p.1 #4 · I really love my 24-120 f4 VR and think Nikon should...
mfletch wrote:
Well, they have the 200-400 VR. Pretty close to the FL range and is constant f/4. If they build a 120-300 f/4, it would be smaller, but not by a much.
The 200-400 4 is in a totally different ballpark. I would think it would be the size of the 70-200 2.8. Sigma had a 100-300 f/4 and it was around the size of a 70-200 2.8
p.1 #7 · I really love my 24-120 f4 VR and think Nikon should...
You can hand-hold the 200-400, but ya ... its a bit large to be carrying around with you for a photo walk. Its more of a gimbal or monopod kind of lens
p.1 #8 · I really love my 24-120 f4 VR and think Nikon should...
Nikon made a 50-300 4.5 back in 1977 they stopped. The ED version is very nice and still sells for a good amount, my local shop has one in 9+ for 650.00. From what i understand the ED version is the only way to go on that one.
It is a large lens but I don't think it as big as the 200-400. The old one is a tank! Real fun to play with.
It would be real nice if Nikon did it again at F4 with bells and whistles.
Jan 31, 2012 at 01:30 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · I really love my 24-120 f4 VR and think Nikon should...
mfletch wrote:
Well, they have the 200-400 VR. Pretty close to the FL range and is constant f/4. If they build a 120-300 f/4, it would be smaller, but not by a much.
A 120-300 f/4 would be much smaller than the 200-400.
p.1 #10 · I really love my 24-120 f4 VR and think Nikon should...
Nothing wrong with FL overlap if it prevents the need to swap lenses - unless it comes at the expense of IQ caused by the design limitations of too high a zoom ratio.
The 70-300 VR makes a pretty good 70-200 VR but tests reviews show that the long end is not up to par as you get closer to 300mm, and the f/5.6 is rather limiting for what is effectively a large diameter 200mm lens. It was obviously made/designed too cheaply.
As for a 120-300 replacing the 80-400, you've got to be kidding. A 100-400 maybe, or even a 120-400, but don't sacrifice the all important long end. I've got both Canon and Nikon gear and whichever company makes a good quality 100-400 first will find a buyer in me. The present versions are too old and lack decent image stabilization.
p.1 #11 · I really love my 24-120 f4 VR and think Nikon should...
I too am waiting for an updated 80-400VR from Nikon - I too would take a hit on the short end focal length to have an improved tele end. A 100-400/4-5.6VR with a removable (but well built) tripod collar would be the cat's meow for me.
p.1 #14 · I really love my 24-120 f4 VR and think Nikon should...
Alan321 wrote:
Nothing wrong with FL overlap if it prevents the need to swap lenses - unless it comes at the expense of IQ caused by the design limitations of too high a zoom ratio.
The 70-300 VR makes a pretty good 70-200 VR but tests reviews show that the long end is not up to par as you get closer to 300mm, and the f/5.6 is rather limiting for what is effectively a large diameter 200mm lens. It was obviously made/designed too cheaply.
As for a 120-300 replacing the 80-400, you've got to be kidding. A 100-400 maybe, or even a 120-400, but don't sacrifice the all important long end. I've got both Canon and Nikon gear and whichever company makes a good quality 100-400 first will find a buyer in me. The present versions are too old and lack decent image stabilization.
