New Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC 1.4 FL ED VR lens to be announced next week


I received a confirmation from one of my sources that next week for CES Nikon will announce the previously rumored AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC 1.4 FL ED VR lens. Nokishita also confirmed the new lens on Twitter. There will be also two new accessories: HK-41 (lens hood) and LC-K103 (front lens cap).

The pricing is still not known, but this lens will not be cheap - I expect to be around $9,00-$10,000 maybe even more (the current Nikkor 200-400mm model is $6,996.95, while the new Canon 200-400 lens with TC is priced at 10,999).

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

What to expect next from Nikon?

New Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4E ED VR lens rumored to be announced at the of 2017

This also pretty much confirms my previous report that there will not be a new Nikon D5s DSLR camera announced at CES (unless Nikon has some very well kept secrets like the D500 two years ago).


Like: Nikkor Facebook page | Join: Nikkor Facebook group

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

    Now for the price….. Deep breath..

    • Huge…….

      • Yes, this will be expensive, very expensive and very good apparently…

        • It will make the 300mm f/4 PF look like a killer bargain, that’s for sure.

          • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

            Good thinking Russ – could be a key purchase for 2018 for the masses.

          • T.I.M

            It’s a great lens, very sharp.

          • T.I.M

            I’m waiting for the 500mm f/4 PF version.
            I sold my AF-i 400mm f/2.8 and the AF-s 300mm f/2.8 is a little short for what I do.

        • ZsirosLangos

          Quality costs. Something most people on this board do not understand.

          • I think people on THIS board understand that just fine.

            • ZsirosLangos

              No they don’t, otherwise they’d know the proper pricepoint for a d750 in 2014 would have been 3500 USD.

            • Eh? What’s that got to do with the price of cheese?

            • ZsirosLangos

              Just what I expected of a humanities graduate…english studies or int relations lmao?!

            • Fly Moon

              And what did you study?

            • ZsirosLangos

              Something lucrative.

            • I run IT Services for a University, and not that it matters but I have an MSc in Computing. Your post has no relevance to anything as far as I can see. People on this board know the value of Nikon kit just fine but Nikon are turning the screw on price as they try to turn better profits on lower volumes. Its inevitable but not exactly welcome.

            • ZsirosLangos

              Welcome to the upper class then. I hope you’re not an anti-semites many of your colleagues at Manchester, Liverpool and SOAS. Speak out against anti-Jewish movements.

            • I think you think this board is about something else…

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Sorry I don’t get the bad press that is being touted towards excellent Russ and %$%$%$%$.

            • Bull. None of those institutions are anti Jewish. Stop spreading nonsense.

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Agree 100% on your thinking Russ – not just Nikon but the other big two Canon and Sony.

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Don’t buy this – with all the price pressures punters are facing and the ever declining camera markets punters will vote with their feet and buy what they deemed as affordable, relevant and not marked up prices. If not they just buy a different system, delay their purchase or do with what’s they got.

              D750 in UK is at a far price and cannot be any higher than it should of £1999 upon entry.

            • I never intended to buy the new >> 2500 € 70-200/2.8E FL, but after a year it can been found around or below 2000 € in some chinese HK – UK importedshops, and the factor “ridiculous price” transforms into another one “would you take the compromise?”

              It seems that, one way or another (Blondie said ;), offer and demand still rules over time.

              Saludos!

          • Fly Moon

            Why don’t you tell us, master?

          • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

            We certainly do but ?? – there comes a time when there’s little or no market for these ever higher products, e.g., global recession of 1920s, 2008, etc

            • ZsirosLangos

              Do you see a recession?!

            • Britain has been stuck in 1st gear for the last decade. Photography gear is set to become more or more expensive unless something significant changes around or after Brexit. Who knows what will happen to pricing in the rest of Europe. The only thing that really matters is that buying any sort of photography gear is no longer for the masses, that means lower volumes, higher prices all round and smaller profit margins.

            • ZsirosLangos

              Glad Im not british….all your pride is in the dirt….you don’t even have an operational carrier anymore….the Argies could take Port Stanley tomorrow if they wanted to lmao.

