> >Never knew about a Nikon 20-400 f/4, and I can't seem to find >it listed anywhere. Strikes me that if there were such a beast >the compromises would make it something like the >"zooms" that were around in the sixties. > Surprised you did not think of the 200-400. Sorry about the typo. I am getting lots of them lately. The lens is already a beast, but at f/2.8 would have to be bigger, heavier and more expensive.