At last, ne Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6G

Why is the ball in anyone's court? Why is it every gear thread have to have these rivalry?

Of course the Canon 100-400 is older, it is older because Nikon never had a lens in 100-400 to begin with? :confused:

Or did they? otherwise it you wouldn't say it's "over due"...or am I missing something?

That is like saying Nikon brings out a 17mm/TS lens and then says ball in Canon's Court as the Canon one is older...:confused:

And $2700? How much is the 100-400?
 
Last edited:
I don't get what you are trying to argue about???? Of course Nikon had a a similar lens to the canon 100-400mm f5.6, it was the 80-400mm f5.6 VR AF-D. Both th canon and Nikon are popular lenses with wildlife photographers on a budget, both Nikon and canon version are very old and were long over due replacement. Nikon has finally at last given a replacement so it will be interesting to see if canon update theirs in the next 12-18 months. Nikon's don't get any praise, they were woefully slow, seems like papas financial issues were to blaim. Nikon also has much mor elicited production facilities so cannot announce and manufacture too many lenses at once.


I really don't understand at all what the heck you are trying to argue with me about except you are claiming 80mm does not equal 100mm which is entirely academic as they are otherwise nearly identical lenses with the same purpose, same performance, and approximately same cost after the same market with similar lens designs. Heck, the old Nikon was never close to being 80mm anyway, more like 90mm afaik.
 
Last edited:
It's not mud slinging, Ray. Some people are capable (Even DP in the right circumstances) of having a genuine discussion about equipment because we find the technology interesting from a purely academic standpoint rather than validating ourselves for our purchases.

The 100-400L has been due an update for a long time, particularly away from the push-pull mechanism which has led to so many dusty copies going around. It's perfectly valid to say that Nikon having brought out their new version is a signal that Canon's is certainly due some time soon.
 
got the 70-300 vr2 at the mo which cost a lot less than $2700, got a feeling it will be down to something more sensible by the end of the year especially with the other lenses in the same range that are a lot cheaper.
 
It will come down, but not to the cost of the old 80-400 or the older Canon 100-400 just because it's a much more modern design. I'd guess somewhere just north of £1.5k as a long term price, but of course a lot of that depends on the actual performance of the lens.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen any reviews of the new Sigma 120-300 yet, but the Sigma seems a much more interesting lens to me due to the faster aperture (as long as it's sharp).
The difference between 300-400mm isn't that much, and I'd rather take the extra aperture latitude, and then if needed just use the lot's of MP's to crop to desired composition.
 
An Exception said:
I haven't seen any reviews of the new Sigma 120-300 yet, but the Sigma seems a much more interesting lens to me due to the faster aperture (as long as it's sharp).
The difference between 300-400mm isn't that much, and I'd rather take the extra aperture latitude, and then if needed just use the lot's of MP's to crop to desired composition.
Click to expand...

The Sigma weighs just shy of 3kg, the Nikon 80-400 weighs around 1.5kg which is a noticeable difference particularly when lugging equipment around. Sharpness which hasn't been tested aside, that alone is a big factor.
 
An Exception said:
I haven't seen any reviews of the new Sigma 120-300 yet, but the Sigma seems a much more interesting lens to me due to the faster aperture (as long as it's sharp).
The difference between 300-400mm isn't that much, and I'd rather take the extra aperture latitude, and then if needed just use the lot's of MP's to crop to desired composition.
Click to expand...

Ksanti said:
The Sigma weighs just shy of 3kg, the Nikon 80-400 weighs around 1.5kg which is a noticeable difference particularly when lugging equipment around. Sharpness which hasn't been tested aside, that alone is a big factor.
Click to expand...

I had the old non OS 120-300 and that was pretty sharp then (not at the level of the 70-200L mkII wide open sharp, but sharp enough), the new one is supposed to be sharper and works well with extenders. I don't know if the new "branded" 120-300 OS is going to be any different internally... I used to use the old 120-300 all day on a shoulder strap with a 1D3, you do feel it at the end of the day but it wasn't unusable.
 
I don't think it's any coincidence that this is announced so soon after the D7100, this could make a nice setup.
 
