Rupert—I deleted those multiple posts. For some reason, as I edited my original and reposted last night, the earlier versions were kept but were not visible to me as I edited and resposted. Odd.

I agree re. giving the VR treatment to the 1.8 version; that makes sense. But your post led me to thinking about the ƒ1.4 version again—I have not experienced it on the D3, and on re-re-thinking, the ƒ1.4 makes far more sense on the D3 (not just image-wise but weight and size-wise, too) whereas it was unwieldy on the D200, the last digital body I tried it on.

cheers, KL

So how much do folks think a new 80-400 af-s VRII will list for.

Interesting to me, all those folks who like the Canon 100-400, I had 2 of them and prefer my copy of the Sigma 80-400 - just get far more keeper shots hand held with the Siggy than I did with the Canon 100-400. Conversely neither my Sigma 70-200 or 100-300 could hold a candle to my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS.

Pavel wrote:
THe price will be about 1/3 of what a F 1.4 would be if you judge by todays pricing model and who the heck wants to carry around the much larger, much heavier, much more "look at me" lens? The iso performance of any of the last few years cameras obviate the need for f 1.4 and with a 85 focus is very chancy.

So the F2.0 if it comes to pass strikes me as a very sensible decision, kind of like the D3 where they didn't resort to keeping up with the Cano-johnses and kept the resolution a modest 12 megapixels.


Well I for one wants to carry one and actually, the only people that would consider it a "look at me lens" would be those that have considered buying one which is a substantial minority when you consider most would be shooting with the kit lens they got with the camera that happens to be pretty much about the same size, at least your average consumer wouldn't know the difference.

Now, this is all just my opinion but just because we can shoot at higher iso and get clean files doesn't mean you SHOULD by default for exactly the same reason we shoot raw. For every little microgram of quality we can get.

If the 85 2 VR becomes reality I will applaud but at the same time I won't be running out and selling my 1.4.

Rene

Rupert Stubbs wrote:
There is a reason that the 85 1.4 is famous. An f2 VR version sounds like a cheap-ish consumer lens, not an update.


If it in fact is an accurate prediction I would think the f2 VR be just another selection in the 85. Just as Canon has three versions Nikon decided to do 3 as well but in a different way and here I agree with Pavel, a job well done for Nikon doing something different.

I don't think that lens replaces the 1.4 however it probably would do better at handholding with the VR. I didn't like my 50mm 1.8, I still have a 50mm E from the 80s that feels better than than that thing did after a few years. The 1.4 I bought is nice (the newer ones not so nice almost identical to the 1.8 in build). Based on that experience it is unlikely the lens is for me personally but I see where this is a subjective matter and has as much to do with emotion as it does image quality.

Rene

I have shot with both the 1.8, the 1.4 and the canon 1.2. Diminishing returns.

By a "look at me" lens Rene .... I mean conspicuous when you are walking around not "showing off" but rather not wanting to stand out to where the equipment draws attention.
sometimes its ok ... sometimes it's really nice to not look like someone with expensive gear. And the 1.4 draws attention.

Despite the "legend" status people simply tend to love to think if its expensive that it is great and if they have spent a fortune on it "sublime".
The 1.4 is not so hot wide open in my experience and I have to really look hard at the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 in bokeh. Funny, the 1.2 vs the canon 1.8 shows a huge difference but much of it I put down to how that lens simply paints because it has that look even at f 2.0 and the 1.8 does not. But focusing the 1.2? Hit and miss.
(of course if I were not so mello and diplomatic in my old age - I'd say all canon focus is "hit and miss" .... but some don't care for the friendly ribbing ... perhaps because they suffered through the syndrome themselves?)

Anyhow, to put this into perspective I would love for them to both be updated. And the 1.4 improved at bit. But if it is only one or the other .... there is nothing wrong with a tini lens, one stop slower, which would likely cost $500-700 versus a much much higher price-tag.
A great lens made even better but for many more people rather than a gem, with bragging rights and a bit more - for a lot more. No I'm cool with either ... I just don't get why some think the sky fell - if its not the ultimate. Heck ... if Nikon goes that way ... they would be nuts to stay in Canons shadow and do only a 1.4. Go all the way then, don't you think?

In any case, either way if this rumor is true .... our little worlds just got better. :-)

Ruairidh wrote:
So how much do folks think a new 80-400 af-s VRII will list for.

Interesting to me, all those folks who like the Canon 100-400, I had 2 of them and prefer my copy of the Sigma 80-400 - just get far more keeper shots hand held with the Siggy than I did with the Canon 100-400. Conversely neither my Sigma 70-200 or 100-300 could hold a candle to my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS.

I think a new 80-400mm would cost about the same as it is now, about $100 more. The current one being $1430, I'm guessing a new one would be around $1550 or so. I don't see it being more than the 70-200mm F/2.8.

