Ripolini wrote:
So Sony should never have designed and produced the 70-200/4 OSS II, given that there are two valid 70-180/2.8 lenses with E-mount.
Market leaders have enough funds and customers to go with more options in the product offerings;Sony makes also many more camera models than Nikon currently do. Would having a 70-200/4 improve Nikon's overall market share significantly? Probably not. Would some users like to have one? Absolutely.
In addition to the greater market share that Sony has, their customers may have different preferences from Nikon's.
Nikon was for the longest time not making an f/4 constant telezoom and once they finally did it out of customer demand, the customers didn't really buy it in sufficient numbers. Presumably many of these customers that got the f/4 didn't buy the f/2.8, resulting in the company losing money. If five times as many people would have bought the f/4 than bought the f/2.8, then things would be different and Nikon would certainly be making an f/4 version today. Once bitten, twice shy.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Market leaders have enough funds and customers to go with more options in the product offerings;Sony makes also many more camera models than Nikon currently do. Would having a 70-200/4 improve Nikon's overall market share significantly? Probably not. Would some users like to have one? Absolutely.
In addition to the greater market share that Sony has, their customers may have different preferences from Nikon's.
Nikon was for the longest time not making an f/4 constant telezoom and once they finally did it out of customer demand, the customers didn't really buy it in sufficient numbers. Presumably many of these customers that got the f/4 didn't buy the f/2.8, resulting in the company losing money. If five times as many people would have bought the f/4 than bought the f/2.8, then things would be different and Nikon would certainly be making an f/4 version today. Once bitten, twice shy....Show more →
I'm pretty sure that Nikon users have the same genetic makeup as Sony and Canon users.
I know Nikon photographers who have switched to Sony and vice versa. I'm also confident that all these human beings use cameras and lenses for the same purposes.
You're referring to the era of AF (D)SLR cameras, when Nikon introduced its 70-200/4 VR only in 2012, while Canon presented its first EF-L 70-200/4 back in 1999 and then the IS version in 2006. So, yes, Nikon was late to the party. Was it to avoid cannibalizing the f/2.8 versions? I don't know, I'm not as sure as you are. But I can see the facts: Nikon was late to the party, and Canon wasn't afraid to cannibalize its (excellent) EF-L 70-200/2.8 zoom(s).
Based on Roland Vink's data, Nikon has sold 87,000 70-200/4 VR lenses since 2012. Considering that sales will have declined over the years (now they sell maybe a few units a year... in Germany they sell it NEW for 700, see: https://www.audiophil-foto.de/Nikon-AF-S-70-200-4.0-G-VR-ED/0018208022021), they will have sold about 10,000 units (it's the order of magnitude) per year during the transition period from DSLR to mirrorless.
But today we are in a different universe: we are in the era of mirrorless cameras, with high-res sensors that are not affected by noise, and AI software that greatly reduces the advantage of 1 extra stop. The only advantage of having 1 extra stop is in the speed of the AF, so those who shoot sports and action will continue to use the f/2.8 zoom anyway. For portraits, there are specific lenses, and in any case, a 70-200/4 does the job very well. We are also in the era of weight savings, as demonstrated by Nikon's latest f/2.8 SII zooms.
In any case, I am not in the minds of Nikon managers, and I am only stating facts. It is a fact that there is no trio of f/4 S zooms.
Nikon probably knows that a high-quality (and high-priced) 70-200/4 S VR would not sell very well. Sony and Canon think differently, perhaps because of their market share. The result: Nikon users who want a more compact lens have to buy a Tamron or a Tamrikon (the former being preferable to the latter ).
But Nikon makes a (MF !!) 58/0.95 S costing 8 k.
Is this how Nikon hopes to increase or even just maintain its market share?
The 58 .95 wasn't made to sell a ton of units. It's classified as a "halo project," just to show that it could be made in the first place. Anybody interested in even a look close to that lens just bought the 50 1.2. From what I heard the Noct gained traction being adapted to cinema rigs. Ripolini wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Nikon users have the same genetic makeup as Sony and Canon users.
I know Nikon photographers who have switched to Sony and vice versa. I'm also confident that all these human beings use cameras and lenses for the same purposes.
You're referring to the era of AF (D)SLR cameras, when Nikon introduced its 70-200/4 VR only in 2012, while Canon presented its first EF-L 70-200/4 back in 1999 and then the IS version in 2006. So, yes, Nikon was late to the party. Was it to avoid cannibalizing the f/2.8 versions? I don't know, I'm not as sure as you are. But I can see the facts: Nikon was late to the party, and Canon wasn't afraid to cannibalize its (excellent) EF-L 70-200/2.8 zoom(s).
