[Guest]

At $2600, it better does...

 

Yep, a pretty stiff price. The old 80-400 was initially sold at just below 1700 Euro over here, which would have been OKish for the new one as well.

[Guest]

Hefty price again, like Canon, Nikon feels the strong Yen (or rather, we feel the weak dollar and euro?).

 

The Yen has lost about 25% over the Euro since August 2012, while still far away from historical lows the current weakness of the Yen should actually make things cheaper.

[mst]

Yep, a pretty stiff price. The old 80-400 was initially sold at just below 1700 Euro over here, which would have been OKish for the new one as well.

photoscala.de quotes a list price for Germany of 2699 EUR.

-- Markus

[frank]

It is confirmed that the VR on this lens is the 2nd generation VR, not the 3rd generation VR used on the 70-200mm f4 lens.

[djsperry]

I've been waiting years for this replacement. I have the old one, and while it can be fun to use, the focusing is painfully slow, and it isn't usable wide-open at 400mm. Stopping down 1-2 stops is required to get anything useful at all, and then you start losing the benefit of VR.

 

On my D90, I set the aperture to f/7.1 or 8 and set auto ISO to use a minimum shutter speed of 1/100 or so, and hope the ISO doesn't get too high!

 

Not thrilled that the price is about double what I paid for the original.

[felix]

Seems like Nikon has adopted Canon's new pricing policy 

Still, AF-S 80-400mm & D7100 sounds like a pretty good combination. Really looking forward to the review of this lens! (Oh and by the way: great site!  ) 

 

- Felix

[frank]

I don't understand why Nikon also uses reversed zoom and focus rings on this high level (according to specifications, constructions, and price etc). My impression was that reversed zoom and focus rings are only used on (more or less) consumer-level lenses by Nikon. On the other hand I don't get at all why they should be revsersed on some lenses.

[frank]

So far my overall impression about this lens:

 

1. Seems to be excellent in optics (to be confirmed by tests);

2. Too bulky and heavy (price for the IQ?), given its maximum aperture values;

3. The price my be justified by its quality, performance, and features

 

Frank

[mst]

I don't understand why Nikon also uses reversed zoom and focus rings on this high level (according to specifications, constructions, and price etc). My impression was that reversed zoom and focus rings are only used on (more or less) consumer-level lenses by Nikon. On the other hand I don't get at all why they should be revsersed on some lenses.

When shooting with such a large and heavy lens, you need both hands to hold your equipment. To get best stability, your left hand wants to be as close to the front of the lens as possible. At the same time, that hand is the one you'll use for zooming, so having zoom and focus ring the way they are now on the 80-400 VR II makes perfect sense to me.

I never understood why Nikon chose a different route on the 200-400 VR. In fact, the placement of those two rings is one of the very few issues that successfully keeps me from buying that lens.

-- Markus

[frank]

When shooting with such a large and heavy lens, you need both hands to hold your equipment. To get best stability, your left hand wants to be as close to the front of the lens as possible. At the same time, that hand is the one you'll use for zooming, so having zoom and focus ring the way they are now on the 80-400 VR II makes perfect sense to me.


I never understood why Nikon chose a different route on the 200-400 VR. In fact, the placement of those two rings is one of the very few issues that successfully keeps me from buying that lens.


-- Markus

 

I see. So for this big lens it is a plus having zoom and focus ring the way they are now. Previously I only saw this way placement of zoom and focus rings on lenses like the AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR, the AF-S 24-120mm f4 VR, etc.

 

Frank