[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1281724185' post='1750']
The 55-300 DX VR seems to be an answer to the Canon 55-250 IS, which has become very popular. I guess they will phase out the 55-200 DX VR?
The 28-300 VR obviously is going for the Tamron 28-300 VC.
[/quote]
From the listed pricing I don't think that is the case, even if we assume street pricing will be lower than that listed. The Nikon 55-300 is around double the price of the Canon 55-250, which puts it in a premium 300mm zoom area. If the trade off is making the lens DX to gain the bit extra at the wide end (55 vs common 70mm) at comparable quality it will be beneficial to the majority of DX users. A bit more range is often useful and help reduce the need to lens swap so much.
Similar again with the 28-300. Given the significant price difference vs Tamron I'd hope the new Nikon would be much better. At least it isn't insane like Canon's which is too painful to think about.
Is the 24-120 the answer to Canon's 24-105L? (<- typo fixed)
Why am I interested in all this? Because we might see Canon versions of these in a few years time when they decide to copy Nikon again <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
The 55-300 DX VR seems to be an answer to the Canon 55-250 IS, which has become very popular. I guess they will phase out the 55-200 DX VR?
The 28-300 VR obviously is going for the Tamron 28-300 VC.
[/quote]
From the listed pricing I don't think that is the case, even if we assume street pricing will be lower than that listed. The Nikon 55-300 is around double the price of the Canon 55-250, which puts it in a premium 300mm zoom area. If the trade off is making the lens DX to gain the bit extra at the wide end (55 vs common 70mm) at comparable quality it will be beneficial to the majority of DX users. A bit more range is often useful and help reduce the need to lens swap so much.
Similar again with the 28-300. Given the significant price difference vs Tamron I'd hope the new Nikon would be much better. At least it isn't insane like Canon's which is too painful to think about.
Is the 24-120 the answer to Canon's 24-105L? (<- typo fixed)
Why am I interested in all this? Because we might see Canon versions of these in a few years time when they decide to copy Nikon again <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.