# Nikon To Announce 24-70 f/2.8 VR, 24 f/1.8, 200-500 f/5.6 VR



## 9VIII (Jul 29, 2015)

http://nikonrumors.com/2015/07/29/first-pictures-of-nikon-24mm-f1-8g-24-70mm-f2-8e-vr-and-200-500mm-f5-6e-lenses-leaked-online.aspx/#more-95504


Now this is very interesting. We'll have to see how it performs, but this could be Nikon's first good Budget Telephoto option.
And man what a way to break the trend!

Of course IQ could be total crap at 500mm, you never know, but Nikonian Birders are probably vibrating from the anticipation right now.

I have to say, I might be a bit jealous (just a bit. Not too much, more like eating pumpkin pie when the guy beside you has chocolate mousse.)


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 29, 2015)

```
Nikon continues to aggressively release new lenses, and this summer is no exception. After announcing and releasing updates to the 500mm & 600mm lenses, Nikon is about to add 3 more lenses that are sure to be quite popular.</p>
<p><strong>Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.8G ED</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/nikon2418.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-21739" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/nikon2418.jpg" alt="nikon2418" width="500" height="288" /></a></p>
<ul>
<li>Nano Crystal Coat</li>
<li>ED lens, non-spherical lens</li>
<li>Estimated retail price in Japan 90,000 yen (including tax)</li>
<li>Release date: September 17</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/nikkor2470vr.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-21740" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/nikkor2470vr.jpg" alt="nikkor2470vr" width="500" height="249" /></a></p>
<ul>
<li>ED aspherical element</li>
<li>VR</li>
<li>Estimated retail price in Japan: 280,000 yen (including tax)</li>
<li>Release date in Japan: August 27</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/nikkor200500.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-21741" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/nikkor200500.jpg" alt="nikkor200500" width="500" height="250" /></a></p>
<ul>
<li>ED element</li>
<li>VR mode (SPORT adoption)</li>
<li>Estimated retail price in Japan: 170,000 yen (including tax)</li>
<li>Release date in Japan: September 17</li>
</ul>
```


----------



## Eldar (Jul 29, 2015)

*Re: Nikon 200-500f5.6 Rumored Price Under $1,400*

Well ... Canon has the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x, which covers the same focal length (and some). 

But then you get about seven of these Nikon lenses for one Canon lens ... Eehh ... but who needs seven 200-500 lenses?? :


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 29, 2015)

Even if I won't move to Nikon mirrorslappers, I find the (likely?) announcements interesting.

At long last ... a 24-70/2.8 with image stabilizer. Hopefully performance is on par with Canon 24-70 II and pushes Canon to finally come up with an IS version!  

24/1.8 ... also interesting - will be a winner if it is as good as the other recent Nikon f/1.8 lenses.
200-500 will be measured against Canon 100-400 II ... looking forward to the comparisons.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 29, 2015)

If the rumored price is real then this will be more comparable with the Tamron 150-600 and Canon 400f5.6 Prime. The 100-400Mk2 is much more expensive.
If it does compare favourably to the 100-400Mk2 then the Nikon 200-500 will be best birding lens on the market hands down.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2015)

1) that 200-500 lens will be exceptionally popular at that price. 

2) 24/70 2.8 IS at last, wow.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 29, 2015)

All 3 lenses are pretty exceptional, as far as desired need from the market. Looking forward to seeing how they perform. I imagine the 24-70 will at least have the d810 and next gen sensors in mind.


----------



## tron (Jul 30, 2015)

So Canon, can we please have a 24-70 2.8L IS, a 24 1.4L III and a 100-500 f/5.6L IS?

Thanks a lot ;D


----------



## andrewflo (Jul 30, 2015)

*Canon answer to possibly leaked Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 VR (Aug 27, $2,256)?*

Saw this on Nikon Rumors (translated from DigiCame-Info):

http://nikonrumors.com/2015/07/29/first-pictures-of-nikon-24mm-f1-8g-24-70mm-f2-8e-vr-and-200-500mm-f5-6e-lenses-leaked-online.aspx/

If Nikon were to release this lens, that could possibly put the pressure on Canon to release a long awaited f/2.8 IS.

