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.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

So close... Nikon needs to squeeze one more stop of light into that 400mm...

binary visions wrote:
So close... Nikon needs to squeeze one more stop of light into that 400mm...

So that the price triples and the weight triples?

I think that Nikon should stay with the F2.8VR and add the F5.6VR.

Chris

I'm not saying there's not a place for the 400mm f/5.6.

I'm just commenting on what I want.

Nikon already has 400/4 lens. What's the use of another one?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

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 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.

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.

Nah, same rumours they got from us here on FM.

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.

Passinhos wrote:

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 wish they would put some effort into a DX UWA lens.. the 12-24mm is showing its age and limitations

pdxmac wrote:
I wish they would put some effort into a DX UWA lens.. the 12-24mm is showing its age and limitations

1. Which limitations? As far as I know it is one of the best UWA, if not the best.
2. There's always the 10.5/2.8.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

i need 50-150 or 35-120 f 2.8

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.

Andre Labonte wrote:
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 ...

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.

Easy with all the hub-bub. Let's just ait and see what happens, besides my NAS funds are kind of skimpy right now.

fkhfineart wrote:
i need 50-150 or 35-120 f 2.8

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.

Woohoo, another rumour mill!

FM really needs a popcorn icon

The D3X with a Sony sensor is probable. It mirrors what they did with the D2H/D2X. D2H was a Nikon designed, Sony fabbed sensor (LBCAST) and the D2X was a Sony sensor with some Nikon tweaks.

diggitydawg510 wrote:
fkhfineart wrote:
i need 50-150 or 35-120 f 2.8

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.

sigma never worked for me. glad you are happy with yours but already reviews prove for me that i should not try again.
some pics to post?

OK then I'll start saving up some pennies for that 300mm f4 AF-S VR in the off-chance that rumor actually is legit...

I a poor amateur, and a D90 will make me happy so far Nikon does not remove too much features from its brother, aka D300.
otherwise I will end up with a D200 to replace my good old D70.
regarding lenses, I would love a 200-400 F5.6 VRII, dedicated to amateur, so a not a Pro lense, but giving enough zooming feature for me. The current 80-400 VR is simply not so good, even for an amateur (70-300 VR is better).

By the way, mid june upgrade makes sense with the current discount period of D80 ending up June 14th in Europe .... last week, I saw a D80 + 35-135 for less than 700€...

Based on the reviews I have seen from Bjorn R. and M. Webber, the 200-400VR is every bit as good as the primes from an IQ point of view. If it can match up with the f/2.8 primes, it will just fine against an f/4 prime. I'm sure the prime lovers and pixel peepers will disagree.

You may have a point regarding the size and weight, but you are in the minority in general; most people will take the zoom over the prime. I just don't see Nikon making a 400 f/4 prime as long as the 200-400VR is in production. Feel free to keep hoping!

As for a 400 f/5.6, here again, the 80-400 already covers it. You are not going to do much better for the money in terms of IQ (again, see M. Webber's review). The 80-400 is surprisingly compact and you are not doing to save much by going to a prime ... in fact, the zoom will be smaller when zoomed to the 80mm end. What you WILL see is an updated 80-400VR with AFS. As long as that lens exists, I just don't see Nikon making a 400 f/5.6. Again, feel free to keep hoping!

Note: I did not say it would not be nice to have such lenses, I just don't see Nikon doing it.

binary visions wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
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 ...

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.