Nikon 70-200 f/4 to be announced this week

As others have said, if they price this around the same price as Canon's they'll have a winner. It should be sharp and light as all the other Nikons in this range weigh a ton. It's a simple lens to make so that needs to be reflected in the price.
 
F4 lenses remind me about of the D5xxx range...is there a huge point in them?

Haven't used a 70-200mm so I don't have that hands on experience but I can't see why people wouldn't put that kind of money on an f2.8 equivalent...?

If it was;

Small, light, ridiculously sharp wide open, very fast AF etc, then I personally could justify the lens for around £500...I wouldn't pay more for it I would just go for a 2.8.

Prepared to accept I'm the only one that thinks that way but for me this lens is "eh...".
 
I would imagine it will only sell heavily if it is priced a helluva lot lower than the 2.8.
 
Cagey75 said:
Because a lot of people have a 24-70, whether it's the Nikon or a third party offering. It makes perfect sense...
Click to expand...
Yes and no. None of these are f/4 and you would still need a wider, which isn't good for us "two lenses only"-boys...

Ah! It suddenly strikes me!
doh.gif


Nikon's next lens next will then be a 12-70mm f/4! Taa-daa!
dopey.gif


freecom2 said:
Additionally, most of Nikon's telephoto zooms in that range have always been 70, 75 or 80mm on the short end - long history of them.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah! I got Peter Braczko's "The Nikon Handbook" once I decided to go the Nikon way. Have been drooling over the "old" zooms many times! :D
 
dod said:
This is getting beyond a joke. :bang:
Click to expand...


Tell me about it. You think I want my own thread ruined?

Jan, there are 2.8-4 variable lenses in that range [24-70 or 18-70] - DX users will see this new one as very tasty I reckon. I would have loved it for my D90. As the reason I stayed DX for a few years was because of budget.

A 12-70 f/4 ... now that is interesting!
 
Phil Young said:
F4 lenses remind me about of the D5xxx range...is there a huge point in them?

Haven't used a 70-200mm so I don't have that hands on experience but I can't see why people wouldn't put that kind of money on an f2.8 equivalent...?

If it was;

Small, light, ridiculously sharp wide open, very fast AF etc, then I personally could justify the lens for around £500...I wouldn't pay more for it I would just go for a 2.8.

Prepared to accept I'm the only one that thinks that way but for me this lens is "eh...".
Click to expand...

Ask Canon users...
 
ah the internet,people getting hot under the collar about a lens thet MIGHT be for sale in the future.:lol:
 
Cagey75 said:
Jan, there are 2.8-4 variable lenses in that range [24-70 or 18-70]...
Click to expand...
As a manual shooter I "hate" variable lenses...
Had the good 18-70, needed wider, got the very good 16-85, needed wider, added the 12-24 f/4, sold the 16-85, added the 24-120 f/4, finally happy! :lol:

And now Nikon ruins everything! :D
 
Jan K. said:
I don't understand why range start is 70mm? What lens is it supposed to "match" with?

A 120-300mm f/4 on the other hand...
Kick_Can.gif

But of course maybe I'm being a bit selfish now...
biggrin1.gif
Click to expand...

That focal range is almost a traditional thing. For decades lens makers have been making lenses of around that range.
 
Well my credit card is cleared down and ready. This will be a fantastic studio lens if its sharp, I was about to get a 2.8 but the size of that thing puts me off.

I've got the 135 f2 dc at the moment which is sharp enough to cut holes in space when you hit the shutter button, but a zoom will save me moving about :)
 
Some day someone will make a 70-300 2.8 ... and make it affordable.
 
I only recently bought my 70-200, and bought a 1.7 TC on here. This gives me 340mm and seems great - the bit of testing I've done so far. It's a cheap way to get over 300mm, with decent glass. But ... you are dropped down to f/4.8 widest. Grand for outdoor use of course, but you do find you need to push the ISO up to keep a good shutter speed. AT 2.8, you're afforded more light and can keep that shutter speed up without the need to boost the ISO so much.

a 70-300 2.8 would be so good. But it would be soooo expensive [and heavy as you say] I bet. As is, a 70-200 + 1.7 TC will set you back just shy of £2000, so double that at least if they were to ever make one.
 
The23rdman said:
As others have said, if they price this around the same price as Canon's they'll have a winner. It should be sharp and light as all the other Nikons in this range weigh a ton. It's a simple lens to make so that needs to be reflected in the price.
Click to expand...

Nikon filed the patent application for this lens last year. It is supposed to have the next generation VR. Got a feeling new VR = lots of dosh.
 
i would like all these long lens without the VR cost/weight if i am shooting birds ect its at least at 1,000s i cant see where i ever need VR with a long lens.
 
