DSLRUsers.com

Still lusting for the 70-200 VR or the 80-400 VR.

Does one got any idea why Nikon doesn't produce the 70-300 ED with IFS and VR version - since the 70-300 are the most comon and practical focal lengths. Is it the cost of adding VR and IFS to existing lense or what ??.

May be in 2005 Nikon will anounce this ???



It would be luvely indeed....... they will sell this by the truck load if there is such a beast.

Perhaps in 2005, there's a new range of VR including the 70-300/2.8
Just my dream!

pl 55, ithink Birddy you and I have the same dream. There is a rumour, and just a rumour, of a 100-300 VR. The existing 70-300 (even ED) is unlikely to be modified as the base 70-300 is a $200 lens and VR/AFS seems to be worth about $1,000 if you compare a 80-200 2.8 with a 70-200 2.8 VR AFS. A 100-300 2.8 VR/AFS would be a big winner. In the meantime you can always use a teleconverter on the 70-200

Hi gang,

Glen mentioned using a tele converter.

I have had little to do with them and was wondering how much effect they have on light or even perhaps image quality.


Regards
Nige