# Nikon to announce a new 80-400 VR lens this week?



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 4, 2013)

Nikon Rumors is abuzz with the news of a new Nikkor AF-S 80-400 f/4.5-5.6G ED VR lens ... could this prompt Canon to announce a new version of 100-400 L IS in the near future? ... personally I doubt that Canon would.

As posted at http://nikonrumors.com/2013/03/04/nikon-announcement-this-week-2.aspx/#ixzz2MbGnbQ1z
nikon press center Nikon announcement this week

A quick update: the March 14 date is the actual Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR release date for Japan. I expect the shipping date for the two new Coolpix cameras also to be before the end of March. This means that the official announcement should be this week - probably on Wednesday or Thursday (for some reasons Nikon prefers to introduce new products in the middle of the week). The quick availability of the newly announced products makes sense - Nikon wants to sells as much as possible before the end of this quarter (March 31). This is also probably the reason why the Nikon D7100 will be available a week earlier (March 14th). The Nikon instant lens rebates were also extended till March 31st.

This lens has been long overdue for replacement - numerous patents were filed in the past and the lens had a designated internal number for years. My guess is that Nikon had this lens ready for a long time, but their current financial situation pushed them to release in now (together with the D7100 and the new DX compact camera) in order to meet their financial goals. The expected price is ¥275,000 (around $2,900, US price will be lower).

http://nikonrumors.com/#ixzz2MbHdyz00


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 4, 2013)

A little late to the 1998 USM party nikon?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 4, 2013)

I guess its better late than never ... the dark side has been desperately waiting for this lens for a very long time


----------



## Plainsman (Mar 4, 2013)

With no new Canon 400/5.6 or 100-400/5.6 in sight this could mean Nikon take over the prosumer 400mm sector particularly if this lens is allied to the 24Mp DX bodies they already have in production.

If this lens is really sharp it should be a great performer with the D7100. Wake up call for Canon - where are your new 400/5.6 lenses?


----------



## hoodlum (Mar 4, 2013)

Add in the new crop feature of the D7100 and you can see what Nikon is proposing. A low price wildlife camera/lens with reasonably good image quality. Canon will likely respond with an update to the 100-400 lens this year. I don't think the 400/f5.6 will get replaced but just go EOL. 

The next question is how Canon will respond to the D7100. A 7D2 for $2k is a different animal at a much higher price. Canon would need a true upgrade from the D60 when they announce the 70D. An incremental upgrade would not cut it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 4, 2013)

The new lens has been rumored for about a year, if its like the 24-120 update, it will be a disappointment. 

I am hoping that it can at least come close to matching the Canon 100-400L. If its better, that would be a good thing.


----------



## RGF (Mar 4, 2013)

I would not expect Canon to announce a new 100-400 before the 200-400. The 200-400 has been a long time coming (I hard on this forum that the 2000400 was first rumored in 1044 as the Normans invaded England).


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Mar 4, 2013)

Wasnt that 1066? 
Anyway, the years past by....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 5, 2013)

RGF said:


> I would not expect Canon to announce a new 100-400 before the 200-400. The 200-400 has been a long time coming (I hard on this forum that the 2000400 was first rumored in 1044 as the Normans invaded England).


But the 100-400mmL has been rumored longer than that. Didn't they find a Payryus rumoring it in with the dead sea scrolls?


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Mar 5, 2013)

*$2699* for the Nikon 80-400 more than the 70-200 2.8....wayyyy out of most of the "budget" telephoto users price range!

I can see that if a newer version of the Canon is ever released there will be all the same moaning and groaning of the current 100-400 telephoto users on a budget crying foul for price gouging of a newer lens that is over $1k more than the previous version...hmm kinda like the 24-70 II scenario! I guess no point in waiting for Canon folks on a budget in the telephoto range...might as well stick with your current 100-400 or 70-300L!


----------



## KyleSTL (Mar 5, 2013)

Canon 14-24 said:


> *$2699* for the Nikon 80-400 more than the 70-200 2.8....wayyyy out of most of the "budget" telephoto users price range!
> 
> I can see that if a newer version of the Canon is ever released there will be all the same moaning and groaning of the current 100-400 telephoto users on a budget crying foul for price gouging of a newer lens that is over $1k more than the previous version...hmm kinda like the 24-70 II scenario! I guess no point in waiting for Canon folks on a budget in the telephoto range...might as well stick with your current 100-400 or 70-300L!


+1 on the price. I would guess Canon's replacement will be in the same ballpark, though, so the advantage is [likely] temporary on Canon's side now, with no guarantees in the future.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 5, 2013)

I hope Nikon is not learning to price products from Canon. At 2700$ I would say thanks but no thanks and buy the new Sigma 120-300.

EDIT: I've just seen the Sigma can be preordered for 3600$. Is everybody out of its freaking mind? They make Zeiss lenses look inexpensive and the 100-400 a terrible value for money.


