Well, FINALLY we get an updated 80-400

DaveyJ

This lens will price will drop like a rock falling off a cliff. What do any of you see in this MTF curve set? The largest camera stores I know of have expressed that the lens is "awfully high" and they have NOT been slammed with pre-orders, actually quite the opposite. My prediction is this lens, so long waiting in the wings was just what several posts clearly imply. I learned years ago that you cannot make all your profit on one sale. Translate that to mean Nikon can sell quite a few more if the lens is priced right, but if this gambit is designed to bring buyers to the cash register, it is not going to work. The lens will drop to no more than $2,200. Place your bets!
Nikon did already for the opening round.

shawnino

DaveyJ: correct if and only if Nikon wants to sell a whack of these. If they're content selling a few thousand a year, while selling more of other types of lenses, they probably don't need to lower the price.

PB_PM

@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.
.

The old version had a gold ring too, so what's your point? The 50mm F1.4G doesn't have a gold ring, yet it is clearly targeted at the higher end user. Your arguments lack depth or substance, from a practical standpoint. The products targeted at the average joe are the D3200 and D5200 + 18-55/55-200/55-300/18-200/18-300/16-85. Anything beyond that is targeted at more serious photographers.

I've noted this elsewhere, Nikon is going to keep losing market share if don't figure out that pros are not the majority of people buying their products. Maybe Nikon thinks they can be the next Lecia, but at the rate they are going they are more likely to be the next Kodak.

Golf007sd

@PB_PM: You are off base on Nikon's path and this new lens...from my perspective. If, I'm wrong...then so be it. But I don't have a negative outlook on the future for Nikon.

SquamishPhoto

@tc88:

I've noted this elsewhere, Nikon is going to keep losing market share if don't figure out that pros are not the majority of people buying their products. Maybe Nikon thinks they can be the next Lecia, but at the rate they are going they are more likely to be the next Kodak.

? Are you suggesting that this lens was supposed to be an novice lens? The old one certainly wasn't since its original price was close to $2000 years ago.

PB_PM

No, nothing of the sort. $2700 for a variable aperture lens is ridiculous, regardless of some charts. I could understand a $2000 price tag, and consider it reasonable, but $2700 is a cash grab.

BabaGanoush

When the D400 is released this coming June and the 80-400mm lens is offered as a bundle with it at $400 off, every one of you will be rushing to put in your pre-orders. That's a prediction! )

PB_PM

I think I'll stick with my 300mm F4 and TC14e... the combo cost over a $1000 less and it somehow manages to have gold rings too.

safyre

Yea, the price of this is ridiculous considering there's so many cheaper alternatives out there. I pity those that are willing to shell out the full retail for this, I bet these are the same gullible people that would buy a pile of dirt with a Nikon stamp on it.

shawnino

Yea, the price of this is ridiculous considering there's so many cheaper alternatives out there. I pity those that are willing to shell out the full retail for this, I bet these are the same gullible people that would buy a pile of dirt with a Nikon stamp on it.

A stamp? That's over the top.
Now, a gold ring...

shawnino

Let me take the other side in a hypothetical: suppose, for a second, this thing has the IQ to compete with a fixed aperture lens. Is it then merely a big deal, or is it a quantum leap? Either way, the joke's on me right?

PB_PM

I'd still take the $1300 300mm prime. Why? F4 at 300mm, something the 80-400mm VR will never achieve.

TaoTeJared

I am disappointed with the announced price as it doesn't fit in my pocket book. I'm not happy about the 300mm VR 2.8 or the 200mm vr f2 or even the zeiss 55mm 1.4 prices either - But that is all just because I choose my own boundaries on spending limits on various items. That has nothing to do with or speak to Nikon's success or any other company's success. Many on here would be better if they kept that in mind when complaining as many are screaming about their situation and trying to put the fault on Nikon or by calling others who can afford it gullible since they choose not too. There is no need to have visceral anger just over a lens's price.

I'm with Golf007sd - Let's see what this thing really is. If it is weather sealed, performing at it's peak wide open, VR truly is good for 4 stops, and can AF for sports and wildlife, it's probably worth somewhere near that. If it could replace a 70-200, 300 & 400 in someone's bag, well- that's a lot of money. There is an argument about the "look" achieved by F2.8/F4 for other lenses, but as one who has back surgery for an imploded herniated disk, I'll take the weight savings any day.

Nikon seems to be doing a pricing scheme that gouges early adopters of their gear and then drops the price quite a bit. Basically instead of releasing stuff for a price that market analysis says it would sell many at, they seem to fear that they are leaving money on the table. Case in point: MB-12: $616 Now $380. V1$899 now $400. Nikon seems to think that starting off too high and then coming down on price doesn't somehow piss everyone off. But it does. At least it comes down though and hopefully it will here as well.

