Anyone know if Nikon's gonna re-issue the 70-200 f/2.8 soon?

[SLC Flyfishing]

Hello everyone,

I've saved up the cash to switch to Nikon this fall. I will be buying a very extensive kit, which so far will include:

D700 body
70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR
24-70 f/2.8 AF-S VR
possibly the 17-55 f/2.8
85 f/1.8
possibly a 50 f/1.4
SB-900 flashgun
105 f/2.8 DC
Sigma 20 mm f/1.8

I plan on keeping my existing Pentax equipment for a backup and to do the rougher stuff where there's a chance that things may get damaged.

Anyway, I've been following the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 thread on here lately, and have heard mention of Nikon 70-200 being re-issued. I had a Nikon shooter on another forum mention to me that he felt that the 70-200 wasn't as spectacular covering the full frame as it is on crop body sensors (something I'd never heard before, though I've been a Pentax shooter for years). I also visited my local pro-shop where I'll be making the purchase and asked their people, they all said that the 70-200 is one of the finest lenses Nikon makes, on Full Frame and Crop body cameras both, they said that it's likely the finest zoom they stock (any brand). Either way, I'm now very interested in finding out whether or not the 70-200 could be better, and if Nikon has implied that a refresh is on the way.

So if anyone on here knows something, or can point me in the direction of some information, it'd be very much appreciated.

SLC

 

[Grimace]

Both Nikon and Canon's 70-200mm series are nothing short of spectacular. Both are often as sharp as primes in that focal range, and I can't imagine either one being refreshed - especially given the holes in other areas of both brand lineups.

 

[Cliff3]

Anyway, I've been following the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 thread on here lately, and have heard mention of Nikon 70-200 being re-issued. I had a Nikon shooter on another forum mention to me that he felt that the 70-200 wasn't as spectacular covering the full frame as it is on crop body sensors (something I'd never heard before, though I've been a Pentax shooter for years). I also visited my local pro-shop where I'll be making the purchase and asked their people, they all said that the 70-200 is one of the finest lenses Nikon makes, on Full Frame and Crop body cameras both, they said that it's likely the finest zoom they stock (any brand).

Reviews of the 70-200 on FX bodies have been critical of corner sharpness, which impacts use of the lens for landscape photography (Rorslett, DPReview). Nikon hasn't hasn't said anything about a refresh, but the forums are full of hope/wishful thinking. An alternative is to find a good used copy of the 80-200 f2.8 AF-S, a lens which was the predecessor to the 70-200 and which seems to perform solidly on FX bodies.

I don't know why you want the 17-55 as it is designed for DX sensors and will not cover the sensor from 17-28mm. edit: Were you thinking of the 17-35 f2.8 instead?

I would opt for the Nikkor 20 over the Sigma 20. A big aperture isn't an advantage in a super wide since the goal of such a lens is to emphasize depth in the composition. My experience has led me to prefer Nikkor lenses over 3rd party lenses unless the 3rd party lens offers something the Nikkor doesn't, and that doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would also probably take a pass on the 85 f1.8 if you're planning on getting the 105 f2 DC. The 105 is going to be the better lens and you don't need 2 portrait lenses. A better choice would be to choose either the 105 or the 85 f1.4, but not both. I have the latter lens and it's exquisite.

 

[ChrisA]

..
So if anyone on here knows something, or can point me in the direction of some information, it'd be very much appreciated.

Nikon is just like Apple in that neither company talks about future products. Anyone who knows anything has signed an agreemant not to talk about it. So All we have are rumors.

Now that we've gone to digital sensors lenses only need to be "good enough". Sharpness past that point is not recorded and really can't be recorded. the 80-200 is better than good enough. (Camera makers never like to talk about "anti alias" filters But every digital sensor has a "anti alias" filter laminated in front of it. The purpose is to blur the image to remove fine detail that is smaller than 2X the pixel size.)

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I don't know why you want the 17-55 as it is designed for DX sensors and will not cover the sensor from 17-28mm. edit: Were you thinking of the 17-35 f2.8 instead?

I would also probably take a pass on the 85 f1.8 if you're planning on getting the 105 f2 DC. The 105 is going to be the better lens and you don't need 2 portrait lenses. A better choice would be to choose either the 105 or the 85 f1.4, but not both. I have the latter lens and it's exquisite.

Yes after I posted that, I realized that it was the 17-35 not the 17-55. I went out to have a look around this weekend and remembered leaning this, but for some reason 17-55 remains stuck in my head. In the end I want an ultra wide zoom.

SLC

 

[Cliff3]

Yes after I posted that, I realized that it was the 17-35 not the 17-55. I went out to have a look around this weekend and remembered leaning this, but for some reason 17-55 remains stuck in my head. In the end I want an ultra wide zoom.

SLC

You may also want to look at the 14-24. It has been criticized for being unable to accept filters, but I don't often use them so in my case that's not much of a limitation. It is a brilliant lens.

