Long lens options for Nikon (less weight than the 200-400)

80-400 f4-5.6 AF-S VRII N G

2 (40%)

70-200 f2.8 AF-S VRII N G

1 (20%)

300 f4 AF-S VRII N G

0 (0%)

100-300 f4 AF-S VRII N G (completely new lens)

2 (40%)

Another telephoto - please post what it would be

0 (0%)

Nikon needs some other lens more than they do a telephoto in this range

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 5

[Dan Wells]

As Nikon has returned to competitiveness (and more) in the DSLR market in the past several years, there seems to be a significant hole in their lens lineup. There is no good option for a FX telephoto below the 200-400 f4 and 300 f2.8 in size, weight and cost (maximum aperture would, by definition, suffer). The 80-400 is an ancient lens and known to be both slow-focusing and soft at the long (and most important) end. The 70-200 f2.8 is reputed to be so soft in the corners that it should almost be labeled as a DX lens (where it is spectacular). The 300 f4 lacks VR. The Sigma 100-300 f4 looks appealing, but it isn't stabilized. Which of these lenses would other folks like to see Nikon revise (or, in the case of a 100-300 f4, introduce)?

                                 -Dan

[GregW]

Despite it's speed, the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR is a decent performer on both DX and FX. It's not going to replace my 300mm f/2.8 VR - perhaps my favorite Nikkor - but as you rightly point out it's a bit of a beast and I find the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR a good compromise on occasions.

I voted for a new 80-400 btw. Used carefully the current 80-400 is a good lens but it's hopelessly out of date.