New 70-200 f/2.8 VR coming?

I want a 50-135 f/2.0 VR

 

I wouldn't surprise me, but I don't think they need an update just yet. But it is 5 years old and the nano would be a nice touch. I have used my 70-200 on D40, D80, D200, D300, D2x, D2hs, D3 and it worked great on all of them.

As for the soft corners. I say what ever. No one had a problem with this lens till Mr Rockwell said so. Just my opinion, mine works great.


What Nikon needs to update is the 16mm fisheye to AFS.

Oh and I thought Nikon was update or coming out with all new fast primes. 85mm 1.2 AFS would be nice  

 

Why do we need a new 70-200 VR?

 

Just fake. We dont need 'new' 70-200mm yet...we need fresh primes and a cheep tele like 400mm/f4:wink:

 

I love my 70-200Vr on my D200, but there are several reports, hereby Bjørn Rørslett + also a test at Dpreview, that the IQ is lower at FX in the corners, not just vignetting.

 

Actually, Rockwell defended the 70-200 against all others who said it was soft in the corners on a FF.

 

You are 100 % right - he defended the 70-200VR against a lot of other reports.

It was diglloyd, Bjørn Rørslett and dpreview - NOT Ken Rockwell, he was opposite.

 

Everybody that has one loves it.
Everybody that doesn't have one wants one.
They are hard to find.
Nikon can't make them fast enough.
99.99% of reviews are very good.
Other than Nano and FF coverage, why would Nikon want to update?
Of course who can ever figure out Nikon...

 

D'oh, I knew that. His pictures are what everyone (other forums) refer to. But since no one (other people on other forums) reads: "These lenses are all very sharp. I'm doing something stupid to make them look this bad. I'm misusing these lenses, and showing which are most resistant to misuse."

What's really funny is the people who complain and/or worried about this lens, don't have one. I have one and it works awesome. I have used it on a D3 and saw no problems.

BTW I love what Rockwell says "Only an idiot worries about the far corners."