PhotoBanter.com

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)
-   Digital SLR Cameras (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lensby $1000 (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=125389)

Rob March 5th 13 11:52 AM

Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lensby $1000
 
On 5/03/2013 6:14 PM, RichA wrote:
The new 80-400mm costs $2700. Obviously the new lens was needed, but
what could have possibly been done to merit such...inflation?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03...6-G-ED-VR-zoom



Just looked and I would not buy one at that price.

The 70-300 is quarter the price. Half the weight 745gms/1570 gms



Floyd L. Davidson March 5th 13 03:08 PM

Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lens by $1000
 
Rob wrote:
The new 80-400mm costs $2700. [...]


Just looked and I would not buy one at that price.


If you don't need a lens like that, the price makes
little difference.

The 70-300 is quarter the price. Half the weight 745gms/1570 gms


If that lens is satisfactory, then you have no need at
all for the new 80-400mm lens. But the 70-300mm is not
equal to the older 80-400mm AF-D lens, and is no where
near the same as the new lens.

Here are the specification pages for each:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...g_if/index.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...-56d/index.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...d_vr/index.htm

Here are the MTF charts for maximum focal length at maximum aperture for each:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...if/pic_003.gif
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...6d/pic_003.gif
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...vr/pic_003.png

Some data points from those MTF charts tp show the significance:

S30 M30
70-300mm G @ 10mm 0.72 0.55
80-400mm D @ 10mm 0.72 0.52
80-400mm G @ 10mm 0.81 0.81

70-300mm G @ 15mm 0.74 0.55
80-400mm D @ 15mm 0.80 0.47
80-400mm G @ 15mm 0.73 0.74

70-300mm G @ 20mm 0.69 0.43
80-400mm D @ 20mm 0.80 0.47
80-400mm G @ 20mm 0.65 0.67

Clearly for a DX camera body the new lens is *vastly*
sharper at 10mm from the center of an image that is
24mm across. It is apparently significantly sharper at
15mm from the center too. Compared to the older AF-D
version the new lens does not exhibit the same
astigmatism (that is also present in the 70-300mm to a
lesser degree).

Given the faster focusing speed expected from AF-S
compared to the older AF-D version, plus the second
generation VR, this lens looks like a real winner. The
70-300mm of course doesn't do well with a 1.4x TC, so
there is no real comparison at all if 400mm is needed.
On top of that, it does appear that the new lens will
probably work very well with a 1.4x TC on newer Nikon
bodies that can AF at f/8, and be much sharper than the
older AF-D with a TC.

Hence, while any given photographer may not find this
lens useful at that price, there is little doubt that
many wildlife and bird photographers are going to snap
these up in a heartbeat.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Rob March 5th 13 11:35 PM

Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lensby $1000
 
On 6/03/2013 1:08 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Rob wrote:
The new 80-400mm costs $2700. [...]


Just looked and I would not buy one at that price.


If you don't need a lens like that, the price makes
little difference.


I was considering the old 80-400 some time ago but the focusing wasn't
to smart, and what I did see was poor results from a couple who were
using them, not very suitable for sporting events (attributed to slow
focus).

The 70-300 is quarter the price. Half the weight 745gms/1570 gms


If that lens is satisfactory, then you have no need at
all for the new 80-400mm lens. But the 70-300mm is not
equal to the older 80-400mm AF-D lens, and is no where
near the same as the new lens.


I do have the 70-300 lens and find it light to carry and stay mobile,
running up and down a beach.


Here are the specification pages for each:



http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...g_if/index.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...-56d/index.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...d_vr/index.htm

Here are the MTF charts for maximum focal length at maximum aperture for each:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...if/pic_003.gif
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...6d/pic_003.gif
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...vr/pic_003.png

Some data points from those MTF charts tp show the significance:

S30 M30
70-300mm G @ 10mm 0.72 0.55
80-400mm D @ 10mm 0.72 0.52
80-400mm G @ 10mm 0.81 0.81

70-300mm G @ 15mm 0.74 0.55
80-400mm D @ 15mm 0.80 0.47
80-400mm G @ 15mm 0.73 0.74

70-300mm G @ 20mm 0.69 0.43
80-400mm D @ 20mm 0.80 0.47
80-400mm G @ 20mm 0.65 0.67

Clearly for a DX camera body the new lens is *vastly*
sharper at 10mm from the center of an image that is
24mm across. It is apparently significantly sharper at
15mm from the center too. Compared to the older AF-D
version the new lens does not exhibit the same
astigmatism (that is also present in the 70-300mm to a
lesser degree).