And would they try to match the $2.2k price range? Would be pretty reasonable price compared to what I think many of us assumed would be nearly $3k+.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 30, 2015)

I'd be happy with anything 500mm for less than $2K... Well unless IQ sucks, but the new 600mm superzooms don't totally suck so that's not quite an option.
I can't wait to see what happens when Sigma gets around to making a Global Vision Supertelephoto Prime.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 30, 2015)

Someone lit a fire under Nikon. I'll bet that Sigma has been really hurting them. Traditionally, they had something like 4 lens teams which meant a average of 1 or two lenses at most in a year.

I'd suppose that Canon will have to produce that 24-70mm IS. I'm very happy with mine, I don't see IS doing anything for it.

But for a 50MP Body, it just might be needed for handheld shooting.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 30, 2015)

If it means we get a Canon 24-70 f2.8 IS then I am happy. I have used the 24-70 MkI for ten+ years and have tried the MkII a couple of times, but they have never impressed me, but an IS version would and even if the outright IQ wasn't an improvement I'd still be happy. Also very interesting that the price is $2,300 at launch which brings it down to under $2,000 soon enough.........


----------



## RGF (Jul 30, 2015)

9VIII said:


> If the rumored price is real then this will be more comparable with the Tamron 150-600 and Canon 400f5.6 Prime. The 100-400Mk2 is much more expensive.
> If it does compare favourably to the 100-400Mk2 then the Nikon 200-500 will be best birding lens on the market hands down.



The current Nikon 80-400 is on par with Canon's 100-400 II.
Wonder how much more the 200-500 would weigh? At the price of ¥170,000, it will below the price of the 80-400 lens. Could this indicate quality?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2015)

RGF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > If the rumored price is real then this will be more comparable with the Tamron 150-600 and Canon 400f5.6 Prime. The 100-400Mk2 is much more expensive.
> ...



I am shocked at the price of the 200-500 (if true). That's $1369 as a straight conversion.

Consider:

400 f/5.6L (no zoom, no IS -- this is Canon's budget FF wildlife lens) = $1269
100-400L f/4.5-5.6L IS II (less reach, slightly faster on the short end) = $2199
200-400L f/4L IS + 1.4X = $1 _Billion_ (relatively speaking)
Canon's longer comparable zoom = does not exist

I had recently suggested that Canon should offer a 300-600 f/6.3 (or something like it) -- a lens to get to the reasonably longest end without a teleconverter (and therefore with native AF) and not cost a mint. Looks like Nikon just did that. 

For that price, we should not expect a world-beater, but unless Nikon completely nerfed this lens to save cost (soft wide open, no weather sealing, slow focusing, etc.), I would imagine that it will sell very, very well.

- A


----------



## Gert Arijs (Jul 30, 2015)

The price for the 200-500 sounds IMPOSSIBLE to me. Even Sigma/Tamron would charge more.
I think it's a typo


----------



## MintChocs (Jul 30, 2015)

Sounds like a the gasps of a dying company. Falling sales are now forcing Nikon to be competitive. Any company which doesn't have a monopoly or large market will have to output better products to retain what they have. All good for us the consumer. I'm surprised by everyone one else about the prices but I think that people will prefer the Nikon brand to a third party if price and quality is comparable.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 30, 2015)

Why is the 200-500 a constant f/5.6? Would have preferred it f/4-f/5.6.


----------



## K (Jul 30, 2015)

Waiting to see how this 24-70 will perform.

Nikon merely adding VR to the same optics would be a loser in my opinion. Canon's 24-70 is superior in image quality.

Now, if they match Canon's optics, have VR and come in around $2,200 or less...that will be a big, big win.

It will be hard to imagine Canon being able to implement IS on theirs for less than $2,500 judging the trends on L glass.

The pricing is suspect to me. Either the rumor has it too low, or my guess is the optics are not going to be updated to Canon's level. 

If the pricing is right, and the optics better - that will prove Nikon to be a much better value over Canon on this lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Why is the 200-500 a constant f/5.6? Would have preferred it f/4-f/5.6.



