Anyone have any experience with the reliability of rumors at nikonrumors.com? They have a "confirmed" rumor that Nikon will be announcing a new 70-200 f2.8 VR at Photokina this month. I just bought the lens and have been thinking of returning it, because it's no sharper than my 70-300 VR (on my D3). A replacement would push me over the edge. I'm in a bit of a quandry because I'm leaving next week for a month in India, in the Himalayas.
Any thoughts on the reported "confirmed" rumor would be appreciated.
Seismo wrote:
Anyone have any experience with the reliability of rumors at nikonrumors.com? They have a "confirmed" rumor that Nikon will be announcing a new 70-200 f2.8 VR at Photokina this month. I just bought the lens and have been thinking of returning it, because it's no sharper than my 70-300 VR (on my D3). A replacement would push me over the edge. I'm in a bit of a quandry because I'm leaving next week for a month in India, in the Himalayas.
Any thoughts on the reported "confirmed" rumor would be appreciated.
Well, even if the rumor is true and Nikon announces a new 70-200VR (which sounds very probable since all major online store are out of stock!) you won't be able to get your hands on it before you leave for India I'm afraid...
This being said... having a 70-300 and a 70-200 is a bit redundant... I'd get a 85mm f/1.8 or a nice wide angle if I were you...
if you can use your 70-300 instead for the trip, i'd suggest to return it!
i'm a big fan of 70-300 vr. I have 70-200 but seldom used because 70-300 is *almost* as good, not as fast, but IQ is quite close (except picturers with a oof busy background). I use 70-200 only when 2.8 is need or i want a tripod collar.
I sort of believe this one. The 70-200 has been in very short supply for the last year, and new primes have been rumored forever and it would make sense to do the 50 and 85 first. But even if announced at Photokina, these lenses will not be available until well into 2009 (in my opinion.) And if that's the case, I think we'll see only three more lens announcements in 2009.
Not that I personally believe that the primes need VR, but don't you think Forum people will scream if they don't? And they'll also be those who will be upset that they're not 1.2s to match the Canon L series. Also I would expect the primes to be priced substantially above their AF counterparts, although maybe Nikon purposely made them 1.4s so that they could be priced less expensively than the Canons.
I'd say there is an 80% chance the 70-200 VR is updated at Photokina.
Not to get you upset or anything !
I also just bought a D700 having sold my Canon gear. Just bought a 24-70 and 105 Macro but waiting to see if the 70-200 is updated or not.
In the meantime I'm borrowing my neighbors 180/2.8 Nikkor, great optics, slow autofocus, but certainly fills the hole for the medium telephoto. This lens only costs around $300+
Thanks to everyone who commented. I realize no one can confirm a rumor but I appreciated the perspective from everyone. I too think it's very telling that no one is stocking the 70-200.
Seismo wrote:
Thanks to everyone who commented. I realize no one can confirm a rumor but I appreciated the perspective from everyone. I too think it's very telling that no one is stocking the 70-200.
I would think Nikon will update the 80-400 first. It is way overdue. i have the 70-200/2.8 VR. It is still a great lens and comparable to Canon's, that I used to have.
"Doctors say he's got a 50-50 chance of making it, although there's only a 10% chance of that"
"Mrs. Nordberg, I think we can save your husband. Where would you like him saved?"
"Don't you worry, the minute he's able he'll be welcomed back to police squad. Unless he's a drooling vegetable, and I think that's covered under comprehensive."
The waiting game will never leave you satisfied. What's so wrong with the current 70-200VR that you MUST have an updated version? I also agree that having both a 70-200VR and 70-300VR is just extra weight... unless you really need the f/2.8
lxdesign wrote:
The waiting game will never leave you satisfied. What's so wrong with the current 70-200VR that you MUST have an updated version? I also agree that having both a 70-200VR and 70-300VR is just extra weight... unless you really need the f/2.8
It's not MUST HAVE but WANT
The 70-200 isn't in the same league as the 14-24 or 24-70. It's not designed for FF but it's still a very good lens.
I have both the 70-200 and 70-300 and use them for totally different purposes. The 70-200 is much better. I use the 70-200 for wedings and other things when I need the speed. I use the 70-300 for my travels. I'm not in an hurry but certainly will upgrade.
Edited by Chris Dees on Sep 08, 2008 at 03:13 PM GMT
lxdesign wrote:
The waiting game will never leave you satisfied. What's so wrong with the current 70-200VR that you MUST have an updated version? I also agree that having both a 70-200VR and 70-300VR is just extra weight... unless you really need the f/2.8
i dont blame him for waiting, I would too. Why get an older model when a new one is right around the corner (for probably the same ammount of money)
EB-1 wrote:
Unlikely IMO. Slow tele primes just don't sell that well. I'd bet on a revised 80-400VR (AF-S) first.
EBH
"Slow tele prime'? That applies to films that had limited ISO. but instead of shooting at ISO 40. 100 we now shoot at ISO 800. 1600. 3200 and beyond. That negates the argument of slow primes.