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Not necessary according to this and our two carriers will be in full service in 2020

              https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2017/03/07/britain-beefs-up-defenses-in-the-falkland-islands/

            • ZsirosLangos

              M8, educate yourself on the subject

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Last topic to Above Author…. Have 100% done this sort of research job for over 30+ years day in day out so well qualified

            • Stop feeding the troll 😉

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Will do…. – some good info for me going forward and very entertaining – its like a studio session of BBC Question Time with arguments between Con vs Lab vs lib vs Some Professor lol

              Must go back and watch the legendary soap Emmerdale with the Dingles and the Bartons.

            • I think it’s time you put your keyboard down today sunshine…

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Not just the UK but most parts of Europe have low growth and a lot of unemployment, e.g., especially in the young age group.

            • ZsirosLangos

              Not if you studied the right subjects…no pity for peasants coming out of the humanities lmao

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Economics go through cycles of boom and busts, not just limited to UK but elsewhere as described by me briefly above.

          • I think we all understand this pretty good.

      • Allan

        Don’t worry … Mexico will pay for it. 🙂

        • ZsirosLangos

          No you will pay for it. Stupid liberals.

          • Fly Moon

            I thought Trump said that Mexico will pay for it. How’s this liberals? Are you one of those uneducated?

          • Let’s stop the name calling now please.

            • ZsirosLangos

              How would you have me refer to the political movement that’s flooding Europe with mid-Eastern refuse bent on killing the Jews and blowing up kids at concerts hm?!

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        Expect it to be on par with Canon version and a bit more – very exotic and low volume product for Nikon.

        • ITN

          Nonetheless the 200-400/4 AF-S VR was a high seller for Nikon. It is difficult to predict demand for this new lens.

          • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

            Extremely true – a1+++++

    • jstevez

      My guess $10k

      • ZsirosLangos

        So?

        • Are you trying to get banned?

          • It would appear so…

          • Spy Black

            The guy’s got under a 100 comments. Seems like a troll to me.

            • Roger S

              I agree, given that in the vast majority of his posts he is just throwing out trollish insults.

            • Spy Black

              He just made them private too when he realized people were reading the shit he was spewing around.

            • He joined discus on January 5th – this one of our old friends, I should have checked his IP address earlier. I have banned him at least 5 times here. He is one of those morons that keeps coming back here to troll. I also reported him to discus.

            • Yes, he clearly came here to cause trouble today.

            • He is gone now…

            • I was about to report him to you, I inadvertently took his bait even after a deep breath! Ok back to cameras and lenses.

            • Yes, I usually give readers warning but obviously he was here to troll.

            • CERO

              Makes you wonder.. is he addicted to this place to just want to stirr the same BS? or is his life that pathetic that his only way to feel alive is by being hated on certain internet sites? (I’ve seen people who are actually like this)

            • I wish I knew… I have no explanation for this behavior.

            • PhilK

              It is called trolling and it is a widely-known and studied pathology online. Has existed long before the WWW did.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

            • CERO

              Please don’t be an ass. Anyone knows what trolling is.

              My point is..There is a huge difference from a normal troll who annoys from time to time.. to an obsessive moron who just CAN’T quit.
              Ie, love to be hated. One thing is being just a guy who wants to annoy other, the other is a pathology, mental problem and pretty much addiction.

            • PhilK

              I was trying to be sincerely helpful to someone who appeared to not understand the concept, and there are most certainly people who do not. You may want to look in the mirror when being so quick to insult people trying to be helpful.

              The definition of internet troll was founded years ago (as I mentioned, long before most people today knew what the internet was) specifically in response to people who are pathologically obsessed with stirring up controversy. I myself encountered it on BBS’s and Usenet, long before the WWW existed.

              Whereas nowadays people more often than not throw around “troll” and “trolling” terms whenever someone posts something they don’t like. It takes much more than that to actually be a “troll”, by the long-accepted definition.

            • CERO

              You didn’t looked helpful at all, your comment was simply snotty like you were trying to put someone down.
              Also my comment had very little to do with the general troll tactics, again.

