Not A Rumor Anymore... New Nikkor Superzoom
billnikon wrote:
Too long, too heavy, too much extension at 400mm, too SLOW at 400mm, that lens is NOT a travel lens unless you are intending to have your neck massaged each night while your on vacation.
1 1/2 is pounds to heavy? Not for me and I'm 768.
Canisdirus wrote:
Matt Grainer was comparing it to the Nikon 24-200mm f/4-6.3.
Well yeah...who is buying a 200mm f/6.3 anyways?
One meh lens looks good next to another meh lens...must be the marketing play here.
I bought the 24mm-200mm Z lens when it first came out. Great travel lens.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
frankraney wrote:
1 1/2 is pounds to heavy? Not for me and I'm 768.
God bless you, how to you fit all those candles on your cake, and blow them out.
You know, weight was just one of my many many many many too's.
billnikon wrote:
God bless you, how to you fit all those candles on your cake, and blow them out.
You know, weight was just one of my many many many many too's.
Yup, the might be a lot of cons, but not weight.
niteman3d
Loc: South Central Pennsylvania, USA
There's a pretty good line of us rubes waiting to fork it over. I'd be forever grateful if any of you naysayers would post me a solution link guiding me to the perfect lens that has the range, size, VR, etc... all in one place.
Did you happen to check out Matt Irwin's night time samples? Nah, didn't think so. The critics started even before it was more than a rumor which tells me that minds may be a tiny bit closed and ain't gonna change, regardless of evidence. I'll wait right here as I don't wanna lose my place in line.
Watched Jared Polin's review on YouTube. He agreed with a lot of the criticisms which have been posted here, but came to the conclusion that it was a great lens for parents of young kids, to take photos of their kids playing outdoors. He like the versatility that the extreme zoom gives. He stressed that at the higher zoom ranges, you should strive to fill the frame as much as possible, as the aperture is going to allow the background to possibly be in more focus than you desire. The zoom range is quite impressive.
I'm not in the market; I just received my Nikkor 180-600mm last week.
rangel28 wrote:
I bought the 24mm-200mm Z lens when it first came out. Great travel lens.
Sure...who wouldn't want a 200mm f/6.3 lens.
Canisdirus wrote:
Sure...who wouldn't want a 200mm f/6.3 lens.
So if you don’t want it or need it, then no one else should want one or need one either? Should we all ask you for permission before buying new lenses?
cwp3420 wrote:
So if you don’t want it or need it, then no one else should want one or need one either? Should we all ask you for permission before buying new lenses?
No one 'needs' a 200mm f/6.3.
cwp3420 wrote:
So if you don’t want it or need it, then no one else should want one or need one either? Should we all ask you for permission before buying new lenses?
He didn't say that. He said who wouldn't want want, meaning just that. Everyone should want one...
niteman3d
Loc: South Central Pennsylvania, USA
I'm even more encouraged to stay in line for the 28-400... Chris Niccolls is no Nikon fanboy and even he gave it a pretty good review.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.