johnnydanger wrote:
You guys need to cool your jets. Holy cow. Did anybody notice the name of the thread "Primes! Has Nikon forgotten?" That's what the whole thread is about. Lack of primes. I made an entry in response to the thread starter that supported my experience and a friends experience and I was ridiculed for 2 pages. Lovely. Nice hospitable crowd you have here. Sorry for supporting the pre-tense of the thread.
You bring up a good point. Not that different than what reception I've seen Nikon people receive in the Canon forum at times. I think we all need to cool our jets, as we are just talking camera gear, not politics! I mean - do you really care what someone else shoots or what they think of what you shoot? If we are worried about that we need to get a life!
And Nikon does have some rather big holes in the lens lineup. For the most part, AF-S or AF-D doesn't make a difference in the end result for me. I'd still love to see more AF-S lenses (then maybe my wife would use the F100 more than her favorite camera - the N50 - which doesn't support auto-focus with AF-S lenses) but then I'd just have to spend more money.
VR is a nice feature, but even the Canon 24-70 L lens doesn't have IS, and they seem to put it on everything. I always thought the big advantage of VR/IS was in the longer lenses, not the wide to normal lenses. And it seems to me virtually every long Nikon prime lens now offers it, at least from 200mm up (discounting the older versions of the 400 - 600mm lenses that will likely be discontinued. And the 300 f/4 which I own.)
I'm sure Canon users would have loved to see pro AF in the new 40D like Nikon is going to put in the D300. Wouldn't they like to see "affordable" pro AF? Both sides have their advantages and disadvantages. With Canon, the lens lineup is a strong point. Until Nikon attracts more of the pro crowd than they already have, it will take time to release all the things we want to see. Or maybe they will surprise me and release it within the next year - who knows?
I'm not planning to go anywhere, but then I'm not making any money off my gear. For those of you that do, one brand or the other (or both, for a few of you) most likely makes the most sense. In the end, I think both setups offer some phenomenal gear to use. There certainly isn't any reason to get nasty about it, from either side. Then again, we are all just human.
photogny wrote:
The appeal for fast wide-angles and mid range telephotos is not very small. A lot of photojournalists love the ability to isolate the subject at f1.4 or f1.2. Nikon has had a long time to update this gap in their lineup. Hope it's soon. 24/1.4 and 5d opens up new opportunities for night photography.
Who said the appeal for fast wides is small? I would love a 17/1.4DX or something like that. I was only talking about the 180/2.8. It is a very nice lens, one of the best Nikon makes, but how many do you really think they sell? How many in this forum own one? And how many bought it new? And how many would pay even more for a VR version of it that brings it close to 2nd hand 70-200VR prices?
panos.v wrote:
Who said the appeal for fast wides is small? I would love a 17/1.4DX or something like that. I was only talking about the 180/2.8. It is a very nice lens, one of the best Nikon makes, but how many do you really think they sell? How many in this forum own one? And how many bought it new? And how many would pay even more for a VR version of it that brings it close to 2nd hand 70-200VR prices?
I would. I have the 80-200/2.8 AF-S. It's useless for travel. Too big and too heavy. The 180/2.8 is just right.
But they could do even better. They could make it close-focusing as well. Not necessarily a macro like the Sigma 150/2.8, but to around a meter or a bit shorter. It would be one of my most used lenses, no doubt.
ok someone has to explain this to me. Fast and wide I understand the need, but AFS on a wide or ultra wide - why ? what does it bring over and above AF ? ...I am thining that once your subject is more than 1-2 meters away the lens through to infinity is minimal so i can't see AF-S making that much of a difference..the only thing I can think of is M/A mode
primes account for less than 1% of Nikon's lens unit sales. i expect that Nikon will never produce more wide primes than they already are. updating what's current is the most i expect, and i can imagine more being discontinued without replacements unless they raise their prices a lot to cover R&D costs.
Herb...
Oct 09, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
HerbChong wrote:
primes account for less than 1% of Nikon's lens unit sales. i expect that Nikon will never produce more wide primes than they already are. updating what's current is the most i expect, and i can imagine more being discontinued without replacements unless they raise their prices a lot to cover R&D costs.
Herb...
Hi Herb,
Nothing like a number to put things into perspective. If primes account for 1% of sales it is little wonder we see all these wonderful zooms, both consumer and professional grade, coming out in droves. And, I would imagine that most of the prime leses that Nikon does sell are in the telephoto range though that is only a guess. Just curious, where did you get the figure of 1%? If there is an offical report out there with sales figures, even just relative figures, I would love to look at it for the insight it might provide.