Based on Roland Vink's data, Nikon has sold 87,000 70-200/4 VR lenses since 2012. Considering that sales will have declined over the years (now they sell maybe a few units a year... in Germany they sell it NEW for 700, see: https://www.audiophil-foto.de/Nikon-AF-S-70-200-4.0-G-VR-ED/0018208022021), they will have sold about 10,000 units (it's the order of magnitude) per year during the transition period from DSLR to mirrorless.
But today we are in a different universe: we are in the era of mirrorless cameras, with high-res sensors that are not affected by noise, and AI software that greatly reduces the advantage of 1 extra stop. The only advantage of having 1 extra stop is in the speed of the AF, so those who shoot sports and action will continue to use the f/2.8 zoom anyway. For portraits, there are specific lenses, and in any case, a 70-200/4 does the job very well. We are also in the era of weight savings, as demonstrated by Nikon's latest f/2.8 SII zooms.
In any case, I am not in the minds of Nikon managers, and I am only stating facts. It is a fact that there is no trio of f/4 S zooms.
Nikon probably knows that a high-quality (and high-priced) 70-200/4 S VR would not sell very well. Sony and Canon think differently, perhaps because of their market share. The result: Nikon users who want a more compact lens have to buy a Tamron or a Tamrikon (the former being preferable to the latter ).
But Nikon makes a (MF !!) 58/0.95 S costing 8 k.
Is this how Nikon hopes to increase or even just maintain its market share?...Show more →
Ripolini wrote:
Nikon probably knows that a high-quality (and high-priced) 70-200/4 S VR would not sell very well. Sony and Canon think differently, perhaps because of their market share.
Sony 70-200mm offerings make an interesting comparison versus Nikon. NB: I also shoot Sony so the f/4 zooms are available to me if called for. Anyway, Sony is on their 2nd iteration of 70-200mm in both f/4 and f/2.8 forms. The f/4 maintained the weight but took off a full 1 inch. The f/2.8 kept the length but took off a full 1 lb of weight. So, the current generation is a difference of speed, weight (1/2 lb less), length (2 in less), and price ($1K less). Nikon's mission, if they accepted, would be a Z 70-200/4S with the same differences. The AF-S 70-200/4G is a high-performance zoom and was actually quite expensive ($1350), so a Z "S" version would not be cheap, just cheaper than big bro.
Ripolini wrote:
You're referring to the era of AF (D)SLR cameras, when Nikon introduced its 70-200/4 VR only in 2012, while Canon presented its first EF-L 70-200/4 back in 1999 and then the IS version in 2006.
Fun fact: just did a little checking out of curiosity because I'm a dork, and Nikon's first AF 70-210/4 came out in '86, Canon responded in '87, so technically Nikon wins by a bit. If you count manual focus lenses it gets murkier because Ai, Ai-S, and FD all had multiple f/4, f/4.5, and f/4-5.6 variants.
I have to lug this lens around a lot so I recently started using the Nikon 70-180 2.8, A lot less weight and size and no tripod collar, now this new 70-200 has lost weight and size and tripod collar, I'm going to look for a comparison between the new 70-200 and the 70-180. I would expect the new lens to be better the question is how much?
Lee Saxon wrote:
Fun fact: just did a little checking out of curiosity because I'm a dork, and Nikon's first AF 70-210/4 came out in '86, Canon responded in '87, so technically Nikon wins by a bit. If you count manual focus lenses it gets murkier because Ai, Ai-S, and FD all had multiple f/4, f/4.5, and f/4-5.6 variants.
Those annoying facts...
On the other hand it is true that Nikon stopped to update that lens while Canon continued.
The real question is how much lighter/optically better Nikon could make a 70-200mm f4 S vs the current 70-180mm f2.8. I am sure they could improve on both axis, but by how much and at what cost? It would most probably be more expensive.
They are probably looking at the sales numbers between their very high end 24-70mm f4 S and the cheaper and more recent 28-70mm f2.8.
Finally, I am sure that Nikon isn't against a 70-200mm f4 S, the question is the priority of that lens vs other candidates in their pipeline. So far it certainly looks like other lenses have taken precedence for reasons only them fully know.
its all relatively really. I really enjoy the pics i get out of my 70-200 f2.8 v1. It is just a beast to carry around. With Canon's i rarely had to think about having it in my bag, it was just minimal and sat out of the way for the most part. But whewee the files from Nikon is just impressive.
although i do wish we had a smaller pro option, i dont consider the 70-180 a pro lens, doesnt have hte same weather sealing nor the same optical coatings, one cant argue the quality of the 70-200 v1. It would be hard for the v2 to be That much better.
