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

Of course, the 55-200 is a DX lens...

I'd be interested in the new lens IF it takes a TC well and is weather sealed, otherwise my 70-300 VR will be fine for my needs (that's got soaked plenty of times and still works perfectly).
 
Nawty, indeed - maybe because i can 'get away' with it as i'm dx (ideal for my needs) where some above are no doubt fx and really benefits (or highlights) 'better' glass.
 
I actually have a 55-200 which I use on a D60 and it's a cracking lens - cheap, sharp and light with VR.

Perfect for traveling light :)
 
I'm keen to know how keenly priced the Tokina 70-200mm is going to be - if it's as optically good as the rest of its lenses (and the build is comparable to its current lenses) then this could well be a dark horse indeed.
 
specialman said:
I'm keen to know how keenly priced the Tokina 70-200mm is going to be - if it's as optically good as the rest of its lenses (and the build is comparable to its current lenses) then this could well be a dark horse indeed.
Click to expand...

There's also the Tamron 70-200 VC 2.8 which may compete if the issue is price, obviously this falls down on the weight/size argument.
 
Surely another consideration for max aperture is not just low light, but bokeh too?
If I'm doing portraits give me f2.8 against f4 everytime.
 
Wonder what the odds are on £600 starting price (with Nikon UK then finding an accounting error an putting the price up to £1000) :naughty:

For me personally needs to under the Sigma 70-200mm price or it just will not be getting my money.
 
Well-balanced in terms of size, weight, price, and image quality, this lens also has a dedicated tripod collar ring, the RT-1. This optional accessory helps to improve tripod balance and allows quick, smooth transition between vertical and horizontal orientation when shooting in either portrait or landscape format.
Click to expand...

:shrug:
 
And it will cost you $224 haha

Im sure there will be £5 knock off collars from china within days. But just how much can nikon gouge their customers with this sort of stunt. Cheeky sods.
 
hmmmmmmmmmm an interesting lens, lets hope it settles around £900 like the Canon variant :)

when we consider that the 2.8 VRII can be had brand new for £1579 from reputable dealers at the moment it would need to be the right price to tempt people away i think!
 
Last edited:
£900 would seem likely after a few months, unless they worked out an even exchange from the go and it's priced at £900 from release (wouldn't be far off the usd - gbp exchange rate), but I suppose that would be wishful thinking.
 
Interesting lens and I am curious how useful the new image stabilisation will be for low light application. At almost half the weight, it makes things much more manageable which shouldn't be ignored. Whats the point of having the 1:2.8 if you end up leaving it at home because its too heavy?
 
Lighter means more plastic, no weather sealing and the lack of collar. Also the 2.8 has one more chunk of glass, and is divided up differently, one more group [21/15 V 20/14]

I'll take the 2.8 over one extra stop of VR
 
I can see the attraction for those who held back on the VRII for budget reasons. And for some, because of the weight. I don't know, I have a bad back and neck from an accident a few years back, and the 70-200 VRII doesn't exactly kill me to carry around. I'll always have a bag on me, and the 70-200 isn't in use all the time. Only come out when actually needed.

You'll hear this annoying saying a lot in upcoming reviews: "right off the bat" ... I can see the pros and cons of each.

f/4: Pros: Cheaper, much lighter, better VR [apparently] Cons: You have to pay separate for the collar, not weather sealed [far as I can tell] one stop of light slower, less ED glass

f/2.8: Pros: 2.8, 4 extra ED elements, weather sealed, comes with collar, better build quality
Cons: Heavy, more expensive.
 
Cagey75 said:
I can see the attraction for those who held back on the VRII for budget reasons. And for some, because of the weight. I don't know, I have a bad back and neck from an accident a few years back, and the 70-200 VRII doesn't exactly kill me to carry around. I'll always have a bag on me, and the 70-200 isn't in use all the time. Only come out when actually needed.

You'll hear this annoying saying a lot in upcoming reviews: "right off the bat" ... I can see the pros and cons of each.

f/4: Pros: Cheaper, much lighter, better VR [apparently] Cons: You have to pay separate for the collar, not weather sealed [far as I can tell] one stop of light slower, less ED glass

f/2.8: Pros: 2.8, 4 extra ED elements, weather sealed, comes with collar, better build quality
Cons: Heavy, more expensive.
Click to expand...

Less ED glass isn't a priori a con, given ED glass is also generally quite low refractive index glass and the /4 has high refractive index glass in it that the /2.8 doesn't.