HerbChong wrote:
primes account for less than 1% of Nikon's lens unit sales. i expect that Nikon will never produce more wide primes than they already are. updating what's current is the most i expect, and i can imagine more being discontinued without replacements unless they raise their prices a lot to cover R&D costs.
Nikon's financial disclosures + doing some arithmetic based on production figures of the lenses they do disclose quantities on + knowing that industry-wide, the figure is about 1%. i don't have any breakdown in terms of which primes sell most, but you can bet that the super telephotos are at the bottom because they are hand assembled to order. the 50/1.8 is most likely the high volume leader among primes simply because of price.
shooting a bag full of Pentax Limited primes (all 6 of them) a lot, i think that the added value of ultra quality short primes is barely worth the hassle of never quite having the right FOV and always compromising and cropping.
If primes account for less than 1% of Nikon's lens sales, how could they afford to develop a new 400mm, 500mm, AND 600mm prime? They'll never make their money back. At least not unless everyone buys ten copies of each.
Looking at the Canon market, there is significant demand for the 35/1.4, 85/1.2, and 135/2, and Canon even saw enough market to sell a 50/1.2 for over $1000. There's gotta be a bigger market for primes than your 1% indicates.
This complaint of Nikon primes lacking AFS is actually amusing to me because a lens like the wonderful 85mm 1.2 USM, the only thing wonderful about it is the images but USM or not it aint fast. Slower than many screw driven primes I have used in the past for goodness sake. You can't even try manual focus because because you have to rotate the ring 2x for a full rack (exaggeration but not far off).
Fast wide primes? fine, if you need it then Canon has it so you will either buy a Canon or stay with Canon for that reason. I neither expect nor desire people to switch to Nikon because I am sort of selfish that way, I only think of myself and don't care what anyone else uses. It's just freakin camera gear ya know?
CKrueger wrote:
If primes account for less than 1% of Nikon's lens sales, how could they afford to develop a new 400mm, 500mm, AND 600mm prime? They'll never make their money back. At least not unless everyone buys ten copies of each.
Looking at the Canon market, there is significant demand for the 35/1.4, 85/1.2, and 135/2, and Canon even saw enough market to sell a 50/1.2 for over $1000. There's gotta be a bigger market for primes than your 1% indicates.
I have a lot of trouble buying that 1% figure. Every serious photographer I know presonally owns at least one prime lens - many own several.
When I go to a portrait shoot, I have a wide zoom (though I would use a wide prime) 50mm and 85mm primes.
My brother - a serious hobbyist - uses 17mm Tokina, Sigma 30mm and Nikon 85mm 1.4.
My friend who is a photojournalist and wedding photographer with with Canon's 16-35L, 50 1.4, and 135 f/2L.
Most of the people here on FM own a couple.
I could go on, but I've simply seen too many primes in my day to believe that they are 1% of the lenses sold.
Maybe the figure that could be skewing this is the amount of kit lenses sold with the cheaper bodies to soccer moms but as far as what professionals, part-timers and serious hobyists use, most of them have and enjoy using primes.
Qranc wrote:
Fast wide primes? fine, if you need it then Canon has it so you will either buy a Canon or stay with Canon for that reason. I neither expect nor desire people to switch to Nikon because I am sort of selfish that way, I only think of myself and don't care what anyone else uses. It's just freakin camera gear ya know?
I have never understood these complaints from Nikon users. I have shot in both camps and there are things I certainly prefer about the Nikons over the Canons. Just because I like primes doesn't mean I'm willing to dump all the other benefits of NIkon just to have the two lenses that I want in Canon mount.
Before the D3 there were constant posts on this board about how nobody needed better high ISO performance than the D2X. Why is everyone so against technological advancement and tools that make our craft open to new possibilities? Wouldn't it be amazing to shoot in a available light with the D3 unlike anthing we had shot in before? A D3 with a 24mm f/1.4 would be such a killer combination for documentary photography, photojournalists, wedding photographers and so many others. Why are we so against that?
I really like my Nikon gear. I just wish that Nikon would bring their lens line-up into the same range as the competition.
FYI, a reason for AF-S primes is to keep the noise down in situations like weddings and concerts - though I suppose now you'll tell me that if I want a quiet lens I should buy a Canon.
mjmetts wrote:
I have a lot of trouble buying that 1% figure. Every serious photographer I know presonally owns at least one prime lens - many own several.
There's the rub, I think. What's the ratio of serious photographers that buy primes to soccer moms wanting a D40 with a few slow zoomers?
turnert wrote:
There's the rub, I think. What's the ratio of serious photographers that buy primes to soccer moms wanting a D40 with a few slow zoomers?
i'd like to know the ratio of people who buy additional lenses to people who buy a kit and that's it.
