Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
  

Archive 2018 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced

  
 
amlsml
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


I see many canon shooters on a pro sideline using their 200-400 even at night.Many dumped their 300 and 400 2.8 to fund the purchase. Interesting that not too many use the 1.4 that often. Occasional use from what I see. I switched to Nikon from canon 6 years ago because I feel then, as I do now, that the 200-400 , is the perfect focal length for most field sports. On a d500 the 300-600 FL is truly remarkable. As ISO creeps past 4000 it is time for the 400 2.8 on the D4s. My issue is my 200-440 v1 has served me well, provides sharp images, (good copy), is handhold able and I can't justify the additional 10k in expenditure. As these bodies allow me to easily shoot north of 8000 ISO, F4 and even F5.6 may become the new 2.8 for sports shooters. I will request one from NPS, when available and put it through a few night games to see how it performs. Maybe I can also go to 1 lens from the 3, I currently use


Jan 11, 2018 at 08:33 PM
reggieb
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


turtile wrote:
When did I say that Nikon's margins are so small that they would lose money from something as small as a rebate?


You said that to price the lens any lower, Nikon would have to compromise on the lens quality. If that were true, then they must not be making much of a marine. Else they would in fact be able to lower the price without compromising quality.



Jan 11, 2018 at 08:35 PM
ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


Nikon made a loss in 2016 and to my knowledge they're only slightly profitable now. They have NOT been able to increase market share in the declining overall camera market by reducing prices (in fact they've lost market share), so what remains is to identify areas of strength which they can excel at and where they can make a profit by making a small or moderate number of units. High end supertelephoto lenses is one such area where they have sufficient expertise to do well. Of course a new product has sufficient margin so that Nikon can eventually give a 2 per cent rebate (once the costs of development have been covered) but that doesn't mean they should start at a reduced price.



Jan 12, 2018 at 07:42 AM
CanadaMark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


ilkka_nissila wrote:
Nikon made a loss in 2016 and to my knowledge they're only slightly profitable now. They have NOT been able to increase market share in the declining overall camera market by reducing prices (in fact they've lost market share), so what remains is to identify areas of strength which they can excel at and where they can make a profit by making a small or moderate number of units. High end supertelephoto lenses is one such area where they have sufficient expertise to do well. Of course a new product has sufficient margin so that Nikon can eventually give a
...Show more

If memory serves me, Nikon's loss in 2016 was almost entirely from their semiconductor lithography business, not the camera/imaging side.

The dumbest thing they have done recently is cancel the DL line, in my opinion. Seems as though they were the only ones who thought it wouldn't be successful. Perhaps they had supplier problems that were larger than they wanted to admit, but there was no evidence of that. If they released it now, those cameras would *still* be in a category of their own in today's 1" sensor compact market. Even Nikon's biggest critic, Thom Hogan, seems baffled by the decision.

The D850 should be helping them out a lot, and if they don't screw up their mirrorless, that should be huge for them. There is no excuse to mess up a new MILC these days, Sony has done all the preliminary work for them by testing the market and seeing what works. A late entry to MILC (aside from the 1-series) isn't a bad thing IMO, until very recently MILC's have been underwhelming at best, so here is their opportunity to take what they have learned from everyone else and knock it out of the park. The closest completion has set a very low bar and all Nikon has to do is what they usually do with their DSLRs, and apply it to mirrorless.



Jan 12, 2018 at 11:08 AM
la puffin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced



gnjphotography wrote:
You have to look at supply and demand. For Nikon and Canon, the Olympics is a big deal and having this type of lens for it's NPS members and those who shoot Nikon is necessary. Is it needed for the parent shooting their child playing soccer or t-ball? No, that is why the 70-300, 80-400 and 200-500 exist.


That's a good point.

gnjphotography wrote:
Sports illustrated is not the only publication or people that pay for sports photography. Though the other lenses are capable of being used, the 180-400mm has significant advantages over these lenses for capturing fast action in low light in all weather conditions. There have been plenty of time I have shot sporting events where it is not supposed to rain and it pours down. Could the 200-500mm handle being drenched in rain? The 180-400mm should be able too.