Again, for *$1369*, the Nikon world will gladly take it. 

There's already an 80-400 more like the 100-400 II for $2k+ for those who need that fraction of a stop faster.

I see this as a very well positioned product:

This lens: budget wildlifers -- great reach, simple, effective
80-400: slight bump in specs (likely also in build quality)
200-400: their best long zoom, and it costs a lot more

Canon, on the other hand, for all of its dominance on the long end of the lens portfolio, forces their customers into difficult/painful calls when you get above 400mm. They have a killer lineup with all sort of FL range overlap with their zooms, but above 400mm, you are staring at teleconverters, primes, or third party glass.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 30, 2015)

My guess is the 200-500 will be meh. 

Their current 24-70 is quite disappointing vs the Canon. Some actually recommend that people rather buy the Tamron 24-70 instead.

Nikon's range of f/1.8 primes is good so hopefully the 24/1.8 will continue the trend.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 30, 2015)

RGF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > If the rumored price is real then this will be more comparable with the Tamron 150-600 and Canon 400f5.6 Prime. The 100-400Mk2 is much more expensive.
> ...



No, no it's not. It's worse, by a lot (worse still it cost $500 more than the Canon 100-400MkII).
Unfortunately out of half a dozen websites only one has a direct comparison (TDP, of course) but the individual tests by the other two I've found don't contradict.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=915&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_80-400mm_f4-5-5-6G_ED_VR/sharpness.shtml

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1602/cat/13


Nikon _desperately_ needs the 200-500 to be sharp on the long end.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 31, 2015)

9VIII said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


+1, The Nikkor 80-400mm G is no match for the EF 100-400mm-II. Even with a higher-res 24MP APS-C sensor and no-AA filter it is unable to resolve as much detail as the Canon lens with a comparable 20MP Canon APS-C body. Then taking into account the 1.6x vs 1.5x crop factor as well, and the Canon ends up having a huge practical advantage in reach-limited scenarios. The Nikon lens is literally and figuratively a couple of steps behind the capability of the 100-400mm lens.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 31, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> +1, The Nikkor 80-400mm G is no match for the EF 100-400mm-II. Even with a higher-res 24MP APS-C sensor and no-AA filter it is unable to resolve as much detail as the Canon lens with a comparable 20MP Canon APS-C body. Then taking into account the 1.6x vs 1.5x crop factor as well, and the Canon ends up having a huge practical advantage in reach-limited scenarios. The Nikon lens is literally and figuratively a couple of steps behind the capability of the 100-400mm lens.



+1


----------



## jthomson (Jul 31, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Why is the 200-500 a constant f/5.6? Would have preferred it f/4-f/5.6.
> ...



I think both Nikon and Canon got caught off guard by Tamron's 150-600 and they just aren't as nimble as Sigma in their response. I don't think this lens is going to be a hit with anyone who already has either the Tamron or the Sigma C. 100mm shorter and only 1/3 stop faster and camera usable ISO keeps improving.

I was out at a local bird photography hot spot the other day and three of the four photographers had the Tamron lens. Two Nikon and my Canon. The other lens was a 300 f4L with a 1.4x.

I have seen a lot more Nikon photographers with the Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 than I have Canon. Nikon's old 400 zoom just wasn't that good and the new 80-400 just caught up to the 100-400 mk 1. At a significant price premium.

Its good for Nikon shooters to have more choice, but I don't think this is the proverbial game changer the way the Tamron was. The Sigma C and Tamron may not be top of line but they are good enough, and I do own a Canon 500mm. Sometimes I take the Tamron for the zoom and sometimes just because it is lighter. The focusing isn't as fast, but I don't have any worries about the image quality it's good enough. I previously had a Sigma 150-500 as my first long lens and it just wasn't good enough, I stopped using it when I got the Canon 500mm.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 1, 2015)

jthomson said:


> I think both Nikon and Canon got caught off guard by Tamron's 150-600 and they just aren't as nimble as Sigma in their response. I don't think this lens is going to be a hit with anyone who already has either the Tamron or the Sigma C. 100mm shorter and only 1/3 stop faster and camera usable ISO keeps improving.




