'Nikon Introduces 200-400VR'

[Panther_99FS]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...0400f4vrII.asp

[Kiwikat]

Canon users have wanted a lens like this for a very long time. The 100-400 L desperately needs updating. If the same technology from the new 70-200 2.8 L IS II went into it, it would be one nice (and expensive) lens.

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Should be a superb lens (it'd better be, at this price point!)...too bad for the Nikonians that it's so expensive ...

Nikon really lacks a fast (focusing) 400mm zoom...like Sony's 70-400G. They have an AF 80-400, which lacks a fast AF motor and as such will not work on models lower than the semi-pro D90/D80/D70.

I agree with Will, that 100-400 is a relatively nice lens, but if you see what they can do with the 70-200 f/2.8 (both Canon and Nikon now have a fantastic lens...just waiting for Sony to update the ex-Minolta one...not that I'd ever buy it.)

However, it must be said that the 100-400 is a lens in the € 1400-1500 class when it comes to price - the 70-200/2.8 lenses are mostly a bit more expensive from the start, no ? Here in Belgium the new 70-200/2.8 IS II is currently (over)priced at € 2300 (in USD: $ 3050). And that price difference...well, it's there...so I'd suppose they use higher quality glass, even better lens designs, etc.

I think at this price point, the purists will still stick to their expensive primes - the 300/2.8, 600/4, etc. For both convenience and IQ Nikonians will have to spend a lot of money to get this lens...

[Panther_99FS]

Should be a superb lens (it'd better be, at this price point!)...too bad for the Nikonians that it's so expensive ...

Nikon really lacks a fast (focusing) 400mm zoom...like Sony's 70-400G. They have an AF 80-400, which lacks a fast AF motor and as such will not work on models lower than the semi-pro D90/D80/D70.

I agree with Will, that 100-400 is a relatively nice lens, but if you see what they can do with the 70-200 f/2.8 (both Canon and Nikon now have a fantastic lens...just waiting for Sony to update the ex-Minolta one...not that I'd ever buy it.)

However, it must be said that the 100-400 is a lens in the € 1400-1500 class when it comes to price - the 70-200/2.8 lenses are mostly a bit more expensive from the start, no ? Here in Belgium the new 70-200/2.8 IS II is currently (over)priced at € 2300 (in USD: $ 3050). And that price difference...well, it's there...so I'd suppose they use higher quality glass, even better lens designs, etc.

I think at this price point, the purists will still stick to their expensive primes - the 300/2.8, 600/4, etc. For both convenience and IQ Nikonians will have to spend a lot of money to get this lens...

It's interesting that you bring up $$ so many times....Here's the other side, quite a few (and I'll stick out my toe and say "most) Nikon users have found that 3rd party lenses for the most part (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc) just aren't as good as their Nikon equivalents...

So in Nikon's case, the old adage "you get what you pay for" applies quite often...

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Correct - you get what you pay for. The sad thing is that when it comes to the AF 80-400 VR (which costs about the same as its Canon and Sony equivalents) you don't get what you pay for (check this page...click in that tab/window to make it load).

In case you're wondering, Panther...the reason why I mention the '$$', as you call it so much, is that once you get to this class of lenses, they ought to perform excellently, even wide open.

Judging from what I have read about for instance Sigma's and Tamron's 70-200, the former is softer but faster focusing, the latter being the sharper and slower focusing one. Want both ? Go Nikon...the same applies to Sony's current 70-200/2.8 by the way. So, in that regard, the users you're talking about are correct...

Bottom line: decide for yourself if the higher price is worth the higher quality to you.

Just personally, if I were a Nikon user, I'd save more money to get the more expensive Nikon VR II version rather than the Sigma or the Tamron variant.