Phil Young said:
F4 lenses remind me about of the D5xxx range...is there a huge point in them?

Haven't used a 70-200mm so I don't have that hands on experience but I can't see why people wouldn't put that kind of money on an f2.8 equivalent...?

If it was;

Small, light, ridiculously sharp wide open, very fast AF etc, then I personally could justify the lens for around £500...I wouldn't pay more for it I would just go for a 2.8.

Prepared to accept I'm the only one that thinks that way but for me this lens is "eh...".
Click to expand...

Agree. You have the very decent 70-300VR which is around £400 new. Suits most enthusiasts. Then you have the 70-200 which is about £1600, and perfect for pros or those who are serious/rich. With that, a price of £900 or £1000 seems ideal initally. However, would the f4 be more plastic like the 70-300 or like the 70-200 and very solid? Also, when I look at the 70-200VR1 being available for £900-£1000 why would I go for the f4? I would prefer to get the VR1 2.8 id cost is aruond the same and would only look at the f4 if it was around the £600 mark.
 
As I said earlier, I got the VRII for £1400, brand new. A lot of people now buy online/abroad to save money. The new f/4 would want to be arounf the £1000 mark or it won't make sense.
 
Cagey75 said:
As I said earlier, I got the VRII for £1400, brand new. A lot of people now buy online/abroad to save money. The new f/4 would want to be arounf the £1000 mark or it won't make sense.
Click to expand...

My 50p is going on £1200 just far enough away from the UK 2.8 price but enough to gouge the user as much as possible.
 
cambsno said:
Agree. You have the very decent 70-300VR which is around £400 new. Suits most enthusiasts. Then you have the 70-200 which is about £1600, and perfect for pros or those who are serious/rich. With that, a price of £900 or £1000 seems ideal initally. However, would the f4 be more plastic like the 70-300 or like the 70-200 and very solid? Also, when I look at the 70-200VR1 being available for £900-£1000 why would I go for the f4? I would prefer to get the VR1 2.8 id cost is aruond the same and would only look at the f4 if it was around the £600 mark.
Click to expand...

You'd go for it for the same reasons Canon users do. You don't need f2.8 and you don't want to carry a stupidly heavy lens and (hopefully) it'll be sharper.
 
essexash said:
My 50p is going on £1200 just far enough away from the UK 2.8 price but enough to gouge the user as much as possible.
Click to expand...

Yip - I am thinking along those lines, too. Time will tell.
 
Just a thought, but will this new lens be weather proofed?
 
I wonder if the timing has anything to do with the recently new x2 TC and the ability of the new pro cameras to focus at f/8?

I wonder what such a combo would be like, maybe a cheap way to 400mm?
 
If this lens can match or exceed Canon's 70-200 F4 IS for a similar price it will be a storming success. The Canon 70-200 F4 IS was the sharpest sub £1000 zoom lens I have ever owned, and it continues to be one of Canon's most popular professional lenses. I see no reason why Nikon cannot follow Canon's lead and create a great counterpart. I am amazed this lens was not launched years ago.
 
Last edited:
I think the only place where direct price comparisons will be an issue is on forums where the usual suspects will get onto page after page of heated debate.
I use Nikon & the comparable price of equivalent canon lenses has in no way influenced or had any bearing over the lenses I have bought already or will buy in the future.
Once you've committed to a system you just take your pick from the lenses you can use/need/want etc
 
Jan K. said:
I don't understand why range start is 70mm? What lens is it supposed to "match" with?

A 120-300mm f/4 on the other hand...
Kick_Can.gif




But of course maybe I'm being a bit selfish now...
biggrin1.gif
Click to expand...

The 24-70? (sure that's already been mentioned!)

On the other hand a 120-300 f/4 would be a great wildlife lens, especially if it was designed in a similar way to the Canon 70-300L... (I.e. very sharp with fast focus)
 
I think it's going to start at about 1250 ish. But will probably drop like a stone like the d600 has. It has to.

I have just had a fairly major medical incident which has left me focused on ensuring I don't strain my self. This put the canon f4 IS lenses square in my sights. This couldn't have come at a better time.

That said the canon lenses are proven good and have already had years of price drops on them to get them to the sub £1000 price point. I think Nikon will struggle with these until they hit about 1100 or less, at which point the 2.8 VR I used market will also start taking a hit (even the newest are now a fair few years old now).

Though I'm still looking at both sides as I have had my hand forced as it were.
 
Soda Farl said:
This is incorrect in many cases.

Historically f/4 versions have been sharper f/2.8 especially with older Nikon glass.

The Canon f/4 70-200 was long regarded as sharper than the f/2.8 at f/4 until they updated the f/2.8. This is often the case.
Click to expand...

