Gustaf Lindber wrote:
.....And finally, 55-300/4.5-5.6 VR DX. WTF? It's only marginally less expensive than the 70-300 VR and it has the same crappy AF without the AF/M option and the non existing focus ring as the 18-55. Why did they make this? It would have to drop to a price level of the 55-200 or slightly above to be of any use and then they'd most likely have to cancel the 55-200. I just don't get it.
And you're not one of the entry level enthusiasts which represent the buying masses who will gobble this lens up as fast as Nikon can churn them out.
With VR II, and expanded focal length range, and a very compact footprint, this lens certainly has a niche even for some of those more advanced enthusiasts who want the lightweight/low bulk package for adventure use.
I've tried to get along with the m4/3 system for my kayaking and bicycling expeditions but they're just not to a level I find usable at this point. As a D300/70-300 VR user, I'll be keeping a close eye on this new D3100 and 55-300 VR equipment. I've always wanted a full featured D40-type of camera from Nikon. This may be it.
The only reason you 'don't get it' is because you are unable to see out past your own reality and desires.
PurplePix wrote:
Hope that 100-12800 are not pushed (or pulled iso settings). If that is the case, it comes out to native 200-6400 iso. D3 good but not as impressive as it originally sounds! Still, big improvement for a dx sized sensor.
The D3100 will be native to 3200 with 14.2 megapixels. That looks like a huge advancement in DX bodies. Can't wait to see what the next Dxxx body will offer.
Steve Perry wrote:
I'm surprised the new 85 doesn't seem to have VR. You would think that would be a welcome addition, since I imagine most 85mm shooters are hand-holding (although with crazy good ISO and F1.4, maybe you just don't need vr??)
I am curious about the 24-120. If it's as good as the 24-70 @ F8+, I might have a lens for sale. <not holding breath>
I can't believe you can't believe the 85mm f/1.4 doesn't have VR. It will never have it and you don't need it at f/1.4. It adds complexity and weight to the lens. It, of course, adds to the price a lot too. (in some cases around $500 for the VR system/ And in this case would be that, or more, much because it is considered a luxury and necessity)
I'd prefer to have an 85mm f/1.2 than 85mm f/1.4 VR. But, on the other hand, the lens design with such a wide aperture is hard to achieve and produce and most likely the lens would cost way over $2000.
To me $1650 is already a lot... I mean this lens normally costs $900. (it used to, the older version before Nikon raised the price to about $1300)
The new 24-120mm f4.0 with Nano will be on my wish list. Finally Nikon has something to compare against the Canon 24-105mm f4.0 L - which is no slouch even by L standards.
Given Nikon's recent track record, I am going to guess this lens should be better than the Canon L.
I think the 55-300 was made to 1up Canon's 55-250, which was a 1up to Nikon's 55-200. The 'budget telephoto' range might sway newcomers one way or another on Canon vs. Nikon, and Nikon wants to wrap it's tentacles on those newcomers and latch on to them. If it's sharp, I'd buy it. I have no plans to go FF, so no need to get the 70-300 if I have a cheaper option. If it's finicky or slow focusing though, I'd fork over the extra for the 70- in a heartbeat.
VR on an 85 will be dreadfully expensive. It's not wiggling around a little piece of glass on a kit lens, it's a large slab of glass. It would be really interesting if, perhaps, Nikon were to find some way to put VR on fast prime though, but perhaps a 50 1.8, or a 85 2.... as heavy as the glass is on a 85 1.4, it'll probably be astronomically expensive.
I have the 55-200 and it is a pretty nice piece of glass. Optics are much better than I expected but the build leaves a lot to be desired and the plastic mount ...... well, they scare me.
The new 55-300 looks to be about twice the price ($399US) but has a metal mount, weather sealing around the mount, larger filter size (58 vs 52), an extra 100mm of reach and is probably built better. I'm curious to see how it performs between 200 and 300.
Agree that it is likely in response to Canon's 55-250 and also because the biggest complaint about the 55-200 is the build quality. Numerous reviews have stated it would be a stellar lens if it were better built. But I tell ya, for $200 new and $150 used or refurb, it's still a bargain.
krickett wrote:
I think the 55-300 was made to 1up Canon's 55-250, which was a 1up to Nikon's 55-200. The 'budget telephoto' range might sway newcomers one way or another on Canon vs. Nikon, and Nikon wants to wrap it's tentacles on those newcomers and latch on to them. If it's sharp, I'd buy it. I have no plans to go FF, so no need to get the 70-300 if I have a cheaper option. If it's finicky or slow focusing though, I'd fork over the extra for the 70- in a heartbeat.
The 55-300 is no mystery at all. The masses of consumer buyers are very price sensitive, and the gap between the 55-200 and 70-300 was rather large. Plus, budget telephoto zooms are probably the largest volume sellers after kit lenses.
rsolti13 wrote:
I am no pro....and don't need pro AF...but this is why I have moved on to purchase Zeiss lenses (better optics IMO) for Nikon and other mounts (Leica):
---XR--- wrote:
everything about the 24-120 intrigued me until i saw it, looks like a cheap build not worthy of the nano stamp, but i'll see after it's in my hands.
Eh? It's a "walk-around" lens. Any more beefy/better build and the price and weight will creep up towards 24-70 f/2.8 levels.
poisonpill wrote:
Eh? It's a "walk-around" lens. Any more beefy/better build and the price and weight will creep up towards 24-70 f/2.8 levels.
that's actually what i was looking for and hoping for when nikon put out this lens, similar to 24-70 build and i don't mind weight with the F4 aperture and nano, i wouldn't mind paying plenty more for a more quality build in a versatile lens. this just looks like a beefed up 16-85, which aint bad, but not a 24-70 ethier. guess i'm not the target market in build quality, but i can see for nikons marketing views why they built it like they did though.
