OK, at this point Nikon has fleshed out its line of bodies but still lags in lenses ... OK OK, or all you resolution nuts, I hope a 24-32 MP D3x comes out soon ... but after that, I want some lenses. Sounds crazy to say this given all the new long tele primes, PC and micro lenses as of late, but there are three lenses I'm looking for:
A FAST long tele zoom. Yea, the 200-400 is great, but it's big and not over-fast. Great for the wildlife folks, but what about us sports photogs. Give me my 120-300 f/2.8 and make it sharp.
Micro zoom with a variable working distance. Nikon has a long history of great micro lenses. The biggest issue is lack of working distance. The 200mm micro solves that but then it's not the greatest for table-top work. The 70-180 was a undersung hero, but they discontinued it without replacement!!! GRRRRR Make a new micro zoom with 1:1, 200mm at the long end, and make it now.
Primes < 200mm. Yea, I know the Nikon primes are good, but we need an updated lineup @ f/1.4 or even f/1.2. My votes would be just four lenses: 28mm, 55mm, 85mm and 135mm. To be honest, I'm mainly interested in a 55mm f/1.2 AFS VR.
Fill in the above lenses and there is very little if anything to complain about in the Nikon line-up. Just my own personal rant ... either that or Nikon should at least give us a roadmap!!!!!!!!
i need a something like a 40mm-ish f1.2 AF-S. i'll never see one. 35 is too wide and 50 is too long. i think the 45 is a bit too long too but since it is a manual focus lens, i never use it for the project that i want the 40 for.
I am sure that Nikon are reading this post and are now working very hard and quickly to come out with a lens that suits YOUR needs and YOUR needs only. This is how the industry works. Have fun with your new lens whenever you get it!
That 120-300 f/2.8 VR lens is gonna be both big and expensive. If shutter speed is the issue, than a nice D3 with its low noise at high ISO setttings is going to be both cheaper and easier to carry around and will get you the shot. As for a micro zoom, seems like a nice idea, but again, for the price of a new 70-180 f/2.8 VR micro you could probably buy both the new 60 and a 200 and have better IQ to boot.
HerbChong wrote:
i need a something like a 40mm-ish f1.2 AF-S. i'll never see one. 35 is too wide and 50 is too long. i think the 45 is a bit too long too but since it is a manual focus lens, i never use it for the project that i want the 40 for.
Herb....
I just find this a bit excessive. 35 is too wide instead of 40? That's what, half a step forwards? Come on, I can understand the perspective being different but 35 to 50mm is not exactly that huge a change in perspective as it is, let alone 35 to 40mm.
Me? I'd be happy with a 17/1.8 DX but I know it won't happen. So I'd like a 28/1.8 or 28/1.4 for when I get a D700. Merci.
panos.v wrote:
I just find this a bit excessive. 35 is too wide instead of 40? That's what, half a step forwards? Come on, I can understand the perspective being different but 35 to 50mm is not exactly that huge a change in perspective as it is, let alone 35 to 40mm.
Me? I'd be happy with a 17/1.8 DX but I know it won't happen. So I'd like a 28/1.8 or 28/1.4 for when I get a D700. Merci.
[Quote]The best wide angle lens is two steps back
- Ansle Adams
Todd Warnke wrote:
That 120-300 f/2.8 VR lens is gonna be both big and expensive. If shutter speed is the issue, than a nice D3 with its low noise at high ISO setttings is going to be both cheaper and easier to carry around and will get you the shot. As for a micro zoom, seems like a nice idea, but again, for the price of a new 70-180 f/2.8 VR micro you could probably buy both the new 60 and a 200 and have better IQ to boot.
Peace,
Todd
Not as big as you think. Sigma makes one and it is about the same size and weight as the 300 f/2.8 prime. This is significantly smaller than the 200-400VR and lighter too. As for cost, I can afford one large prime on the order of $5K. 120-300 is the perfect range on DX. I'm not interested in using the 200-400VR on FX format due to both size and cost ... the 200-400VR is bigger than I want and FX format adds additional cost I don't want.