Rojin said:
I had the old non OS 120-300 and that was pretty sharp then (not at the level of the 70-200L mkII wide open sharp, but sharp enough), the new one is supposed to be sharper and works well with extenders. I don't know if the new "branded" 120-300 OS is going to be any different internally... I used to use the old 120-300 all day on a shoulder strap with a 1D3, you do feel it at the end of the day but it wasn't unusable.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't think 3kg is a huge problem if it's the only lens you're using, but say you're using two bodies, one with a 70-200 2.8 - the other body having a 120-300 might be a bit moot and will be definitely be unwieldy - at least compared to using an 80-400 in the same role.
 
An Exception said:
I think most people would just use one lens and one body, or if they still use two bodies, they won't be using a 70-200, and rather a prime or 24-70.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but say you're hiking for landscapes and such in wildlife areas - having to lug around a 120-300 that you're going to use for a dozen shots a day might be a real pain compared to just dropping the 80-400 in a bag, which is no bigger than the 70-200 lenses when retracted. The difficulty some people have in fitting a 70-200 into their system makes me think adding even more size to that setup as the 120-300 does would make packing very awkwardd.
 
Ksanti said:
Perhaps, but say you're hiking for landscapes and such in wildlife areas - having to lug around a 120-300 that you're going to use for a dozen shots a day might be a real pain compared to just dropping the 80-400 in a bag, which is no bigger than the 70-200 lenses when retracted. The difficulty some people have in fitting a 70-200 into their system makes me think adding even more size to that setup as the 120-300 does would make packing very awkwardd.
Click to expand...

Totally, when we went to India I wanted something longer than my usual 70-210mm f4 so rented the Canon 100-400mm and was really please that I could fit it into my usual bag with ease. The extra reach was essential and I got some lovely wildlife and tiger shots with it and I didn't have to lug 4 tons of gear around for the rest of the trip.
 
Ksanti said:
Perhaps, but say you're hiking for landscapes and such in wildlife areas - having to lug around a 120-300 that you're going to use for a dozen shots a day might be a real pain compared to just dropping the 80-400 in a bag, which is no bigger than the 70-200 lenses when retracted. The difficulty some people have in fitting a 70-200 into their system makes me think adding even more size to that setup as the 120-300 does would make packing very awkwardd.
Click to expand...

I also had a camera bag across the other shoulder with the rest of the kit in it. Just the camera on it's own with lens wasn't bad at all.

It all comes down to if you want the f2.8, the 80-400/100-400's can never do that. The cost of course is the extra size\weight. the 120-300 would be more flexible, but at a penalty.
 
I do recall using the 120-300 at West Midlands Safari Park, it was the only lens I took that day. As such it was highly amusing to a chap passing by, to see me taking a shot of my daughter with whilst she was playing on the amusements! He took a few photos of me as I'm sure it looked quite ridiculous :D
 
Rojin said:
I also had a camera bag across the other shoulder with the rest of the kit in it. Just the camera on it's own with lens wasn't bad at all.

It all comes down to if you want the f2.8, the 80-400/100-400's can never do that. The cost of course is the extra size\weight. the 120-300 would be more flexible, but at a penalty.
Click to expand...

Again I agree, the 100-400mm type lenses are a great lens to have in the bag just incase you want to take some telephoto shots while your out but certainly not the best solution if your setting off with the sole purpose of shooting wildlife/telephoto all day.

For myself I very rarely put any srt of even half serious telphoto on my camera hence I still have my ancient 70-210mm f4 in the bag. I would however love to see Canon upgrade the 100-400mm L soon as we might be going on another safari and I'd certainly rent one again which would be even better with latest gen IS and a little more sharpness wide open at 400mm!
 
If there's anything that Nikon needs to bring out/update/release it's a professional 50. Yes the current 50 1.4G is a perfectly competent lens but it doesn't hold a candle to the "proper" Nikkor primes and 50mm is such a versatile length that not having a pro-quality one in the lineup, at least not an autofocus one, sees really poor. That said there are talks of a new 58mm f/1.2 coming out which would be very cool indeed, and Samyang are set to bring out a 50mm f/1.2 next year which could prompt Nikon into putting a model above the current 50s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom