Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off
|
Based on the reviews I have seen from Bjorn R. and M. Webber, the 200-400VR is every bit as good as the primes from an IQ point of view. If it can match up with the f/2.8 primes, it will just fine against an f/4 prime. I'm sure the prime lovers and pixel peepers will disagree. 
You may have a point regarding the size and weight, but you are in the minority in general; most people will take the zoom over the prime. I just don't see Nikon making a 400 f/4 prime as long as the 200-400VR is in production. Feel free to keep hoping! 
As for a 400 f/5.6, here again, the 80-400 already covers it. You are not going to do much better for the money in terms of IQ (again, see M. Webber's review). The 80-400 is surprisingly compact and you are not doing to save much by going to a prime ... in fact, the zoom will be smaller when zoomed to the 80mm end. What you WILL see is an updated 80-400VR with AFS. As long as that lens exists, I just don't see Nikon making a 400 f/5.6. Again, feel free to keep hoping!
Note: I did not say it would not be nice to have such lenses, I just don't see Nikon doing it.
binary visions wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
Pavel wrote:
binary .. you already have what you want in the 200-400 f 4. Of course there is the steep price associated with f 4 on a 400 and the weight ...
I concur. The Canon 400f/4 costs $500 more than the Nikon 200-400VR. No Nikon shooter is going to pay $5K for an f/4 prime when they can get an equally good f/4 zoom for the same price.
Andre, Pavel... I don't want the weight of the zoom, nor the cost. When you spend your entire time at the long end of the zoom, you are simply paying for weight, complexity, and inferior image quality (the 200-400 is clearly excellent, mind you, but, all things equal, a prime will deliver better quality).
The Canon lens is significantly more expensive than a normal 400mm f/4 would be, due to the DO design which makes it a lot smaller and lighter. Good qualities, for sure, but at increased cost. Consider the 70-300 DO at a whopping $1,200... for a f/4.5-5.6 lens! Nikon's is less than half the cost.
As for a 400 f/5.6 at a $1000-$1200 price point, I could see that, but it makes more sence to get the 300 f/4 and use the 1.4x TC which gives great results OR get the 80-400VR which already gives you 400mm f/5.6. Thus, I think Nikon will update the 80-400VR and never bother with a 400mm f/5.6 prime.
I think there is a good market for such a lens. Wildlife on a budget. The 300mm f/4 with 1.4x teleconverter is excellent, if 400mm is your stopping point. You can put a 1.4x on the 400mm, though, and get to 560mm or a 1.7x and get to 680mm. Loss of light for sure, but such are the sacrifices for not dropping $5k+ on a lens.
|
