new Nikon lens

yup, same as the old one except withVRII, so heavier and longer and a grand more on the price tag. Don't think I'll be upgrading mine
 
:( puts it even more out of reach . . .
 
Same AF algorithms and motor as well - in fact the only tangible upgrade is the VRII...

In the US they're being quoted at $700 more than the current (and practically unavailable) model...
 
Hairyduck said:
yup, same as the old one except withVRII, so heavier and longer and a grand more on the price tag. Don't think I'll be upgrading mine
Click to expand...

Nor shall I be changing mine anytime soon, nano coating may have a very slight effect but just like the 70-200vr 11 not enough to make most bother upgrading.
 
I am seriously looking at the 70-200mm VR ll as an upgrade to my 80-200mm AF-D - any thoughts? Also very hard to find in stock!
 
awp said:
I am seriously looking at the 70-200mm VR ll as an upgrade to my 80-200mm AF-D - any thoughts? Also very hard to find in stock!
Click to expand...
I know Nikon Dave has just bought a 70-200mm VRII and he said it is the sharpest and fastest lens he's ever owned. I have the original version of the lens and after playing with a VRII at Focus I have to admit that the VRII did seem that bit quicker and nicer. I've never used an 80-200mm lens but I'd imagine the upgrade will be well worth it if you have the money.
 
I don't want to knock the 80-200mm (I might be selling it on here!) - it is a superb lens - very sharp - but maybe not as fast to focus as the 70-200 - and of course no VR. I could be talking myself into this!
 
It's a pity Nikon don't spend time filling the gaps in their lens lineup rather than slightly unnecessary 'upgrades'
 
awp said:
I am seriously looking at the 70-200mm VR ll as an upgrade to my 80-200mm AF-D - any thoughts? Also very hard to find in stock!
Click to expand...

Can't compare it to the 80-200 as I have never had one, but can highly recommend it as a lens, had mine a few weeks now and it really does kick ass on the VI, which was in itself a lovely piece of kit.

I do agree that Nikon should perhaps be looking at plugging a few intermediate gaps in their lens line up rather than applying unneeded upgrades to existing models.
 
Oh b****r. I was planning to buy another 200-400 this summer. Now I expect there won't be any available for 6 months and when they do become available they'll cost £500 more than they used to. Thanks Nikon.
 
I did the same a few months back, well worth the upgrade, new lens is sharp as a tack, AF is super quick, VR II is fantastic and the shorter minimum focussing distance is a godsend

awp said:
I am seriously looking at the 70-200mm VR ll as an upgrade to my 80-200mm AF-D - any thoughts? Also very hard to find in stock!
Click to expand...
 
Dr_O said:
It's a pity Nikon don't spend time filling the gaps in their lens lineup rather than slightly unnecessary 'upgrades'
Click to expand...

What you percieve as gaps in the range, others see as a rationalisation of what photographers need - or more importantly, buy...
Why produce four or five lenses in the same focal-range when two will do?
Nikon's current line-up covers everything from 10mm to 600mm in the Pro range and from 16mm to 400 in the pro-sumer range. Add a couple of kit lenses to the mix and what more do you need?

Over the years Nikon have made some pretty whacky lenses, by watching which ones actually sold, they probably know which ones will sell in the future...
No point making kit only a few people will buy...

Nikon have a stated committment to getting a Nikon body into the hands of every pro Photographer in the World - they'll never actually achieve that, but should it stop them trying? By servicing the needs of the Pro's - which is where the real money is made - the trickle-down effect benefits all photographers during the next and subsequent evolutions of new kit being issued...
 
Arkady said:
No point making kit only a few people will buy...
Click to expand...

Like the totally pointless 85mm DX only VR macro you mean? ;)

The wacky baccy smoke must have been tangible the day that one was dreamt up :D
 
puddleduck said:
Like the totally pointless 85mm DX only VR macro you mean? ;)

The wacky baccy smoke must have been tangible the day that one was dreamt up :D
Click to expand...


