scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11436 posts, RR: 50 Reply 3, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3160 times:
The lens looks like a very good replacement for the old 80-400mm, but at $2,700 is a little more expensive than I expected (although it does look to be a much more capable lens).
Having only just used my old 80-400 last week (for the first time in a long time), I was reminded how useful it is to have a single lens that covers such a good range. I was only bitten by the S--L--O--W auto-focus on a couple of shots.
If I only had the old 80-400, I'd probably have already put my order in for the new one. However, the quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 and 200-400 f/4 means I'll stick with those and keep the old 80-400 for the odd time when it's more convenient.
megatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3133 times:
Well for as long as they took it better knock our socks off, especially for the asking price. I got tired of waiting for it and bought the Bigmos 2 years ago, so I'll be using that for the next 1-2 years as I wait for the price of the Nikkor to come down a bit.
I can't wait to see images taken with this lens(by ordinary people, not Nikon)
unattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2241 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3126 times:
Interesting that they didn't use the latest 5-stop VR system from the 70-200 f4. In fact, there was a rumor that the 80-400 replacement was delayed was they were waiting for the latest VR system to be developed.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 4): but at $2,700 is a little more expensive than I expected
If you take a look at the prices of all the high end lenses that have been released recently by all manufacturers, they have been very expensive compared to the ones they replaced. Just take a look for example at the new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, the new Canon tele primes, etc. I was personally expecting the 80-400 to be around $2,500.
Quoting megatop412 (Reply 5): Well for as long as they took it better knock our socks off, especially for the asking price.
I agree. And the MTF chart for 400mm looks very promising BTW. Additionally, it'd be interesting how it will work with the 1.4x TC, given that now a lot of Nikon bodies can actually autofocus at f/8.
Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 6): That's the second time I've seen you use the term "Bigmos". Are you referring to the Sigma 150-500mm "Bigma"?
Maybe Bigmos is "Bigma with OS" (i.e., the latest version?).
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
megatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 months 11 hours ago) and read 2433 times:
One of my spotter friends up in the NY area just received his, and the images he's getting look really good. Good as in, it makes me want to trade my Bigmos for one.
darreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 216 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 months 5 hours ago) and read 2371 times:
It's still a little early but from what I'm seeing, it is going to be an impressive lens. I'm still iffy about the price like many seem to be, but looking at the great contrast and how sharp it is @400, the cost may well be justified.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3234 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5699 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11436 posts, 
From Malta, joined Dec 2006, 27 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2011, 5 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