As for the micro zoom, it all about keeping weight and bulk down. I'd rather one resonable zoom over a bunch of primes. The 70-180 is smaller than the 200 micro anyway. But I want a current lens.
The other point of this post is that there are very few lenses Nikon needs to flesh out its lens line-up ... I just wish they would get to it. All of the lenses I propose would be of very general use and would be big hits IMO.
if i'm going to ask for something, i'm going to ask for what i need, not what i can compromise on. since i have used a 35/2 and now use a 50/1.4 for this shooting project, i know that neither are the right FOV. also, because of using these lenses, i also know that f1.4 doesn't provide a shallow enough DOF.
Herb...
panos.v wrote:
I just find this a bit excessive. 35 is too wide instead of 40? That's what, half a step forwards? Come on, I can understand the perspective being different but 35 to 50mm is not exactly that huge a change in perspective as it is, let alone 35 to 40mm.
Edited by HerbChong on Jul 14, 2008 at 01:25 PM GMT
I love the 14-24 and 24-70, absolutely love the 70-200. Most of my lens dreams are reality. I just wish that Nikon had the 85 1.2 and 50 1.2. I don't think that's too specialized of a request, Canon sells both and everyone raves about them.
BenV wrote:
Ya cmon Nikon wheres my lensesI want a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 200-400!!! AND THEY NEED TO BE f/2.8!! Oh wait, they are out already :-)
Actually, the 200-400 is an f/4 lens.
I can't imagine what an f/2.8 version would cost and weigh.
I wouldn't mind seeing replacements for the non-AF-S lenses, and fill in the low light wide primes that have been missing for so long. Zoom-wise, I'm pretty stoked with what they already offer, but the 120-300 f/2.8 does sound like it would be a great option. An update to the 70-200 to accomodate the FX sensor, a new 80-400 that brings it up to the standards of the rest of their lineup, and I think I would be good to go.
Not that I have the money for all that gear, but we're dreaming here, right?
I want an equivalent to the 50L that doesn't suffer from focus shift when stopping down. I'd pay dearly for one on a D700... clients would pay dearly for the photos
Seriously though, I bet we'll see a D90 and a D3x before we see more lenses.
phillip ino wrote:
I am sure that Nikon are reading this post and are now working very hard and quickly to come out with a lens that suits YOUR needs and YOUR needs only. This is how the industry works.
I'm sure that's pure sarcasm, but if not I have to ask, were you born yesterday?
Jammy Straub wrote:
I want an equivalent to the 50L that doesn't suffer from focus shift when stopping down. I'd pay dearly for one on a D700... clients would pay dearly for the photos
Seriously though, I bet we'll see a D90 and a D3x before we see more lenses.
I have to agree on both counts, only I want 55mm instead of 50. My suspicion is we will eventuallt get the latter.
I'd like a couple of f4 zooms for landscapes! Something akin to 17-40 and 70-200 at f4, half the weight of the f2.8 options and a lens that takes filters. Please!
forestmage wrote:
I'd like a couple of f4 zooms for landscapes! Something akin to 17-40 and 70-200 at f4, half the weight of the f2.8 options and a lens that takes filters. Please!
the 17-55 eats Canons 17-40 alive. I would however like to see a 70-200 f4.
forestmage wrote:
the nikkor 17-55 is a sweet lens to be sure but it hardly makes an ideal landscape lens for an FX body is all I am saying.
True, though Nikon does offer the 17-35 f/2.8. At the price though, a few f/4 lenses in the ranges you mention would not be out of order. We'll see what comes next. Remember, Nikon is not Canon. There are some real good reasons to be shooting Canon as well, not the least of which is their lens selection. I still prefer Nikon, but I wouldn't mind seeing more of these holes filled.
I want a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 200-400!!! AND THEY NEED TO BE f/2.8!! Oh wait, they are out already :-)