AUnderwood wrote:
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.
I don't see why anyone should care what you want. We don't have any special influence with nikon and it isn't like someone is holding a gun to your head, making you buy nikon. You've got canon, so be happy. If canon isn't making you happy, then the rest of your points ring rather hollow.
As for the fast, WA primes, just for the record, I'm not interested. I'd much rather see a 40-120 f/2 AF-S, than a whole bucket of primes. That would be the cat's meow on the d300 and I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
But, that's just my opinion about what I want and don't want.
I won't bother going into the things that I don't like about canon.
HerbChong wrote:
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.
So you subscribe to a service that gives production stats? And this service is confidential in some way? Aren't subscription services something a company would want to, you know, sell? And didn't you say earlier that your 1% was based on financial disclosures and your own math?
In any case, I have a hard time believing this 1% figure, and "trust me, I know people" doesn't exactly lend credence to your claim.
Last year Canon heralded their 30 millionth EF lens sold. By your 1% number, that means Canon has sold no more than 300,000 primes. I'll bet Canon has sold 300,000 50/1.8's, forget all other primes!
Getting back on topic, Nikon needs to either refresh their primes or build ALL their bodies to allow metering on AI-and-up lenses, and autofocus with screw lenses. AF-S is a nice feature to have, but losing metering on an AI-S lens or focus on an AF-D lens when using a D40x is a big drawback to the Nikon system for me. I'm considering a D3 and D40x to replace my 5D and 350D, and the inability to fully use almost any prime on the D40X is stupefying to me. Especially when I can meter and focus with EVERY EF lens on the Canon mount, and I can even meter with my old Olympus OM primes on any Canon body!
So mark me down as one who thinks Nikon has mostly neglected their primes and would do well to modernize their primes. Because I doubt they're going to un-cripple their low-end bodies.
Oct 09, 2007 at 06:35 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
AUnderwood wrote:
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.
But is sure seems like other people in this forum, myself included, who do care about the 18-200VR, the 200-400VR, the 200VR, the 1.7X TC etc. etc.
And that is the point ... Nikon is going after what the MARKET wants on average, including the pro market. Even among professionals, a 28mm f/2.8 and a 28mm PC are nitch specialty items that don't sell in large numbers and apparently aren't worth the effort of continuing to support as far as Nikon is concerned.
Speaking of wants, I want a 120-300 f/2.8 AF-S VR ... but you probably don't care!
Peace friend, I understand your frustration, but it looks like Canon cares about the fast WA lenses since they make them and Nikon does not ... for now.
Of course it's a drawback, the D40x wasn't intended for such a market that would use these lenses. You know that as well as I.
I really really have no idea why you would even consider.
The D40x was designed for soccer moms. If you want to use the Nikon line up, ENTIRE line up then get a one of the upper bodies and leave the D40x where it belongs. I find lens shopping for the 1D IIn annoying because I tried to match what I had in terms of Nikon lenses. Oh ... here is the perfect lens! Oh ... you can't mount it on the camera so where is the EF equivalent? what? there is none? Right then.
So mark me down as one who thinks Nikon has mostly neglected their primes and would do well to modernize their primes. Because I doubt they're going to un-cripple their low-end bodies....Show more →
Duly marked but I still don't get your point. You already have Canon, you want to shoot Nikon but don't like Nikon because they have neglected their lineup .... sooooo then .... ok.
I would just stick with Canon dood, seriously this is getting silly. If they don't even offer what is a need to you why even consider it?
I've waited 4 years to get serious about digital. Just sold my 4 x 5 and before that my Contax 645 system and my 10D and my EOS3. I am 9th on my nearest large city's only real camera shop for a D3 and 24/70. Within six months (God willing) I'll have a 70/200VR and within a year (") a 200/400 VR. I will get a teleconverter as well. Maybe I'll get a 'micro' lens one day and that will be the only prime I'll ever own.
I had a couple L lenses for my 10D. Too much hassle. I'm gambling that with the hoped for IQ of the D3 and the couple extra stops of higher iso as well as the quality of the new zooms I will never miss having prime lenses.