----------



## sushyam (Mar 5, 2013)

Announced and on dpreview @$ 2699.95. 4 stop IS. Available from early April 2013


----------



## Bruce Photography (Mar 5, 2013)

Next week I'm taking delivery on the current Nikon 80-400mm. I assume that it won't be great but at $1350 (with this months rebate) it is 1/2 of the new one. I'll test out the current one and hope for the best. I have my eye on the 200-400mm but that is maybe in the next year's budget. Who knows, Canon could surprise me with a 40MP body that would put me back into using my Canon glass. The Nikon 200-400 is about $6700 -- has anyone heard what the Canon 200-400 might list out to be?


----------



## psolberg (Mar 5, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> A little late to the 1998 USM party nikon?



As a prior owner of a dust blower 100-400, I'd send tat memo to canon....and their 50s inspired push, puller.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 5, 2013)

psolberg said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > A little late to the 1998 USM party nikon?
> ...



Won't make any difference though ... the 100-400 still sells well


----------



## bseitz234 (Mar 5, 2013)

Bruce Photography said:


> The Nikon 200-400 is about $6700 -- has anyone heard what the Canon 200-400 might list out to be?



Word on the street is north of $11k.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 5, 2013)

J.R. said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



and it will sell well on ebay too once the ring zoom variant finally comes to canon l and


----------



## docsmith (Mar 5, 2013)

I am not too used to reading Nikon's MTF charts, but first glance, it looks like the 100-400 L is still better @ 400 mm.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 5, 2013)

docsmith said:


> I am not too used to reading Nikon's MTF charts, but first glance, it looks like the 100-400 L is still better @ 400 mm.



It seems so to me too.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 5, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Manufacturers measure their own MTF charts, and it is normally a computer generated estimate, just like MPG figures for new cars. Further, you can't compare MTF graphs within manufacturers if the focal lengths differ much, the only thing you can really glean from manufacturer supplied MTF charts is how good, or bad, they are compared to an earlier version.



Thank you, I didn't know. 

Than we can only assume that it's definitely better than its predecessor. Will be nice to see how it behaves on the D800.


----------



## Radiating (Mar 5, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Manufacturers measure their own MTF charts, and it is normally a computer generated estimate, just like MPG figures for new cars. Further, you can't compare MTF graphs within manufacturers if the focal lengths differ much, the only thing you can really glean from manufacturer supplied MTF charts is how good, or bad, they are compared to an earlier version.



This isn't really true. MTF data is generated from theoretical data which would be the same for any lens built perfectly (ie no copy variation or manufacturing tolerances). You can compre MTF data between manufacturers if you know HOW to compare it and how to read the chart.

The Nikon 80-400 should be as good as the Canon 24-70 ii 2.8.

Copy variation and manufacturing tolerances do play a role though in the end result but those should cancel out more or less between manufacturers.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 5, 2013)

psolberg said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > A little late to the 1998 USM party nikon?
> ...




Great tech advancements at Nikon, Like how they still make bodies with screws to AF and Manual focus lenses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 5, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> If all manufacturers used exactly the same model and computer program, maybe, but they don't. You can understand it all, it isn't that difficult ( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml ), but unless the graphs are drawn from the same testing equipment using actual lenses MTF graphs are very limited in value. As for manufacturer supplied figures, don't forget it is the sales department that is showing you this stuff


 
Manufacturers MTF curves are accurate enough, but they are for the lens, and not for a lens-camera combination. So far, all the online lens reviewers including DXO do not measure lens MTF. They measure a combination camera body - lens MTF which will always be poorer. Lots of factors enter into this, but you can never achieve the lens mtf when its on a camera body because the camera body degrades the image significantly.

With film bodies, the film had a MTF as well, and degraded the image. MTF's were published for cinema film.


----------



## skycolt (Mar 5, 2013)

actually I like push-pull. It makes the focal length change very fast. It's also very intuitive 




psolberg said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > A little late to the 1998 USM party nikon?
> ...


----------



## docsmith (Mar 5, 2013)

Radiating said:


> The Nikon 80-400 should be as good as the Canon 24-70 ii 2.8.



I wouldn't consider the 100-400L as good as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, and I will certainly be shocked if this new 80-400 is that good. 

At f/8, it is very good. I don't think it is up to the 24-70 f/2.8 II. Wide open, it isn't that close. Still, good, but the 24-70 f/2.8 II starts in the >0.9 range even wide open. The 80-400 is around 0.85 to 0.87 range. Close, but not "as good" in either instance.

But I do think it is a fair point that there will be differences between Canon and Nikon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 5, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Accurate enough for what? They could well be derived from completely different methods, so the one thing you can't do is accurately compare between manufacturers. You also can't compare different focal lengths! So whilst manufacturer presented MTF graphs might be "accurate enough", I was just adding a cautionary note to those who were comparing Nikon figures to Canon figures. Just like MPG estimates, they have very limited value and shouldn't be a serious basis for a purchase.
> 
> Lensrentals now has the equipment to measure lens resolution without being mounted (to a camera as we know it) so they can, at least, give genuine comparisons for lenses across manufacturers.


