Nikon 200-400 (1.4) only $10k

Pistnbroke

Yeah ok I will have a dozen
Not quite the 200-500 for under $2000

snakebunk

No, it will be better and more expensive. I am curious about the weight.

heartyfisher

snakebunk said:

No, it will be better and more expensive. I am curious about the weight.

Probably smaller and lighter ...

snakebunk

heartyfisher said:

snakebunk said:

No, it will be better and more expensive. I am curious about the weight.

Probably smaller and lighter ...

Compared to the Nikon 200-500/5.6?

spraynpray

This is a replacement for the old 200-400 right? I am not expecting it to be worse in any way.

Pistnbroke

At that price I am not expecting to ever touch one !!

pictureted

I don't think the price has been announced yet. I wonder what the specs will be? I would love it for Hummingbirds, if I could afford it.

kanuck

I expect the Nikon version will be stellar like the Canon version. The Canon 200-400 was so good that many pros who were still shooting Nikon jumped jumped ship. I read that 75% of Superbowl shooters for example were Canon users. Maybe now they will consider coming back. There are some huge events coming in 2018. Winter Olympics, World Cup to name just a few. It will be at least $10k though so only a select few like Moose Peterson will be owning this special piece of glass.

heartyfisher

:-) maybe our moody polo shooter may get one too he had the old version.

spraynpray

kanuck

heartyfisher said:

:-) maybe our moody polo shooter may get one too he had the old version.

Version 1 or 2? Wasn't much difference I have read. I rented version one way back in 2009 or so. Shockingly good optics I liked it better than the 300mm 2.8 VR at that time. Version 1 is quite cheaper now and with the new version it will cost less than the new 70-200 I bet.

DaveyJ

Who would get one when the Nikkor 200-500 is so good???

snakebunk

DaveyJ said:

Who would get one when the Nikkor 200-500 is so good???

Because it will be even better I think .

MegapixelSchnitzel

Pistnbroke said:

At that price I am not expecting to ever touch one !!

Rent one. See if it can hypnotize you and make you pull out the charge card...

DaveyJ

@pictureted: I have Ruby Throated Hummingbirds with the D7500 taken with the 200-500 stills and video that are amazing, also Bleeding Heart.....if the are enough plants, and enough hummers, it is quite a spectacle! The advantage of the 200-500 is to give them some space. I refrain from doing Hummingbird feeder photos.

DaveyJ

Checked the used 200-400 at B&H, $2,000, looks like one really should try one of these side by side compared to the 200-500! Heavier, I know this is a great lens. Luckily I am happy with my new 200-500 but PM PB went this way and I was convinced his deal was rare, but there is at least one at B&H right now.....the nano coated newer ones used are about $5,000.

PB_PM

Yeah the first gen models of the 200-400 F4 have really dropped. Mine was $2500 Cdn, about $1999 USD, not a scratch on it, with the bag, hood, both the stock and Really Right Stuff tripod feet. I quickly swapped to the RRS foot of course.

Optically the two versions are the same, and most reviews say AF is the same too. People really want the nano coatings and third gen VR, vs first gen VR, due to the "tripod mode" that the newer model has. To me, it makes the first gen a real steal, because it's super sharp and fast focusing. As long as you don't mind the size and weight that is.

DaveyJ

I can say I am absolutely delighted with the 200-500 Nikon lens. I wish I had realized the 200-400 used was so reasonable. The 200-500 is plenty heavy enough for me and I will say I shoot at 500 mm a lot!

Msmoto

If this is an f/1.4 lens, 200-400mm focal length... the front aperture would be over 11 inches in diameter... my guess on weight would be in the 50 - 100 pound class.

This reminds me of the 1600 mm f/5.6 lens, constructed for Sheikh Saud Bin Mohammed Al-Thani of Qatar by Leica. Cost... $2 Million+. Weight 132 lbs.

See details on all these special lenses here:
https://pixsy.com/most-expensive-camera-lenses-ever/

The idea of an f/1.4 200-400 is interesting, but optically I doubt it is even possible to design this in a way which would actually function well.

DaveyJ

I certainly think beyond f4 no lens is of any interest to me. I can deal with dark,viewfinders. And I shoot at f9-11 generally. There are quite a few photographers doing the same. A 132 lb. camera has only The super elite buyer, who actually have very little impact on photography I believe. The 200-400 Nikon f4 though is an awesome lens, still pretty big. Personally I believe my stopping point will,be the 200-500 Nikkor. In terms of Nikon's future, the D850 will be a big deal and hopefully go,very well, Same for a mirrorless camera. I do trust it will be an F Mount?

MegapixelSchnitzel

Msmoto said:

This reminds me of the 1600 mm f/5.6 lens, constructed for Sheikh Saud Bin Mohammed Al-Thani of Qatar by Leica. Cost... $2 Million+. Weight 132 lbs.

I wonder if it had a serial number of "1"?

DaveyJ

All this makes my new 200-500 look like a real rock star!