I find your attitude amazing considering that all you're basing that on your ability to discern "Nikon's financial disclosures + doing some arithmetic based on production figures of the lenses they do disclose quantities on + knowing that industry-wide". It's more than a little off-putting.
CKrueger has a point. Canon saw fit to produce these and I know that they sell many of them. The 35L is often incredibly hard to find because it's such a hot seller.
Oct 09, 2007 at 01:30 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
turnert wrote:
There's the rub, I think. What's the ratio of serious photographers that buy primes to soccer moms wanting a D40 with a few slow zoomers?
EXACTLY! OK for the sake of argument, let us say that it is ten times what Herb sais, 10% of Nikon's lens sales is prime lenses. Still then, it does not make sence for Nikon to update the WA primes when there are zooms (i.e. 90+% of sales) that needs to be updated. Logically Nikon would update the zooms first.
IT IS ECONOMICS PEOPLE!!!!!
Next, of the primes from WA to Tele and Macro, it makes sence to do the long teles first for a variety of reasons:
-- There is no zoom equivalent of the long tele lenses (200-400 excepted) and f/2.8 is needed for sports.
-- Most WA primes are used for landscape etc, and are therefore stopped down. Yes, the PJ photogs like speed and f/2.8 is usually all they need especially with the ease of getting high ISO these days.
-- Free advertising. yea, those sports photogs get a lot of visibility on the sidelines with camera in hand, more than any landscape photographer does.
-- Price/profit per unit compared to R&D costs. Those big lenses may not sell in large numbers but the profit per unit is much larger than it is for WA primes. However, R&D costs are about the same I bet. Optics is optics and only at the normal range is anything "inexpensive"
So what's left in the prime area? WA lenses, mid-range, short tele's (<200mm) and specialy lenses (macro and PC).
-- Specialty -- yep, need at least one macro updated as this is a big area of use .. oh, we have two, the 85PC and the 105VR. Sure would be nice to have a WA PC lens, but sales of the 28PC were low as was evident with the $400 used resale price of a $1200 lens.
-- short tele's -- spead is needed for sports and PJ, but hey, that 70-200 f/2.8 is so flexible that that's what they use ... OK wedding and portrait photogs have the excellent 85 f/1.4 and 105DC and the 135 ... these are fast and fast AF is not needed for these applications. All set here ... for now, but of all the areas, this is probably next as volume sales to professionals and avid ametures will be high in this area.
-- Mid-range -- well those 50mm lenses are so damb cheep, where is the profit in spending the R&D
-- WA lenses -- OK, the f/2.8 WA are fine for 90+% of what most people use WA lense for. Same with NO VR and AF-S. A few PJs and other crazy people want faster but this is maybe a few percent of a market sector that is only 10% of the over-all. Why would people pay big $$$ for an f/1.4 WA when most are happy with an f/2.8 WA More pros will buy a 300 f/2.8 or even a 400 f/2.8 than a 28 f/1.4 and the profit margin on the tele lenses is higher for roughly the same R&D costs. Yea, this is the last area Nikon will likely do anything to upgrade.
my sources are extremely reliable in relaying production statistics. i am not a liberty to disclose them other than to say that they are subscription-only. there are very few people i know who own primes other than people who frequent places like here and that accounts for a tiny portion of the market. believe what you will.
Nikon's primes contribute little to their bottom line for huge development costs and also sell in low volumes. there are a few important primes where having a zoom doesn't make sense. macros and super teles are the main ones.
Nikon has spent a lot of money developing the 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8, far more than developing even 3 or 4 fast primes in the same focal length range, because they know they will recoup their costs quickly while probably delivering better image quality than any existing Nikkor lens of any kind in that range. arguably, they weren't needed because the 17-55 and 28-70 already existed that some consider the finest lenses of their type that has ever existed. why would they spend the money developing these new lenses?
Nikon has plenty of primes already designed and in production that aren't going to be updated for a very long time, if ever and those are going to be your choices. do you think they would have discontinued the 28/1.4 if it were selling well? would i buy a set of Nikkor ultra quality wide to short tele primes? probably, if they could all be the level of the 48/2.8P.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Why would people pay big $$$ for an f/1.4 WA when most are happy with an f/2.8 WA
Because the 'lunatic fringe' that need such lenses for particular applications will throw money at it. It's no different from other specialty lenses in that aspect.
"Primes! Has Nikon forgotten?" That's what the whole thread is about. Lack of primes. I made an entry in response to the thread starter that supported my experience and a friends experience and I was ridiculed for 2 pages. Lovely. Nice hospitable crowd you have here. Sorry for supporting the pre-tense of the thread.
which I own.)
want faster but this is maybe a few percent of a market sector that is only 10% of the over-all. Why would people pay big $$$ for an f/1.4 WA when most are happy with an f/2.8 WA