90 5.0
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #7 · Is the 70-200 VRii a hand held lens | |
millsart wrote:
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
EB-1 wrote:
It does reignite the issue of why there is no f/4 lens.
It's a legitimate question. My personal impression is that Nikon won't make one because most people who might buy a 70-200/4 are happy with the 70-300VR. I would think, and I'm guessing Nikon thinks, that the number of people who don't like the 70-300VR but cannot afford the 70-200/2.8 (or can't/won't carry it up a mountain, or whatever) is too small to justify the creation of another product which (a) needs to create enough sales to be worthwhile on its own, and (b) takes some sales away from the other two lenses mentioned.
That perception may not be correct, of course. Your guess is as good as mine. 
Solid reasoning to me. When I was a Canon shooter I had both the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the smaller F4 version (great lens). Canon didn't have a decent 70-300 though, only a couple of very poor ones so the 70-200 f4 was the only option really if you wanted something lightweight but high quality
70-300 for landscape work is basically on par with the current 70-200 so moving to a true 70-200 f4 wouldn't really be of much advantage overall.
Now a 14-24 F4 and/or a 24-70/24-105 F4 type zoom is an area where I think they could see huge sales.
The f2.8 zooms are awesome yes, but not everyone needs f2.8, and a ton of landscape shooters are hauling extra weight around just for the top IQ those lenses provide.
Give that IQ but in a smaller/lighter lens, and with a lesser price and tons of people would be lining up to buy
Do we really need a 70-200 f/4 with what we have today?? The 70-300 is at 5 at 200 wide open and with todays iso's and vr does that extra ap really help that often, sure there are going to be some situations where you night need it. And also with how good the 55-200vr is for it's price if you can compare it dollar to performance against the canon 70-200 f/4 is and see if the value would be worth it. Only add about 10-20% more to the canon price and expect that's where Nikon's would be.
I have a 70-300 and the 55-200, I have no desire for a 70-200 f/4. 300 f/4 vr it what I would rather see come out or a 400 5.6vr. But 70-200 f/4 I have no use for given my current set up. 70-200vr 2.8 I could use as it's much faster than 5.6 or 5 compared to 4.
|
