Nikon To Announce 24-70 f/2.8 VR, 24 f/1.8, 200-500 f/5.6 VR

[9VIII]

If the rumored price is real then this will be more comparable with the Tamron 150-600 and Canon 400f5.6 Prime. The 100-400Mk2 is much more expensive.
If it does compare favourably to the 100-400Mk2 then the Nikon 200-500 will be best birding lens on the market hands down.

The current Nikon 80-400 is on par with Canon's 100-400 II.

No, no it's not. It's worse, by a lot (worse still it cost $500 more than the Canon 100-400MkII).
Unfortunately out of half a dozen websites only one has a direct comparison (TDP, of course) but the individual tests by the other two I've found don't contradict.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=915&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_80-400mm_f4-5-5-6G_ED_VR/sharpness.shtml

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1602/cat/13


Nikon desperately needs the 200-500 to be sharp on the long end.

 

[StudentOfLight]

If the rumored price is real then this will be more comparable with the Tamron 150-600 and Canon 400f5.6 Prime. The 100-400Mk2 is much more expensive.
If it does compare favourably to the 100-400Mk2 then the Nikon 200-500 will be best birding lens on the market hands down.

The current Nikon 80-400 is on par with Canon's 100-400 II.

No, no it's not. It's worse, by a lot (worse still it cost $500 more than the Canon 100-400MkII).
Unfortunately out of half a dozen websites only one has a direct comparison (TDP, of course) but the individual tests by the other two I've found don't contradict.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=915&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_80-400mm_f4-5-5-6G_ED_VR/sharpness.shtml

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1602/cat/13


Nikon desperately needs the 200-500 to be sharp on the long end.

+1, The Nikkor 80-400mm G is no match for the EF 100-400mm-II. Even with a higher-res 24MP APS-C sensor and no-AA filter it is unable to resolve as much detail as the Canon lens with a comparable 20MP Canon APS-C body. Then taking into account the 1.6x vs 1.5x crop factor as well, and the Canon ends up having a huge practical advantage in reach-limited scenarios. The Nikon lens is literally and figuratively a couple of steps behind the capability of the 100-400mm lens.

 

[AvTvM]

+1, The Nikkor 80-400mm G is no match for the EF 100-400mm-II. Even with a higher-res 24MP APS-C sensor and no-AA filter it is unable to resolve as much detail as the Canon lens with a comparable 20MP Canon APS-C body. Then taking into account the 1.6x vs 1.5x crop factor as well, and the Canon ends up having a huge practical advantage in reach-limited scenarios. The Nikon lens is literally and figuratively a couple of steps behind the capability of the 100-400mm lens.

+1

 

[jthomson]

Why is the 200-500 a constant f/5.6? Would have preferred it f/4-f/5.6.

Again, for $1369, the Nikon world will gladly take it.

There's already an 80-400 more like the 100-400 II for $2k+ for those who need that fraction of a stop faster.

I see this as a very well positioned product:

This lens: budget wildlifers -- great reach, simple, effective
80-400: slight bump in specs (likely also in build quality)
200-400: their best long zoom, and it costs a lot more

Canon, on the other hand, for all of its dominance on the long end of the lens portfolio, forces their customers into difficult/painful calls when you get above 400mm. They have a killer lineup with all sort of FL range overlap with their zooms, but above 400mm, you are staring at teleconverters, primes, or third party glass.

- A

I think both Nikon and Canon got caught off guard by Tamron's 150-600 and they just aren't as nimble as Sigma in their response. I don't think this lens is going to be a hit with anyone who already has either the Tamron or the Sigma C. 100mm shorter and only 1/3 stop faster and camera usable ISO keeps improving.

I was out at a local bird photography hot spot the other day and three of the four photographers had the Tamron lens. Two Nikon and my Canon. The other lens was a 300 f4L with a 1.4x.

I have seen a lot more Nikon photographers with the Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 than I have Canon. Nikon's old 400 zoom just wasn't that good and the new 80-400 just caught up to the 100-400 mk 1. At a significant price premium.

Its good for Nikon shooters to have more choice, but I don't think this is the proverbial game changer the way the Tamron was. The Sigma C and Tamron may not be top of line but they are good enough, and I do own a Canon 500mm. Sometimes I take the Tamron for the zoom and sometimes just because it is lighter. The focusing isn't as fast, but I don't have any worries about the image quality it's good enough. I previously had a Sigma 150-500 as my first long lens and it just wasn't good enough, I stopped using it when I got the Canon 500mm.

 

[9VIII]

I think both Nikon and Canon got caught off guard by Tamron's 150-600 and they just aren't as nimble as Sigma in their response. I don't think this lens is going to be a hit with anyone who already has either the Tamron or the Sigma C. 100mm shorter and only 1/3 stop faster and camera usable ISO keeps improving.

