NatureScapes.net Forums

Nikon seems to be pretty active with new lenses. First the 500 and 600 and now 3 new ones:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/626850 ... -fx-lenses

the 2.8/24-70 is probably made to match the latest high resolution sensors. I except it to be very good.

The 5.6/200-500 looks interesting. 500 is much better than 400 for birds and mammals and the low weight is nice.

It is much lighter than the 4/200-400 VR and the Canon 4/200-400 IS 1.4x. 

It will sell for less than $1500 (according to dpreview for $1399). It does not seem to have FL lens elements as the latest 4/500 and 4/600.


I think it is mostly made to compete with the latest lenses form Sigma and Tamron and not with the EF 4/200-400 IS 1.4x which
is much heavier, much more expensive and f4.

I think a 5.6/200-600 with FL elements would have been more interesting for many but maybe in the future.

82mm filter size for the 24-70 f2.8E. Time to upgrade your filters too!

The price for the 200-500 is half the price of the 80-400, makes me very suspicious of the quality.  We'll see what the testing says.  But a 500 that focuses down to 7 ft is interesting even though it will likely focus breathe down to about 400mm at that short of a distance.  Electronic aperture control is welcome also.

The 24-70 is probably the most interesting as the current 24-70 is pretty sub-par by today's standards.

In tune with the filter size increase there's another unwelcome development re the 24-70: the new version is heavier than its predecessor (2.35 lbs. vs 1.98) and physically larger (3.46 x 6.08" DxL vs. 3.3 x 5.2").

looks like the new 24-70 is longer than the old version:

http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/n ... 28-vr3.jpg

djhanson wrote:looks like the new 24-70 is longer than the old version:

http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/n ... 28-vr3.jpg

Wow, and here I thought the old one was way bigger than it needed to be 

Why didn't they put a drop in filter in the 200/500?

The 200-500 was a surprise to me & a surprise at that price point. It does make me wonder. Although the MTF chart on it looks decent for a telephoto zoom. I too would have preferred a little more robust at a bit higher price - but let's see what it looks like in real world tests (and with our resident lens tester here on NSN, EJ).  Nikon sure looks like they don't want to lose sales to Tamron and Sigma over their 150-600 lenses.

Robert wrote:The 200-500 was a surprise to me & a surprise at that price point. It does make me wonder. Although the MTF chart on it looks decent for a telephoto zoom. I too would have preferred a little more robust at a bit higher price - ....

I would prefer a little more robust, better in optical quality but no change in price  

I'm guessing the quality of this 200-500 could be like the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR.

DChan wrote:

Robert wrote:The 200-500 was a surprise to me & a surprise at that price point. It does make me wonder. Although the MTF chart on it looks decent for a telephoto zoom. I too would have preferred a little more robust at a bit higher price - ....

I would prefer a little more robust, better in optical quality but no change in price  

I'm guessing the quality of this 200-500 could be like the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR.

Yah, and I would prefer a 500 f4 at that price for those of us deserving, with myself at the head of the line of course!

The 70-300 VR was quite a good lens for its price. And this is a fixed aperture lens rather than a variable one, which to me, puts it slightly higher than the 70-300 VR and even the 80-400 VR for use. Now if it is just has a decently fast auto focus and is reasonably sharp, it might be interesting.

When Nikon released their flourite lens in their "big guns" early posts here said the price would be too high for a lens like this, now that evidently there is no fluorite lens  we get comments  like "very suspicious of the quality" of the lens because it is too cheap - no fan boy of Nikon here but - geez dudes give them a little break!

Kerry wrote:In tune with the filter size increase there's another unwelcome development re the 24-70: the new version is heavier than its predecessor (2.35 lbs. vs 1.98) and physically larger (3.46 x 6.08" DxL vs. 3.3 x 5.2").

Probably heavier because it has VR. 

Pretty impressive improvement in the 24-70 MTF curves comparing old to new...
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/08/05/nikon ... more-96176

Boy I'm really looking at the 200-500 as well as the new Sigma 150-600.  The Sigma is more expensive but has a larger range which could mean IQ is lower than the Nikon but the lower price of the 200-500 has me concerned about the IQ.  

The 200-500 would be preferred on size and weight, but the longer reach of the Sigma, if the IQ is good, could well favor it.

Looking to hit Yellowstone this fall so having a longer lens by then will be very helpful.  


Brian

Note that the 24-70 has been delayed by two months to October.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Note that the 24-70 has been delayed by two months to October.

I don't understand how that can happen. They announced it, what, 2 weeks ago? And they already have a delay?????  Just announce, shipping Q3/Q4 and be done with it! They look terrible with an immediate delay. 

DOglesby wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:Note that the 24-70 has been delayed by two months to October.

I don't understand how that can happen. They announced it, what, 2 weeks ago? And they already have a delay?????  Just announce, shipping Q3/Q4 and be done with it! They look terrible with an immediate delay. 

If the lens is flawed, it is the only thing they could do.

Well, obviously. My point is different though - which is they should make sure it's NOT flawed and they can hit their date BEFORE they announce a date. Sure, things can happen but when the "announcement" date is in the same month as the announced "shipping" date then that speaks more to competence than to bad luck. It's all too typical with camera manufacturers today. If they aren't releasing stuff with major defects they are delaying shipments that have already been announced or not living up to their published "road maps". Maybe I just pay attention to cameras more closely but I can't think of any industry that exceeds the issues camera manufacturers have. I suppose an argument can be made for automobiles.

DOglesby wrote:Well, obviously. My point is different though - which is they should make sure it's NOT flawed and they can hit their date BEFORE they announce a date. Sure, things can happen but when the "announcement" date is in the same month as the announced "shipping" date then that speaks more to competence than to bad luck.  It's all too typical with camera manufacturers today.  If they aren't releasing stuff with major defects they are delaying shipments that have already been announced or not living up to their published "road maps". Maybe I just pay attention to cameras more closely but I can't think of any industry that exceeds the issues camera manufacturers have.  I suppose an argument can be made for automobiles.

I'd say the software industry is much worse.  I can't remember a software release that wasn't buggy and needed one or even many bug fixes.