Of course my opinion means very little.

louis fusco wrote:
i dont think a dx version of a 50-150 would be of any difference is size and weight from fx. the agedly 28 is only pc not ts.


The Sigma 50-150mm and the Tokina 50-135mm are considerably smaller than their 80-200mm counterparts. The nice thing too, is that they have reduced the min focusing distance by about half. I had Sigma's and it wasn't half bad. I would like to see Nikon release one in the same range with VR.

Pavel wrote:
I have shot with both the 1.8, the 1.4 and the canon 1.2. Diminishing returns.

By a "look at me" lens Rene .... I mean conspicuous when you are walking around not "showing off" but rather not wanting to stand out to where the equipment draws attention.
sometimes its ok ... sometimes it's really nice to not look like someone with expensive gear. And the 1.4 draws attention.

Despite the "legend" status people simply tend to love to think if its expensive that it is great and if they have spent a fortune on it "sublime".
The 1.4 is not so hot wide open in my experience and I have to really look hard at the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 in bokeh. Funny, the 1.2 vs the canon 1.8 shows a huge difference but much of it I put down to how that lens simply paints because it has that look even at f 2.0 and the 1.8 does not. But focusing the 1.2? Hit and miss.
(of course if I were not so mello and diplomatic in my old age - I'd say all canon focus is "hit and miss" .... but some don't care for the friendly ribbing ... perhaps because they suffered through the syndrome themselves?)

Anyhow, to put this into perspective I would love for them to both be updated. And the 1.4 improved at bit. But if it is only one or the other .... there is nothing wrong with a tini lens, one stop slower, which would likely cost $500-700 versus a much much higher price-tag.
A great lens made even better but for many more people rather than a gem, with bragging rights and a bit more - for a lot more. No I'm cool with either ... I just don't get why some think the sky fell - if its not the ultimate. Heck ... if Nikon goes that way ... they would be nuts to stay in Canons shadow and do only a 1.4. Go all the way then, don't you think?

In any case, either way if this rumor is true .... our little worlds just got better. :-)

I may have misunderstood your point because I certainly agree with you about diminishing returns. Having used the Canon 85 1.2 more than my 1.4 I feel it has a certain something that I can't put my finger on. I am not above admitting it may be it's reputation that clouds judgement but damn that focus.

I think any of the 85 models in the hands of skilled craftsmen are suitable and the printed differences of a great image defy the differences in price.

At any rate, I agree with all of your above. I am not immune to being impractical in my lens choices. I often point out people should buy what they want, they are more likely to actually go out and use it than something simply practical. It is true at least in my case.

Rene

The 85 f2 sounds interesting especially if it is a new formula made with exotic glass. We will have to wait and see the details. But keep in mind that one of the best performing short tele you can buy is the Leica 90mm f2. It is incredible and the bokeh just rocks. So, 85 f/2 from Nikon would be welcome if it can come close to the 90 Leica apo.

my fingers are crossed!

gugs wrote:
david creed wrote:
A PC Nikkor AFS 28 mm f/2,8, that would be a worlds first wouldn't it?
The first autofocus PC lens as far as I know, actually this addition makes me a bit sceptical of the lists validity.
Not that I would knock it back, if it was tilt as well as shift it would really suit me well, still auto focus on this style of lens may be a waste even if it was only usable unshifted.


Cheers,
Creedy

I have to agree about the PC lens. I just "cut and pasted" the list and I think this is a mistake. But on the other hand I have seen other sources confirming the first three... and because of the track record of the source I would bet that this is 90% reliable.
Only the future will tell...

Guy

There is a rumour that Canon may have an update for at least one of their T/S lenses at PMA, my guess is that its the 24mm & it has been said that it will have some form of AF.

A 28mm PC nikkor is not out of place & will fill a big gap in the range. I know of two pros who chose Canon due to their 3 T/S lenses which are invaluable for table top & landscape work

asnapper,

Spot on. I would buy a 28PC in a heartbeat. The majority of my work in architecture (interiors and exteriors). One of the reasons I left Canon for Leica and Zeiss (expensive learning curves, there) was that the 21/2.8 Distagon outperformed in every way the Canon 24 T/S stopped down. Of course, the 21/2.8 is not PC.

Now that FX is reality, we definitely need PC or T/S in the Nikkor range. BTW, no one needs AF on a T/S or PC lens, as all require refocusing after tilting or shifting anyway, in my experience. Just a razor sharp, distortion-free lens of the quality of the 14–24/2.8, please.

I'd be all over a 28PC as well, since I'd love to do a lot more architecture but simply don't have the ideal tools (and my post skills are not there yet either, and I prefer to get the image right in-camera anyway...)

Here's hoping.