              I’m talking specifically of a subset who thrive in the exclusive traits of being hated. Most trolls only do it for a cheap laugh at the confusion.

              As you continue with your long unnecessary explanation, the only thing we will agree on is on “Whereas nowadays people more often than not throw around “troll” and
              “trolling” terms whenever someone posts something they don’t like.”

              Which is particularly losing the real meaning because anyone who gets minimally confronted over anything, will claim the other side is a “troll”.

              And before you get into your gigantic tall horse again. You’re not the only one who has a lot of experience on the internet.
              You’re not “unique” for having used those groups or specifically usenet, alt net, etc… Do not presume that everyone is ignorant.

            • PhilK

              Re: “putting someone down” – one person’s “putdown” is clearly another person’s “useful information provided and appreciated”. I guess you decided you were looking for putdowns that day.

              And I only assume people are ignorant when they appear to make ignorant points. So far all I’ve seen from you here in this subthread is defensiveness and posturing.

              In short: the (now deleted) poster here in question is simply a classic troll, as in the kind that “trolling” was named for over 25 years ago. The End.

            • CERO

              “is clearly another person’s “useful information provided and appreciated”.” Except its not when your point of basis is insulting the receiver of said knowledge or make remarks of the person in need of guidance. Specially worse when the person in question wasn’t even asking for advice or wasn’t needed.

              “So far all I’ve seen from you here in this subthread is defensiveness and posturing.”
              At this point It makes me wonder if you have some sort of delusional problem or mental. You have been pointing again and again like you had a job to do which points me at you having some sort of grandeur or “knight in shinning armor” type mental issue. Worse when you’re too blind to understand the basic points. a) Your opinion wasn’t needed b) you missed the point of the original post, which was about a subtype of troll, not asking for “lol its a troll!” remark when it was clearly obvious for EVERYONE that he was a troll.

              Again, noone asked you. You were implying too much and you’re still implying too much based on your lack of information and excessive prejudging.

            • PhilK

              Heh. I rest my case.

            • CERO

              THANK GOD, finally you accepted you were wrong!. I applaud you for taking responsibility for once.

            • PhilK

              LOL, I was laughing at you and re-confirming my prior stance.

            • CERO

              Its ok to accept you were wrong. Just saying.

              Whats baffling is your insecurity to insist your position above your sky high horse by claiming that silly “I was laughing” “reconfirming” “proved”.

              Maybe some day you will learn to “adult”.

            • And private at that.

          • ZsirosLangos

            No

          • Eric Duminil

            ZsirosLangos has an impressive amount of troll comments in less than 2 days!

            • Yes, he is the same person I have banned here in the past at least 5 times. I hope he can get some help.

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        Probably on par with Canon and a bit more on top – niche low volume product for Nikon.

  • Gary Hu

    Maybe $9999.95

  • Allan

    “A symbol of integrity and reliability”

    Integrity is a poor choice of words to describe lenses.

    • Why?

      • Allan

        the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
        “he is known to be a man of integrity”

        synonyms:honesty, probity, rectitude, honor, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness
        “I never doubted his integrity”

        • Kenneth O. Soto

          Yeah, but it seems like you forgot to include the second meaning, so here it is:

          2. the state of being whole and undivided.

          Have you ever head of structural integrity? Yeah, it has nothing to do with meaning no. 1.

          Also, have you ever heard of the word integral? Here’s the meaning for you:

          1. Necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental.

          2. of or denoted by an integer. (Math term)

          So no, integrity was not a poor choice of words. If anything, your vocabulary is limited and lacking.

          • Allan

            “2. the state of being whole and undivided.”

            Nope. I still find the use of the second definition obtuse to describe Nikkor lenses.

            • PhilK

              There are some attributes of a lensmaker or a lensmaker’s products that can use the first definition, for example:

              Honest specifications – eg not grossly lying about the F/stop or focal length or functionality of a lens, using sleazy manipulated specifications to make the lens appear more impressive on paper. (But not in practice)

              Another highly relevant way to use the term “integrity” or “integral” has to do with how all the various parts of a lens work as an “integral unit”, both within the lens and as a lens/camera “system”.