Given the faster focusing speed expected from AF-S
compared to the older AF-D version, plus the second
generation VR, this lens looks like a real winner. The
70-300mm of course doesn't do well with a 1.4x TC, so
there is no real comparison at all if 400mm is needed.
On top of that, it does appear that the new lens will
probably work very well with a 1.4x TC on newer Nikon
bodies that can AF at f/8, and be much sharper than the
older AF-D with a TC.

Hence, while any given photographer may not find this
lens useful at that price, there is little doubt that
many wildlife and bird photographers are going to snap
these up in a heartbeat.


I have no doubt that the new 80-400 is a far superior lens to its old
counterpart, just the AF-S alone. I can't imagine that Nikon would
release a new lens which was an inferior replacement.

I hate lugging weight around nowadays, I'm over that and having all the
toys with me, just in case.



Savageduck[_3_] March 6th 13 12:35 AM

Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lens by $1000
 
On 2013-03-05 14:35:32 -0800, Rob said:

On 6/03/2013 1:08 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Rob wrote:




The 70-300 is quarter the price. Half the weight 745gms/1570 gms


If that lens is satisfactory, then you have no need at
all for the new 80-400mm lens. But the 70-300mm is not
equal to the older 80-400mm AF-D lens, and is no where
near the same as the new lens.


I do have the 70-300 lens and find it light to carry and stay mobile,
running up and down a beach.


My old 80-400mm (bought in 2004 for $1400) has become a dust collector
and hasn't been a regular occupant of my bag since 2009. The 70-300mm
VR is a surprisingly good value and performer, and the only areas in
which the 70-300mm VR is not equal to the old 80-400mm is in the
80-400mm's unbelievably poor low light performance, slow focus and the
only performance benefit, the extra reach.
I certainly couldn't have made this capture with the 80-400mm.
http://db.tt/6SuM0WTp


I have no doubt that the new 80-400 is a far superior lens to its old
counterpart, just the AF-S alone. I can't imagine that Nikon would
release a new lens which was an inferior replacement.

I hate lugging weight around nowadays, I'm over that and having all the
toys with me, just in case.


I hate lugging weight I might never use, in this case the 80-400mm. I
usually have these in my bag, or on the camera, but mostly it is just
the D300S + 18-200mm VRII for basic walk-around and spontaneous
shooting;
18-200mm VRII
70-300mm VR
35mm f/2.0
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Extra battery
My G11
....and if I think I might need it an SB-800.

The 80-400mm sits at home unless I have some odd notion that I might
need it for a long shot such as this one taken so long ago it was shot
with my D70.
http://db.tt/U3bG5A3W



--
Regards,

Savageduck


PeterN[_3_] March 6th 13 02:32 AM

Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lensby $1000
 
On 3/5/2013 9:08 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Rob wrote:
The new 80-400mm costs $2700. [...]


Just looked and I would not buy one at that price.


If you don't need a lens like that, the price makes
little difference.

The 70-300 is quarter the price. Half the weight 745gms/1570 gms


If that lens is satisfactory, then you have no need at
all for the new 80-400mm lens. But the 70-300mm is not
equal to the older 80-400mm AF-D lens, and is no where
near the same as the new lens.

