D90.
D3X (D3 with the Sony 24.4 MP sensor).
300/4 AFS VR.
400/5.6 AFS VR.
80-400 (or 70-420) AFS VR.
200/4 Micro AFS VR.
The source is an old Israeli photographer which shoots Nikon, has a vast collection of Nikon equipment and has some internal knowledge in Nikon and Canon (a little). FWIW, he is well respected in Israel and is considered a reliable source.
BTW, the link is in Hebrew so I see no point in posting it. Then again, if some of you do read Hebrew I will post it.
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 ... but ... its what you want.
For those that want half the price and one third the weight .... f 5.6 is just the ticket.
Apr 30, 2008 at 07:23 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I believe the rumor on
D90.
D3X (D3 with the Sony 24.4 MP sensor).
200/4 Micro AFS VR.
I think these might be possilbe
300/4 AFS VR.
80-400 AFS VR.
I doubt it
400/5.6 AFS VR.
(or 70-420)
I also think it more likely that we will see some updated primes first. In particular, 85, 50 and 35mm at either f/2 or f/1.4 with AFS but most likely NOT VR except on the 85mm.
Apr 30, 2008 at 08:10 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
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 ... but ... its what you want.
For those that want half the price and one third the weight .... f 5.6 is just the ticket.
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.
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 don't belive Nikon realise the D3x with sony sensor...
the D3 have a new sensor expeed made by NIKON, and it's a very very good sensor, i don't belive now nikon made with sony.
the D3 have a new sensor expeed made by NIKON, and it's a very very good sensor, i don't belive now nikon made with sony.
it's actually made by phillips, not nikon. but thats on the low though.
Passinhos wrote:
I don't belive Nikon realise the D3x with sony sensor...
the D3 have a new sensor expeed made by NIKON, and it's a very very good sensor, i don't belive now nikon made with sony.
I believe sony did manufacture the sensor, but its Nikons design.
I'd like to see 35mm afs f/1.4, 50mm afs f/1.4 and 1.8, 85mm afs f/1.4 and f/1.8. D300 FX to compete with the new 5D coming out (check out the canon rumors). oh, and i'd like to see nikon price all these fast primes at today's used AF-D prices.
Andre Labonte wrote:
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.
Does it have to be Nikon? I have the Sigma 50-150 (newest version) and this lens ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Super fast focus w/ the D300, sharp, great colors, bokeh. $740 at amazon, w/ no tax, join the free 30day trial of amazon prime and get free 2 day shipping, or $4 next day air.
diggitydawg510 wrote:
I'd like to see 35mm afs f/1.4, 50mm afs f/1.4 and 1.8, 85mm afs f/1.4 and f/1.8. D300 FX to compete with the new 5D coming out (check out the canon rumors). oh, and i'd like to see nikon price all these fast primes at today's used AF-D prices.
Thank you.
I agree, although I'd be happiest with a 35 1.4 for right this minute. I agree about the D300FX but I think that's going to be a while ( year or so) down the road. But updating the <200mm primes would be a nice thing, and get some of my $$.
Then again if the D3 is trying to take back some of the sport/wildlife shooters lost to Canon then I understand the urge to give them new long glass.
But I'd sure trade one of the miltiple 18-XXX zooms for a few nice new primes in the line up.
