Andre Labonte wrote:
Knock knock, learn how to read:
300 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC ==> 420 f/4 not f/5.6
300 f/4 + 1.4x TC ==> 420 f/5.6 and come in at $1600
J was talking about a 400 f/4 not a 400 f/5.6
The Canon 400 f/4 come in at a wopping $5500. Is that mud on your face?
Not at all, we were all discussing a 400/5.5 before "J" jumped in with his 400/4 comment which no one else was discussing. Just bringing it back onto track to the lens being mentioned as a viable option others wished for.
Oh and you let me down there, I thought we were going to get an entertaining knock, knock joke out of you at first, !!
the same is true of the 800mm i just didn't think the obvious could be so elusive
600mm f4 + 1.4 gets you to a lot more than 800mm at f 5.6
and ANYONE complaining about the price of the big guns has got to be joking, and not to mention the sticks to hold the things up
J
Why shouldn't the price of a lens matter to us? Are you implying that only those who happen to have lots of money should be able to us a "big gun" or am I missing your point?
I certainly feel I have the right to use a "big gun" not to mention the need so instead of complaining I just went out and found me some solutions. Then, even more importantly, I actually use them to create pictures!
And then of course the 800/5.6 I bought along with a big ol Gitzo tripod and Whimberly head. All for less than what a modern lens combo equivalent would have cost me. In other words, I could afford to do it.
jamesdak wrote:
Not at all, we were all discussing a 400/5.5 before "J" jumped in with his 400/4 comment which no one else was discussing. Just bringing it back onto track to the lens being mentioned as a viable option others wished for.
Oh and you let me down there, I thought we were going to get an entertaining knock, knock joke out of you at first, !!
OK, but that's what the 300 f/4 + 1.4 TC combo is for.
OK, sorry, here goes the knock knock joke:
Knock, knock,
Who's there?
Lens
Lens who?
Lens to read!
Better?
In all seriousness, if Nikon makes an 800 f/5.6 again, it will be a $7K or more lens. The only reason you got the 800 f/5.6 you did at something affordable is that it is an older lens and design. There is no demand for this lens given the 600f/4 + 1.4 TC.
Same goes for a 400 f/5.6 given the 300 f/4 or a 400 f/4 given the 300 f/2.8.
If you want affordable, get an old used lens or one of the 3rd party offerings. You have the "right" to whatever you can afford.
We actually are saying the same things. I brought up the old 800/5.6 as a cheap affordable option and have no misconceptions that Nikon or anyone else can produce a 800mm range new lens that I can afford. Heck, of my 20 plus lenses I think only two of them and the 1.4x t-con were bought new. Most of the rest are superb performing used lenses with a couple of average ones in there.
Oh and a 300/4.0 and 1.4x combo was my main setup for many years but the 400/5.6 I have now is lighter, faster, and sharper so it's a win/win for me.
There is a mint 800mm over on Texas Photo forum for sale at a heck of a price. I know the guy, and he is great and wonderful to deal with. I still wonder if Nikon will ever come out with an AF-S version of this lens. Or the 1200-1700mm Zoom.
coracii wrote:
Somehow I doubt anyone here was referring to the desire for a couple of 20+ year old lenses to show up for sale when the inquiry was made into 800mm f/5.6 lenses being produced by Nikon. The two you pointed to may have quality optics for their production time-frame, but they're manual focus, no VR, no new technology coatings, etc. Not exactly in the same league of the Nikon 600 f/4 VR...
Frankly I've never seen the logic in an 800 f/5.6 when you have a superb 600mm f/4 and 1.4x TC.
Primes do pretty well with TCs, and the 600's light rays are so freaking straight that by the time it hits the TC, you should have almost zero impact on IQ.
Frankly I'd rather have the 600 + TC than the 800 any day, as I'd have access to super-tele at F/4 if I really needed the speed.
All of these lenses are still in use somewhere. cputeq wrote:
Frankly I've never seen the logic in an 800 f/5.6 when you have a superb 600mm f/4 and 1.4x TC.
Primes do pretty well with TCs, and the 600's light rays are so freaking straight that by the time it hits the TC, you should have almost zero impact on IQ.
Frankly I'd rather have the 600 + TC than the 800 any day, as I'd have access to super-tele at F/4 if I really needed the speed.
cputeq wrote:
Frankly I've never seen the logic in an 800 f/5.6 when you have a superb 600mm f/4 and 1.4x TC.
Primes do pretty well with TCs, and the 600's light rays are so freaking straight that by the time it hits the TC, you should have almost zero impact on IQ.
Frankly I'd rather have the 600 + TC than the 800 any day, as I'd have access to super-tele at F/4 if I really needed the speed.
Maybe the "logic" lays with the cost? And as an old film shooter I'll happily increase the ISO today in modern DSLRs to compensate for a slower f/5.6 lens knowing fulling well that the results will still be cleaner than what I ever saw in my film days.
kane513 wrote:
First they need to re-design the 80-400VR!!! Otherwise I am going bigma.
Yeah, we could all use a newer 80-400. Meanwhile, where is the 35/1.4? I'm sure more people want one than a 800/5.6 VR. There are only so many new lens designs chosen each year.
I would love a 80-400mm f/4 lens, I would buy one in a New York minute.
EB-1 wrote:
Yeah, we could all use a newer 80-400. Meanwhile, where is the 35/1.4? I'm sure more people want one than a 800/5.6 VR. There are only so many new lens designs chosen each year.
Nikon used to make a 800 f5.6 Nikon used to make a lot of lenses. Looking back at lens catalogs from the late 1990's to the mid 2000's you can see that Nikon devastated their lens lineup. They used to make something like 9 standard zoom lenses for what we now call full frame or FX.
My guess is they wanted to scrap any lens that was either uneconomical or didn't meet a new quality standard. I've noticed that FX lenses released post D3 have been markedly better than the ones from the Pre D3 era.
My guess is that Nikon will eventually release niche lenses like the 800 f5.6 again. but for now, if you want that focal length and aperture you'll need a 400 f2.8 + tele on a FX, or a 300 f2.8 + 1.7 on a DX.
Tyl3n0L wrote:
Herb maybe you can answer this question!
What are the chance that Nikon release someday a ~150/200-500mm f/5.0-6.3
I would guess about zero. Can you point to any lens slower than f5.6 that Nikon has made in the past 25 years? They once had a 500mm f8 mirror and 1,000mm f11 lenses, but that's been several decades ago. (1965?) They're the only exceptions that I'm aware of. The people who would buy an f6.3 lens would most likely be those with entry level cameras. Nikon might have a problem offering f6.3 lenses to people with cameras with AF rated no slower than f5.6.
Is that mud on your face?