http://www.bythom.com/ Thom Hogan is stating that the 85 1.4 refresh, which will add AF-S *AND* VR (sorry purists, I think all Nikon pro lenses will have VR from here on out...video you know. ; Plus it'll put pressure on Canon who doesn't have VR on some of theirs) is coming out very very soon. There is also the rumor of the 200-400 f/4 refresh due by May. ; So it looks like a Nikon release within the next 6 weeks. But are these the only two things?
Hmmm- I wonder where the 'old' 85mm f/1.4 used price will land- say by the end of the year? ; I might bite if they were in the $500-600ish range. ; I'm sure the new offering will probably pushing $2k though so who knows. As for the 200-400...I would much prefer a new 80-400 AF-S VRII for 1/2 the price.
Did you see Thom's comments on it? ; Interesting to say the least. But I'm thinking that for some odd reason, the 80-400's corner performance is acceptable, while the 200-400 has issues on FF in the corners...so Nikon needs to update it. Now if they can come out with a 70-200 VR f/4 for less than $1400 at the same time, they may be on to something. ; The 200-400 doesn't have a Canon equal. ; Yet.
Rumor Confirmed: http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2187/AF-S-NIKKOR-200%E2%80%93400mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR-II.html Apparently they released this one without holding a press event. ; Improvements include VRII, Nano Coating and some other minor tweaks. ; Estimated Selling Price is $6,999.95 and it is due to ship in May.
They didn't change the optics. ; This is really odd to me, other than it was an easy "upgrade" to do. ; It still has the corner issues at 200mm. I'm thinking Canon has their own extension of the f/4 line coming shortly. ; Probably late May to go with the new Rebel. ; (as if a Rebel would be caught on a 200-400 f/4) Then again, this could be for their next announcement, which will be probably be the completion of the prosumer Quads: ; 16-35, 24-105(120), 70-200, and 200-400, all at f/4, except that the latter would be considered "professional" at that price. ; All that would remain is the 35/1.4 refresh and there wouldn't be that much of a difference in the lens lineup between #1 and #2.
Nah, they're just starting to follow HP's pricing strategy - give the SLRs away and make the profit on the lenses. ; ;D The price *would* come down if there was another lens like it in the marketplace. ; Canon's only 400/4 is a DO and it costs $5820 in NYC, $6469 MSRP. ; So you get a zoom from Nikon for $500 more. ; With the latest generation of VR over first gen IS.
I don't know- maybe I'm just not enamored with the whole 200-400 zoom concept. ; You can also get a Canon 400/2.8 for about the same $7K- (of course Nikon's 400/2.8 is $9K) ; If I was looking to spend big money in that range I think I would opt for a 300/2.8 vrii prime and a 1.4x TC- then I would have as good or better 400mm at f4- plus f2.8 at 300mm- and just leave 200mm for my 70-200/2.8.
think of all the holgas and outdated film you could buy!!!! Roger, thats why I quit buying epson printers, ink was getting crazy
Yes, that is a ton of money, but I think this really is a niche product. If I were standing on the sidelines of some game, a zoom would probably offer the flexibility to get the shots needed that a prime with or without a tc wouldn't. And then, it'd just be the cost of doing business, instead of a huge layout for a hobby, no matter how enthusiastic a hobby it is. Erich
The price increase was not as bad as I expected, but then again, they really didn't do that much to it. ; Like Erich said, it is a niche product, which I think is aimed at sports and wildlife photographers who mostly shoot large animals. ;
