Nikon 70-200 f4 Petition!

[photogincollege]

I've been thinking about this, and I want to start a petition to get nikon to start to manufacture a 70-200 f4. I'm really serious about this. So anyone who would buy this lens if it came out Please sign. Please Copy the form and add it to your post with your name added if your interested.


Petition to get nikon to begin manufacturing a 70-200 f4 lens.

1. l
2. l
3. l
4. l
5. l
6. l
7. l
8. l
9. l
10. l
11. l
12. l
13. l
14. l
15. l
16. l
17. l
18. l
19. l
20. l
21. l
22. l
23. l
24. l
25. l
26. l
27. l
28. l
29. l
30. l
31. l
32. l
33. l
34. l
35. l
36. l
37. l
38. l
39. l
40. l
41. l
42. l
43. l
44. l
45. l
46. l
47. l
48. l
49. l
50. l
51. l
52. l
53. l
54. l
55. l
56. l
57. l
58. l
59. l
60. l
61. l
62. l
63. l
64. l
65. l
66. l
67. l
68. l
69. l
70. l
71. l
72. l
73. l
74. l
75. l
76. l
77. l
78. l
79. l
80. l
81. l
82. l
83. l
84. l
85. l
86. l
87. l
88. l
89. l
90. l

 

[Mike_E]

You can't find a used one?

 

[SpeedTrap]

It would proably not be much less than the 70-200 2.8VR, so why bother?

 

[Trenton Romulox]

It would proably not be much less than the 70-200 2.8VR, so why bother?

Yeah, I agree. I can't see the cost being that much different. It's rather expensive to start producing another line of lenses, and I'm not sure what exactly the market would be. I mean, it's an interesting idea. But if it's about the money, why not just go with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8?

 

[dipstick]

Yeah, what is the point? If you want a budget lens, get the 70-300 VR or something from Sigma.

If you're not on a tight budget, then buy a 2.8 and step it down. You don't have to use it wide open

 

[notelliot]

holy hell, what an argument this is going to create.

i'd sign the petition, but it wouldn't help.

 

[Phranquey]

It's rather expensive to start producing another line of lenses, and I'm not sure what exactly the market would be.

Agreed. Either get a Sigma, or, if you are patient, there are occasionally very good deals on the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D, which is a fantasic lens (what I had before picking up my 70-200 VR). The focus may not be as fast as the AF-S, but it is plenty quick enough, and the pics are very crisp.

 

[Snyder]

thats why the 80-200 exist so people can afford a high quality lense for an affordable price. Though I would be happy to sign for them to make a 70-200 at 1.4 or 70-300 2.8 vr that would be tight.

 

[photogincollege]

I was thinking something similar to the canon 70-200 f4L. I did forget about the 80-200 though, which can be had used for about 600 or so, so that kind of mutes the point XD.

 

[Phranquey]

I did forget about the 80-200 though, which can be had used for about 600 or so

That's exactly what I paid for mine. Used it for a year and a half, and then turned around and sold it on ebay for $650....

 

[Iron Flatline]

I was thinking something similar to the canon 70-200 f4L...

Ohhh noezzz.... he mentioned the C word to a bunch of Nikon shooters!

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I would be ecstatic if Nikon released an AF-S 70-200 f/4 VR, and I would sell my 80-200 f/2.8 for it.

But it's probably not going to happen considering the 80-200 AF-D.

 

[Phranquey]

Ohhh noezzz.... he mentioned the C word to a bunch of Nikon shooters!

Lynch him!!!!

I never suscribed to the "Ford vs Chevy" battle. Drive what you like, don't matta to me.

 

[Antithesis]

I don't think it's ever going to happen, just get a Sigma. Basically a 70-200 f/4 because it's pretty soft at f2.8.

 

[LWW]

Nikkor made a wonderful 70-210 F4 in the 80's.

I wish I ha never sold mine.

LWW