70-200 lens release date?

Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
6,079
Location
Upstate SC
Nikon has been all over the (road) map with announcement dates. I’d count on it being “soon”, but I wouldn’t bet money on 2019. As much as I was looking forward to this lens, I’m not convinced I’ll try to buy one any time soon. It’ll be over $2500 (speculation, but based on other lenses, I’ll be surprised if it’s less than that). I love the results from my AF-S 2 on the Z6, and even though this lens will be “better”, I’m not sure it’ll be worth the difference to me.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
7
Location
Orland Park, IL
Nikon has been all over the (road) map with announcement dates. I’d count on it being “soon”, but I wouldn’t bet money on 2019. As much as I was looking forward to this lens, I’m not convinced I’ll try to buy one any time soon. It’ll be over $2500 (speculation, but based on other lenses, I’ll be surprised if it’s less than that). I love the results from my AF-S 2 on the Z6, and even though this lens will be “better”, I’m not sure it’ll be worth the difference to me.
Thanks!
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
246
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
. . . It’ll be over $2500 (speculation, but based on other lenses, I’ll be surprised if it’s less than that).
Based on the almost $3k of the 70-200/2.8, I would put it near $3k, or a bit more.

What I am puzzled about, is that Canon sells their EF 70-200/2.8 for less than Nikon. Manufacturing cost should be similar.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
7,362
Location
Texas (KSKF)
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
246
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
ah ha
That is a potential deal killer for Canon.

I found that almost all of my extending zooms have a significantly higher effort to turn the zoom ring than my internal zoom 70-200/4.
Hard to tell, but it "seems" that the video of the 70-200 the photographer is using a bit of effort to turn the zoom ring.

My basic analysis seems to be,
The extending zoom has a fair bit of mass to be pushed in/out, sometime several inches.
But most zoom rings go from min to max in a 90 degree turn of the zoom ring, some as little as 60 degrees of turn.
That means the zoom cam has to be steep, to push the mass of the lens out several inches, with a 90 degree or smaller turn.
A steeper cam needs more force to turn.

The manufacture can make this worse by using a thick grease, or too much grease in the zoom mechanism.

One may think it isn't a big deal. However, if you are shooting sporting events, and turning that zoom ring for a couple/few hours, then it becomes an issue.

I wish the manufactures of extending zooms would design for a light turning effort zoom ring.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
7,362
Location
Texas (KSKF)
Agree about the size.

What I meant was the effort to turn the zoom ring.
I only use extending zooms, because there is no reasonable internal zoom option.

I seem to be in the minority, but I do not like STIFF zoom rings.
I actually understand why Canon did this.
Why make RF 70-200 that doesn't gain much in size reduction compared to the current "L" model when instead, you can make a light and ultra compact 70-200 f2.8

If Nikon made something like this, I'd probably get it just for a small and light weight "on the go" package....
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
246
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I actually understand why Canon did this.
Why make RF 70-200 that doesn't gain much in size reduction compared to the current "L" model when instead, you can make a light and ultra compact 70-200 f2.8

If Nikon made something like this, I'd probably get it just for a small and light weight "on the go" package....
Size reduction yes. And visually it does make an impression.
But I don't know how much weight they will save. The objective element still has to be at least 72mm diameter (200mm / 2.8). The outer shell can be shorter, but now it has to be larger in diameter, because it has to hold the inner extending shell, which is another metal? part. But this is all guesswork. I will have to look at the specs.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
6,079
Location
Upstate SC
I’m nearly resigned to just keeping the AF-SII. I’m not a “pro”, and I love the lens. I’m sure the impending release will be all fluorite-y and perfect, but it’ll also be between $2500-3000. Too rich for my blood.

I’ve also “almost” decided to forego replacing my beloved 14-24 with the native 14-30 so I can use ND filters. I really dig the upcoming Aurora Aperture filters the fit inside the FTZ, but I’d like to use some grads, and those aren’t on the Aurora roadmap.

Waiting on the 50/1.2, but all indicators point to the likelihood of it being another cost prohibitive (for me) option. If it’s under a grand, I want it. If not (and it probably won’t be), I’m grabbing a 50/1.4G and calling it a day.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
1,175
Location
St. Charles, IL
Real Name
Andy
I’ve also “almost” decided to forego replacing my beloved 14-24 with the native 14-30 so I can use ND filters. I really dig the upcoming Aurora Aperture filters the fit inside the FTZ, but I’d like to use some grads, and those aren’t on the Aurora roadmap.
I'm a "casual pro" (just the occasional paid job), but every copy of the 70/80-200mm f/2.8 that I've owned over the years has paid for itself. But just enough to cover upgrading from time to time.

Like you, I'm tempted by the 14-30, but probably will keep the 14-24mm f/2.8G for awhile longer, since the wide angle zoom is strictly leisure usage for me. Did you get in with the Kickstarter campaign for the drop-in filters?
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
6,079
Location
Upstate SC
I'm a "casual pro" (just the occasional paid job), but every copy of the 70/80-200mm f/2.8 that I've owned over the years has paid for itself. But just enough to cover upgrading from time to time.

Like you, I'm tempted by the 14-30, but probably will keep the 14-24mm f/2.8G for awhile longer, since the wide angle zoom is strictly leisure usage for me. Did you get in with the Kickstarter campaign for the drop-in filters?
I missed the kickstarter. I keep looking on Aurora’s site for an update on availability. Nothing thus far.

If I still had my 14-24, I’d be much happier. Still weighing the option of picking up a used one or getting the 14-30S.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
947
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I'm a "casual pro" (just the occasional paid job), but every copy of the 70/80-200mm f/2.8 that I've owned over the years has paid for itself. But just enough to cover upgrading from time to time.

Like you, I'm tempted by the 14-30, but probably will keep the 14-24mm f/2.8G for awhile longer, since the wide angle zoom is strictly leisure usage for me. Did you get in with the Kickstarter campaign for the drop-in filters?
The 14-30 is incredible Andy. It was my favorite zoom lens when hiking around the UK Lake District earlier this year, partly due to just how dang small and light it is while still providing an incredibly wide image with great IQ, and partly because it can take screw-in ND filters.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom