>Stan, a lighter 14-24? An 80-400 f4? I'm glad we set our >clocks back-I need an hour to bask in the glow of these >thoughts!! > >Charley, you sound like an addict. (I hate this heroin--give >me some more!) Does Nikon have its hand in your wallet, >forcing you to buy this lens if it isn't for you? I shoot >festivals. I have my lens collection hanging from my neck for >12 to 14 hours at a time. I also have a gimp left wrist. I >need the 2.8 for evening and indoor, i don't need it for >outdoor and the tents in daytime. I now have a pro quality >option to reduce my pain. Sorry it makes you so angry, but >Rick and i will be out shooting and enjoying the options that >Nikon gives us!
Seriously Rod, I'm not angry. The only things that I am truely addicted to is breathing & Diet Coke. I got off a 3-3.5 pack of cigs a day cold turkey in 1969. The subject of this forum is "5 Stops VR? Has Nikon Marketing lost the plot?"
My whole point is that Nikon is a market driven corporation. I'd be willing to bet that they will sell a very large number of these. I also have an aversion to carrying weight based on a ton of athletic injuries, auto accidents, broken collar bones, etc. This lens will actually force me into a choice of continuing DX or going FX. This lens would be a very good reason to strongly consider FX.
It is my strong suspicion that this lens will be an entry into the FX world for a lot of folks.