              Since Nikon is nearly a vertically-integrated lens producer (most of their technology and lens components are developed/produced internally) they could assert that this gives them an advantage in producing a more synergistically balanced product than some of their competitors, with a variety of unique attributes.

        • ITN

          It refers to the brand.

    • RMJ

      If disintegrity is what you want from the lenses.

  • Eric Calabros

    C in CES stands for consumer.. odd place to announce a $10k professional lens.

    • Nikon has a big program for the show, they have to show something.

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        Will be very impressive.

        • Roger S

          It’s hard to disagree with that.

    • Pros are consumers too.

    • ITN

      Rich consumers are the market for this lens as much as anything. Sports and wildlife photography are no longer viable as professions but the rich people in this world are getting ever richer and they want toys to play with.

      • PhilK

        There is definitely some truth about the chasm between the average person and the wealthy getting bigger and bigger (particularly in the USA) but I’m pretty sure there are still a number of people making a living shooting sports and wildlife.

        Publications are not generally showcasing photos of Olympic sprinters winning their final as shot by a fan in the top row of the stands with their phone, after all.

        • ITN

          It is true there are professional photographers at the Olympics but many of them are doing a largely redundant service as any reader can access pretty much any image published by any paper now, so the need for a paper to have their own photographer’s images is less today than it was before when people read the printed paper. So especially freelancers covering their own costs (20000€?) to shoot the Olympics are finding themselves in intense competition and losing. If you think just about the 100m men’s sprint, there must be hundreds of photographers with 400/2.8 lenses at the far end of the track. The first 4-5 seconds of the race the runners are too far to get a useful image. After that you get all the runners for a moment and after another 5 seconds it’s all over. There is no point in having so many photographers cover that race from the same vantage point. There has to be a recalibration of what kind of services are produced and I believe this means fewer photographers, and fewer photographers means less gear sold.

          • PhilK

            There is no doubt in my mind that the profession of photography is in decline, at least certain forms of professional photography. (Eg, event photos destined to be posted on blogs, etc) Other forms of photography (industrial photography, certain levels of sports photography, editorial photography, studio photography) are still pretty active.

            But your original statement was “Sports and wildlife photography are no longer viable as professions”. That’s an awfully binary statement. I simply pointed out it was not literally true. (And it’s not)

            • ITN

              True, I was exaggerating to make a point. What I meant is that there are fewer people that make a good living from selling professional wildlife and sports photography than before, and many of the experienced pros are leaving the field or moving into teaching (workshops etc.). I recall that Art Wolfe said he no longer can make a living from selling stock wildlife photography and so gives workshops. And thus it may not be a good choice as a profession to an aspiring young photographer, unless you specifically want to teach or are also interested in video etc. which is perhaps becoming more imporant in journalism than before. Also if you look at Roland Vink’s Nikon camera serial number database you can see that there has been a drop in sales from D3 to D4 to D5 (provided the numbers are indicative of actual product sales which we don’t know for sure). If these numbers are accurate Nikon might even feel there is not enough market for a D5s. And that was my main point: it is not just consumer cameras that are selling poorly but also the professional models.

            • PhilK

              Yeah, the collapse of the stock photography business is really a shame. Now there are 5 billion people with iphones and Canon Rebel’s willing to sell stuff for a penny a pic or just give it away free. The dark underbelly of the “digital revolution”.

              Same thing happened to the music industry. Musicians can’t make money on royalties any more (not that it was ever very lucrative for anyone but the ultra superstars), so they all are having to tour all the time or they can’t make any money.

              Re: overall sales numbers, wouldn’t surprise me. Though that Nikon serial number database isn’t particularly scientific. (Case in point: I have a F5 that has a serial number significantly higher than the highest on his list, been meaning to email him to let him know but I never seem to get around to it…)

  • Ed Hassell

    Probably $12+K. Personally, I’m not interested. If Nikon come out with a little brother to this lens, say a 120-280 f/2.8 with a built-in 1.4x TC, I’m all in.

    • ZsirosLangos

      No one cares if you’re interested or if you can afford it .Those who need it can. Bye.