Here are the specification pages for each:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...g_if/index.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...-56d/index.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...d_vr/index.htm

Here are the MTF charts for maximum focal length at maximum aperture for each:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...if/pic_003.gif
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...6d/pic_003.gif
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...vr/pic_003.png

Some data points from those MTF charts tp show the significance:

S30 M30
70-300mm G @ 10mm 0.72 0.55
80-400mm D @ 10mm 0.72 0.52
80-400mm G @ 10mm 0.81 0.81

70-300mm G @ 15mm 0.74 0.55
80-400mm D @ 15mm 0.80 0.47
80-400mm G @ 15mm 0.73 0.74

70-300mm G @ 20mm 0.69 0.43
80-400mm D @ 20mm 0.80 0.47
80-400mm G @ 20mm 0.65 0.67

Clearly for a DX camera body the new lens is *vastly*
sharper at 10mm from the center of an image that is
24mm across. It is apparently significantly sharper at
15mm from the center too. Compared to the older AF-D
version the new lens does not exhibit the same
astigmatism (that is also present in the 70-300mm to a
lesser degree).

Given the faster focusing speed expected from AF-S
compared to the older AF-D version, plus the second
generation VR, this lens looks like a real winner. The
70-300mm of course doesn't do well with a 1.4x TC, so
there is no real comparison at all if 400mm is needed.
On top of that, it does appear that the new lens will
probably work very well with a 1.4x TC on newer Nikon
bodies that can AF at f/8, and be much sharper than the
older AF-D with a TC.

Hence, while any given photographer may not find this
lens useful at that price, there is little doubt that
many wildlife and bird photographers are going to snap
these up in a heartbeat.


I agree with much of what you say, but:
my 80-499 focuses a lot faster on my D800 than on the D300, but only if
I use center focus. My Nikon TC extenders will not fit because of the
protrusion of the rear element. It does fit on the Kenko 1.4, but the
image is horribly soft.
I have no reservations about trying the new 80-400. but only if it will
work with a 1.4 extender, as I would like a 500mm.


--
PeterN

Rob March 6th 13 03:19 AM

Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lensby $1000
 
On 6/03/2013 12:32 PM, PeterN wrote:
I agree with much of what you say, but:
my 80-499 focuses a lot faster on my D800 than on the D300, but only if
I use center focus. My Nikon TC extenders will not fit because of the
protrusion of the rear element. It does fit on the Kenko 1.4, but the
image is horribly soft.
I have no reservations about trying the new 80-400. but only if it will
work with a 1.4 extender, as I would like a 500mm.



On those very rare occasions I can use my 500mm f5.6 Mamiya MF lens -
used manually, attached with a Zork converter. ( Nobody wanted to give
me any money for the lens so I kept it)

Rob March 6th 13 03:22 AM

Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lensby $1000
 
On 6/03/2013 12:32 PM, PeterN wrote:
my 80-499 focuses a lot faster on my D800 than on the D300,



Why? although I haven't tried is it a better motor?

I could manually focus, my 80-200 2.8, faster.

[email protected] March 6th 13 04:10 AM

Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lens by $1000
 
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 15:35:05 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

I certainly couldn't have made this capture with the 80-400mm.
http://db.tt/6SuM0WTp



Hey thats a great shot!


Savageduck[_3_] March 6th 13 04:15 AM

Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lens by $1000
 
On 2013-03-05 19:10:46 -0800, said:

On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 15:35:05 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

I certainly couldn't have made this capture with the 80-400mm.
http://db.tt/6SuM0WTp


Hey thats a great shot!


Thanks!
I have posted my Dropbox gallery in the photo groups a few times as
well as some of the individual shots in a.b.p.o. where we both show up
from time to time. ;-)
Here are 30 I got that day.
Warbirds Over Paso

--
Regards,

Savageduck


Savageduck[_3_] March 6th 13 04:19 AM

Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lens by $1000
 
On 2013-03-05 19:15:49 -0800, Savageduck said:

On 2013-03-05 19:10:46 -0800, said:

On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 15:35:05 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

I certainly couldn't have made this capture with the 80-400mm.
http://db.tt/6SuM0WTp


Hey thats a great shot!


Thanks!
I have posted my Dropbox gallery in the photo groups a few times as
well as some of the individual shots in a.b.p.o. where we both show up
from time to time. ;-)
Here are 30 I got that day.
Warbirds Over Paso


Oops!

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...ver%20Paso?lst

--
Regards,

Savageduck



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com