I'm sceptical about that. The 70-200 f2.8 VRII is pretty much as good as the 200 f2 prime. I used to have a 80-200 f4 and it wasn't even in the same league.

This does look like an interesting lens though. I can't wait to see how it performs optically.
 
For DX users...(and I know I bang on about it a lot but this is my thinking as the focal length and sharpness most likely won't be too far off)

The 55-200mm VR is so sharp wide open at f5.6, its pretty quick to focus in good light and incredibly light. It can be had for under £200 new.

The £800 more that you pay for the 70-200mm f4 will but you (my own assumption):

1 stop more exposure.
Manual over-ride.
Better build quality.
Better VR???.

I guess it comes down to how much you value the above for the price difference. Me: I'd want an f2.8 :)

I'm sure this lens is a godsend to some... I'd just up my ISO a stop though I think :)
 
What you've listed already makes it a much better lens than the 55-200. Some people don't see the point but then I'm guessing a lot do judging by what people use/spend on this forum.

F4
Better build
Weather seal?
Faster af
Better vr
Ff compatibility when someone upgrades

We'd all be shooting kit lenses if they were that good.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
What you've listed already makes it a much better lens than the 55-200. Some people don't see the point but then I'm guessing a lot do judging by what people use on this forum.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't a better lens, let's try not to twist things...I said is it worth £800 more to the user (putting it out there) its not to me.
 
Tirpitz said:
I think the only place where direct price comparisons will be an issue is on forums where the usual suspects will get onto page after page of heated debate.
I use Nikon & the comparable price of equivalent canon lenses has in no way influenced or had any bearing over the lenses I have bought already or will buy in the future.
Once you've committed to a system you just take your pick from the lenses you can use/need/want etc
Click to expand...
I actually switched fron Nikon to Canon based upon the lenses available at the time. Canon's 70-200mm F4 IS was one of the swing factors. Nikon simply offered nothing close in terms of build and IQ for the price at the time. Lens choice is more important than body choice. You can keep a good lens for a lifetime (and it will hold it's value well), but bodies come and go. Good glass rules, and if Nikon release a few corkers I will have no qualms swinging back to them.
 
my 70-200 f2.8 is my only zoom and one hell of a joy to use

mostly at festivals and then i need and love the f2.8 it looks superb.
 
It sounds an interesting lens and for those who would rather rely on the high ISO capabilities of their camera to make up that stop of light (as opposed to the 70-200mm f/2.8) then at the right price, it could be very appealing.

I doubt quite the same build will exist as on the f/2.8 lens, but if it's an equal to what Canon produce then it'll be welcomed by many with open arms. And if it's at least half as weatherproof as the f/2.8, then it'll be more than up to most (average) shooters' requirements.

I suppose RRP and eventual selling price are yet to be confirmed but if it settles around the £900 selling price then I can see it being a good deal.
 
Phil Young said:
Does anyone else find it annoying when people snob lenses and catagorize?

Its a lens.
Click to expand...

Well, it is a kit lens really. It was often sold as part of a kit to compliment the 18-55. They are cheap, variable aperture lenses. It's just an easy way to describe them. There is a reason most sell them on when they can afford more. Better optics,wider constant aperture, build quality, weather sealing better bokeh, ergonomics, tripod collar. On the other hand some do keep them because they are nice and light and can be got so cheap they're hardly worth selling on.
 
Cagey75 said:
Well, it is a kit lens really. It was often sold as part of a kit to compliment the 18-55. They are cheap, variable aperture lenses. It's just an easy way to describe them. There is a reason most sell them on when they can afford more. Better optics,wider constant aperture, build quality, weather sealing better bokeh, ergonomics, tripod collar. On the other hand some do keep them because they are nice and light and can be got so cheap they're hardly worth selling on.
Click to expand...

This :thumbs:. I wasn't being a snob just calling it what it is.
 
I'm going back to a 55-200 (cheers Ohil :) )
I want a lens that is cheap, sharp, good length, so why not.
If the f4 version was say 600, light and plastic i would maybe consider, even then....

For my use (my kids)
 
...its fine, and there are always other places for my cash. I dont want a metal body, heavy lens standing in my local park.
If its bad that i need 2.8, i probably wont be outside with kids on the swings anyway tbh. F5 will do me 99% of the time, and if i miss 1 pic in a hundred, well i dont think the pic would be worth a grand anyway. For indoor have the 17-50 2.8 or my 35 1.8, again cheap and cheerful solutions that easily get me better than 'snaps'.

Can see a market for f4 though, but of course, it will be about 1200 to start with - Nikon being business to make a profit of course.

Just saying, the 'best' is very subjective and lets face it, this hobby (see thats all it is to me), is one if the worst for gear acquisition syndrome :) if you make a living from it, you will have other opinions of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top