      • Fly Moon

        Shut up

    • What a great idea for Sigma and its 120-300 F2.8 S.

      • Ed Hassell

        I don’t own the Sigma 120-300, but I’ve used one belonging to a friend a couple of times. It’s a nice lens. I have no experience using it with a TC. Having one built-in would be a distinct advantage.

  • ZsirosLangos

    woop woop, all those complaining about the price before the announcement – sück it, this isn’t the welfare office. Entitles leeches clamoring for “cheap stuff”…this isn’t Eastern Germany, welcome to capitalism. You have to contribute before you can afford stuff.

    • Really? Not sure this is the board for that sort of commment. But .., I’m thinking of all those people who contribute by not paying their taxes or inheriting a small fortune, or getting a well paid job because their daddy knew someone. Meanwhile, lots of people contribute to society and don’t get rewarded for it, care workers, nurses, cleaning staff etc. This lens is extremely expensive, if you are lucky enough to be a pro photographer and get paid for sports or wildlife then good luck to you, most people can but dream of having that much spare cash, doesn’t mean they don’t ‘contribute’.

      • ZsirosLangos

        1) Taxing any kind of inheritance isn’t better than road side theft
        2) Comparing nurses with cleaning staff is an insult to nurses, don’t talk about things you don’t understand
        3) 90% of taxes get paid by the top 10%. If you’re not in that group, sorry, you’re not contributing.

        • Actually the middle income earners pay more tax. Many of the richest people pay no or little tax. My mother was a nurse and i have utmost respect for nursing, as well as having respect for the people who keep hospitals clean to help stop the spread of infections.
          Lines like ‘don’t talk about things you don’t understand’ are clearly used to provocate, I won’t bite. Are you Mr Angry per chance?

          • Bob Thane

            High income earners do pay the most tax – in British Columbia, the top 10% of earners pay 60% of the income tax. If you factor in other taxes like capital gains, property, and various business and estate taxes I imagine that figure would be even higher, and Canada tends to be more egalitarian than the States.

            So high earners do pay the most taxes, but you’re right that some extremely rich people pay a lesser percentage of their income as tax. They are a very small minority though – most high earners are making hundreds of thousands, not millions, and they’re paying about half of their income in tax, sometimes higher. It’s only the really really rich people who have the means to avoid taxes.

            • Sure the top tax bracket is high but there are less of them. Many people are in the middle tax bracket and therefore combined are very important to tax revenue. However, my point was more to do with what is contribution. I used to work in care and got paid peanuts, I also worked in conservation of habitats and got paid peanuts again. But id argue both jobs contribute more to human society then say a hedge funder who might earn a tonne of money even if they pay their taxes.

            • Bob Thane

              I’m talking about combined amounts – in terms of actual dollars, the top 10% of earners in BC pay 60% of the total income tax. For every $10 collected, $6 came from one tenth of the population. So while the middle class is larger, even their combined numbers don’t make up for the sheer amount that wealthier people pay.

              Of course I do agree, being a nurse is more valuable to society than reading charts is. The trouble is it’s hard to quantify that value – a crappy nurse is paid the same as a great nurse because it’s really hard to judge if someone’s a good nurse. With a hedge fund manager, you get paid more if your fund increases in value – it’s immediately measurable. Same with sales people. Or CEOs. With nurses or conservationists it’s just not quantifiable, and so I think we need to find better ways to measure performance in fields like that. We can’t just base it on patient survival, since every nurse will get patients that are too far gone, and we don’t really want to punish them for bad luck (of course, other fields are punished for bad luck, but we don’t want to discourage people from being nurses), but we do need a way to reward great nurses and ensure that the field is compensated appropriately.

              Whoever figures out how to do this will be very deservedly wealthy.

    • I am not sure how your comment relates to our discussion.

