08-13-2010, 06:00 PM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1281711649' post='1746']
[url="http://nikonrumors.com/2010/08/13/german-magazine-spills-the-beans-about-nikons-announcement-next-week.aspx"]http://nikonrumors.c...-next-week.aspx[/url]
[url="http://nikonrumors.com/2010/08/13/first-pictures-of-the-nikon-d3100-and-the-four-new-lenses.aspx"]http://nikonrumors.c...new-lenses.aspx[/url]
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
[/quote]
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.
[url="http://nikonrumors.com/2010/08/13/german-magazine-spills-the-beans-about-nikons-announcement-next-week.aspx"]http://nikonrumors.c...-next-week.aspx[/url]
[url="http://nikonrumors.com/2010/08/13/first-pictures-of-the-nikon-d3100-and-the-four-new-lenses.aspx"]http://nikonrumors.c...new-lenses.aspx[/url]
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
[/quote]
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.