More good points. There may be less print publications, but now there are a to more media outlets online and they don't all buy from Getty or AP. Go to a NFL game and there's a lot of photographers in the media room and on the sidelines.

gnjphotography wrote:
Overall it is a lens for those who need it, like the 400mm, 500mm, 600mm and 800mm. None of these telephotos are under $10,000. So, yes, it seems expensive, but is inline with other exotic telephoto lenses in the line.


I agree with this too. There's also the previous G series lenses available if one can't afford the latest and greatest.

90 5.0 wrote:
Think about it like this. Say we have the same shot, in a sports illustrated magazine on the shelf.

At that print size, when does the current 200-500 vr or the 200-400 on a d5 need a d6 and a 180-400?

Now the focus speed issue makes sense, if the others focus to slow to get good shots that’s understandable but the resolution really isn’t, or macro sharpness.

People aren’t buying mags and looking at the pics with jewelry loops to see fine detail.


A creamy background will practically always look better than a busy one. Two identical shots, one at 2.8 and one at 5.6, ask people which looks better? With the competition being so fierce, any edge is better for having a shot used. Go to ESPN.com or USAToday.com. For field sports, you'll see those blurred bf's. Basketball is tougher because of the size of the court, but the principle is the same or even stronger.

Also, there's big difference in light between 2.8 and 5.6. Shooting MLB at night, my D5 will occasionally hit 12,800 at 1/2000 and f2.8. Two stops slower?



Jan 12, 2018 at 02:28 PM
reggieb
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


la puffin wrote:
I agree with this too. There's also the previous G series lenses available if one can't afford the latest and greatest.



I don't know, let's look at prices:
400 f/2.8 FL: $11,196.95 ($12.396.95 is 11% more)
500 f/4 FL: $10,296.95 (20% more)
600 f/4 FL: 12.296.95, which is pretty comparable.

If you can stand a few additional pounds, as you mention, you can get the G series which are substantially less expensive.

I consider the 400 and definitely the 500 to be substantially less expensive already.



Jan 12, 2018 at 03:22 PM
la puffin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


reggieb wrote:
I don't know, let's look at prices:
400 f/2.8 FL: $11,196.95 ($12.396.95 is 11% more)
500 f/4 FL: $10,296.95 (20% more)
600 f/4 FL: 12.296.95, which is pretty comparable.

If you can stand a few additional pounds, as you mention, you can get the G series which are substantially less expensive.

I consider the 400 and definitely the 500 to be substantially less expensive already.


Except that the 400/2.8 E FL was $11,999.95 when launched in 2014, although adjusted for inflation, would be just about $12,400. I guess if the 180-400/4 was $400 cheaper, people wouldn't have an issue with the price?



Jan 12, 2018 at 03:43 PM
reggieb
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


la puffin wrote:
Except that the 400/2.8 E FL was $11,999.95 when launched in 2014, although adjusted for inflation, would be just about $12,400. I guess if the 180-400/4 was $400 cheaper, people wouldn't have an issue with the price?


Didn't know that. We might see an adjustment down after their initial orders on this guy, too then.



Jan 12, 2018 at 04:21 PM
dreamplayer
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


I don't complain the price.
But I don't like the zoom range. exact 200-400 probably get a bit better image quality or 200- 420 get a little bit more reach make more sense to me



Jan 13, 2018 at 03:49 AM
morrismike
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


Steve Perry wrote:
One interesting thing that no one has mentioned - this lens has a really great minimum focus distance - just 6.6 feet. That's even better than the 200-500 at 7.2 feet and way better than the 400 2.8 at 8.4 feet.

Plus, since a TC does not affect minimum focus distance, this gives you a 560mm lens that can focus to 6.6 feet. Far better than the 11.9 feet of the 500mm or the 14.4 feet of my 600 F4.

This could be the ultimate lens for tiny birds like wrens, warblers, etc. Now, just to come up with
...Show more

You do realize your 80-400 AFS with a 1.4tc focuses closer than that lens (5.7' versus 6.6')? Another thing to think of is that like the 200-400, this new lens probably won't be any sharper than 80-400afs when both are equiped with a tc.

