I don't know what you guys paid for the original all those years ago but my canon 100-400 L IS cost me $4,000 back in 1999 and that model is still waiting for an upgrade. For a long time it was my most used lens but it's pretty tired on digital SLRs these days because the design predated the digital era. Looks like Nikon wins the upgrade race (if you could call such slow progress a race) and only poor reviews will stop me buying one. With luck I'll have it in time for a trip to South Africa in a few months.
Alan321 wrote:
I don't know what you guys paid for the original all those years ago but my canon 100-400 L IS cost me $4,000 back in 1999 and that model is still waiting for an upgrade. For a long time it was my most used lens but it's pretty tired on digital SLRs these days because the design predated the digital era. Looks like Nikon wins the upgrade race (if you could call such slow progress a race) and only poor reviews will stop me buying one. With luck I'll have it in time for a trip to South Africa in a few months.
Alan321 wrote:
I don't know what you guys paid for the original all those years ago but my canon 100-400 L IS cost me $4,000 back in 1999 and that model is still waiting for an upgrade. For a long time it was my most used lens but it's pretty tired on digital SLRs these days because the design predated the digital era. Looks like Nikon wins the upgrade race (if you could call such slow progress a race) and only poor reviews will stop me buying one. With luck I'll have it in time for a trip to South Africa in a few months.
I am very interested in trying this lens out. It took so long Nikon to update this and I hope it worth it. Price point is a little up there but heck most new glass is high so wait and see now....
gugs wrote:
Count me in. what am I going to do with my 200-400VR or 120-300OS now ?
I am very interested in trying this lens out. It took so long Nikon to update this and I hope it worth it. Price point is a little up there but heck most new glass is high so wait and see now....
If you don't mind the size, the 120-300/2.8 is by far the winner.
Bob
I am very interested in trying this lens out. It took so long Nikon to update this and I hope it worth it. Price point is a little up there but heck most new glass is high so wait and see now....
If you don't mind the size, the 120-300/2.8 is by far the winner.
Bob
binary visions wrote:
...it's the winner over a lens that nobody has tested yet?
Of course, of course. It is just my rhetoric based on my experience. For my last safari few months ago, I used 120-300/2.8 and Nikon 400/2.8 VR . the Sigma performed as well as the best of Nikon 400/2.8 VR.
I have the lens on order from B&H. It has internal focus(IF)
but NO internal zoom(IZ). So unfortunately, it will extend
about 3" at 400mm. Also, it will AF with a Nikon X1.4
teleconverter attached, at F/8.0 on the D800.
Can't wait to have this baby in my hands.
GroovyGeek wrote:
And you would be exactly where the 800-400 is price-wise, except that you would have a 5.6 lens everywhere and probably not so great optics, at least if Nikon's past TC2.0's are a guide. Not sure of the latest one though.
I doubt that Nikon would price it as they did if the IQ was merely equivalent to a 70-200 + TC
Yes but you would also have a 2.8 until 200mm. Gain some lose some I guess!
Sorry, I misspoke - I was doing the math on the difference in element size
Of course, you're right. But it's still less than a third of a stop - and I was curious if it was just nitpicking, or if there was another reason why he specifically wants that small difference.
Exactly my point ! and you have 2.8 available when you need it.
As said before I will try 80-400 but unless it will blow my socks I am in the market for 120-300 first
Sorry Nikon my cash goes to Sigma this time !
nugeny wrote:
If you don't mind the size, the 120-300/2.8 is by far the winner.
Bob
