French prediction - FM Forums

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1

3 end

Bill Hollinger
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #1 · French prediction

louis fusco wrote:
bill any idea when the 80-400 will be announced?

I’m sorry Louis, but I only “know” what he told me, and no time frame was mentioned. I also would like to know for sure if a replacement is really in the works, and when we might be able to buy it.

Bill

Jan 03, 2008 at 11:39 PM

ReyGay
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #2 · French prediction

lol 50mm f1.4 AFS

...there's a very small (or neglible) market for that

. If Nikon wants a breakthrough, they have to drop the price of the D3 to US$1000

.

My Flickr Gallery
My Nikonians gallery

ReyGay - View my most interesting photos on Flickriver

»»»» ®eyGay uses a Nikon D1 ««««
»»»»» " the cake is a lie..." «««««

Jan 03, 2008 at 11:49 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · French prediction

hmmm.....

The only lens that really peaks my interest is the 80-400. I have been very happy with my old version, but do like the idea of having AF-S.

I assume (hope) that you mean the summer Olympics is the anticipated due date, which would be before August 8.

Jan 03, 2008 at 11:55 PM

bcaslis
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #4 · French prediction

ReyGay wrote:
lol 50mm f1.4 AFS

...there's a very small (or neglible) market for that

. If Nikon wants a breakthrough, they have to drop the price of the D3 to US$1000

.

I'd buy a 50mm f1.4 AFS in a heartbeat. Full frame is made for 50mm!

Jan 04, 2008 at 12:00 AM

camerapapi
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #5 · French prediction

I am not a sport or wildlife photographer but I have encountered lots of wildlife during my landscape photography and many times I missed the shot because I did not have the right lens. I bought a used 80-400 VR lens last year.
This "old" lens is very sharp even wide open at 400mm (my opinion) and it serves me well. I wish the new version comes with AF-S. The old version hunts often simply because its AF, driven by a screw, cannot cope very well with the large torque required from a short to a long distance range. I am happy with its VR so I cannot even imagine how much improved the new VR will be.
As the new lens begins its debut the old lens will most probably sell for a bargain price.
If optically the new lens is superior to this one, we are heading for a treat and the 16-85 will make happy those that cannot afford the 18-55.
Thank you Guy for the valuable information.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

Jan 04, 2008 at 12:24 AM

nikt
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #6 · French prediction

This will be interesting, that's for sure.

Jan 04, 2008 at 02:26 AM

Kit Laughlin
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #7 · French prediction

I would be interested in the 85/2 VR, for sure. The DOF at ƒ1.4 is paper thin anyway, and for portraits pretty much unusable, IMHO. I usually stop down to ƒ2.8—if you fill the frame, or tight head and shoulders, the OOF areas with an 85 at ƒ2 will be lovely. If it is razor sharp wide open (as an old AF 85/2 lens was my main money earner in film days) you won't miss the bulk of the ƒ1.4 version at all. YMMV.

Jan 04, 2008 at 08:33 AM

morphez
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #8 · French prediction

Oh this would be great...probably 85/2 VR is to replace 85/1.8D so probably they keep the replacement for 85/1.4 for next year.

Jan 04, 2008 at 11:07 AM

david creed
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #9 · French prediction

A PC Nikkor AFS 28 mm f/2,8, that would be a worlds first wouldn't it?
The first autofocus PC lens as far as I know, actually this addition makes me a bit sceptical of the lists validity.
Not that I would knock it back, if it was tilt as well as shift it would really suit me well, still auto focus on this style of lens may be a waste even if it was only usable unshifted.

Cheers,
Creedy

Jan 04, 2008 at 11:21 AM

gugs
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #10 · French prediction

david creed wrote:
A PC Nikkor AFS 28 mm f/2,8, that would be a worlds first wouldn't it?
The first autofocus PC lens as far as I know, actually this addition makes me a bit sceptical of the lists validity.
Not that I would knock it back, if it was tilt as well as shift it would really suit me well, still auto focus on this style of lens may be a waste even if it was only usable unshifted.

Cheers,
Creedy

I have to agree about the PC lens. I just "cut and pasted" the list and I think this is a mistake. But on the other hand I have seen other sources confirming the first three... and because of the track record of the source I would bet that this is 90% reliable.
Only the future will tell...

Guy

Jan 04, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Marco
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #11 · French prediction

bcaslis wrote
I'd buy a 50mm f1.4 AFS in a heartbeat. Full frame is made for 50mm!

I never liked 50mm focal lenghts on film/full frame...
But I do love 35mm FL, so I'd buy a 35/1.4 AFS providing they make it rather compact like the AIS version.

Anyway I can't see why they should update the 70-200/2.8 VR.
A new f/4 version ? Absolutely.
A longer/slower 80-400/4-5.6 AFS VR ? I'd probably buy it the day after.

But upgrading a pro lens (which already has AFS and VR) introduced only few years ago ? