Andre Labonte Offline Image Upload: Off
|
penghai wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
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 know whether Nikon will do. But in the Canon land where I used to be, Canon 400 f5.6 is probably the most recommended lens for hand-hold bird-in-flight shots. It beats all the more expensive siblings, including 100-400 IS, 300 f4 IS + TC, and Canon 400 f4 DO in sharpness, light weight, fast focus.
I'd think 400 f5.6 is for bird shooters. Giving the weight of Nikon 200-400, the slowness of 80-400, I think there is more than enough room for the 400 f5.6.
Eric.
Actually this is not correct. The 100-400 IS is about the same weight as the 400mm f/5.6 and is 3" shorter!!! You may be correct on the IQ issue, but likely that is a difference that will only be seen if pixel peeping. The Nikon 80-400 performance is excellent @ 400mm (again, read the reviews I recomended)
Again, I'm not saying it would not be nice for some people to have, but I just don't see Nikon doing it given the other options Nikon provides people.
Now, a 600mm f/5.6 would be cool as at that focal length, there are no other options.
Edited on May 01, 2008 at 03:09 PM
|