Some would argue the Tamron didn't need the extra 100mm either.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

I know this is a worst case scenario and that it looks much better at f8 or f11, but there's potential to end up with a better product overall by using the smaller range. Potential, no guarantees, the Tamron looks great at f11, but it's a lot of variables to throw around.
At the very least first partly lenses pretty much never break the f5.6 rule, which basically dictates the possible focal length of this lens.

I would also like to note that even with both lenses at their best, the 400f5.6 on a crop body is still quite competent (and that's with an old crop body).
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

Even the 100-400MkII is kind of a "meh" upgrade in terms of reach. Where the 100-400Mk2 really shines is how well the IQ holds up at f5.6, and the almost perfectly consistent IQ from 200-400mm, and the amazing near-macro capabilities.
I would probably glue that thing to a 7D2 if I had the pair.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

If the rumored price is real then this will be more comparable with the Tamron 150-600 and Canon 400f5.6 Prime. The 100-400Mk2 is much more expensive.
If it does compare favourably to the 100-400Mk2 then the Nikon 200-500 will be best birding lens on the market hands down.

Agree with that, as long as the lens is lighter than the Tamron & Sigma 150-600mm lenses, has better IQ at long end and the price is in this bracket it will be a winner for Nikon.
Nikon already has two primes at 24mm (f1.4 & f2.8) so it sits in between.
And the most important is the addition of VR (IS) to their 24-70mm f2.8 lens. The current one in not as good as the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L Mk2 but the new one would be an interesting option for Nikonians. Just the price will be higher and not the reach of most people.

 

[AvTvM]

I hope the 200-500 performs really well - simply because it might get me a big cash-back and/or permamently lowered pricing for the EF 100-400 II, as soon as initial demand for that lens tapers off a bit. 8)

 

[Antono Refa]

In regard to the 200-500mm...

Some have noted this might be a response to Tamron's super tele. This sounds like a good reason, and I'm not going to argue against it.

IMHO, there might be another reason - trying to get customers to upgrade to full frame cameras. This might be the right time for Nikon to do that because

1. Smartphones are killing the P&S market, which forces camera manufacturers to come up with super-P&S, with larger sensors and moderate-and-better zoom ratios.

2. Current crop cameras get about as much as one could expect from the center of tele lenses, in the sense that increasing resolution wouldn't give the photographers any more details.

3. As there's no sense in offering crop teles, the crop cameras might be sandwiched between good super-P&S and full frame, which is a good time to get them to upgrade.

4. For that, Nikon would have to offer sensibly priced super-teles for FF. Ta-da! the 200-500mm for FX.

5. The lens doesn't have to be superb, rather just enough to make people comfortable upgrading w/o choosing the competition.

 

[9VIII]

I think that's a good point.
With a shrinking market it's no longer a matter of convincing people to go with one brand or another, or making them decide between low end or high end products, the SLR companies should be throwing everything they have at convincing the consumer that they're still relevant at all.
Which for the moment is good for us, maybe in the coming years we're going to get all those dreamy products that we've always wanted.

Or maybe it was always just a matter of waiting for someone to demonstrate that there is actually a market for slow supertelephoto lenses (though I have a really hard time believing that people at Canon and Nikon actually thought their customers never wanted that kind of thing).

 

[jthomson]

I think that's a good point.
With a shrinking market it's no longer a matter of convincing people to go with one brand or another, or making them decide between low end or high end products, the SLR companies should be throwing everything they have at convincing the consumer that they're still relevant at all.
Which for the moment is good for us, maybe in the coming years we're going to get all those dreamy products that we've always wanted.

Or maybe it was always just a matter of waiting for someone to demonstrate that there is actually a market for slow supertelephoto lenses (though I have a really hard time believing that people at Canon and Nikon actually thought their customers never wanted that kind of thing).

Canikon have always known there was a market. Just go look at all the catadioptric lenses that are available. But until the Tamron 150-600 there was no supertelephoto with good enough image quality to beat their 400mm f5.6 zooms. The Sigma 500mm f6.3 zooms especially the 50-500 might have been a bit of competiton, but they were about the same price as the Canickon lenses and the 400-500 range just wasn't that good.

Tamron and especially Sigma have really stepped up their game in the last 5 years.

 

[janmaxim]

Nikon just announced the lensens mentioned earlier today: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6268500488/nikon-introduces-24-70mm-f2-8-vr-24mm-f1-8-and-200-500-f5-6-fx-lenses

The price of the 200-500 is really tempting, can't wait for tests! And Canon, release a 24-70 IS F2.8 already..