Some would argue the Tamron didn't need the extra 100mm either.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

I know this is a worst case scenario and that it looks much better at f8 or f11, but there's potential to end up with a better product overall by using the smaller range. Potential, no guarantees, the Tamron looks great at f11, but it's a lot of variables to throw around.
At the very least first partly lenses pretty much never break the f5.6 rule, which basically dictates the possible focal length of this lens.

I would also like to note that even with both lenses at their best, the 400f5.6 on a crop body is still quite competent (and that's with an old crop body).
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

Even the 100-400MkII is kind of a "meh" upgrade in terms of reach. Where the 100-400Mk2 really shines is how well the IQ holds up at f5.6, and the almost perfectly consistent IQ from 200-400mm, and the amazing near-macro capabilities.
I would probably glue that thing to a 7D2 if I had the pair.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 2, 2015)

9VIII said:


> If the rumored price is real then this will be more comparable with the Tamron 150-600 and Canon 400f5.6 Prime. The 100-400Mk2 is much more expensive.
> If it does compare favourably to the 100-400Mk2 then the Nikon 200-500 will be best birding lens on the market hands down.


Agree with that, as long as the lens is lighter than the Tamron & Sigma 150-600mm lenses, has better IQ at long end and the price is in this bracket it will be a winner for Nikon.
Nikon already has two primes at 24mm (f1.4 & f2.8) so it sits in between. 
And the most important is the addition of VR (IS) to their 24-70mm f2.8 lens. The current one in not as good as the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L Mk2 but the new one would be an interesting option for Nikonians. Just the price will be higher and not the reach of most people.


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 2, 2015)

I hope the 200-500 performs really well - simply because it might get me a big cash-back and/or permamently lowered pricing for the EF 100-400 II, as soon as initial demand for that lens tapers off a bit. 8)


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 2, 2015)

In regard to the 200-500mm...

Some have noted this might be a response to Tamron's super tele. This sounds like a good reason, and I'm not going to argue against it.

IMHO, there might be another reason - trying to get customers to upgrade to full frame cameras. This might be the right time for Nikon to do that because

1. Smartphones are killing the P&S market, which forces camera manufacturers to come up with super-P&S, with larger sensors and moderate-and-better zoom ratios.

2. Current crop cameras get about as much as one could expect from the center of tele lenses, in the sense that increasing resolution wouldn't give the photographers any more details.

3. As there's no sense in offering crop teles, the crop cameras might be sandwiched between good super-P&S and full frame, which is a good time to get them to upgrade.

4. For that, Nikon would have to offer sensibly priced super-teles for FF. Ta-da! the 200-500mm for FX.

5. The lens doesn't have to be superb, rather just enough to make people comfortable upgrading w/o choosing the competition.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 2, 2015)

I think that's a good point.
With a shrinking market it's no longer a matter of convincing people to go with one brand or another, or making them decide between low end or high end products, the SLR companies should be throwing everything they have at convincing the consumer that they're still relevant at all.
Which for the moment is good for us, maybe in the coming years we're going to get all those dreamy products that we've always wanted.

Or maybe it was always just a matter of waiting for someone to demonstrate that there is actually a market for slow supertelephoto lenses (though I have a really hard time believing that people at Canon and Nikon actually thought their customers never wanted that kind of thing).


----------



## jthomson (Aug 2, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I think that's a good point.
> With a shrinking market it's no longer a matter of convincing people to go with one brand or another, or making them decide between low end or high end products, the SLR companies should be throwing everything they have at convincing the consumer that they're still relevant at all.
> Which for the moment is good for us, maybe in the coming years we're going to get all those dreamy products that we've always wanted.
> 
> Or maybe it was always just a matter of waiting for someone to demonstrate that there is actually a market for slow supertelephoto lenses (though I have a really hard time believing that people at Canon and Nikon actually thought their customers never wanted that kind of thing).



Canikon have always known there was a market. Just go look at all the catadioptric lenses that are available. But until the Tamron 150-600 there was no supertelephoto with good enough image quality to beat their 400mm f5.6 zooms. The Sigma 500mm f6.3 zooms especially the 50-500 might have been a bit of competiton, but they were about the same price as the Canickon lenses and the 400-500 range just wasn't that good.

