens at a value price. Plus of course the $1400 200-500mm is another good modern tele lens at a value price.

      Although not my personal choice, even at ultrawide the new 10-20mm looks like a good modern zoom lens at a value price clearly aimed at the consumer market. Perhaps a better question might be: “After _years_ of many smart guys like Thom Hogan saying Nikon badly needs some good DX primes WHY has Nikon never responded?” Except for the very good 35mm f/1.8 DX that shows they could do it if they wanted to.

      Most of us older pros owned DX D1, D2 bodies, and there are a few decent older prime DX lenses like the 10.5mm fisheye and the 40mm macro that I owned, but they are special-purpose. I regularly corrected the 10.5mm to rectilinear to get ~16mm out of DX, but that technique does not really meet 2010+ output standards. The only other DX prime is the 85mm f/3.5, and I have no idea what usage anyone would buy that slow 127mm FOV lens for, except maybe light weight macro.

      • Ed Hassell

        Allen, I use FX (and old FF) lenses on DX bodies as there really isn’t much choice. From normal-ish perspective through tele-lenses, it isn’t a problem. It’s the lack of wide angle choices that drives me batty. I bought the old full-frame 14/2.8D to use as a 21mm and really hated it — not one of Nikon’s better efforts, IMHO.

        As I said in another post, I’d like 3 high-quality WA primes. And they don’t even have to be all that fast to meet my needs (although I wouldn’t complain about their being fast). I’d be perfectly happy with a 9 or 10mm f/3.5, a 13 or 14mm f/2.8 and an 18mm f/2.5. That’s not an unreasonable request. (I was even very nice about it.)

        As it is, I’ve bought the Irix 11mm f/4 “AiS-P” Blackstone which is an amazingly good lens for a start-up company’s second effort. It helps and is reasonably good on full-frame as well.

        But I’m going on an “entitled” rant here: I’m not Joe Average Consumer. I’m not even an average Prosumer. Over my 50 year career, I’ve averaged almost $5000 per year on Nikon products. That’s an enormous amount of money. I’ve written detailing my investment in Nikon’s creations and asked for exactly four things (I added a dedicated 70/1.4D DC AF DX portrait lens), and got no response whatsoever.

        As much as I love Nikon’s engineering, their customer service (and marketing) s%#ks. They desperately need a reincarnation of Joe Ehrenreich. And they need to offer Thom Hogan anything he asks to take over their new product management and marketing.

    • Bill M

      I don’t see this release as Nikon losing interest in the consumer market, as others have already mentioned Nikon has delivered quite a few consumer grade lenses of excellent quality in recent years. This is clearly a “pro” level lens, meaning high quality and high price. Does Nikon intend to sell as many of these as they do the 70-300’s? I don’t think that is the point, Nikon must stay well diversified and I think they are doing a good job at it. What these types of releases do though is have trickle down effect, and that benefits those of use who can’t or don’t want to spend over $5k for a lens.

  • Carlo

    I owned the old 200 400 vr1 and swapped for the new 80 400 mainly for weight reasons … Not sure this lens will be successful if you already own a longer lens.

    • Bob Thane

      It’ll be successful in its market, which is primarily pro sports shooters and some wildlife shooters who need a lens that can cover both big mammals and birds.

      Everyone else will be better served by a 80-400, 200-500, 150-600, or telephoto prime, but it’s a big enough market that I expect they’ll sell a good amount of these lenses – unless the price rivals the 800mm f5.6.

      • ITN

        From what I’ve been told, the professional sports photography market has collapsed in the sense that compensation for image use is so small that it’s not viable as a means to make a living. You cannot shoot an event as a professional when the compensation for a published image is equivalent to a movie ticket. Many of the top pros in my country have quit sports photography and are now doing other things.

        This cannot not affect the sales of cameras such as the D5 or 1DX II. I would expect the same to be true of lenses such as 400/2.8 and 200-400/4.

