Well, FINALLY we get an updated 80-400

TaoTeJared

Making no arguments here - just posting a reference of prices of most of the telephoto lenses.

Nikon 400mm f/2.8G ED AF-S (VR II) = $8,999.00
Nikon 500mm f/4G ED AF-S (VR II) = $8,399.00
Nikon 200-400mm f/4G ED AF-S VR-II = $6,749.00
Nikon 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF II AF-S VR-II = $5,799.00
**Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR-II = $2,699.95
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR II = $2,119.00
*Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR = $1,399.00
Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED AF-S VR = $1,396.95
Nikon 300mm f/4 ED-IF AF-S = $1,369.00

Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM = $11,489.00
Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM = $10,399.00
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM = $6,799.00
Canon EF 400mm f/4L DO IS USM = $5,999.00
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM = $2,689.00*
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM = $2,199
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM = $1,699.00
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM UD = $1,599.00
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM = $1,449.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM = $1,449.00
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM = $1,339.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM = $1,349.00

Note that the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM is a high grade pro optic and is priced similar to the New Nikkor 80-400. Their 100-400 was priced the same as the old 80-400vr but it is also older as well.

Canon users have had High end variable zooms and are used to the high prices they pull. Nikon just does not have those choices for users or chooses to lower aspects of it (mostly weather sealing) to keep it's lenses more affordable to more people.

shawnino

My guesses keep coming in low on price, so I won't quibble with @PB_PM's $3K call on the 300 f/4. What I would ask is, at that price, who's buying?

--Are the enthusiasts still in for a fixed lens at $3K?

--Are the pros going to pick that lens over a bunch of other choices? The Sigma 120-300 2.8 is pretty good. At least the one I tested was nice, and it's about to become an older version. The 300 2.8 is now twice the price instead of four to five times the price of the f/4. If you can write gear off as a business expense, the difference drops further. With the high MP sensors, for that matter, the 200 f/2 with a crop is slightly cheaper than the 300 2.8. (Not saying it's the best option, but it's on the table, isn't it?) If this 80-400 variable really is all that and a bag of chips, that's another possibility.

A 300 f/4 at $2200 has a niche. At $3K, I'm not so sure.

Msmoto

If this is as sharp as the 200-400mm f/4 VRII, and the initial MTF chart would suggest this, then I suspect a lot of pros would pick this over the 200-400. The one f/stop makes not so much difference and the portability of the lens is a distinct advantage. Additionally, with the TC-14EII, giving 600mm, or 900mm equivalent on DX, this is quite a bargain in some folks eyes.

Godless

--Are the enthusiasts still in for a fixed lens at $3K? The Sigma 120-300 2.8 is pretty good. At least the one I tested was nice, and it's about to become an older version.

I am thinking about the 200/2 with the D7100. Seriously.

But:
In the same weight category with the 200/2, the just released Sigma S Series 120-300 2.8 DG OS (the model compatible with the USB dock) is about 2600 euros now, a lot cheaper than the 200/2 and more manageable, as the 200/2 is difficult in shape (short and wide). I would love the ability to calibrate the lens focusing distance and focusing speed/accuracy preference myself, and the new Sigma is going to give me just that. So that gives me a bit of a headache at the moment. I would love a 400mm FOV with f/2..

Here's something else to ponder:
I don't know if the Nikon AF-S 300 f/4 VR is going to appear anytime soon, and I am tired of waiting for things that may or may not happen. I need the gear yesterday, I cannot wait forever.
I am not getting any younger.

And:
Sigma has leaked info about a 300mm 2.8 OS prime. I would prefer that over a zoom any time.
But as this one requires some more waiting, I´ll have to get something else for now.

The conclusion:
Where does all this leave room for the 80-400 G? Nowhere until the price drops closer to the level of the old version. I will have to get the Sigma S instead, I guess it will be cool with the D7100 (600mm FOV and f/2.8 under 3000 euros - Dirt cheap)

sevencrossing

I am a bit lost here

how can you compare a 80 - 400 zoom with 300 prime ?

