Nikon Announces AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR

Canon: be worried, be very worried!! One lens that Canon made, Nikon didn't, and some switched to Canon just because of this lens.

Also sporting a 5-stop VR!! That will be awesome, if it can deliver those 5 stops.

To top it all off, an MSRP of $1399.95 and.......available in late Nov.2012.. not 6 or 12 months from now.

Nikon is firing on all cylinders right now!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=3259

http://www.nikonusa.co​m …200mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html

Not too worried. The Canon variant has been around so long that anyone who could have switched just because of this lens already has done so a long time ago.

5-stop VR is only 1 stop better than the one on Canon's alternative, which is already so good you can shoot at 1/20th SS at 200mm, which IMO, is just about at the boundary of usefulness.

MSRP is $200 more than the Canon variant, even if the street price will be lower, the margin on lenses is only so big that it will be priced about the same in the end.

I'm not worried about image quality either, because the 70-200 f/4 IS is already as sharp as any prime lens at every equivalent aperture and focal length, except at 200mm when focusing closer than 5ft. The only lens Canon has that is sharper (and only on charts) is the f/2.8 IS II.

No, not only is Canon not worried, but Nikon has some very big shoes to fill.

I might pick one of these up, the 70-200 2.8 VRii I have is a monster, and one of the times the local camera shop let me borrow a 5D3 for half a day they put the Canon 70-200 f4 on it for me, loved that little lens - perfect size/weight. Hoping the Nikon version is close in size/weight to the Canon.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #15162424
Not too worried. The Canon variant has been around so long that anyone who could have switched just because of this lens already has done so a long time ago.

5-stop VR is only 1 stop better than the one on Canon's alternative, which is already so good you can shoot at 1/20th SS at 200mm, which IMO, is just about at the boundary of usefulness.

MSRP is $200 more than the Canon variant, even if the street price will be lower, the margin on lenses is only so big that it will be priced about the same in the end.

I'm not worried about image quality either, because the 70-200 f/4 IS is already as sharp as any prime lens at every equivalent aperture and focal length, except at 200mm when focusing closer than 5ft. The only lens Canon has that is sharper (and only on charts) is the f/2.8 IS II.

No, not only is Canon not worried, but Nikon has some very big shoes to fill.

Hey... an extra stop is an extra stop. Big issues were made when going from 3-4 stops of IS.

Give me an honest answer here; how much do you think Canon would charge for this now, if they just newly released it(obviously, this has just gone through recent/expensive R&D, tooling, etc. total, ground-up design.).. not an upgrade to their current one?

I sincerely believe, they would set an MSRP of~$1700. I'm not pro-Nikon..at all (though, if i was starting over again..hmm?)..but.. Canon is failing, in some way or another, with all their recent (2-3 years) releases; be it price, availability/time to market, underestimating the competition.. and/or their customers' wants. Nikon has knocked the wind out of Canon's sails, with their new sensors..period! Even the big 70-200 II... as much as everyone loves it, was too expensive.

When was the last product that Canon released anything on time?

5D III- Late
1Dx- way late
24/28 2.8 IS- late
24-70 II-way late
200-400 (not officially announced.. yet, but..waiting, and it will come)... slowww.

Have they announced anything, that will be available... in under 2 months... and delivered?

This lens isn't going to affect those who came to Canon.. because of it, and there are some(just as some have gone to Nikon, because of the 14-24), BUT!! Anyone even remotely contemplating a jump to Nikon, for the 800D/600D, and wanting a light-weight 70-200; this should be enough to nudge them over.

It also has a very short MFD, and lovely MM.

1Tanker wrote in post #15163205
Hey... an extra stop is an extra stop. Big issues were made when going from 3-4 stops of IS.

There was a good increase going from 3-4 stops, not just because of the rating, but how well the lens maintained that rating out of 10 shots. Not knocking on Nikon on anything, but it's just the VR system on one lens, I'd be more impressed if they released a camera with 5-stop VR that worked on all lenses, like what Sony is trying to do.

The 70-200 f/4 IS isn't all that old, it was only announced in 2006. I don't think the 2.8 IS II is too expensive, but the new 24-70 II is, considering the lack of IS.
I have no argument about Nikon's camera bodies, those are definitely top notch in key areas, and are beginning to knock some seriously expensive hardware out of the market, but the lack of reduced-size shooting on the D800 is definitely a downer; I can't imagine shooting with a camera that only shoots at 36mp all the time.