Tamron and especially Sigma have really stepped up their game in the last 5 years.


----------



## janmaxim (Aug 4, 2015)

Nikon just announced the lensens mentioned earlier today: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6268500488/nikon-introduces-24-70mm-f2-8-vr-24mm-f1-8-and-200-500-f5-6-fx-lenses

The price of the 200-500 is really tempting, can't wait for tests! And Canon, release a 24-70 IS F2.8 already..

Pricing and availability for the three lenses is as follows:

AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm F2.8E ED VR - $2399 in late August
AF-S Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED - $749.95 in mid-September
AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm F5.6E ED VR - $1399.95 in mid-September


----------



## Eldar (Aug 4, 2015)

Will be very interesting to see the reviews of the 200-500. If it is any good, it will cause some raised eyebrows and head scratching in the other camps. The other two were more as expected, pricewise. I hope the 24-70 is good enough to provoke a 24-70 f2.8L IS from Canon.


----------



## janmaxim (Aug 4, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Will be very interesting to see the reviews of the 200-500. If it is any good, it will cause some raised eyebrows and head scratching in the other camps. The other two were more as expected, pricewise. I hope the 24-70 is good enough to provoke a 24-70 f2.8L IS from Canon.



One interesting aspect is that the weight of the Nikon 200-500 is a staggering 2300g compared to the Canon 100-400 MkII's 1570g. That is 730g more! In comparison, the Tamron 150-600's weight is 1950g and the Sigma 150-600 measures 2860g (sport) or 1930g. So the Nikon is among the heaviest of the bunch (only beat by the Sigma sport edition).


----------



## dolina (Aug 4, 2015)

A thread talking about a Canon 500/5.6 prime was posted here last year

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23340.0

I also talked about it 

Very very glad that I got the $4,000-5,000 pricing wrong.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1407208

The Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | S weighs at 2860g. Tamron's 1951g which matches the Sigma "C" lens as well.

In terms of pricing the Nikon 200-500mm is very close to Tamron 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 at below $950.


----------



## vlim (Aug 4, 2015)

This 200-500 could be very tempting (with their new 300 f/4, it could be a formidable duo) but Nikon simply doesn't have an apcs body for sports or wildlife photography... Their bodies can't match the 7D mark II and even the 70D. 
The people who will be buy it can't afford a D4s or D810 and the other FF bodies are not really oriented for sport or wild life photgraphy ("poor" fps, 1/4000 max speed), until they launch a new one.


----------



## dolina (Aug 4, 2015)

dilbert said:


> $950 to $1399 ... that's a 47% increase on the Tamron's price. Personally I wouldn't call a 47% difference close but maybe you have different standards?



Yeah, namely not Sony. ;D


----------



## RGF (Aug 4, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Will be very interesting to see the reviews of the 200-500. If it is any good, it will cause some raised eyebrows and head scratching in the other camps. The other two were more as expected, pricewise. I hope the 24-70 is good enough to provoke a 24-70 f2.8L IS from Canon.



Agree that a good quality 200-500 would shake up the industry. Time will tell what is the trade off and if Nikon holds the price (or quickly comes out w/ Mark II at $2000+)


----------



## dolina (Aug 4, 2015)

RGF said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Will be very interesting to see the reviews of the 200-500. If it is any good, it will cause some raised eyebrows and head scratching in the other camps. The other two were more as expected, pricewise. I hope the 24-70 is good enough to provoke a 24-70 f2.8L IS from Canon.
> ...


The 200-500 essential made obsolete the Nikon 80-400 and possibly the 100-400 if canon ever makes a counterpart.

Come on canon make your 500/5.6 a prime so it can weigh less than 1.9kg and priced at par with the 400/5.6. That'll mess up tamron sigma and Nikon


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2015)

dolina said:


> The 200-500 essential made obsolete the Nikon 80-400 and possibly the 100-400 if canon ever makes a counterpart.



You're presuming that this 200-500 might be optically as good as the 100-400L II. I'm not so sure. 