        • Ed Hassell

          The news service to which I contributed photos over a good number of years now pays $35 per assignment. Period. No regard as the travel and/or time involved. I no longer contribute. They don’t care. Someone with a cellphone was probably there and is ecstatic to get paid $35 for their image(s).

          • ITN

            I believe there is someone with nice gear who pay the gear from their main job and do the sports photography just for fun, to get access to a good seat. The buyer doesn’t care about the difference in quality, apparently.

            • Ed Hassell

              You are right. Mom’s with deep pockets and sons or daughters on the team. Or the husband of the new president of the women’s club, etc.

            • outkasted

              Hmmm… i may be guilty of this somewhat….i mean in terms of a parent who has another job that was able to do photography on the side, afford good gear i.e D700 and a D3(second hand) and 16-35mm/ 50mm/ 35mm|1.4 Sigma Art and a 70-200mm VRI. My equipment is quite old in todays terms as the younger lads are pulling out those D750 and now mirrorless. People love my images but not enough to pay a lot. The only thing that really pays is Wedding and event photography if you got good connects. those that shoot sports are few. they work for news paper but the equipment is purchased by themselves.

          • outkasted

            Fuuugggggg thats is scary!

        • outkasted

          Damn I don’t know if i should give a like or not . The comment is a sobering thought as I’ve been seeking a new 400mm 2.8|FL. I love the versatility this lens would give using a full frame and a cropped frame body. Best of both worlds if you ask me. I’m soon turning 50 in 2018 and i’m not getting any younger but i desire this lens so much as I do want to shoot more sport and concert event shooting where I’m now sitting and picking my targets instead of running and gunning like i was younger. Cost is a factor and i’m looking for some returns from a lens like this. I’ll have to do some more thinking i guess.

  • Michiel953

    Well, this news snippet really confirms the conspiracy theorist bunch’s warning ‘Nikon will fold soon!!!’.

    Nikon is well and alive.

    • Allen_Wentz

      We all agree that Nikon is well and alive at the top end. The revenue-generating lower and middle ranges are what we will need to wait for 2018 to find out about.

      • Michiel953

        The distinction you make in where the revenue lies may be slightly old-fashioned, and ignoring Nikon’s strategic decisions as well.

        • Allen_Wentz

          Certainly I may be wrong about where the profit lies, since I am fully lacking in good Nikon financial data. However there is no doubt that Nikon’s lower and middle ranges have been suffering and we will need to wait for 2018 to find out where Nikon is going.

          • Michiel953

            B): In absolute numbers yes, but it’s a cut-throat market segment where it is easy to lose a lot of money.

  • Any news on the next PF lens? Can we get an ultralight 400mm or 500mm?

    • Ed Hassell

      Yes, please!!!!!

  • Gordon Hamilton

    30 elements – really?! If that it correct then it will produce flat looking images with poor micro contrast.

    • ITN

      The Canon lens has 33 elements (when 1.4x extender is used). The users seem ecstatic with the image quality. I agree the images are lacking in contrast and colors are not as lively.

    • outkasted

      i’m loving micro contrast now that my eye is trained to see it! There is a difference in image quality especially B/W. It is why i’m mor geared towards those big prime lenses like a 400 mm/2.8 FL

  • Ben Brayev

    too bad.

  • Pat Mann

    Love mine, but a little quicker zoom and AF couldn’t hurt. My shoulder is about to give out though – not sure I could take the extra weight. And I traded in the Corolla for something else.

  • Azmodan

    But will it focus at infinity, hopefully third time lucky. Anyway price will be absurd, $12K IMO, but it might be a bit lighter than Canon’s, say 3.5kg. Still can’t see the point at all of such heavy zooms, it removes their key feature, portability and usability handheld. This is not something you can hand hold all day like a 100-400 f/5.6 If they could perform a miracle and keep weight under 3kg then sure that would be a game changer, but that won’t happen with metal barrels and glass lenses.

  • Bob Thane

    It would kick ass because that’s where we keep our wallets… 😉 But man, that would be sick.

  • jj

    This sounds exactly like a lens no one is asking for…

  • Back to top