Msmoto

@ sevencrossing

This is a bit of a stretch, but in one's overall selection of lenses, if one wants more speed, i.e., bigger primary aperture, then the 300/2.8 is attractive. And if one has the 70-200 already and wants a prime slightly longer, well this may urge them to get the 300/2.8. So, maybe the "comparison" is not the correct description of the process, but rather a listing of advantages and disadvantages....then making a decision.

Godless

I am a bit lost here

how can you compare a 80 - 400 zoom with 300 prime ?

Easily. It´s the focal length and image sharpness (@max focal length) that matter the most to me. Price, weight and max. aperture are secondary (although I have a 3kg weight limit for the glass).
It would be nice if the lens was weather sealed and in case of zooms of the non extending type (which the Sigma 120-300 is).

Msmoto got it right in her last sentence.

sevencrossing

Yes, I sort of see the point, if you a happy with a bag full of lenses for every occasion
then yes, there is no point in getting a 80- 400 zoom, indeed zooms are not for you
I prefer to carry a maximum of 3 lens

so a 16 -35 + 24 -120 + 70 -400 would fit the bill,
300mm is not long enough for me

TaoTeJared

If this is as sharp as the 200-400mm f/4 VRII, and the initial MTF chart would suggest this, then I suspect a lot of pros would pick this over the 200-400. The one f/stop makes not so much difference and the portability of the lens is a distinct advantage. Additionally, with the TC-14EII, giving 600mm, or 900mm equivalent on DX, this is quite a bargain in some folks eyes.

I'm kind of on this thought process to get a 80-400 but there is a glaring hole what you said - the "Bargain" assumes a 300/200-400/500/ 600mm is somehow in play or an option to purchase. You have to really Need those lenses to drop $5,000 and very few do. I for one dabble in wildlife stuff, like the super compression for some images and the like so this would have been on the horizon if it was $1,500-1,800 but at $2700 - not a chance! As far as I'm concerned, that is far into the specialty glass realm. I'm just going to stick to my 70-200 with a 1.7xTC and pick up the new 2xTCIII. Much cheaper and I doubt much worse.

sevencrossing

I'm just going to stick to my 70-200 with a 1.7x TC and pick up the new 2x TC III. Much cheaper and I doubt much worse.

I have the 70 -200 with a x 2III and when put on a D800 , it does not quite cut the mustard
Re price I would expect this lens to last me at least 10 years+, that works out $ 270 a year and at end of 10 years it might still sell for ~ half the original price, so that's only $135 a year, let's hope Nikon come up with a rebates on this lens

Godless

300mm is not long enough for me

Would not be enough for me either without the 2x crop the D7100 offers.. add to that an external 1.4X TC and it´s still awesome (840mm FOV w. f/4).

sevencrossing

it´s still awesome (840mm FOV w. f/4).

and a quality, 32"x 24" print ?

Godless

it´s still awesome (840mm FOV w. f/4).

and a quality, 32"x 24" print ?

Are you saying that 16mp is not enough or what? The image quality of the 120-300 is excellent with a 1.4x TC in my experience so far.

Msmoto

My thoughts about a pro wanting this lens would be in the line of shooting something like track and field, where the 500 f/4 is one lens and this is the other. The long range of the zoom allows a one to grab a shot which is way too close for the 500. And, the weight being half the 300mm f/2.8 is nice. Also, for objects moving toward or away from the camera, such as in track events, the ability to zoom from 400mm out to 80mm and have a sharp lens to do this is especially handy.

If someone is making their living form photography and does not need this lens, it makes no sense. In this case, the older version could be a lot of fun, however.

DaveyJ

This lens is nowhere near as expensive to build as a 200-400 so why even bring up that comparison. The fact is this lens is currently WAY over priced!!