PB_PM

Having no interest in the lens whatsoever, even before I knew the price, I don't think it's a matter of whether I could afford it or not. I'm not crying or loosing sleep over it, I'm just saying how I see it. If people disagree, that's fine. If some people want to blow $2700 on a variable aperture lens, that's their business.

spraynpray

What if it had been an 80-400 f4 - would you have paid $more for it?

proudgeek

We all would have. Probably in the neighborhood of $8,500. And that's before the dolly you'd need to carry it.

scoobysmak

I am at the point, lets just see what this thing has got. Do I think its priced a bit higher than I expected, yes. Does that upset me, not really. I did not plan on buying this lens anyway but it has made me think just a tad, but unless it does something just out of this world probably not.

I have thought about trading in my 400mm for a 200-400mm, the 400mm is really nice but not very portable what so ever; tripod, gimble head, etc etc. The 200-400 wouldn't be much better but from my understanding its balanced a bit better and a few hand held shots are not out of the question, for a long period of time I would still need the back up support though. I usually go for moving wildlife and I have shot a few soccer games that the zoom feature would have really helped. I would never have thought about the old 80-400mm version due to slow autofocus mainly. I still think about the 300mm F4 but its too close to 200mm for me to justify the cost, plus that lens is due for an update anyway (although this is when the true bargin might be found). If the new 80-400mm lens can perform what I need then I might just add it instead of a swap. Then I could have a lens to take with me all the time and not miss a shot because after hiking 10 miles in the mountains I couldn't stand up much less set up a tripod.

I could see the cost on the new 80-400mm being a bargin "if" it has fast autofocus and can hold a candle to the 200-400mm with both at 400mm F5.6 (wide open for the 80-400mm). Then all you would lose is some "cream" to the background and a stop of light, like mentioned before with todays ISO is not as important as it used to be.

Like I said at the start, it truely depends if the quality is there or not to see if the price is realistic.

If NR actually gets a photo group together, it would be interesting to see true quality test done if all of the following equipment made the trip. I would call this group the best way to get to 400mm, in order of what my mind thinks would be the best to worst quality (edit: I know there might be some other lens companies that make glass to reach 400mm and be quite nice but only used Nikon glass for the examples).

400mm F2.8
200-400mm F4
80-400mm F4.5-5.6 VRII (new version)
300mm F4 with 1.4 TC-EII (420mm) tied with 80-400mm VR*
70-200mm F2.8 VRII with 2.0 TC-EIII

*this might depend on subject at bit more than overall quality, a non-action shot I would think the 80-400 would be better but for action I think the 300mm+TC would be better, if you can't focus in time you lost the shot anyway. This has probably been tested though but didn't do the research to find out.

Lockon

I'd still take the $1300 300mm prime. Why? F4 at 300mm, something the 80-400mm VR will never achieve.

If that works for you then great! For me and others a fixed 300 prime would be as useful as a brick taped to the front of my DSLR... IMHO, your comment isn't really relevant in a discussion about a 5x zoom. But just for arguments sake; f4 @ 300mm isn't even a stop faster than an 80-400 set at 300mm... will it really make that much of a difference? How often do you shoot wide open?

Msmoto

I think when we see the results, then we will be able to say whether it is too expensive. Certainly there is a lot of disappointment for those who were hoping for a less than $2,000 price tag.

But, who knows, if it is spectacular maybe they are on target.

spraynpray

We are already seeing a rebate on the D7100 and it hasn't even been sold yet so who knows, we may see the 80-400 closer to the $2000 mark sooner rather than later. If it actually were good enough to justify that price though, it would be a helluva lens.

tc88

I was going to get the 80-400 and pay the early adopter premium. But canceled after finding out it's an extending zoom. You may ask what I was thinking considering it's 5x zoom. Hey the price is high and I can always wish.

I don't care how good the weather sealing is on paper. If it takes half a volume of air from outside every time it zooms, I just don't trust it. With that out of window, I think the price is high for what it is.

SquamishPhoto

If it actually were good enough to justify that price though, it would be a helluva lens.

I see no reason to think it wont be a helluva lens, as you put it. I find it hard to believe that they'd waste the super ED element used in the lens if it didn't perform at a superb level.

spraynpray

Thinking about tc88's problem with it not being an IF lens, is that seen as a big problem by others? All of my zoom lenses are non-IF and I don't get any noticeable problems.

I suppose if they made it IF it would have a slower maximum aperture at the wide end? Can't think why they don't fix the tripod foot in place and incorporate a small hepa grade filter to take any dust out :-?

sevencrossing

Thinking about tc88's problem with it not being an IF lens, is that seen as a big problem by others?

I don't see dust as a problem but if has the same poor build quality as the 18 -200 I would not buy it

as it is i will want hire or test one before buying

if it significatly better than my 70 -200 plus x2 III, I will probalby get one

Godless

I suppose if they made it IF it would have a slower maximum aperture at the wide end?

??