Mike Mohrmann wrote:
Limited (aperture) is the word. Many don't need 300mm, and those who don't would prefer a bit faster than f/5.3 at 200mm. I fall into that category.
Not everyone wants to schlep around a 70-200/2.8. Even those who own the 70-200/2.8 might prefer a smaller lens on occasion.
That is precisely the point. Nikon has and can probably afford to have only 3 lines, not 4. Kit, middle and pro. I prefer that to kit, f/4 and pro. Why? Well the 70-300 is half the cost of what an f/4 lens would be and, except for that 5.6 thing, every bit as good as the mythical f/4 lens would be. Yet, for about 50% more than the f/4 line would be you can have the f/2.8 stuff. So I can afford the 2.8 glass for me and the middle stuff for a light kit (as well as for the wife). This saves a lot over a 2.8 + 4.0 kit and I give up little to nothing. The f/4 glass is an interesting concept, but if that one stop really matters, that I'm guessing that two stops would be even better much of the time as well. Meaning that the f/4 would only solve about half the problems that a 5.6 lens introduces, so there would still be a need for the 2.8 glass. I find that if I'm not at 2.8-3.5 on the 70-200, then I'm at 7.1 or higher, so the 4.0 glass gets me nothing that I don't already have better in the 70-200 (faster) or 70-300 (lighter, cheaper).
Todd Warnke wrote:
That is precisely the point. Nikon has and can probably afford to have only 3 lines, not 4. Kit, middle and pro. I prefer that to kit, f/4 and pro. Why? Well the 70-300 is half the cost of what an f/4 lens would be and, except for that 5.6 thing, every bit as good as the mythical f/4 lens would be. Yet, for about 50% more than the f/4 line would be you can have the f/2.8 stuff. So I can afford the 2.8 glass for me and the middle stuff for a light kit (as well as for the wife). This saves a lot over a 2.8 + 4.0 kit and I give up little to nothing. The f/4 glass is an interesting concept, but if that one stop really matters, that I'm guessing that two stops would be even better much of the time as well. Meaning that the f/4 would only solve about half the problems that a 5.6 lens introduces, so there would still be a need for the 2.8 glass. I find that if I'm not at 2.8-3.5 on the 70-200, then I'm at 7.1 or higher, so the 4.0 glass gets me nothing that I don't already have better in the 70-200 (faster) or 70-300 (lighter, cheaper).
Peace,
Todd...Show more →
My thoughts as well.
This is coming from the former owner of a 70-200mm f/4L IS, one of the best zooms I've ever used. It was a great lens, but neither here nor there. A compromise of a compromise. f/2.8 zooms are already pushing it for indoor use, I've never understood how some wedding photogs use lenses like the 24-105IS. Big heavy f/2.8 zooms, f/3.5-4.5 & f/4-5.6 lighter zooms, and f/3.5-5.6 & f/4-5.6 entry level zooms make sense to me.
The second Philly skyline picture has the following exif data:
Maximum Lens Aperture: f/4.1at (35mm eq:52mm)
THIS exif data doesn't mean the used max aperture, it means the absolute max aperture of the lens. And there is no other lens from Nikon in that range (35mm) that has f4.
So the picture must have been shot with the new 16-35/4 VR, because Bob would NEVER use other lenses than Nikon.
File name: PhillySkyline01_10_0013.jpg
File size: 749637 bytes (995x661, 9.1bpp, 3x)
EXIF Summary: 1/8s f/6.7 ISO200 35mm (35mm eq:52mm)
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D300S
Camera Software: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Photographer: Bob Krist for GPTMC
Maximum Lens Aperture: f/4.1
Sensing Method: One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern: 1110
Focal Length (35mm Equiv): 52 mm
usw....Show more →
Todd Warnke wrote:
That is precisely the point. Nikon has and can probably afford to have only 3 lines, not 4. Kit, middle and pro. I prefer that to kit, f/4 and pro. Why? Well the 70-300 is half the cost of what an f/4 lens would be and, except for that 5.6 thing, every bit as good as the mythical f/4 lens would be. Yet, for about 50% more than the f/4 line would be you can have the f/2.8 stuff. So I can afford the 2.8 glass for me and the middle stuff for a light kit (as well as for the wife). This saves a lot over a 2.8 + 4.0 kit and I give up little to nothing. The f/4 glass is an interesting concept, but if that one stop really matters, that I'm guessing that two stops would be even better much of the time as well. Meaning that the f/4 would only solve about half the problems that a 5.6 lens introduces, so there would still be a need for the 2.8 glass. I find that if I'm not at 2.8-3.5 on the 70-200, then I'm at 7.1 or higher, so the 4.0 glass gets me nothing that I don't already have better in the 70-200 (faster) or 70-300 (lighter, cheaper)....Show more →
Actually, my point is wanting the fastest lens I can afford AND am willing to carry around. I can afford the 70-200/2.8. In fact, I have one (the VR1). And guess what? It sits at home 90% of the time. I'd rather have f/4 (or even f/3.5-4.5) zooms and some f/1.4-2.0 primes when I need faster than f/4.