:lol: I never said they were infallible - or that they weren't occasionally very wierd... they are Japanese, after all...
 
kardo said:
They are wasting peoples time with this VRII stuff, we need some new lenses like a 70-200 f4.
Click to expand...
How is the VRII a waste of people's time? It is pretty awsome technology and an improvement over the original VR.

Nikon do the 80-200mm f2.8 for those wanting a cheaper alternative to the 70-200mm and as Rob said they have the 70-300mm which is cheaper as well. There are always options for any focal length.
 
kardo said:
They are wasting peoples time with this VRII stuff, we need some new lenses like a 70-200 f4.
Click to expand...

Don't understand that comment - and why would you want a 70-200mm f/4? The 70-200mm f/2.8 is one of the best around. Just ordered my VR ll version - arriving tomorrow! :)
 
kardo said:
They are wasting peoples time with this VRII stuff, we need some new lenses like a 70-200 f4.
Click to expand...

If you need a stabilised 70-200 f/'4 with excellent image quality by a Minolta 70-200 f/4 and a Sony A200 body. You'll get both for £300-better than waiting for vapourware that'll cost £850+ if it ever happens...
 
Arkady said:
What you percieve as gaps in the range, others see as a rationalisation of what photographers need - or more importantly, buy...
Click to expand...

You know what this is a good point, and something that hit me the other night... I was analysing my wedding shots as I have always said I don't want the 24/1.4, I wanted a 35/1.4.

When I looked at the focal length ranges I use I found I used ~24mm and 85mm the most out of any range. In fact I rarely shoot at ~35mm at all...

Made me think. Now I'm still after Nikon doing that new 85/1.4AFS, that hasn't changed, but now I'm lusting after a better 50mm ( maybe that rumored 1.2 :love: ) and the 24mm. I reckon that would suit me perfectly.

What we WANT and what we actually NEED and will buy are two different things.

Pete
 
400 F4 or F5.6 prime would be nice.
 
Arkady said:
What you percieve as gaps in the range, others see as a rationalisation of what photographers need - or more importantly, buy...
Why produce four or five lenses in the same focal-range when two will do?
Nikon's current line-up covers everything from 10mm to 600mm in the Pro range and from 16mm to 400 in the pro-sumer range. Add a couple of kit lenses to the mix and what more do you need?

Over the years Nikon have made some pretty whacky lenses, by watching which ones actually sold, they probably know which ones will sell in the future...
No point making kit only a few people will buy...

Nikon have a stated committment to getting a Nikon body into the hands of every pro Photographer in the World - they'll never actually achieve that, but should it stop them trying? By servicing the needs of the Pro's - which is where the real money is made - the trickle-down effect benefits all photographers during the next and subsequent evolutions of new kit being issued...
Click to expand...

It's an interesting debate- I was more thinking along the lines of an equivalent to the MP-E65 or a 300mm f4 VR or a 400mm f4 VR for example

Of course as I'm a smaller company to Canon I may think there's too much outlay in these larger primes and the use of teleconverters which don't degrade image quality (i.e negligible degradation outside of a lab) is the way forward- in which case I would get the finger out and create a new 1.4 and 1.7 TC to go with the new 2.0;)

I don't think they necessarily need to go head to head in every department- I'm not saying they need an 800mm but bringing out rubbish like the 85mm VR macro is hardly helping them with their strategic goal.

It would be interesting to see their market research - sometimes I think they've been asking people who don't know their ISO from their BEBO:lol:
 
I'd imagine that if they've recently brought out a new TC 2.0, then the 1.4 and 1.7 versions wont be too far behind, but who knows?

I too did an EXIF survey of all my shots to find out what focal length I actually used and it was a fairly even spread with shots taken at 24mm, 35mm and 60-70mm from the 24-70 lens and 90-120mm and 200mm from the 70-200 lens.
Which spookily is about the same as the old prime lenses I used to use about 20 years ago: a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm, and 200mm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top