And the /4 focuses a lot closer, breathes a lot less, can be used as a macroish lens more easily, is smaller, and build quality is likely comparable (both will stand up to everyday use, neither will stand up to a drop).

Not in the market for one because I already have the /2.8, but there's no need to exaggerate things in favour of it.
 
Cagey75 said:
Lighter means more plastic, no weather sealing and the lack of collar. Also the 2.8 has one more chunk of glass, and is divided up differently, one more group [21/15 V 20/14]

I'll take the 2.8 over one extra stop of VR
Click to expand...

Surely the biggest weight saving must derive from the fact that it's a stop slower, that's a huge amount less glass needed when talking 20+ elements. I'd be surprised if the construction was much different.
 
Lighter doesnt mean plastic necessarily. It's smaller, has less glass in it and smaller diameter. All would add up to a weight loss while still keeping build quality. The better vr would make up for the lost stop surely.
 
It will be a stupid price to begin with for sure. But prices will fall swiftly I reckon.

RRP for the D600 was just under £2k and it's dropped to just over £1500 already on Amazon.

The omission of the tripod collar is taking the proverbial though. What next? Charge for the optional lens cap?
 
ausemmao said:
Less ED glass isn't a priori a con, given ED glass is also generally quite low refractive index glass and the /4 has high refractive index glass in it that the /2.8 doesn't.

And the /4 focuses a lot closer, breathes a lot less, can be used as a macroish lens more easily, is smaller, and build quality is likely comparable (both will stand up to everyday use, neither will stand up to a drop).

Not in the market for one because I already have the /2.8, but there's no need to exaggerate things in favour of it.
Click to expand...

Who's exaggerating? the differences are there. I actually gave 3 reasons why it's lighter. I don't know why people are trying to make them out the same or force comparisons. If build quality means nothing to you, or the wider aperture... just use plastic kit lenses lads. That is your choice. I'm only going on what I'm reading, just like you guessers. SO quit nit-picking my posts and make your own mind up, cheers ;)
 
Last edited:
I'd always take an extra stop over VR as for me I find VR more restrictive what with subject movement.
 
Cagey75 said:
Who's exaggerating? the differences are there. I don't know why people are trying to make them out the same. If build quality means nothing to you, or the wider aperture... just use plastic kit lenses lads.That is your choice.
Click to expand...

You are. You have no idea at all what difference in build quality there will be yet you're talking as if there'll be a big difference (despite the nearest comparison - the Canon f4 IS vs f2.8 IS showing not much difference). The MTF charts suggest there'll be a negligible difference in resolution in the shared aperture range (and the edge in IQ at f/4 might even go to the new lens, depending on what the aberration and distortion performance is like.

The biggest difference between the f4 VR and f2.8 VR aside from aperture is going to be weight, because the f4 has less than half the glass volume of the 2.8 inside it.
 
Last edited:
Try not to lose sleep over it, because I know I won't ;) As I said,that's MY thoughts/guesses on it.

The new one has ONE less element of glass, as I mentioned earlier. Btw.
 
Last edited:
Just seen the UK price which is £1170....Add on the collar which is $245, so call it £125 the same as the canon until we see a genuine price. That's £1295.

Panamoz has the 2.8 VR2 for £1375, but admittedly a full UK version is about £1600.

So that primary reason to buy a f4 for most, price is a complete disaster.

(I know the price will drop but still I was hoping for less, not surprised however if you look at my earlier guess but that included a collar)
 
Cagey75 said:
Try not to lose sleep over it, because I know I won't ;) As I said,that's MY thoughts/guesses on it.

The new one has ONE less element of glass, as I mentioned earlier. Btw.
Click to expand...

Over forum posts? Hm.

What does the number of elements have to do with anything? If you think I'm suggesting that's why it's lighter...:lol:

maninsuitcase said:
Just seen the UK price which is £1170....Add on the collar which is $245, so call it £125 the same as the canon until we see a genuine price. That's £1295.

Panamoz has the 2.8 VR2 for £1375, but admittedly a full UK version is about £1600.

So that primary reason to buy a f4 for most, price is a complete disaster.

(I know the price will drop but still I was hoping for less, not surprised however if you look at my earlier guess but that included a collar)
Click to expand...

Comparing the 2 year old street price with MSRP is disingenuous. The RRP for the 2.8 is a bit under £2100. This one is a bit under £1200. So in 6 months, the 4 will probably be around £900. Like the Canon.
 