The 200-500 is far cheaper than the Canon and has no mention of weather-sealing that I've seen anywhere online today -- it's possible Nikon has just made a budget lens not meant to obsolete the pricier 80-400 or matchup against the Canon 100-400 II. Perhaps Nikon is simply taking dollars in the budget space that only Tamron and Sigma Contemporary are sitting in.

- A


----------



## dolina (Aug 4, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > The 200-500 essential made obsolete the Nikon 80-400 and possibly the 100-400 if canon ever makes a counterpart.
> ...


MTF at 500mm

80-400 G ED VR at 400mm







200-500mm E ED VR at 500mm






600 at 600mm






200-500mm does not have the following

- Nano Crystal Coat
- Auto-Priority Manual Mode
- Super ED glass element

80-400mm does not have the following

- Electromagnetic Diaphragm Mechanism

To up it up a notch I am comparing it to the just announced 600mm that has the following

- Fluorite Lens Element
- Nano Crystal Coat


----------



## dolina (Aug 4, 2015)

A counterpart to Nikon at the same price point is possible if Canon were to make this a full frame non-L & non-DO lens.

This lens would sport a STM focus motor rather than USM like the following lenses below.

- EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
- EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
- EF 50mm f/1.8 STM

In the 24-105mm zoom here are the prices of the following

$999 - Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens
$599 - Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens
$899 - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM Art Lens


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 5, 2015)

Very interesting. TDP has an assortment of MTF charts in the 100-400Mk2 review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx), and if I'm reading it right (the thin black lines should represent the same information as the blue lines on the Nikon MTF), then the Meridional resolution is virtually identical, and sagittal resolution on the 200-500 at 500mm should be sharper in the middle but a bit weaker in the corners, which is what I expect practical results to show (given that it's the only difference).
Given that it's running at 500mm however, the 200-500 should be a wholesale improvement in reach over anything similar currently available.

Very impressive, and definitely not wasted on crop with that extremely high level of center sharpness, and the slightly weaker corners help that case as well.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 5, 2015)

http://www.lenstip.com/448.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_80-400_mm_f_4.5-5.6G_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/439.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_100-400_mm_f_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM_Image_resolution.html

Here's a new "more direct" comparison between the Nikon AF-S 80-400 and Canon 100-400Mk2 that shows the resolution disparity between the two pretty well (the D3x and 5D3 are similar in resolution, but the extra 2MP on the Nikon body does boost the result for that lens a little).


----------



## George D. (Aug 5, 2015)

Implementation of IS on 24/1.4, 24-70/2.8 as a reply to these announcements is a CR0 to say the least. First of all IS targets movie mode people, with wider apertures is not an issue. However, it may start to be an issue with the rumored D5 for shooting movie mode in ISO (rumored) as expandable as 405k !! And 4K too. So we're not talking stills pics here. 

Now, even if there is some target group here, _"Canon does not like to imitate others"_ Masaya Maeda http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/07/a-candid-interview-with-masaya-maeda/ so I don't see Canon rushing in to ...fill-in the gap.

For [email protected] pricing perhaps it's all about the label. Expeed is based on Fujitsu/Panasonic (now acquired by Socionext), sensor is based on SONY, even Fluorite glass is pioneered by Canon. I see [email protected] less and less, that's why it costs less and less.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 5, 2015)

K said:


> Waiting to see how this 24-70 will perform.
> 
> Nikon merely adding VR to the same optics would be a loser in my opinion. Canon's 24-70 is superior in image quality.
> 
> ...



The Nikon 24-70 is a bit better than the mkI from Canon. But the new mkII is a bit better than the Nikon. Canon have stated that if they fitted an IS unit, that the IQ would suffer a bit. So we can either have the sharpest 24-70 f2.8 (non IS) or a very good 24-70 f2.8 with IS.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 5, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Very interesting. TDP has an assortment of MTF charts in the 100-400Mk2 review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx), and if I'm reading it right (the thin black lines should represent the same information as the blue lines on the Nikon MTF), then the Meridional resolution is virtually identical, and sagittal resolution on the 200-500 at 500mm should be sharper in the middle but a bit weaker in the corners, which is what I expect practical results to show (given that it's the only difference).
> Given that it's running at 500mm however, the 200-500 should be a wholesale improvement in reach over anything similar currently available.
> 
> Very impressive, and definitely not wasted on crop with that extremely high level of center sharpness, and the slightly weaker corners help that case as well.



