Andre Labonte wrote:
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.
until the recently announced VR lenses, the long telephotos were considerably simpler than most zooms and moreover, their basic optical formula hasn't changed in years. the 600/4 AF-I through the AF-S II are basically identical optically. these may even be identical with the last versions of the manual focus lenses.
i see no significant action in the Nikkor wide prime selection for years, as much as i would like to see something fast at around 30mm. for now, my Sigma 30/1.4 has to do, but it's at best an OK lens. it doesn't belong in the same league as my Pentax 31/1.8 Limited.
Herb...
Andre Labonte wrote:
-- 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"
Do some research first on how many 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 lenses that Canon sells and tell me WHY Nikon wouldn't make at least one of the above lenses.
According to you very few people use or need them but the 35 1.4 is one of Canon's most popular primes.
Granted, but how many of those do they sell in comparison to the rest of their lens sales? In other words, what % of lens sales are these lenses compared to all primes and then compared to zooms?
Remember also, we are talking Nikon ... Nikon fell from its #1 spot to #2 and is working to catch up. You don't catch up by going after nitch lenses like a 24mm f/1.4. You catch up by going after lens right where 99% of the population wants it. An 18-200 for the consumers and a 24-70 & 70-200 for the pros. That's how you catch back up. I did not say that Nikon won't ever upgrade the WA or remake an f/1.4 WA, just that it is LOW on the priority list.
Oct 09, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
dinoadventures wrote:
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.
, very true, but is there enough profit in it given the limited resources to do R&D as well as production?
the Nikkor 28/1.4 was always incredibly hard to find even when it was in production because Nikon made them so slowly. hard to get doesn't mean anything.
Herb...
mjmetts wrote:
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.
Frankly if Nikon's not going to address the tricked-out WA prime market, the least they can do is work with (license protocols and/or motor/chip modules) a 3rd party mfg like Zeiss, Tokina etc. to address the market.
Something like Zeiss's ZF lenses, but Nikon-sanctioned and with AF.
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.
And I'm hardly complaining and yes I am happy with my Canon gear. Just stating fact and offering a situation in which someone else wasn't happy about the prime availability thing either.
And lastly: I'm trolling? What about the Nikon guy that started the thread? Why is someone's response that is inline with the thread topic trolling? WTF.
Enjoy your happy Nikon forum, sorry for offering my opinion....Show more →
Firstly you were not ridiculed. The responses were for the most part simply disagreement, which is allowed.
I think it was your general attitude that rankled. You posted a series of negative posts which seemed angry to the point of aggressive. You need fast wide primes, Nikon don't have them, Canon do. Good. So you use Canon. Good for you. I can't blame you.
But it works both ways. Nikon have some things Canon don't, and visa versa. Until recently Canon had some serious advantages over Nikon, but now Nikon have some seriously good additions assuming early reports are accurate.
Personally I am miffed that Nikon have no response to the Canon 24mm TSE lens. Or the Canon 45mm TSE lens. But I really like the Nikon wireless flash system. And the micro lenses are superb. As are some others too.
Qranc wrote:
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).
This Spring I dug out my 24mm F2.8 AFD lens used it for a day or two, then put it back in its resting place. The AF compromises the focussing as it has to be high geared to allow fast AF. That means that you cannot get a precise focus. Fortunately my 28mm F2.8 AIS lens has none of those problems, being a well made wide prime.
I'm just venting because I really would like to be shooting Nikon again one day but this is what bothers me.......
Nikon doesn't really make any lenses that Canon users are envious of. In fact are there any at all? None for me besides the superior flash system BUT when I was shooting Nikon I was envious of lenses like 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 28 1.8, 24-105 4 IS, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 (even though the Nikon 1.4 isn't that far off), 300 4 IS, 400 5.6 and all the TSE lenses.
That's a lot of stuff to be envious of! lol Besides at the time of high ISO performance and FF but now Nikon is going deliver their BIGGEST blow to the professional lineup of bodies that they have ever dealt canon.
The D3 is just such a perfect body that it's going to really make Canon think about what they are going to do in the future.
If Nikon could quicken up their updates to lenses then they would really gain some market share in the Pro market.
They already made some HUGE waves in the consumer market with the D40 line.
mjmetts wrote:
The 35L is often incredibly hard to find because it's such a hot seller.
The 35L also is on indefinite backorder quite often. It comes in waves. A guy at B&H who I trust said it was because of special lab-grown elements that it's often out of stock with no resupply date from Canon. I don't see anything too unusual (a ground aspherical is not rare) in the block diagram, personally, and having owned two of them and having neither outperform a 'lowly' Sigma 30 1.4 I can say I don't see what the problem is.
mjmetts wrote:
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.
It wasn't a complaint, merely a statement which I consider to be factual. Hey, we all have our wants but complaining about Nikon and it's business practices/decisions isn't going to make it happen. So the decision is yours, continue to use Nikon and either accept or you could continue to complain or get what you want/need from a manufacturer that makes it available to you. I shoot both but not because of any niche need like fast UW AFS lenses.
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?
No one is against it but personally I have yet to find the gear I tote the limiting factor.
I really like my Nikon gear. I just wish that Nikon would bring their lens line-up into the same range as the competition.
Well then you are at a disadvantage. I simply am realistic in realizing Nikon is neither Canon nor has Canon's resources. Not to mention their execs have to make decisions about the strength of the company as a whole, not a specialist group which makes up a small percent of the entire segment.