Golf007sd

Why are so many objections for the set price on this lens? If it offers the user the ability to take the shot he or she seeks the price is well worth it. Manufactures don't just arbitrarily set pricing; they have far more data (i.e. production/COGS) to go by in setting a price for goods to be sold. If this lens is not for you then don't give it a single thought...for those that end up buy it, happy shooting and I'm personally looking forward in seeing your photo's on PAD and your thought on it as well.

shawnino

Why are so many objections for the set price on this lens?

Because it smacks of corporate desperation on Nikon's part.

Golf007sd

@shawnino: "Desperation"...really? How do you even come to that conclusion? Have you see the cost of other lenses, be it present or due to come out from manufactures like Zeiss, Leica, and Canon charge?

shawnino

@Golf007sd:
--Nikon misses quarterly targets.
--Nikon issues poor outlook for upcoming quarters.
--Nikon hurrying products to market at questionable price points, and offering rebates to move existing inventory.

Even after the Japanese price was announced, the beting was that the N. American price would be more like $2250. Nope. Nikon's hoping the early adopters pay through the nose. Let's see.

Golf007sd

@shawnino: I do not believe that a long standing company like Nikon, sets pricing on their gear, be it this new lens or other gear they produce, solely on one or two quarterly results or future projections. Moreover, Nikon is not "hurrying" anything to the market...they are following the life-cycle of their products that needs upgrading or are just adding to it. We have all been speculating and have had great discussion of their new products release dates and pricing.

As for paying "through the nose" then by all mean don't ever buy a new product...wait a few cycles and get old, out dates goodies so that you will feel better about your capital expenditures. This is not an attack on you or those that feel that those of us that take the first step in getting a "new" product are suckers. Consumers that purchase a newly released product will have to accept the set price. Lets hope that Nikon will offer rebates and promote this new lens during the initial beginning in order to create and incentive to buy and reward those that due by offering a discount.

tc88

Why are so many objections for the set price on this lens?

It goes both ways. Nikon can set the price and wait for buyers and people can complain and influence.

If it offers the user the ability to take the shot he or she seeks the price is well worth it.

There are no absolutes. Even if you have a lot of money, I don't think you are willing to pay for any amount that the equipment maker asks. Everyone has a threshold of the value/cost of the shots desired. At some point, people may give up making those shots for the price asked, or find other ways to make the shots, for example, being out more often, spend the money on travel instead of the equipment.

I do not believe that a long standing company like Nikon, sets pricing on their gear, be it this new lens or other gear they produce, solely on one or two quarterly results or future projections. Moreover, Nikon has not "hurrying" anything to the market...they are following the life-cycle of their products that needs upgrading or are just adding to it.

You sound like a Nikon publicist. Maybe we should have a poll on it.

Msmoto

Ny guess...the price is commensurate with the image quality....if I am wrong, then it is definitely over priced. But, if this performs as well as the MTF charts would predict... It is probably about right in price.

As to how much it costs to build the lens, with the various coatings, VR, focusing mechanism, I cannot tell. My guess is the pricing is based on a projected marketing figure of the number they think they will sell.

Elvishefer

A product is worth what the market will pay... I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Or maybe more accurately, Nikon will find out soon enough.

tc88

To be honest, I don't think the price is that off from the recent pricing trend of Canon/Nikon. On the other hand, I would say the majority people think the equipment makers are getting very greedy with those trends, considering the ratio of incremental improvement over cost. It may come back and bite them in the end. Basically they are trading customer goodwill with short term profitability.

Golf007sd

@tc88: All valid points. To each his own.

With respect to this lens, Nikon has placed Gold-rings on it, making it a clear indication that it follows their Pro line of gear. Thus, it's targets user is not the "average Joe." Msmoto's comment on whom this lens would work for (field & track racing) is very acceptable to me.

If it produces the results that it has been made for, then a shooters ability to have a nice tack sharp image at 400mm @ F/5.6 under $2800 is a nice gear to have in ones bag. This is after all replacing a lens that was released almost 10 years ago.

For me personally, as I have said before, variable aperture lens are not to my liking. I like fast lenses: 1.2, 1.4 or 2.8's.