Take those MTFs with a pinch of salt. They are all theoretical for a perfectly constructed example of the lens. Roger's and objektivetest's direct measurements give lower values in camera-independent measurements. And the sharp 400mm f/5.6 has surprisingly low values from Canon. 

The real test for me will be comparing the 200-500mm directly with the Sigma and Tamron 150-600s at 500mm, where they are still very good - the 600 drops down. If the Nikon outperforms them, then the 200-500 on a Nikon without an AA filter would be temtpting.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 5, 2015)

Actually I was surprised at how well the Lenstip review of the 100-400Mk2 lines up with the MTF chart. The MTF predicts virtually no drop in corner sharpness and at least that review agrees.
On the other hand, the Sigma 150-600 Sport is supposed to be sharper in every way than the 150-600 C, but TDP managed to get a really bad copy for their IQ tool and the cheaper lens performs better in the corners.

I suppose that's one reason Roger is giving us a "variance" graph along with the MTF charts being put up on TDP. It'll be really interesting to watch that list grow.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 5, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Actually I was surprised at how well the Lenstip review of the 100-400Mk2 lines up with the MTF chart. The MTF predicts virtually no drop in corner sharpness and at least that review agrees.
> On the other hand, the Sigma 150-600 Sport is supposed to be sharper in every way than the 150-600 C, but TDP managed to get a really bad copy for their IQ tool and the cheaper lens performs better in the corners.
> 
> I suppose that's one reason Roger is giving us a "variance" graph along with the MTF charts being put up on TDP. It'll be really interesting to watch that list grow.



Compare the absolute measured values with those put out by Canon. As Roger wrote his measurements were always lower. 

Lenstip looked at the new Nikon 80-400 yesterday and pronounced that it is not as sharp in the centre at 400 as the Canon 100-400 II and much worse at the edges.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 5, 2015)

> One interesting aspect is that the weight of the Nikon 200-500 is a staggering 2300g compared to the Canon 100-400 MkII's 1570g



As expected. The constant f/5.6 aperture at 500mm is as much a feature as it is a burden. That is likely why they didn't go 600mm like the others. But it also means you should be able to mount a TC without worrying about your aperture when you zoom.



> Canon does not like to imitate others



marketing BS. The 200-400 canon wouldn't exist was it not because nikon made one first. The added TC was a nice bonus, but ultimately it is basically a reactionary lens with some value added. The 5Ds would probably not been rushed with that old sensor was it not for the D800, and canon wouldn't be dipping their toes in mirrorless had everybody else not done so. They all copy each other. Nikon sony do it too. Apple copies google, and vice versa. This is how it has always been and will always be. All these companies like you to think they are not affected by the competition. That is just marketing puffing. 

Having said that the new canon 24-70 will have IS, when it is due. But that is at least 4+ years from now. They won't just rush this project because making a new lens from design to commercial production isn't that simple even if they just got started this week. Just looking at nikon's own video on this lens, they really took their time to not just slap IS on their old design.

http://nikonrumors.com/2015/08/04/new-philosophy-of-nikkor-video-with-some-technical-details-on-the-24-70mm-f2-8e-ed-vr-lens.aspx/

So you can imagine adding IS to the existing design of the canon isn't trivial either and likely go past as much optimizations. That on top of competing for resources that are currently working on other things. It is clear nikon wanted IS/VR on their old model released about 8 years ago. But seems like just as canon found out in the alleged prototypes with IS, the lens gets larger fast making its commercial production tricky. Nikon just worked longer on the problem. Canon just moved on. That is all.

To me the really interesting part of this is the set of 1.8 primes, which at this point are unmatched by anybody

With 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85 already in place, if joined by a sony-like 135 f1.8 would really crown it. 

