New Nikon 70-200 f/4G VR with 5-stop VR system

http://www.dpreview.co​m …-stop-image-stabilization

I want to see if the 5 stop VR is really better or not... $1399 is reasonable (The f/4L IS is $1100 though..) but maybe a little high considering...

Sounds good, but... No offense..it looks "cheap" to me for some reason.. I cant put my finger on it..it just doesnt look "Professional"

The f/4L IS is on sale for $1100 until 10/27/12 and then it goes back to it's regular price of $1349. So The Nikon version is only $50 more and you get an extra stop of stabilization. But the tripod collar for Nikon is $224 and "only" $149 for Canon.

This should be an excellent lens.

seen lots of complaints about that collar price, i've also read the MSRP for the Canon collar is $210.
for myself, i'm not sure it needs a collar if it's in the same weight/size range as the Canon version.

Wow, Nikon's really impressing me with this release. If Canon were to release an updated model today, it would price out a lot higher being a new model/design. Yet rjx has documented that the all-new Nikon model is priced in the same range as the older Canon model. Great job by Nikon.

Let's just consider the opposite scenario: Nikon already has a 200-400mm f/4, right? And we all know Canon will be releasing their own model, right? What do you think the chances are that the new Canon model will be priced in the same range as the older Nikon model? Slim and none is my guess. In fact I won't be surprised if the Canon 200-400 is priced thousands more than the current Nikon model.

David Arbogast wrote in post #15163725
In fact I won't be surprised if the Canon 200-400 is priced thousands more than the current Nikon model.

Hehe, people always forget to include the release day of the lens into consideration.
Newer lens of the same class WILL be more expensive, but they will have better optics than the older one.

This was the missing lens in Nikon's lineup that made me switch to Canon in 2008.
Hmm...

David Arbogast wrote in post #15163725
Wow, Nikon's really impressing me with this release. If Canon were to release an updated model today, it would price out a lot higher being a new model/design. Yet rjx has documented that the all-new Nikon model is priced in the same range as the older Canon model. Great job by Nikon.

Let's just consider the opposite scenario: Nikon already has a 200-400mm f/4, right? And we all know Canon will be releasing their own model, right? What do you think the chances are that the new Canon model will be priced in the same range as the older Nikon model? Slim and none is my guess. In fact I won't be surprised if the Canon 200-400 is priced thousands more than the current Nikon model.

Well, let's see if the Nikon version competes with the Canon version. If it's as good or better optically then it's a great deal.

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is about the same price as the newer Nikon version and it's a superior lens.

thenextguy wrote in post #15164792
Well, let's see if the Nikon version competes with the Canon version. If it's as good or better optically then it's a great deal.

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is about the same price as the newer Nikon version and it's a superior lens.

Great point. The Canon 70-200mm f/4 is an exceptional performer - competes very well with the f/2.8L mk II. So, mererly having a 70-200mm f/4 in the Nikon lens lineup isn't good enough. It needs to be in the same IQ ballpark as the Canon model to be comparable. We shall see!

mtf for the nikon looks good though you cant compare it to the mtf of the canon directly.

It'll be a great lens and fill a hole in their lineup.

20 elements in 14 groups makes me think this could be one stunningly sharp lens..

thenextguy wrote in post #15164792
Well, let's see if the Nikon version competes with the Canon version. If it's as good or better optically then it's a great deal.

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is about the same price as the newer Nikon version and it's a superior lens.

Could you tell me how the Canon one is a better lens? I own both.

jdizzle wrote in post #15165689
Could you tell me how the Canon one is a better lens? I own both.

lol Julian!! Put the light sabre down and back slowly away.

How nice to see that Nikon is taking steps to "match" Canon, on the few spots it is needed.

If only Canon could try to match Nikon some times..

A 14-24 L would be very nice. But of course, it would have to be as good as Nikon's version, and hence outperform the 14L and 24L.. I don't know how that would go with Canon's marketing machine. Perhaps with a $3,000 price tag?

jdizzle wrote in post #15165689
Could you tell me how the Canon one is a better lens? I own both.

Yeah, they're both great lenses, but in no way is the Nikon inferior in any way.

Stone 13 wrote in post #15165697
lol Julian!! Put the light sabre down and back slowly away.

Hehe! I'm curious to know where he got his facts from.

elrey2375 wrote in post #15165711
Yeah, they're both great lenses, but in no way is the Nikon inferior in any way.

Imo, they're pretty much identical in IQ. If he knows what makes the Canon superior, I'd sure like to know. If he gives me the right answer then I'll agree.