Edited on Jan 14, 2018 at 11:39 PM · View previous versions



Jan 14, 2018 at 11:35 PM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


morrismike wrote:
You do realize your 80-400 AFS with a 1.4tc focuses closer than that lens (5.7' versus 6.6')? Another thing to think of is that like the 200-400, this new lens probably won't be any sharper than 80-400g when both are equiped with a tc.


I have a strong feeling that this lens with its built-in (likely calibrated) 1.4TC will be a heck of a lot sharper than the 80-400G with an external 1.4TC.



Jan 14, 2018 at 11:39 PM
morrismike
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


arbitrage wrote:
I have a strong feeling that this lens with its built-in (likely calibrated) 1.4TC will be a heck of a lot sharper than the 80-400G with an external 1.4TC.

One would think. Although another question is why bother with the tc over just going for a 560mm zoom lens. It seems like they simply should have offered an upgraded version of the 200-500.



Jan 14, 2018 at 11:41 PM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


morrismike wrote:
One would think. Although another question is why bother with the tc over just going for a 560mm zoom lens. It seems like they simply should have offered an upgraded version of the 200-500.


There are reasons....I've owned Canon 200-400, both 100-400 versions, Sigma 150-600C and Nikon 200-500....the prime like quality of the 200-400, fixed lens length, f/4 through 400mm and then instant switching to 280-560/5.6 with (at least on the Canon version) virtually no loss in IQ are the things you are paying for in this lens. You give up size and weight advantages to the other lenses.

If you make a zoom go to 560mm what do you make the aperture? 5.6? Well then you give up the stop up to 400mm. If you make it f/4 throughout then the front element is 400/2.8 sized and the lens is gigantic.

I'd put the Canon version with external 2xTC and internal 1.4 TC at 1120mm f/11 up against an 80-400 with 1.4 TC and expect the 200-400 to come out on top. I'm sure the Nikon version will be just as good or better.












Jan 14, 2018 at 11:50 PM
Steve Perry
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


morrismike wrote:
You do realize your 80-400 AFS with a 1.4tc focuses closer than that lens (5.7' versus 6.6')? Another thing to think of is that like the 200-400, this new lens probably won't be any sharper than 80-400afs when both are equiped with a tc.


Pretty sure the 180-400 is going to be WAY sharper than 80-400 with TC. That lens does NOT like TCs, at least my copy doesn't. Plus it drops to F8 with the TC - that's insane for most wildlife IMO.

I forgot about the close focusing of the 80-400 though. Still, with the 180-200 you're getting to 560 instead of 400mm at F5.6 and I wouldn't be surprised if - even with the tc engaged - it's still retains prime-like sharpness. Plus, the 80-400's AF is a bit jittery, I'm sure the 180-200's isn't.

I think comparing the 80-400 to the 180-400 lens is like comparing a Corolla to a Corvette. Both will get you there, but there's an undeniable difference in performance.



Jan 15, 2018 at 12:14 AM
ELinder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


As much as I love my 200-400 VR2, there's no way I can justify the price difference of the new lens no matter how much I want it. My only hope would be that the high cost will drive up the current lens used price market to make the upgrade a bit more realistic, but I doubt that will happen.

Erich



Jan 15, 2018 at 10:42 AM
CanadaMark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · Nikon 180-400mm w/1.4TC announced


morrismike wrote:
You do realize your 80-400 AFS with a 1.4tc focuses closer than that lens (5.7' versus 6.6')? Another thing to think of is that like the 200-400, this new lens probably won't be any sharper than 80-400afs when both are equiped with a tc.


I would definitely take the other side of that bet. The $12K 180-400FL will surely be sharper than the 80-400G, each with a 1.4TC. I suspect there will be little to no IQ degradation at all with the custom TC on the 180-400, where a general TC on the 80-400 we already know is less than ideal (and F8).

Your first clue aside from the price is the zoom ratios, 2.2 vs 5 - the lower that is, generally the better it is going to perform with a TC.



Jan 15, 2018 at 12:08 PM
1       2       3      
4
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.