Wed 20-Feb-13 02:01 AM | edited Wed 20-Feb-13 08:21 AM by briantilley
Intriguing? I bet. Currently this lens has $350 instant rebate (the highest amount out there), but it also is qualifies for 24 months financing from Amazon along with 18-200, 24-70, 70-200 and D7000. I I feel like we might have some new gear soon.
Best regards, Vlad
Edited to add question mark to subject, so that no-one gets their hopes up too much...!
>Or is has not been a great seller for them (thus the greater >incentives), making its long awaited replacement even less >enticing for Nikon. > >Jason
I'll add that I believe that the 80-400 is made in batches in Japan (as opposed to continuous production at other locations), and given their latest financial results I'd expect they either are introducing a replacement and want to dump the old one, or that they're using excess supply of a slow selling lens to generate some cash.
It's probably the later, because, off of the top of my head, look at all of the lenses that need updating right now:
Primes: - AF 10.5 f/2.8G DX Fisheye: Needs AF-S - AF 14 f/2.8D: Needs AF-S - AF 16 f/2.8D Fisheye: Needs AF-S - AF 20 f/2.8D: Needs AF-S - AF 35 f/2D: Needs AF-S (and probably f/1.8) - AI-S 50 f/1.2: Needs AF-S and D - AF 105 f/2D DC: Needs AF-S and VR - AF 135 f/2D DC: Needs AF-S and VR - AF 180 f/2.8D: Needs AF-S and VR - AF 200 f/4D Micro: Needs AF-S and VR - AF-S 300 f/4: Needs VR
Zooms: - AF 17-35 f/2.8D: Needs AF-S and N - AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G: Needs VR - AF 80-400 f/4.5-5.6D: Needs AF-S
That's probably only half the list, and I still went and ordered it by focal length for clarity. Of those, the first two zooms need updating the most, followed by cleaning up the primes ... those are a complete mess, with the 50 f/1.2 still not even having AF! At least with the 14-24, the wide primes aren't in dire need of updating, but they really need to update a whole pile of lenses before the 80-400.
I really am hoping for an 80-400 update too, it needs it badly and the reason it's not selling is that it's being held back by a lack of AF-S, (or heck, even AF-I would be nice!) but I can see the beancounters putting resources elsewhere really easily, unless the update is already in the pipe and the lens is entering or nearly entering production.
The 17-35mm f/2.8 already has AF-S, and in my experience would not benefit significantly from a nano-coated rear element.
You may have also noticed that when Canon refreshed its 24-70mm f/2.8, they did not include IS, so perhaps your use of the word "need" is a bit strong. It's easy to go through a catalog and play the "find the missing letters" game; it's not quite as easy to determine what's practical to upgrade, nor what makes sense from a financial standpoint.
"There is no real magic in photography, just the sloppy intersection of physics and art." — Kirk Tuck
>That's an interesting list you put together but I believe >there are a few lenses on it that will never get upgraded.
More than a few. You're likely correct about the wide primes, and the 180 mm, and that the 17-55 will be replaced by a 16-55 in f/2.8 (the current 16-55 is an f/4, remember). It'll get a nano coat, because that's what Nikon is putting on all of its f/2.8's. It'll likely also get VR, although that's less sure as a wide zoom.
However, the 50 f/1.2 certainly could be upgraded, it would just require a new optical formula to change the rear element. The f/1.2 simply means it needs a minimum 42 mm front element, the rear can be nearly any size. For comparison, the 85 f/1.8 needs an 48 mm front element, and it's certainly AF-S, so 42 mm is well within the realm of possibility.
Also, the 24-70 will get VR at some point (IMHO). Just because Canon didn't do it, doesn't mean it shouldn't and won't be done, and the 24-70 is one of Nikon's flagship relatively high volume pro lenses, that is in need of an update to one up Canon, after Canon one upped them. As for VR, the 16-55 f/4 already has VR, for instance.
I agree that the two in most need of an upgrade (and the two I want upgraded the most) are the two big teles, the 300 and 80-400, where the newest 4 stop VR and AF-S will show by far the most benefit. They are the last two big teles not to get have AF-S, VR and G, after all, but that doesn't mean that they will be the ones to get the upgrades first, much to my chagrin.
I wouldn't read too much into this. The 80-400 has been needing a replacement badly for a decade, at least as far as users have been concerned. Sigma has made a ton of money eating off of just this one Nikon lunch plate.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
We've been hoping for a replacement for years. But I gotta say I'll be among the first to preorder one. I've got a 200-400 VR2 and I'll gladly sell it and buy a 80-400 replacement. It's the lens I've been waiting for all this time. I've gone third party and I've gone expensive. But the 80-400 is a great mix of range and portability. Here's hoping!
Hopefuly, they don't go the 500mm route because f6.3 is pretty dark-at least for my needs. The 80-400 is a h-u-g-e hole in Nikon's market-especially when you see all the Canon 100-400's out there! I mean those things are everywhere. They are affordable, reasonably sharp and fast focusing....C'mon Nikkkor.....!
Completely agree about Canons 100-400. It's the only competition that the 50-500 OS really has. Of course, it wont fit on my Nikon though.
The thing about the Bigma is the way it's optimised.
Sure, f6.3 is darkish- but make it f4.5 and you'd double the weight, thus killing the utility of the thing and probably tripling the price.
The 50-500 OS exists at the cusp of what is actually useable and what is actually manufacturable and sellable and transportable.
More than 500mm would be too much to handhold except maybe on the brightest coolest day. It's heavy- as heavy as it really could be- but not TOO heavy. It's 'bright' enough to do the job. Make it brighter and its too heavy/ expensive. The OS adds the sauce you need to handhold the thing and get decent results. The 10x range could hardly be improved on. Canons 100-400 sounds almost as good, but 50-500 is miles better (75-750mm in real life).
It's sharp enough all the way through the range.Atmospheric effects are starting to take their toll at the long end- which means it's hard to actually 'use' any extra sharpness at 500.
And all for about £1000. (which is roughly the price of a 80-400VR)
It's a work of genius.
Nikon could have made it, but Sigma did.
They'll need to go some to beat it- but I hope they do!
I'm just saying I hope Nikon stays with 400 at the long end and 5.6. For my photography, which includes work on overcast days in dark woodlands f6.3 is too small an aperture. Of course, on the really dark days I tote a 300/2.8 anyway. So....C'mon Nikon where is that new 80-400 AF-S ????! It would be a great all purpose tele lens!