i'm kinda in the same boat as Mike.
I would like a 70-200 or 80-200/2.8 for those few situations where it could work for me, but most of the time i'm either using fast and small primes, or slow small zooms
Well, let's see. I can afford and want to carry around an f/3.5875-f/4.6735 61-214mm zoom. It should be lighter than an f/4 zoom by about 3.117 ounces and cost $197.42 less. Maybe they can make that one too!
Sorry Mike for the sarcasm, but the difference between something like the 70-300VR and any f/4 varient is going to be a lot less than half of the difference between the 70-300 and the 70-200, and for twice the price of the 70-300. I just don't see the need. I'd rather Nikon put those resources into newer fast primes, a newer 80-400, a newer 200 macro, an updated 300/4.0 and perhaps a redo of the new T&S lenses.
Todd Warnke wrote:
Well, let's see. I can afford and want to carry around an f/3.5875-f/4.6735 61-214mm zoom. It should be lighter than an f/4 zoom by about 3.117 ounces and cost $197.42 less. Maybe they can make that one too!
Plus, f1.4-2.0 primes would be quite reliant on ND filters
After the announcement last week proved to be more boring Coolpixes, I went and bought a used ZF 100/2.0, so that's my New Nikkor fund effectively gone.
If my new lens soundly trounces the Nikon 85/1.4AFD in portraits, I may sell that and my 20-35/2.8 to fund a fast, wide prime... but it will be a real wrench to do!
Todd Warnke wrote:
Well, let's see. I can afford and want to carry around an f/3.5875-f/4.6735 61-214mm zoom. It should be lighter than an f/4 zoom by about 3.117 ounces and cost $197.42 less. Maybe they can make that one too!
Sorry Mike for the sarcasm, but the difference between something like the 70-300VR and any f/4 varient is going to be a lot less than half of the difference between the 70-300 and the 70-200, and for twice the price of the 70-300. I just don't see the need. I'd rather Nikon put those resources into newer fast primes, a newer 80-400, a newer 200 macro, an updated 300/4.0 and perhaps a redo of the new T&S lenses....Show more →
Fine. I am tired of fighting this battle. I'd rather shoot f/4 at 200mm than f/5.3. It just sucks that Canon does not have a body similar to the D700.
sixby6ix wrote:
After the announcement last week proved to be more boring Coolpixes, I went and bought a used ZF 100/2.0, so that's my New Nikkor fund effectively gone.
If my new lens soundly trounces the Nikon 85/1.4AFD in portraits, I may sell that and my 20-35/2.8 to fund a fast, wide prime... but it will be a real wrench to do!
Martin
For cream and sharpness your new lens trounces everything except maybe the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar SL, but good luck finding one of those Well done, please share photos.
a 15-36 f4 will still be like $1300 if not more i bet.
i predict that if a 24 or 35/1.4 is announced, it will be at least $1600. Quite possibly closer to $2000.
Mike Mohrmann wrote:
Yeah, that's what I figure. That leaves it to Canon to release a DSLR similar in capability and features of the D700. A more likely possibility, but not a given either.
You want some cheese with that whine Seriously dude, I think you should start contributing for a change instead of always crying about things. BTW don't expect Canon to cannibalize their 1D and 1Ds lines just to make a few whiners happy. They'll continue to pump out high MP bodies with gimped featuresets.
Nikon will not make a 70-200 f/4 because they are a small company, and the 70-300 good enough for that range. It should be really low on their priority list.
Let's first see some fast wides (which is where they are missing lenses) and then maybe VR on the 300 f/4 and/or an updated 80-400VR...
Seriously dude, I think you should start contributing for a change instead of always crying about things. BTW don't expect Canon to cannibalize their 1D and 1Ds lines just to make a few whiners happy. They'll continue to pump out high MP bodies with gimped featuresets.