On the question of an f4 or so zoom in this class, I'd say for Nikon that rather than a conventional 70-200/4, the two that make sense are a macro 70-200/4 zoom -- like Sony's, by the way, with roughly a 1:2 ratio, rather like Nikon's 70-180 4.5-5.6D from the 1990s, except that the Sony manages to maintain that 1:2 ratio across the entire zoom range -- and a Z-mount version of the Nikkor 70-300/4.5-5.6 AF-P. I'd pitch the macro zoom as an S class lens (Sony's is $2,000 US) and the 70-300 as a non-S.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Fun fact: just did a little checking out of curiosity because I'm a dork, and Nikon's first AF 70-210/4 came out in '86, Canon responded in '87, so technically Nikon wins by a bit.
I was referring to modern AF lenses, i.e., AF-S and EF lenses. The AF 70-210/4 was the AF version of the Nikon E 70-210/4*, and was introduced along with the Nikon F-501 in 1988; a camera with primitive AF. Canon EF mount replaced its predecessor, the FD mount, one year earlier in 1987. You know, EF mount relies entirely on electrical contacts for communication and this allowed Canon to win the AF war at that time, even if Canons first autofocus motor was a stepper motor with the stator shaped in an arc (AFD). In 1989 the EF 50mm f/1.0L USM was introduced: this lens offered the world's widest aperture for a 35mm single lens reflex camera and USM (UltraSonic Motor) autofocus motor. Nikon introduced AF-S (silent wave focus motor) in 1998.
I know so many photographers who moved to, and still use, Canon for this reason. Therefore, I'm not sure Nikon won "by a bit" at the end of the 1980s ... Not wanting to beat up on Nikon's delays, I deliberately didn't mention the AF 70-210/4
* see: "Nikon Compendium", by Rudolf Hillebrand & Hans-Joachim Hauschild, Hove Books, UK (1993), page 144.
Incredible results... the 70-200mm f2.8 mkII with the 2x TC appears sharper wide open than the 100-400mm S wide open.
Cheers,
Bernard
There are also reports which show the opposite to be the case, i.e. the 100-400 is sharper than the 70-200 II + 2X both at 400 mm. It's possible shooting conditions can differ and each 2X TC and lens sample may not produce identical results.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
There are also reports which show the opposite to be the case, i.e. the 100-400 is sharper than the 70-200 II + 2X both at 400 mm. It's possible shooting conditions can differ and each 2X TC and lens sample may not produce identical results.
Sample variation can definitely occur.
But the 100-400mm S is an excellent lens so the 70-200mm f2.8 mkII + 2x TC being even just close is already a great achievement.
Ill keep my 400mm f2.8 but knowing that pro grade results can be obtained with a x2 TC greatly extends the range of options in the field.
With the Arca-like foot, RRS, Kirk, Wimberley, ... are losing business for plates and replacement feet unless they come up with added value for something new. My AF 2.8/80-200 ED had no collar and it was not missed. I wonder whether this new collar is a new feature that we will see more often in the future. Price-wise $150 would also work for most of us - my AF 2.8/80-200ED had no collar whatsoever and was 30% heavier.
With the new f/2.8 Z ii becoming rather pricey, a f/4 makes sense in the lineup. Still, Nikon will keep selling the f/2.8 (-180 / -200) versions for some time until they are ready to put an f/4 version on the market which will differentiate itself in price, size and maybe additional features,
draacor wrote:
although i do wish we had a smaller pro option, i dont consider the 70-180 a pro lens, doesnt have hte same weather sealing nor the same optical coatings, one cant argue the quality of the 70-200 v1. It would be hard for the v2 to be That much better.
I literally and figuratively have no dog...;-) in this fight, but at this point in the history of photographic gear, I am surprised anyone would even try to make a "pro" distinction about what a pro uses or not given the incredibly diverse use cases of gear onsite.
Pros have been using any and all combinations of lenses and bodies for many, many decades at this point, I often pull the 40mm F2 or 70-180mm 2.8 into play when the overall job or project calls for it. Even Galen Rowell used the budget 75-150mm Series E lens to great effect on his high elevation exploits. I did a job a few days ago in which the shots I was doing would not likely be tighter than 50mm, so I brought the 70-180 2.8 along to cover me just in case to keep the weight down in my ski pack. So the client asked for a bit tighter shot in the 100mm range and the "just in case" lens did fantastic, the 70-200 2.8S was not missed.
When I did a month long project in a remote region of the Himalaya a couple years ago, there was no way I was going to take the 70-200 2.8S but the 70-180 2.8 was a total shoe-in and did incredibly well, even in a snowstorm at over 15,000' feet and a summit at over 20,000' feet. I think it is a fantastic little lens, I have no hesitation in using it as I sell my 70-200 2.8S V1 and wait for my NPS preorder on the new 70-200 2.8S II.
).