D'ya think maybe Nikon thinks some others of us are planning in like manner?
If you have not noticed, Nikon has a great new full frame camera out. From a marketing standpoint, you can not really expect Nikon to come out with awesome new primes optimized for a FF sensor before the camera now can you?
Think about this for a moment...Nikon has had at least 5 solid years if not longer to mull over the future of fast primes, I highly doubt with the likes of the 14-24, they will disappoint with future glass.
AUnderwood wrote:
One of the main reasons I won't go back to Nikon for a long time.
35mm 1.4 is one of my most used lenses easily.
There is NOTHING from Nikon that is like it. Sure there is if you want to use an old lens but I need something with fast AF and very very sharp wide open.
There are no fast wides from Nikon at all.
They need a 28mm replacement or better yet how about the same as Canon and go 24 1.4 and 35 1.4
I have the 24 1.4 & 35 1.4. Indeed, stellar reasons to go with Canon, that was not a hard decision to make. I am keeping them along with the 85L and a 5D for the time being.
But I also own the 28 F/2 AIS, 35 1.4 AIS and the 35 F/2 Zeiss ZF.
I recently ran the following tests with the lenses on my 5D.
I put the 28 AIS up against the 24L at F/2 and the 28 F/2 Nikon was awesome. It is better corrected from Coma and CA and was nearly as sharp as the 24L at F2. Of course, in terms of optical design, it is much harder to make a 24 1.4 than it is a 28 F/2, but the fact still stands, the 28 F/2 AIS is going to be a blast to use on the D3. It manually focuses *much* nicer than the 24L as well.
I just can't get the "Leica" mojo going on a Canon lens in terms of MF, something I expect from a pro lens.
The 35 1.4 blew me away at how good it is. It was just as good as the Canon 35L at nearly everything except at 1.4 and flare. By F2, the Canon was only a tad better in the corners and the color and bokeh were nearly identical. The contrast on the 35L was a bit better.
Of course the AF on the L's is far better, but I don't use that all the time. Pretty sure Nikon will fill these gaps with AFS in less than a year.
Oh, and by the way, the Zeiss 35 was better than the 35 AIS or the 35L. Wide open it was considerably better than either lens set one stop down at F/2.
Just thought you might like a different opinion from a Canon and Nikon user...:-).
I am one who has always liked primes and am happy to make the sacrifices in versatility to play with my little passion. That said, who the heck is under the impression that zooms now take a back seat to primes in quality. Sometimes yes, but often no. Now the speed thing ... yeah, I'm frustrated. I'd love to have the 105 2.0DC in AF-s. Why ... well, just because. It really won't be any degree faster. Not any measurable degree anyways.
But I do, when I plunk down $1000 on a lens like to have the latest and greatest technology.
However, I just hope that those gents here that want newly designed primes don't start to complain that the prices have gone up. The old 105 is about $1000 so the new will probably be about $1600. Thats ok, thats the way it goes with amortizing tooling and all those other costs. Just don't piss me off though, ok and start to complain about the costs. I don't want to hear at that point how the old lens performance was as good as the new and "gasp" the new one costs more - because I'm starting to worry that some of the jokers here just like to complain rather than use the tools.
But yeah, give me some new primes along with that moon. And hurry up. Sheesh .. Nikon never gets anything new out the door. How am I supposed to get better pictures?
I don't really care about any prime lenses. In fact I'll probably purchase the new 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 F2.8 and a 70-200 F2.8 VR. The only primes I like are the macros, otherwise zooms are much easier to frame the photo. Plus you only need 3 lenses for full 14-200 F2.8 range.
Zachary Seib wrote:
I don't really care about any prime lenses. In fact I'll probably purchase the new 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 F2.8 and a 70-200 F2.8 VR. The only primes I like are the macros, otherwise zooms are much easier to frame the photo. Plus you only need 3 lenses for full 14-200 F2.8 range.
Zoom lenses are not there to cover every mm and help you frame (although they can be used to that extent for a bit), they are there to give you perspective control. Try this: use your zooms to take a photo framed the same at 20mm and at 70mm. You'll have to walk a bit to get the framing right but check and compare the results. Not the same now, is it?