 

[compuwar]

Hello everyone,

I've saved up the cash to switch to Nikon this fall. I will be buying a very extensive kit, which so far will include:

D700 body
70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR
24-70 f/2.8 AF-S VR
possibly the 17-55 f/2.8
85 f/1.8
possibly a 50 f/1.4
SB-900 flashgun
105 f/2.8 DC
Sigma 20 mm f/1.8

Nikon's official answer to complaints about the 70-200 on a full-frame body seems to be vignette control in the full-frame bodies. Given the economy and the performance of the lens, I wouldn't hold my breath- but Nikon's made surprise moves before. If you're set on the 24-70, it's a great lens, otherwise consider a pristine used 35-70 AF-D, which will run a lot less and holds its resale value quite well. If you're similarly worried about the 70-200, look for the AF-S version of the 80-200 which should also hold its value relatively well. Between the two, you'll probably save enough for the 17-35mm and a 50mm.

Do you really take enough indoor group shots for a 20mm f/1.8? I can't see carrying that with a 17-35. Also, you may wish to consider the grip and batteries- the full-sized, high-voltage batteries last a long time.

 

[Cliff3]

Also, you may wish to consider the grip and batteries- the full-sized, high-voltage batteries last a long time.

So do the EL-EN3e's - at least my battery has roughly 60% remaining charge after Saturday's 1100+ photo session at the autocross. The spare I carry was ample insurance against running out of juice, and the body's 5 fps speed was more than sufficient for this form of auto racing.

 

[compuwar]

So do the EL-EN3e's - at least my battery has roughly 60% remaining charge after Saturday's 1100+ photo session at the autocross. The spare I carry was ample insurance against running out of juice, and the body's 5 fps speed was more than sufficient for this form of auto racing.

Your definition of long isn't the same as mine

A single EN-EL3e would last me between one and two days in the field depending on temperature. I can shoot for three to five days at a time with the professional batteries.

1600mAh @7.4V vs 2500mAh at 11.1v means that with an EN-EL4a, after your 1100+ pictures, you'd still have more juice in the battery than you *started with* with the smaller battery and if you're using AF-D lenses, they'd focus significantly faster as well- and since they focus faster, you'd not using the battery for as long.

Here's what PDN has to say on the subject:

• D700 with one EN-EL3e 1000 shots CIPA / 2500 shots Nikon.
• D700 with MB-D10 + one EN-EL3e approx. 1000 shots CIPA / 2500 shots Nikon Measurement Standard.
• D700 with MB-D10 + one EN-EL4a approx. 1900 shots CIPA / 4300 shots Nikon Measurement Standard.
• D700 with MB-D10 + eight AA batteries approx. 700 shots CIPA / 1000 shots Nikon Measurement Standard.
• CIPA standard for EN-EL4a for D3 is 4300 shots (Nikon Measurement Standard is 4700 shots)

190% longer, based on the CIPA measurement is significant for me, as I'm not always near power and I routinely haul my gear around for months at a time without charging the batteries.

 

[Cliff3]

Your definition of long isn't the same as mine

I am not arguing that EL-EN4 or EL-EN4a batteries don't have remarkable staying power. I am a former D2X user after all. Just that they aren't a critical item for most people, and that the standard batteries are capable providers of power.

Besides, I think battery grips are (edit: mostly) for poseurs

 

[termina3]

Besides, I think battery grips are (edit: mostly) for poseurs

Sports photographers. That extra fps is useful.

 

[Abstract]

The AF-S 24-70 mm f/2.8 isn't a VR lens, unless there's something I missed.

I would also probably take a pass on the 85 f1.8 if you're planning on getting the 105 f2 DC. The 105 is going to be the better lens and you don't need 2 portrait lenses. A better choice would be to choose either the 105 or the 85 f1.4, but not both.

Hmmm....I was going to suggest the 135 mm f/2. That's good enough differentiation from the 85 mm f/1.8 to make it OK. Don't know if he really needs it, but it would be nice to have!!

Also, I'd get just the 24-70 mm and forget the 17-55 mm. You lose a tiny bit of wide-angle capabilities, but on a full frame camera, 24 mm is already quite wide for everyday shooting.

With the money you save, then you can get the Nikon or Sigma 50 mm f/1.4. I'd choose the Sigma because it seems pretty awesome, but that's just me.


PS: I'd forget about the Sigma 20 mm.

 

[Cliff3]

Sports photographers. That extra fps is useful.

The majority of professional sports photographers won't use a battery pack - they'll just buy the pro body (1D-whatever or D3).