MTF is definitely not the final word, but its a starting point, and a lens is not going to be better than the manufacturers posted MTF. The values that the camera manufacturers are good enough precisely because of this, there is no use being accurate to 5 or 10%% because it is only part of the story.

Do you have a link to Rogers optical bench and colliminator? as well as the PHD's he has hired to run it? The last time I saw any information was that he used Imatest like all the other testers.

Measuring the MTF of a lens with a optical bench, slit illuminator, not only takes 500K of equipment, but also needs some very skilled technicians to intrepret the results. I had all of those in my lab at a large aerospace company, and it was a big investment assembled over several years of R&D budget. We had several lab techs and engineers / scientists using it. Its not something easily done. 

Somehow, I wonder if Roger has acquired this ability, or even why he would want to, since Imatest is plenty good for what he does. But please give me a link and impress me.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 5, 2013)

psolberg said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...


So you see, even a used 100-400 L will sell far better than the current 80-400 which no one wants to touch even with a ten foot pole ;D


----------



## RogerCicala (Mar 6, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> _"Do you have a link to Rogers optical bench and colliminator? as well as the PHD's he has hired to run it? The last time I saw any information was that he used Imatest like all the other testers."_
> 
> No. But you need to read him more clearly, he often says things like _"A lot of my posts about lens resolution consist largely of showing the MTF 50 numbers from Imatest *or our optical bench.*"_ and _"I grew up in biological and medical research "_.



It's a Well's OS-400 system, modified by Wells to take interchangeable mount lenses. We didn't hire any Ph. D.s, but had one come teach us how to use it. As mentioned above, it's not the be-all-end-all but it compliments Imatest nicely. Imatest's greatest shortcoming is it can't measure lenses at infinity and the optical bench does. Imatest does some other things much better than the optical bench, though. 

And it's certainly not up to aerospace standards, this is a lower end (albeit still near 6 figures) system, but it does give use some really nice information, particularly regarding astigmatism and frequency response that Imatest just can't provide. 

There's a picture and some output from it here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 6, 2013)

RogerCicala said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > _"Do you have a link to Rogers optical bench and colliminator? as well as the PHD's he has hired to run it? The last time I saw any information was that he used Imatest like all the other testers."_
> ...


 
Thanks Roger, *I am impressed!* I've seen the Wells systems online before, but you are the first I've heard of using one that wasn't a large corporation, or a R&D or educational institution.

The system we used was partially home made, a 5 X 10 foot slab of 4 inch thick Aluminum plate, that was milled flat and drilled to mount the fixtures. It also had a expensive shock isolation system to help dampen very low frequency vibrations. Our techs milled custom fixtures for us as needed for different applications, but we also bought some of the standard components. We used it for research on military and space applications. I'd love to have one to play with.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 6, 2013)

Do I understand correctly that this lens doesn't extend while zooming? 
A good thing they did is reducing considerably the MFD, but since I see the magnification went down from 0.42 to 0.2 it seems the price to pay is heavy focus breathing.
However, it seems that Nikon delivered - again. The only problem is the price, which is way too steep at the moment. But we have seen the D600 and D800 fall down to a -30% in just a few months, so let's see.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 6, 2013)

Nikonrumros has an interesting post comparing the old and the new 80-400
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/03/05/nikkor-af-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6d-vs-af-s-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6g-specifications-comparison.aspx/


----------



## Plainsman (Mar 6, 2013)

The tripod mount of this lens looks pretty flimsy for a 1.6kg (3.5lb) lens.

That's one thing you can guarantee with Nikon - flimsy mounts on their long lenses.

They may have clever optical engineers but it surely would not cost a lot to get a structural engineer with finite element software to check out the stiffness and vibration characteristics before they go for production.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 6, 2013)

Personally, I'm not obsessed over MTFs, much less even think of comparing them across manufacturers. I much rather see images do the talking and even then, sample variation can mislead opinions.

ultimately this is a great lens choice for the Nikon shooter as it was one of the big problem lenses in their lineup because it lacked an USM motor. That seems resolved and from the specs, and use of superior glass, it should address every knock against the predecessor.

I really can't wait to see what it can do on today's high resolution world standard: D800/e.



> The tripod mount of this lens looks pretty flimsy for a 1.6kg (3.5lb) lens.
> 
> That's one thing you can guarantee with Nikon - flimsy mounts on their long lenses.
> 
> They may have clever optical engineers but it surely would not cost a lot to get a structural engineer with finite element software to check out the stiffness and vibration characteristics before they go for production.



I'll let the field determine how good it is, but looks like it can be removed and replaced with a 3rd party mount so that is definitively a plus compared to fixed collars.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 6, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Thanks Roger, and welcome to the forum, I knew I had seen that picture in the blog but couldn't remember, or find, which post it was in. I am glad my memory hasn't failed me completely


And thanks for mentioning it. I try to read all of Rogers posts, but certainly missed that one.


----------