Pricing and availability for the three lenses is as follows:

AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm F2.8E ED VR - $2399 in late August
AF-S Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED - $749.95 in mid-September
AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm F5.6E ED VR - $1399.95 in mid-September

 

[Eldar]

Will be very interesting to see the reviews of the 200-500. If it is any good, it will cause some raised eyebrows and head scratching in the other camps. The other two were more as expected, pricewise. I hope the 24-70 is good enough to provoke a 24-70 f2.8L IS from Canon.

 

[janmaxim]

Will be very interesting to see the reviews of the 200-500. If it is any good, it will cause some raised eyebrows and head scratching in the other camps. The other two were more as expected, pricewise. I hope the 24-70 is good enough to provoke a 24-70 f2.8L IS from Canon.

One interesting aspect is that the weight of the Nikon 200-500 is a staggering 2300g compared to the Canon 100-400 MkII's 1570g. That is 730g more! In comparison, the Tamron 150-600's weight is 1950g and the Sigma 150-600 measures 2860g (sport) or 1930g. So the Nikon is among the heaviest of the bunch (only beat by the Sigma sport edition).

 

[dolina]

A thread talking about a Canon 500/5.6 prime was posted here last year

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23340.0

I also talked about it

Very very glad that I got the $4,000-5,000 pricing wrong.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1407208

The Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | S weighs at 2860g. Tamron's 1951g which matches the Sigma "C" lens as well.

In terms of pricing the Nikon 200-500mm is very close to Tamron 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 at below $950.

 

[vlim]

This 200-500 could be very tempting (with their new 300 f/4, it could be a formidable duo) but Nikon simply doesn't have an apcs body for sports or wildlife photography... Their bodies can't match the 7D mark II and even the 70D.
The people who will be buy it can't afford a D4s or D810 and the other FF bodies are not really oriented for sport or wild life photgraphy ("poor" fps, 1/4000 max speed), until they launch a new one.

 

[dolina]

$950 to $1399 ... that's a 47% increase on the Tamron's price. Personally I wouldn't call a 47% difference close but maybe you have different standards?

Yeah, namely not Sony. ;D

 

[RGF]

Will be very interesting to see the reviews of the 200-500. If it is any good, it will cause some raised eyebrows and head scratching in the other camps. The other two were more as expected, pricewise. I hope the 24-70 is good enough to provoke a 24-70 f2.8L IS from Canon.

Agree that a good quality 200-500 would shake up the industry. Time will tell what is the trade off and if Nikon holds the price (or quickly comes out w/ Mark II at $2000+)

 

[dolina]

Will be very interesting to see the reviews of the 200-500. If it is any good, it will cause some raised eyebrows and head scratching in the other camps. The other two were more as expected, pricewise. I hope the 24-70 is good enough to provoke a 24-70 f2.8L IS from Canon.

Agree that a good quality 200-500 would shake up the industry. Time will tell what is the trade off and if Nikon holds the price (or quickly comes out w/ Mark II at $2000+)

The 200-500 essential made obsolete the Nikon 80-400 and possibly the 100-400 if canon ever makes a counterpart.

Come on canon make your 500/5.6 a prime so it can weigh less than 1.9kg and priced at par with the 400/5.6. That'll mess up tamron sigma and Nikon

 

[ahsanford]

The 200-500 essential made obsolete the Nikon 80-400 and possibly the 100-400 if canon ever makes a counterpart.

You're presuming that this 200-500 might be optically as good as the 100-400L II. I'm not so sure.

The 200-500 is far cheaper than the Canon and has no mention of weather-sealing that I've seen anywhere online today -- it's possible Nikon has just made a budget lens not meant to obsolete the pricier 80-400 or matchup against the Canon 100-400 II. Perhaps Nikon is simply taking dollars in the budget space that only Tamron and Sigma Contemporary are sitting in.

- A

 

[dolina]

The 200-500 essential made obsolete the Nikon 80-400 and possibly the 100-400 if canon ever makes a counterpart.

You're presuming that this 200-500 might be optically as good as the 100-400L II. I'm not so sure.

The 200-500 is far cheaper than the Canon and has no mention of weather-sealing that I've seen anywhere online today -- it's possible Nikon has just made a budget lens not meant to obsolete the pricier 80-400 or matchup against the Canon 100-400 II. Perhaps Nikon is simply taking dollars in the budget space that only Tamron and Sigma Contemporary are sitting in.

- A

MTF at 500mm

80-400 G ED VR at 400mm

200-500mm E ED VR at 500mm

600 at 600mm

200-500mm does not have the following

- Nano Crystal Coat
- Auto-Priority Manual Mode
- Super ED glass element

80-400mm does not have the following

- Electromagnetic Diaphragm Mechanism

To up it up a notch I am comparing it to the just announced 600mm that has the following

- Fluorite Lens Element
- Nano Crystal Coat