  • animalsbybarry

    I used to have the 200-400 F4 VRii
    I was using it with both of the iii teleconverters
    Close up performance was very good but distant shots were not as sharp
    I got the Tamron 150-600 F5.6-6.3 G2 and the new Tamron 1.4x teleconverter
    In my opinion the Tamron combination outperformed the Nikon and was a lot lighter and less expensive……so I sold my Nikon 200-400

    I think Nikon really needed to replace that lens because it was not competitive with modern lenses like the Tamron
    Hopefully this new one will be better, but I think it is unlikely that I will be spending the money on this lens , considering that I am happy with what I have

    I think a lightweight economical 200-600 F4.5-5.6 (possibly a PF lens) would be a good lens for Nikon to build, or possibly a 300-800 F4.5-5.6 PF….?

    • Well given the fine 200-500, not a 200-600. But a 300-800? Sure.

      One thing though…..consider the size and price of the current 800 5.6. Turn it into a zoom that zooms down to 300 and it is only going to get bigger and more expensive.

      • animalsbybarry

        I would not expect a 300-800 F5.6 to be “ small and light” but if they use PF technology it could be “RELATIVELY SMALL AND LIGHT”
        And if it can be priced comparatively similar to the 200-500 or the 300 PF might be “RELATIVELY AFFORDABLE” ????

        • Bob Thane

          A 300-800 f5.6 PF would cost at least $16,000.

          The 300mm f4 PF cost about double what the non-PF cost. The current 800mm f5.6 costs $16,000. The Sigma 300-800 f5.6 costs 1.21 times as much as the Sigma 800mm f5.6. And new Nikon lenses continue to go up in price.

          So with all that in mind, a 300-800mm f5.6 PF would likely cost in the range of $18,000 to $26,000.

          Which is certainly relatively affordable to some people, but no where close to the 200-500.

          • animalsbybarry

            Perhaps something in the middle ???
            250-720 F4.5-5.6 ???

            With 1.4 x it would be about 350-1000mm F6.3-8 (approximately)

    • ITN

      Are you saying that the Tamron produces better image quality at close up distances and faster AF than the Nikon 200-400? I would think that one chooses to use a lens for its strengths and not its weaknesses. In tests the Nikon 200-500 beats its rivals at long distances whereas the 200-400 is excellent for close ups.

      • animalsbybarry

        At close distances I would say the Nikon was a little better overall, but both are sharp on center
        Far off subjects were about equal, af was comparable, both are excellent

        But I actually used the Nikon 200-400 with 2x and the Tamron 150-600 with 1.4x

        That makes the two lenses approximately equivalent…..and I find the the image quality of Tamron with 2.4x better than Nikon with 2x and the Tamron still has slightly more reach and weighs a lot less
        Focus was comparable

        In actual practice however they are both good and you will seldom notice the difference….. but the Tamron , being a lot lighter and easier to handle, probably means you will get a few shots that you might miss with the bigger heavier lens

        I suspect Nikon knows how good the Tamron 150-600 G2 is and realized that the two lenses were very close to being comparable……so they had to come out with a newer better version to compete

        A used 200-400 Nikon is about $4000, A new 150-600 G2 Tamron is about $1300

        • DaveyJ

          I shoot some with my closest photo friend who uses the D7200 and an assortment of lens. I get to see Shot to Shot comparisons sometimes of the 150-600 Tamron versus my Nikon 200-500. I was SO CLOSE to buying the Tamron G2. But four hundred reviews on B&H for the Nikkor and fourty for the G2 , especially those who tries them both, including Thom Hogan, I went with the Nikon. I feel very lucky I did.
          For the far more expensive glass….I’d want to test drive it before buying. I have owned 7K and 8K price tag lens in my distant past. I’d take the D7500 and the 16-80 and the 200-500 way over all the rest. After that….it is the PHOTO OP that counts! I’d rather spend my money on getting to the great scenes. Luckily I live, by choice, in a place that is a wildlife sanctuary. Practically..

          • DaveyJ

            I have used teleconverters on both the Nikon 200-500 and Tamron G2 150-600. I thought BoTh lens were better straight up. ALSo I prefer to get closer rather than resort to TCs.