I'll just say you should try shooting with a prime at f/1.4 or f/2 once. You might like it. It has nothing to do with shutter speeds and high ISO. Just try f/1.4 and let us know if your 3 zooms that cover 14-200mm at f/2.8 can do that.
I'm late to the party. What an interesting read, love a lively debate.
My 2 peso's. The sales figures that I know ( I mean, our own actal sales figures) would suggest that for every 800 DSLR cameras sold, one prime lens will be sold (typically a 50/1.8). Most of those sales are for the Nikon D40x and Canon 400D twin lens kits. Then the 40D and D80's, D200, and the occasional 5D.
Nikon and Canon may have sold 30 and 40 million lenses, but they don't sell the primes in large numbers. 1%.... as in 1 prime in every 100 cameras (with kit lens) sold.... yeah, keep going.
I have a need for a 24 mm (or wider) f1.4 lens. I use the 5D combo for this shot. Then I go back to the D200 as quick as I can (or at least I did). Sure would love to seea couple more fast primes.
But Kerry and I and others have mentioned it, give us some more good prime and zoom stuff specifically for the DX format. I'm yet to fully see the heralded advantages of DX (smaller lenses for a particular focal length). Yes, I live in a dream world. Thats ok, Claudia is here and you're not invited!
It's been said more times than Nikon has sold lenses... AF-S. The 85 1.4 could sure do with it. There are some Nikon D40 series users who wouldn't mind being able to use a nice little 50mm 1.8 lens on their camera.
I really don't buy the 1% figure. I really doubt it that Canon sold only 300,000 prime lenses. First of all, every wedding and portrait photographer I know/seen/heard of/read about owns at least something like a 85/1.8, if not a 85L. If you add that plus the number of white lenses on the sides of football games and the olympics I bet you get much more than the 300,000 number
Oct 10, 2007 at 06:05 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
panos.v wrote:
I really don't buy the 1% figure. I really doubt it that Canon sold only 300,000 prime lenses. First of all, every wedding and portrait photographer I know/seen/heard of/read about owns at least something like a 85/1.8, if not a 85L. If you add that plus the number of white lenses on the sides of football games and the olympics I bet you get much more than the 300,000 number
Based on Nik's #'s it hard NOT to buy the 1% figure. And rember that you are talking about every wedding and portrait photographer you know/seen/hear of/read about ... BIG deal, they are professionals who make up less than 1% of the people who buy DSLRs!!!
This is the point that people seem to be missing. Yes, profesionals and avid ametures want fast glass but the average consumer does NOT. However, the average consumer outnumbers the professionals by huge numbers and half or more of the avid ametures cannot afford what they desire. Nikon and Canon still cater to the pro & avid ameture markets for two reasons:
-- The free advertising both in visibility and word-of-mouth advice (we go to pros or avid ametures to get advice on what to get)
-- Disporportionate per-capita spending. While the consumer may spend up to $1K, the average avid ameture spends anywhere from 2x to 10x that amount and pros can spend even more.
However, even though pros and advid ametures spend a lot more per capita, they still, on average, want their f/2.8 zoom or the tele prime over the fast apeture WA. It's an issue of numbers; small numbers of individuals who will actually buy these fast WA lenses which only further drives up the cost due to the need to recover development costs.
Please, don't get me wrong. I like the 75-85mm FX format perspective and would love to see a 50mm or 55mm f/1.2 AF-S VR lens, but I also know it is not likely to happen. I would also love to see a 20mm tilt/shift, and I also know it is not likely to happen. Finally, even if either of these lenses DO happen, due to the small #s that Nikon will end up selling, the price will be sky high so that Nikon can recover the developent costs ... that only makes it less likley I will get one even though I want one. (Pavel, please don't kill me )
i know of 9 people including me who use dslr's 3 of us have primes. one guy has the 60 macro for underwater, another shares a 50 1.8 with his gf. and i've got... err, 5 of them. and 4 zoom (one borrowed)
Andre Labonte wrote:
Based on Nik's #'s it hard NOT to buy the 1% figure.