 

[termina3]

The majority of professional sports photographers won't use a battery pack - they'll just buy the pro body (1D-whatever or D3).

hehe, yes, but then there's us lowly "pro" sports photographers who either treat it as a hobby or don't shoot big enough games to make enough money to justify a D3

 

[wheelhot]

hehe, yes, but then there's us lowly "pro" sports photographers who either treat it as a hobby or don't shoot big enough games to make enough money to justify a D3

Good point, how I wished Canon has something similar

 

[Cliff3]

hehe, yes, but then there's us lowly "pro" sports photographers who either treat it as a hobby or don't shoot big enough games to make enough money to justify a D3

This amateur sports photographer finds that 5fps is enough for auto and bicycle racing. My former D2X could go up to 8fps in a cropped mode, but I only used that setting once in the 4 years I owned that camera.

edit: It was kind of funny at last weekend's autocross. Some kid shooting with a Canon (gray lens barrel) and a battery grip on his camera asked me how many memory cards I was packing, since I was ripping off a half dozen shots every time a car came by (the answer was 20GB worth). He probably should have spent his money on memory cards instead of that battery grip...

Good point, how I wished Canon has something similar

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-BG-E2N-Battery-Grip-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Battery-Grip-BG-E3-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-BG-E4-Battery-Grip-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-BG-E5-Battery-Grip-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-BG-E6-Battery-Grip-Review.aspx

 

[wheelhot]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ip-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...E3-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ip-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ip-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ip-Review.aspx

Oh, lol...I know there is battery grip for Canon also, but what I actually meant was Canon battery grip will boost fps like how Nikon higher end body battery grip does.

Especially Canon 5D, sports photographer won't choose it cause of its fps, if they want a FF body for sports photography, then they will need to go for 1Ds which is very expensive, this is when Nikon D3 comes to mind. If only Canon release a battery grip that will increase 5D fps to 5-8 fps, that would be great

 

[Cliff3]

Oh, lol...I know there is battery grip for Canon also, but what I actually meant was Canon battery grip will boost fps like how Nikon higher end body battery grip does.

Especially Canon 5D, sports photographer won't choose it cause of its fps, if they want a FF body for sports photography, then they will need to go for 1Ds which is very expensive, this is when Nikon D3 comes to mind. If only Canon release a battery grip that will increase 5D fps to 5-8 fps, that would be great

Buy a used 1D and you're good to go for sports for $1000 or so. Canon obviously had to make compromises to deliver a 20mpx camera for $2500, and speed and throughput is what got compromised. According to a former colleague of mine who was a 5DMkI owner, the same was true of that body. Such is life.

 

[wheelhot]

Buy a used 1D and you're good to go for sports for $1000 or so. Canon obviously had to make compromises to deliver a 20mpx camera for $2500, and speed and throughput is what got compromised. According to a former colleague of mine who was a 5DMkI owner, the same was true of that body. Such is life.

Yup, can't beat that

But there are rumors that in the future there wont be a 1.3x 1D anymore and instead it will be a FF 1D, so I guess it will be something like Nikon D3 and D3x

 

[Cliff3]

Yup, can't beat that

But there are rumors that in the future there wont be a 1.3x 1D anymore and instead it will be a FF 1D, so I guess it will be something like Nikon D3 and D3x

That would make sense, although there are many who will miss the added reach of the APS-H sensor.

FWIW, buying a grip for a D300/D700 is not an inexpensive proposition. Assuming a person still wants to carry a spare battery, the grip plus 2 EL-EN4a batteries, a battery cover and a charger will run nearly $700.

 

[jaduffy108]

Not knowing what you shoot.....here's my two cents.

The 70-200 is outstanding, but it is ever so slightly soft in the corners on FX. I've never seen it in a print....only pixel peeping.

You're building a pro kit. I assume you have a NEED for each lens versus just desire. If *not*...I would suggest this:
Nikkor 17-35
Sigma 50 1.4 (though 50mm kinda bores *me*, I would think having one truly fast lens would be important.)
Nikkor 70-200
Nikkor 105 f2 DC

SB900 ...huge yes! Get several and some pocket wizards or CyberSyncs

or get the holy grail:
14-24 (need??)
24-70
70-200
85 1.4
Nikkor 105 f2 DC

Lastly, I would seriously consider a 80-200 afs (the two ring, non-afs is great too) instead of the 70-200. The money saved would almost pay for the 85 1.4! This suggestion reflects my bias for portrait lenses. That said, the 70-200 is a great portrait lens as well...love the compression at the long FL ala Peter Lindbergh.

Buy used via Nikonians.org.

Enjoy your new toys....

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Yes I am trying to build a pro-kit. My wife is becoming very busy with weddings and family portraits etc. She's very good at what she does, but she's sort of approaching the limits of our Pentax gear, and since Pentax doesn't have a FF camera available (or even one in the pipeline as far as I can tell), We're making the switch.

She's pretty set on the 70-200, and the 24-70 as well as the 105 f/2 DC. We need the flash gun(s) and the 50 is on the bubble and the 85 still likely because she's really fond of our current 50 f/1.4 which the 85 comes closest to once mounted to a FF body. Being Pentaxians first and foremost, we've both got a strong love of a great normal prime.

Thanks for the nikonians tip!

SLC