The other interesting bit is that the 14-24 f/2.8 was the same age as the 24-70 but did not get refreshed yet. I was expecting both to be launched side by side. I wonder if they will keep it f/2.8 or compromise it to f/4 like canon did just to achieve a bit more FOV or if they are going all out and keeping it f/2.8 but going wider. Regardless, a refresh even of the 14-24 at f/2.8 designed to the demands of high MP sony sensors will be interesting. In particular if they start using some of the tech they used on the 24-70, like that aspherical ED glass over conventional aspherical glass, and the HRI (high refractive index) glass elements. It will be one to watch for.



> Sounds like a the gasps of a dying company


sounds like the gasps of a fanboy.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2015)

Unless this is utterly perfect in every aspect, the Tamron 24-70 VC is just such a beast lens.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 5, 2015)

AlanF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I was surprised at how well the Lenstip review of the 100-400Mk2 lines up with the MTF chart. The MTF predicts virtually no drop in corner sharpness and at least that review agrees.
> ...



Indeed.



9VIII said:


> http://www.lenstip.com/448.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_80-400_mm_f_4.5-5.6G_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html
> 
> http://www.lenstip.com/439.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_100-400_mm_f_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM_Image_resolution.html
> 
> Here's a new "more direct" comparison between the Nikon AF-S 80-400 and Canon 100-400Mk2 that shows the resolution disparity between the two pretty well (the D3x and 5D3 are similar in resolution, but the extra 2MP on the Nikon body does boost the result for that lens a little).



And the Nikon MTF chart basically says as much.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 6, 2015)

My brother told me about the Nikon 200-500 last night (he preordered one) but did not mention price. When I saw today how cheap it is, I was shocked. I am positive they will sell a ton of these and it is almost enough to make me switch to Nikon. (Except I find their bodies too confusing and not nearly as intuitive as Canon).


----------



## weixing (Aug 6, 2015)

Hi,


MrFotoFool said:


> My brother told me about the Nikon 200-500 last night (he preordered one) but did not mention price. When I saw today how cheap it is, I was shocked. I am positive they will sell a ton of these and it is almost enough to make me switch to Nikon. (Except I find their bodies too confusing and not nearly as intuitive as Canon).


 Base on the price, my friend might be interested, but just wonder why didn't it come with the Nano Crystal Coating?? 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 9, 2015)

...looks the same crappy Nikon vibrating tripod mount. When will they ever learn?

...looks like Tamron and Sigma are taking business from Nikon and by implication Canon with their 100-400 as well as the gold plated 200-400-560.

It could beat Tam/Sig at 500 because - in order to make an impression - optical engineers could hopefully be concentrating on the 500 end for this one.

But like the Tam/Sig it will be most unlikely to be made in Japan.


----------



## toto069 (Aug 25, 2015)

Super euipment nikon coque galaxy a8 housse galaxy a8


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 6, 2015)

My brother has used the 200-500 a little bit now and says it is not that sharp. He got the new Nikon 300 f4 with Fresnel lens at the same time and says it blows away the 200-500.


----------



## RGF (Oct 7, 2015)

*Re: Nikon 200-500f5.6 Rumored Price Under $1,400*



Eldar said:


> Well ... Canon has the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x, which covers the same focal length (and some).
> 
> But then you get about seven of these Nikon lenses for one Canon lens ... Eehh ... but who needs seven 200-500 lenses?? :



and just under 2 if you count the weight.

200-500 is much easier to hand hold.

Time will tell if it build to withstand daily use.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> $950 to $1399 ... that's a 47% increase on the Tamron's price. Personally I wouldn't call a 47% difference close but maybe you have different standards?



I don't spend percentages, I spend absolute amounts.

2 cents is 100% more than 1 cent. But it's still close. In the realm of photography gear, $450 isn't *that *much. 

A question more appropriate for percentages is: does one bring 47% more to the table than the other? That's a subjective call, naturally.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 13, 2015)

The 200-500 also costs 13.55% as much as the new Nikon 500f4E.

Or you could say the 500mm prime costs 737% as much as the 200-500.

Or if you use a crop camera, you could say you're getting a 750mm equivalent for 7.8% the cost of the 800f5.6E


----------