There is nothing wrong with having a wish/demand or want/need however realizing that your needs not being filled does not make the company a bad decision maker nor a bad company. They have their own reasons that I am willing to accept as long as I want to continue to own Nikon gear. Do I have want's? sure, I want a Zeiss like 80mm with t/s but hey .... I can still get the job done with what I have and that's bottom line for me. Maybe I am too complacent *shrug.
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.
I would never suggest you should buy a Canon, you can just as easily continue to use Nikon complain on Nikon forums and hope that one day maybe ... maybe Nikon will be like Canon.
AUnderwood wrote:
I'm just venting because I really would like to be shooting Nikon again one day but this is what bothers me.......
Nikon doesn't really make any lenses that Canon users are envious of. In fact are there any at all? None for me besides the superior flash system BUT when I was shooting Nikon I was envious of lenses like 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 28 1.8, 24-105 4 IS, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 (even though the Nikon 1.4 isn't that far off), 300 4 IS, 400 5.6 and all the TSE lenses.
That's a lot of stuff to be envious of! lol Besides at the time of high ISO performance and FF but now Nikon is going deliver their BIGGEST blow to the professional lineup of bodies that they have ever dealt canon.
The D3 is just such a perfect body that it's going to really make Canon think about what they are going to do in the future.
If Nikon could quicken up their updates to lenses then they would really gain some market share in the Pro market.
They already made some HUGE waves in the consumer market with the D40 line....Show more →
Out of your list I like the 85 1.2 but it's heavy and slow, you can't manually focus it in a practical sense. I find the Nikkor 85 1.4 very close in terms of IQ and at the same time far less $$$. That said the images of the 85 1.2 are great, really great, it's just once the images are processed and you line them up rarely can you say "oh yeah, I know which ones were the 85 1.2" meaning to say there are a lot of other lenses you can get great images but mostly, it's not just the lens It's as much the content of the image itself and how it's captured that counts.
The 24-105L is not all that, have used two different ones and quite frankly it doesn't impress but that's just me.
TSE yes I agree but the rest of the list just isn't a big issue to me. Nor was a 24x36 sensor or noise.
On the other hand I have clients also mention "Is there a reason these pictures have more contrast and vibrant colors?" and always "these" pictures are the Nikon shots in a shoot where we used both our Nikon and Canon gear.
Oct 09, 2007 at 04:38 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Nikon doesn't really make any lenses that Canon users are envious of. In fact are there any at all? None for me besides the superior flash system BUT when I was shooting Nikon I was envious of lenses like 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 28 1.8, 24-105 4 IS, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 (even though the Nikon 1.4 isn't that far off), 300 4 IS, 400 5.6 and all the TSE lenses.
....
Speak for yourself and not all Canon users please. I have heard plenty of desire from Canon users for a lightweight walk-around lens like the 18-200VR or a long tele zoom like the 200-400VR. How about a micro lens with VR. And I'm sure the new 14-24 for FX format will not create any desire at all. Does Canon offer a 1.7X TC? No! Nikon does! Throw that on top of a superior flash system and a camera like the D3 or D300 ... Gosh, Nikon is a good way to go.
OK, so what does Canon have today that Nikon does not have. Some fast WA primes, a WA and normal T/S and a MP-E and a couple of other lenses that are 1/3 stop faster or have IS. All nitch stuff.
That said, I like Canon P&S camers over Nikon any day!
Avi B wrote:
How about following salivating Nikkors:
18-200VR (DX)
200 f/2 VR
200-400 f/4 VR
yum?
...and consumer glass that doesn't suck, wide angles worth eye contact, a 17-55 2.8 that's actually built to its price point, and the nikon 85 PC focuses closer. i could go on for a while...
Andre Labonte wrote:
Speak for yourself and not all Canon users please. I have heard plenty of desire from Canon users for a lightweight walk-around lens like the 18-200VR or a long tele zoom like the 200-400VR. How about a micro lens with VR. And I'm sure the new 14-24 for FX format will not create any desire at all. Does Canon offer a 1.7X TC? No! Nikon does! Throw that on top of a superior flash system and a camera like the D3 or D300 ... Gosh, Nikon is a good way to go.
OK, so what does Canon have today that Nikon does not have. Some fast WA primes, a WA and normal T/S and a MP-E and a couple of other lenses that are 1/3 stop faster or have IS. All nitch stuff.
That said, I like Canon P&S camers over Nikon any day!
You are talking for consumers when talking about the 18-200, I am talking about the PRO market. No pro is envious of the 18-200, sorry but no....
200-400 VR, yeah very nice lens but I don't see it to be a huge hole in the system since they have primes that are faster with IS thru that whole lineup. So not a huge need there BUT it's big for Nikon users because they don't have any other tele with VR at that range.
1.7X TC? Who cares With 1.5 and 2.0 who cares
14-24 Sorry but I'll take the 16-35 and it's extra range or at least call it even.
Wide angle primes are a niche because I am talking about the market uses them, a pro market. Consumers could care less about those.
I'm not putting down the whole Nikon market I was just venting about what I, ME what I don't like about Nikon's lens choices.
Again I would love to go back to Nikon and the D3 is a move in the right direction BUT they are laking what a lot of pros are wanting with either long glass with IS or VR and wide angle primes that are fast.
People who don't need high ISO use or the above lenses are not sports shooters or PJ's which is a market that Canon has excelled at as of late but that's a whole other discussion.
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.
, very true, but is there enough profit in it given the limited resources to do R&D as well as production?
Throw that on top of a superior flash system and a camera like the D3 or D300 ... Gosh, Nikon is a good way to go.