My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek! I mean, there are at least a few tens of thousands white Ls on the sidelines of every major international sporting event.
People are confusing something like FM, an enthusiast photography website, to everyone else.The people that hang out here, probably do know lots of others that have primes. I'm also sure many more primes were sold in the past especially with film.
Thing is, I know thousands of people (yes, tongue-in-cheek) who have a dSLR and most of them only have the twin kit they bought with the camera..... and happily so too!
There's also a difference (which I wouldn't claim to know anything about) between old sales numbers, new sales figures, trends, long time users, new users, pro's and mums and dads.
And I'm not bagging any of peoples points... just telling you what I know now.
Those who buy a new slr, and who buy at the low end such as D40's rebels and such ... they tend to buy with the kit zoom lens and then perhaps buy one more zoom lens. I'd say that these folks must be a good 20 percent of the population. Not much higher than that as some would like to suggest.
Those that buy mid level cameras like the D80, D200 or the 20D and such, even if they are soccer mums buy at least one or two primes somewhere down the road. Primes are still selling well and the only things that has happened is that zooms now are not the red-headed stepchildren that they used to be. Zooms now sell better than primes for sure, but when you get to anyone who is interested in photography, even the soccer mom - they start to buy lenses slowly and then it is not long before they discover that primes have a place and are supperior in several factors to zooms. Those are the folks that keep the market going. The non-photo enthusiasts buy a body, and use the kit lens and perhaps one more. THen they don't buy a thing for ten years.
The enthusiasts keep the companies afloat far more than their body purchase percentages would suggest. They buy a body, perhaps with a kit lens. They want to improve their picture taking abilitiies. So they look around, THey take classes, talk to photo enthusiasts or join places like FM. VERY quickly they see the culture that leads them to lens purchases. Lenses are where the money is for Companies ... and as soon as they turn into any kind of enthusiasts ... they soon get at least one prime.
Don't go assuming that enthusiasts are a small part of the over all schema. THey are the bulk. Just think about it. You have to have more than a tini interest in photography to take the crazy route to an slr over that of a point and shoot.
In my non-photography circles I'm constantly amazed by how so many people want to learn about photography, how many consider themselves budding photographers. So many want to seek advice and when they do, only a rank newbie would tell someone that zooms are all you need. Sorry that is just dumb, like saying ... you don't ever need flash. Sure, its true ... but what a shame that some dolts believe in limiting themselves that way.
F 2.8 is bearable, but only fast for a zoom.
If you want to learn, I mean really learn the nuances of a lens, a few years with a prime may start to get you there, but forget ever really predicting your zoom. Too many factors.
I know, its no longer popular to learn the equipment, after all the trend is to buy a new body every chance and a few zooms so you don't have to think much and walk less.
But for those that want to make photography something to control and take to the highest levels of personal satisfaction - primes are still, and always will be, necessary and desirable components in our bags. So, yeah, Nikon ... if you build them ... we will do our part.
given how horribly so many Canon lenses flare, i don't see why anyone really wants them. i also don't see why so many Nikon lenses flare as much as they do.
Herb...
AUnderwood wrote:
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 completely ignores the change in market from nearly all primes when the EOS mount was introduced to nearly all zooms now. ignore reality all you want. i can tell you never bothered actually looking.
Herb...
CKrueger wrote:
Last year Canon heralded their 30 millionth EF lens sold. By your 1% number, that means Canon has sold no more than 300,000 primes. I'll bet Canon has sold 300,000 50/1.8's, forget all other primes!
based on Nikon's body production figures, the D40/x pair account for well over 50% of body sales. Canon's figures are even more skewed toward the low end, and both Sony and Pentax are basically entry to mid level cameras at best.
i just did some counting of my own lenses. i own 42 lenses of any real practical use. 11 are zooms. i'm about to add to that by getting a Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 today.
Herb...
Pavel wrote:
Those who buy a new slr, and who buy at the low end such as D40's rebels and such ... they tend to buy with the kit zoom lens and then perhaps buy one more zoom lens. I'd say that these folks must be a good 20 percent of the population.
I don't 