I don't mind. How fast exactly does anyone expect the world to owe them technology they didn't know existed until it was announced? I don't think anyone is jumping off a bridge over "missed" deadlines or the lack of features on today's cameras, they're still vastly better than anything we have ever had to work with in the past, but for some reason I don't see the actual end photography improving.

This lens isn't going to affect those who came to Canon.. because of it, and there are some(just as some have gone to Nikon, because of the 14-24), BUT!! Anyone even remotely contemplating a jump to Nikon, for the 800D/600D, and wanting a light-weight 70-200; this should be enough to nudge them over.

It also has a very short MFD, and lovely MM.

It's just a lens that people wanted for a long time and are now getting. There is honestly nothing you can't do with either system; what irks me is what people don't do.

This is great news for someone who just bought their first Nikon and loves their 70-200 f/4 L IS.

Adios, Canon (for now).

This is good news. Honestly, Nikon's VR doesn't work as well as Canon's IS and Sigma OS (in my opinion). So maybe VR3 will change that. Just my opinion.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #15163437
the lack of reduced-size shooting on the D800 is definitely a downer; I can't imagine shooting with a camera that only shoots at 36mp all the time.

Obviously you lack the understanding and features that the D800 camera offers since you are completely wrong and don't know what you are talking about. I own a D800E and it can provide up to 74mb files on an easy day.

I'm surprised it took them so long to come out with one to compete with Canon.

gqtuazon wrote in post #15164882
Obviously you lack the understanding and features that the D800 camera offers since you are completely wrong and don't know what you are talking about. I own a D800E and it can provide up to 74mb files on an easy day.

Touche extreme sarcasm.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #15166702
Touche extreme sarcasm.

Seriously speaking, if you are talking about the Canon SRAW and MRAW, how much difference are we talking about here for a 22mp sensor?

Is it any different from Nikon's Compressed, uncompressed, compressed lossless RAW files? You do realize that that can also be varied if you change the image size to either full frame, 1.2x, 1.5 x crop and 5:4 image size with the Nikon full frame cameras right? Changing the image size from full frame to crop does greatly reduce or change the RAW file size. This is the reason why I wrote my comment above.

Yeah, but those are crop modes, I do indeed mean something like sRAW on Canon cameras.
36mp is just too much most of the time, if they also had let you choose, say, 24mp and 16mp reduced-res, full-frame modes, that would be great. In-camera crop modes are mostly useless IMO, I'd rather concentrate on getting the shot than messing with the format, you can crop later, but you can't un-crop. Is it really that hard to imagine what the final shot will be like without black bars?
I'm not just talking about file size, but actual useable resolution, you simply won't get 36mp worth of pixel-level detail unless you're shooting from a tripod with the mirror up, so why bother shooting there at all?
All I know about RAW compression is that Canon cameras use lossless compression by default, as the only option, I can't image why you'd want it any other way.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #15166911
Yeah, but those are crop modes, I do indeed mean something like sRAW on Canon cameras.
36mp is just too much most of the time, if they also had let you choose, say, 24mp and 16mp reduced-res, full-frame modes, that would be great. In-camera crop modes are mostly useless IMO, I'd rather concentrate on getting the shot than messing with the format, you can crop later, but you can't un-crop. Is it really that hard to imagine what the final shot will be like without black bars?

All I know about RAW compression is that Canon cameras use lossless compression by default, as the only option, I can't image why you'd want it any other way.

Somehow you and others who made such claim could not give me a straight answer on the approximate value RAW file size difference between a sRAW and mRaw with the Canon system. Your lack of familiarity on how the system works with Nikon makes it difficult for you to understand and grasp the other benefits by using these so called "useless" features.

Would it make it easier for you to understand if I name the compressed RAW as sRAW; lossless compressed as mRAW and uncompressed as LRAW?

Similar to IS and VR?

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #15166911
I'm not just talking about file size, but actual useable resolution, you simply won't get 36mp worth of pixel-level detail unless you're shooting from a tripod with the mirror up, so why bother shooting there at all?

I know this is way out of topic from the original thread discussion but I'm interested on how you ended up with this conclusion? Based on our test?

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #15166911
I'm not just talking about file size, but actual useable resolution, you simply won't get 36mp worth of pixel-level detail unless you're shooting from a tripod with the mirror up, so why bother shooting there at all?

gqtuazon wrote in post #15166948
I know this is way out of topic from the original thread discussion but I'm interested on how you ended up with this conclusion? Based on our test?

Based on his own D800 test...oh wait he doesn't even have one

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #15166911
36mp is just too much most of the time,

sales figures don't support this statement.