9 replies to this topic

[mst]

http://nikonrumors.c...-next-week.aspx

http://nikonrumors.c...new-lenses.aspx

So, no surprises. AF-S 85/1.4 without VR, 24-120/4 VR (about time), 28-300 VR (and not 18-200 FX VR, does not seem to be meant as a professional tool, like 28-300L) and DX 55-300 VR (uhm, why?).

No word about the D95, yet.

-- Markus

[Klaus]

http://nikonrumors.c...-next-week.aspx

http://nikonrumors.c...new-lenses.aspx

So, no surprises. AF-S 85/1.4 without VR, 24-120/4 VR (about time), 28-300 VR (and not 18-200 FX VR, does not seem to be meant as a professional tool, like 28-300L) and DX 55-300 VR (uhm, why?).

No word about the D95, yet.

-- Markus

Cool stuff actually.
Do you still have your D700 ? :-)

The 70-300 VR is probably too mediocre for FX and too big for DX so the 55-300 makes sense.

[Brightcolours]

So, no surprises. AF-S 85/1.4 without VR, 24-120/4 VR (about time), 28-300 VR (and not 18-200 FX VR, does not seem to be meant as a professional tool, like 28-300L) and DX 55-300 VR (uhm, why?).

The 55-300 DX VR seems to be an answer to the Canon 55-250 IS, which has become very popular. I guess they will phase out the 55-200 DX VR?

The 28-300 VR obviously is going for the Tamron 28-300 VC.

[borisbg]

I was expexting D300s replacement as an answer to 7D.
Markus you were right the other day (85mm1.4 review) that the replacement is around the corner for that fat lens. I wonder Will Nikon make it official for Photokina.

[popo]

The 55-300 DX VR seems to be an answer to the Canon 55-250 IS, which has become very popular. I guess they will phase out the 55-200 DX VR?

The 28-300 VR obviously is going for the Tamron 28-300 VC.

From the listed pricing I don't think that is the case, even if we assume street pricing will be lower than that listed. The Nikon 55-300 is around double the price of the Canon 55-250, which puts it in a premium 300mm zoom area. If the trade off is making the lens DX to gain the bit extra at the wide end (55 vs common 70mm) at comparable quality it will be beneficial to the majority of DX users. A bit more range is often useful and help reduce the need to lens swap so much.

Similar again with the 28-300. Given the significant price difference vs Tamron I'd hope the new Nikon would be much better. At least it isn't insane like Canon's which is too painful to think about.

Is the 24-120 the answer to Canon's 24-105L? (<- typo fixed)

Why am I interested in all this? Because we might see Canon versions of these in a few years time when they decide to copy Nikon again

[Rainer]

Is the 24-120 the answer to Canon's 24-150L?

Is this a typo ... wishful thinking ... or just another rumor?

[edge]

A typo for the 24-105 f/4L.

[Vitantonio Dell'Orto]

The 70-300 VR is probably too mediocre for FX and too big for DX so the 55-300 makes sense.

Actually the 70-300 Vr is described as "shining" on FX bodies. By Hogan first, but also by other good reviewers. And I know a lot of pros have it in their gear as well.

[popo]

Is this a typo ... wishful thinking ... or just another rumor?

Oops, that's a typo. Yeah, should be 24-105L.

[Brightcolours]

Actually the 70-300 Vr is described as "shining" on FX bodies. By Hogan first, but also by other good reviewers. And I know a lot of pros have it in their gear as well.

That is the big difference between Canon users and Nikon users. A lens that is kind of mediocre will be described as "shining" by Nikon shooters (examples: 18-200 VR, 200mm f4, 70-300 VR among others), where optically better lenses get criticized all the time by Canon shooters (70-300 IS).

A strange difference between the two groups...