      • DaveyJ

        I do a lot of my Wildlife photography with the 7500 and the 200-500 Nikkor. Since I got the camera, that’s what is on it full time. I have some Whitetail Deer, Mule Deer, Elk, Bison, Mountain Lion, Grey Wolf, Big Horn Sheep photos that are really really good. Wish my trips to Alaska where there were Brown Bears and Moose and Orca shots with some Sea Otters and Sea Lions and Harbor Seals with that lens. All I had on those trips was the 70-300 and the 18-200, also the 12-24 Nikkor. Right now the 16-80 and the 200-500 are so good I do not lust for expensive glass. I did meet guys in Yellowstone who were renting the 200-500 and planning on selling their Nikon 200-400s. So these pro lens have a market, not me in my lower income years!

  • HKer

    I use the 200-400 f4 for sports work shoots. It’s an excellent versatile and rugged workhorse lens. The 180mm will be a welcome for those sports photog siting near a rugby try line as they may not need to switch to 70-200mm, thus reducing the risk of missing the try. This 180-400 would also be great on a golf course where a fixed prime isn’t as versatile on the green. I guess serious wildlife photographers would love this lens, especially at the long end. Yes, it will be expensive, but only you can judge whether you really need it and is worth the money. Similar for 400/2.8, 500/4. I guess priced at around10k. I probably will stick to my current 200-400, it serves my purpose to get the job done and clients haven’t complained I need more reach. At least now, there is a match for Canon’s lens. So bravo to Nikon for slowly filling in the gaps where there was no equivalent for Canon’s lens. PS still waiting for the 11-24 f4 Nikon 🙂

  • Photobug

    Too expensive for me but that should result in more of the older models being posted on eBay and Craig’s List.

    • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

      True on that although for the price the 200-500 f5.6 is a superb lens.

  • Scott M.

    Maybe afford to rent this one someday

    • ZsirosLangos

      Why bother commenting here if all you have to say is that you’re not making ends meet…save your dignity…at least online….jeez

  • As an older advanced amateur, I can handle the high cost (it’s a matter of priorities), but it’s the size and weight that will most likely keep me from purchasing this lens. I haven’t touched my Nikon AFS 200-400 since purchasing a Tamron 150-600 G2.

  • Mario Jorge Tavars

    No doubt the optical and mechanical quality of Nikkor lenses are excellent. I just wanted to know if they have already solved the quality of the synthetic rubber and the glue of them in the body of the lenses and the cameras, that deforms with the intense use in countries where there is great incidence of heat and ultraviolet radiation, as in Brazil in the case. It would be enough for Nikon to consult companies specializing in synthetic rubber, such as Michelin, which I think has the best solution for such a problem.

    • PhilK

      Maybe there’s a market for some specially “ruggedized” models.

      It’s possible there are tradeoffs to designing with those parameters in mind, that cause issues for people not using the equipment in such environments. (Eg size/weight/cost/ergonomics etc)

      • Mario Jorge Tavars

        I’ve been a Nikon fan since the 1960s when I bought my first Nikon FT SLR. I made the observation at the right time that we realized that Nikon is making a quantum leap in quality in its products, in its 100 th anniversary as the camera D850, D500, D7500, D5600, among others. So, with all due respect, I suggest that Nikon use synthetic rubber, for example Buna-S (or other) type, used in the manufacture of car tires, as well as accelerated aging tests, infrared and ultraviolet radiation (after all, it has plenty of technology, as it has demonstrated in limiting situations like NASA’s space projects, expeditions, etc.). I also suggest that all cameras and flashes, with electronic timer circuit, that automatically disconnect the batteries after 30 minutes, for example, to prevent unloading when they are switched on. They are suggestions are those who experience experiences in the field, not being in any way, criticism of this reputed manufacturer.

        • PhilK

          I agree with you which is why I thought it was a valuable point about the material (or assembly technique) choices. I don’t typically use my gear in super extreme environments so I won’t see as much of this issue as someone like yourself might.

          A good manufacturer will always take input like this into consideration rather than dismiss it defensively, because a good manufacturer always wants to know how they can improve their products for more customers in more diverse usage scenarios. 😉

    • ITN

      You can have the rubber replaced as you regularly service the lens.

  • TurtleCat

    I had both versions of the 200-400. Definitely super great for <200 feet. Maybe I’ll acquire another to use with my D500 when the prices are driven down further. 🙂 I would love this new one but that won’t happen. Can’t justify the expense to myself. Still happy with my 300 PF in the mean time.

