p.2 #1 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
I would jump on a reasonably priced 400mm F5.6 AF-S VR in a second. If image quality was really phenomenal, so that the 70-200 F2.8 VRII + 2xTCIII couldn't compare for being able to crop and retain sharpness etc, it would make for a spectacular budget/travel wildlife lens IMHO.
p.2 #2 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
An updated 80-400mm VR with AFS would be at the top of my list. that's such a handy zoom range but the first generation VR is showing its limits and the AF performance is sucky.
p.2 #3 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
1. Update the 17-35/2.8 to 16-35/2.8, and I don't need VR on it.
2. A 400/5.6 with VR, nice and light like the Canon version.
3. 120-300/2.8, so we don't need the Sigma version
p.2 #4 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
As a wedding/portrait shooter using FX, my votes would be:
-17-35mm f/2.8 update (or just make a 14-24mm w/ a filter thread so it can take a CP filter)
-135mm f/2.0 or f/1.8
-35mm f/1.4 w/ redesigned (as in, quick) AF... oh wait, Sigma's already there. Too late.
p.2 #7 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
Hmm, let's see, what lenses could Canon introduce to make them more competitive overnight? I would say Nikon is pretty competitive right now especially when it comes to VR, camera bodies, and build quality.
p.2 #8 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
I'd like to see:
1. 24-104 VR only make it a little sharper than Canon's.
2. 150 micro VR, but better edge and corners than Sigma.
3. Love to see an 10 WA, but would settle for a 400 f4 VR. When I shot the 200-400, I tended to hang-out at the 400 end.
As to adding VR to existing lenses, that doesn't fill in any missing lens territory.
p.2 #9 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
The only thing I would like is for them to continue updating the small primes, an updated 24 2.8 and 20 2.8 would be high on my list. Adding those to my 50 and 85 would make a pretty good selection.
p.2 #10 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
I would absolutely love a 135 f/1.8.
Feb 20, 2013 at 08:17 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
First, it's not 3 lenses, it is 10. Given that 95% of Nikon's DSLR customers shoot DX, Nikon needs to flesh the DX lineup out; and for that, it needs 5 NEW lenses and one update. FX needs 4 lenses to be updated.
7) 24-70 f/2.8 AFS VR FX
8) 80-400 f/3.5 - f/5.6 AFS VR FX
9) 200 f/4 AFS VR Micro FX
10) 300 f/4 AFS VR FX
I think if Nikon produced these 10 lenses along with a D7200 and a D400, it would rock the DSLR world.
Feb 20, 2013 at 08:30 AM
Guest
Guest
p.2 #12 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
jhinkey wrote:
Yes, it should have read 20/2.8! Thanks for catching that.
Sigma has a 20/1.8. It's far from stellar optically but it's not outlandishly huge. So a 20/2 would be possible.
p.2 #16 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
jim allison wrote:
In other words, what do you think are the three biggest holes in Nikon's lineup? For me they are:
17mm PCE
400mm F5.6 autofocus vr
135mm f2 vr
If Nikon could introduce these lenses tomorrow, which I know they can't, they would be a lot more competitive with Canon. Just curious, what three lenses do you feel would have an immediate effect on their competitiveness?
Nikon's biggest hole IMO is in the medium cost telephoto lenses. Not everyone can buy the big guns, so something in the $1500-$3500 range is needed.
What is needed,
300/4 VR
80-400 AF-S VR or 120-500 VR
500/5.6 VR maybe.
If Nikon released these they would sell tons. But Nikon seems to have no clue these days.
p.2 #17 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
IMO the FX could use some primes like:
1) 17mm T/S
2) 50/1.2 AF or 58/1.2 noct AF
3) 135/1.8 or 135/2 VR
DX could use some fast zooms like:
1) 50-135/2.8 DX (at least as good as the awesome Tokina 50-135/2.8 Pro DX)
2) some f2.8 uwa zoom (like the Tokina 11-16/2.8)
3) 17-55/2.8 VR
p.2 #20 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
for my uses (and where I'd actually consider spending my $$$)
24 f1.8 FX (I would love the 1.4 but it's too pricey for as often as I'd use it, smaller and lighter is good too)
35 f1.8 FX (ditto above for the 35 f1.4)
135 f2 FX (don't really need the DC feature, would like more reliable and faster AF from what I've read)
updated 17-35 or 16-35 f2.8 FX with the 14-24 performance or better, with or without VR, with 77mm filter thread
Other exotics would be cool but I probably would not spend my own $$$ on them at his point, so why wish for them? I think both Canon and Nikon have advantages over the other, depends on your needs, and it applies for the bodies as well.