I got the VR2 for £1400, delivered to Ireland, from Holland. 2 year warranty. And no problems registering it with Nikon, covered under their NPU program.

I think the most ridic thing about the new lens is having to buy the collar separate
 
im not all that bothered about the collar. Ive hand shot the 2.8 perfectly well so a smaller lighter lens shouldnt offer any difficulties.

It will be interesting to see the price drop, i bet it will be sub 1k by xmas. Ill keep an eye on the panamoz site too, no real need to buy in the UK with world wide warranties on the lenses. I want one but my 135 f2 dc will do until the price settles.
 
ausemmao said:
Over forum posts? Hm.

What does the number of elements have to do with anything? If you think I'm suggesting that's why it's lighter...:lol:
Click to expand...

ausemmao said:
The biggest difference between the f4 VR and f2.8 VR aside from aperture is going to be weight, because the f4 has less than half the glass volume of the 2.8 inside it.
Click to expand...

It seemed to me like you were suggesting the elements had plenty to do with it.





The collar is nice to have for use with the likes of BlackRapid straps, and of course, on a tripod.
 
Last edited:
ausemmao said:
Comparing the 2 year old street price with MSRP is disingenuous. The RRP for the 2.8 is a bit under £2100. This one is a bit under £1200. So in 6 months, the 4 will probably be around £900. Like the Canon.
Click to expand...

I know it's hardly a fair comparison but you've got about £1300 to spend today which would you buy? I know what I'd get, remember Nikon lenses have a worldwide 1 year warranty (bodys don't however).

Give it 6 months and I'm sure the price will drop closer to the £900ish the canon is in the UK (about £800 gray iirc) and china will be churning out knock off collars that are 90% of the quality for 10% of the price just like the canon ones.
 
Cagey75 said:
It seemed to me like you were suggesting the elements had plenty to do with it.


The collar is nice to have for use with the likes of BlackRapid straps, and of course, on a tripod.
Click to expand...

The elements do have a lot to do with the weight. But it isn't the number of elements. Hint: what does f number represent?

maninsuitcase said:
I know it's hardly a fair comparison but you've got about £1300 to spend today which would you buy? I know what I'd get, remember Nikon lenses have a worldwide 1 year warranty (bodys don't however).

Give it 6 months and I'm sure the price will drop closer to the £900ish the canon is in the UK (about £800 gray iirc) and china will be churning out knock off collars that are 90% of the quality for 10% of the price just like the canon ones.
Click to expand...

I'd get the 4 if I had to buy one of them (because I already have the 2.8). In seriousness, if price is an issue I don't see why a person wouldn't wait the 4-6 months (or if it follows the D600, the 1 week) for the price to drop, given every Nikon lens bar the superteles has followed that price trajectory.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you're guessing like rest of us about the element weight then?

If you're so knowledgeable why don't you tell us precisely all about this new lens eh? Tell us, is it weather sealed or not? Is it going to be as good image quality-wise? Is it all plastic or not? Since you know it all - Otherwise you must have something better to do with your life today than nit-pick other people's guessing? Which for the 4th time, is all i am doing.

I have the 2.8 VR II - I won't be buying this one either way. Unless it turns out to be so fantastical it outshines the 2.8 by far.
 
Last edited:
Ya, I should learn to do that ;)

I just don't get why people insist on nit-picking at other's mere guesses. I think it's plain to see that is all any of us are doing here really.
 
Cagey75 said:
Yeah, you're guessing like rest of us about the element weight then? Good lad. There's a fair few pedantic, bordering on bitter heads on here. Try not to be one.

If you're so knowledgeable why don't you tell us precisely all about this new lens eh? Otherwise you must have something better to do with your life today than nit-pickother people's guessing?
Click to expand...

I thought I was the one who was supposed to be losing sleep?

Look, it's not magic, it's pretty basic optics. F number and focal length absolutely determine the minimum diameter of the front element and (to a lesser extent) the elements behind it. The mass of an element to a rough approximation scales with the cube of the diameter (scaling depends on the curvature and shape of the element, but it roughly holds). A 70-200 f/2.8 has a minimum front element diameter of 70ish mm, an f/4 50mm. On top of that, the peripheral rays don't need to be bent as much, so less consideration for aberration correction is needed. The combination means that for a given level of IQ, the difference between a fast and normal lens is a big weight saving. Compare the 300 f/4 to any of the 2.8s, the 85 1.8 to the 1.4, the 35/2 to the 1.4...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top