    • animalsbybarry

      Try the Tamron 150-600 F4.5-5.6 G2 and the newest 1.4x teleconverter

      I sold my 200-400 VRii because I like the Tamron combination better

      • TurtleCat

        I thought about that lens. I had the first version with the D750. It’s a good lens. The only reason I may stick with the 200-400 idea is I sometimes shoot high school football and such and f4 would really help. Of course these days I have a toddler so my time outside is limited…

        • animalsbybarry

          I have the older version of the Tamron 150-600 for my old A mount system
          The new G2 is MUCH better

          In particular it is very sharp on center, and the 1.4x does not seem to make a huge diffferrence

          It may be a little soft in the corners but for a crop sensor like the D500 it’s is a great lens

          Focusing us super fast (on D500) autofocus, and close focus is excellent

          With 1.4x it still autofocuses on D850 but not as well as without 1.4x

          It holds up well to moderately low light, I typically shoot mine manual wide open at 1/1000 second and set the ISO at automatic

          It is one of the lightest lenses in its class ( lighter than Nikon 200-500) and has a good set of features

          If you plan to use it on your D500 I think it is the best value and easiest to use

          If I get the D850 (which I am very seriously considering (just waiting to see what comes out in the next couple of months)) I will use it with this lens to give me the same quality as the D500 but make it easier to frame birds in flight and less likely to cut off parts

          Of course you can spend a lot more money and carry around a much bigger heavier lens, but the quality differrence will be slight, and with a lighter easier to use lens you are actually likely to get more shots that you might otherwise miss

          This is of course just my own opinion of this lens

  • BVS

    I guess the P1000 is a shoo-in for the consumer end then to complete the telephoto theme for CES.

  • David Ridgley

    I love Nikon and my Nikon cameras and lenses Long Live Nikon, great company!

  • Mehdi R

    I hope they will also announce a camera at CES, D750 successor for example 🙂

    • Highly unlikely, but possible if they could keep it a secret. If they are announcing this lens at CES, it makes me think that they do my have anything else.

      • Eric Calabros

        The only things they could keep secret is announcement of a development.

        • Generally true, but remember that the D850 was also a development announcement first and we know everything about it already.

      • Mehdi R

        Actually they did in the past, remember D500 announcement with D5 at CES 2016 surprised everyone and became hot news even more than the D5 announcement. So I hope they do the same this year 🙂
        Cheers!

        • Well, there were at least two reports about the D500 here on NikonRumors, but you are right, we did not get the information and details NikonRumors readers are used to over the years.

      • Spy Black

        If anything perhaps they’ll release a P900 replacement.

    • Amir

      What is wrong with current D750?It still serves me well.I have both D750 and D850 an I am very satisfied with both.For serious $$ work,I have D850 in hand.For travel,wedding work,and family shots,I have D750 in hand.Still strong and not outdated yet!

      • Mehdi R

        I’m also using D750 as well.The D850 is so big and heavy for me, same reason to buy D7500 instead of D500 for crop camera. More megapixels, Auto Fine Tune and Focus Peaking are enough for me to buy D750 successor..

      • ITN

        No Nikon radio flash support, no touchscreen, no multi cam 20k, small buffer, no 4K, no ospdaf, loud sound in viewfinder photography.

  • Amir

    This is the lens that I am waiting for a long time to be released to update my current older one.Thanks Peter for heads up!

  • Davo

    They should bring out a strong AF-P kit lens for FX.
    It should do all things reasonably well including video focusing.

  • Mistral75

    The price in a specific store in Japan (not the RRP): ¥1,287,900 incl. VAT (8% in Japan).

    This is equivalent to $10,500.

    Source: Nokishita Camera http://www.nokishita-camera.com/2018/01/af-s-nikkor-180-400mm-f4e-tc14-fl-ed-vr.html

  • DaveyJ

    The Nikon 200-500 has revolutionized my wildlife, longer scenery shots.
    It is nothing short of a great lens at a wonderful price!

  • Back to top