Because resources in the last few years have gone into the D3, D700, 14-24mm, 24-70mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm & 600mm as well as the cheaper stuff like the 50mm and 35mm DX.
All the above would have been worth it as people switched from Canon and had to pick up so combination of the above, or upgraded from exisiting lenses that did not have VR.
An 800mm would not be a big sellar, especially now with all the doom and gloom world wide, if Nikon was going to spend any money on new lenses you would think it would be on bigger sellars like updates of the 18-35mm, 24-120mm and 80-400mm.
I think this lens is just serving a special purpose only.
Is nice to have this lens. But totally zero portability.
1 more thing Canon need to learn from Nikon is how to control quality of their product.
Canon had 800mm. Is no a big deal, is whether the need is there or not.
600mm is really enough for me to shoot down the birding.......
Final word, nothing is enough to the human being.
They will always a hunger to get the best thing in the market.
the total market for an 800/5.6 would be at most a few thousand given that Nikon has sold around 10K 600/4 AF lens in all its versions since the very first.
I think if I absolutely needed an 800 f/5.6 I could make do with the 600 f/4 and a 1.4x TC to get to 840 f/5.6 or the Sigma 300-800 f5.6. Nikon would lose money on the lens so I don't imagine we'll be seeing one anytime soon. If someone was feeling really wealthy the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 with the 2x TC is available, just need a Jeep to mount it to instead of a tripod.
What are the chance that Nikon release someday a ~150/200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 for those who doesn't have the money to buy a 500mm f/4 and are stuck choosing between Sigma 150-500 & Tamron 200-500?
HerbChong wrote:
the 600/4 with AF-S 1.4X is slightly sharper than the Sigma 800/5.6. both are noticeably sharper than the Sigma 300-800/5.6.
Herb...
Forgot about the Sigma 800 prime... Old age setting in again. I've had the chance to briefly use a 600 f/4 with the TC attached to a friends' D3, but never either of the Sigma's. Unfortunately he lives 1400 miles away, so it's a limited opportunity. I'd shoot the Nikon combination without hesitation to get to 800mm, if I could afford it without selling my house and/or a kidney.
apparently Canon sells them, so why no Nikon? They had them in the AI-s line, and granted it would not have been a huge seller, but I suspect some wildlife/birding photographers would have snapped them up.
Canon probably has that market locked. Not a business expert....but personally if I was them, I'd leave the 800 market alone. World economy what it is, counting on canon converts at this high a price tag range a pony I wouldn't put even 5 bucks.
Some current nikon photogs doesn't cover the cost of the R&D, and production costs either. Or repair costs for 5 yrs cause this is a lens a buyer will damn near walk in their registration card to makes sure the 5 yr warranty is 1000% confirmed lol. I know I would if a lens cost half the price of a new car (and thats the 600mm, this probably be muuuuch more).
Grognard wrote:
apparently Canon sells them, so why no Nikon? They had them in the AI-s line, and granted it would not have been a huge seller, but I suspect some wildlife/birding photographers would have snapped them up.
Some photographers snapping them up equals a significant loss on the lens. The costs of research and development, design, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution for the new lens would far outweigh the profit from the very few that would buy it unless the price was so astronomical that no one would buy one. I just don't see how a 800 f/5.6 is needed when the 600 f/4 with a 1.4xTC is equal to a 840mm f/5.6 with very little image quality loss. Chances are some person or group at Nikon discussed the possibility at one time or another and after the numbers were run the idea was discarded.
Some photographers snapping them up equals a significant loss on the lens. The costs of research and development, design, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution for the new lens would far outweigh the profit from the very few that would buy it unless the price was so astronomical that no one would buy one. I just don't see how a 800 f/5.6 is needed when the 600 f/4 with a 1.4xTC is equal to a 840mm f/5.6 with very little image quality loss. .
I think some of the main attractions of the 800mm is the 800mm is sharper than the 600mm with 1.4x, autofocus is facter for the same set-ups, and the 800mm is lighter and smaller than the 600mm.
Just going with Canon as an example since they currently have both lenses. The 800 f/5.6 is 18" long, 6.4" diameter and weighs right about 10 pounds. It also costs about $10,600. The 600 f/4 is 18" long, 6.6" diameter, and weighs 11.8 pounds while costing $7,600. Looking at the MTF for both lenses and knowing that I've used a 600 f/4 with a 1.4XTC on a Nikon D3 briefly with almost no image degradation and no obvious loss of focus I don't see that the 800 is remarkably smaller, lighter and is in no way a bargain compared to the combo of the 600 with a TC. Bottom line, Nikon would lose significant amounts of money on the lens so I don't expect to see it any time in the near future.
i have no idea what Nikon and others are up to but a 80-400 that is slightly wider and better at the long end than the current model is the solution i would go with. AF-S and VR. i can afford it so i went with the 200-400/4 VR.
Herb...
Tyl3n0L wrote:
Herb maybe you can answer this question!
What are the chance that Nikon release someday a ~150/200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 for those who doesn't have the money to buy a 500mm f/4 and are stuck choosing between Sigma 150-500 & Tamron 200-500?
i had the Sigma 800/5.6 HSM (not the DG version though) and sold it for a new Nikkor 600/4 AF-S II. with the 1.4X AF-S TC, the 600 is slightly sharper. the newer Sigma 800/5.6 is optically identical except for coatings. i don't expect that to affect sharpness. also, the Nikkor even with the TC is faster focusing than the Sigma. the 300-800 gives lots of flexibility but you pay for it in some loss of sharpness and contrast and even slower AF. i shot BIF with the Sigma 800 and i regularly do it with the 600 with the 1.7X. the Sigma doesn't take well to using any TC while the 600/4 with 1.7X has longer reach, about as fast AF, and is about a sharp. unless Nikon designs an 800/4, i don't see the point of an 800/5.6.
Herb...
coracii wrote:
Forgot about the Sigma 800 prime... Old age setting in again. I've had the chance to briefly use a 600 f/4 with the TC attached to a friends' D3, but never either of the Sigma's. Unfortunately he lives 1400 miles away, so it's a limited opportunity. I'd shoot the Nikon combination without hesitation to get to 800mm, if I could afford it without selling my house and/or a kidney.
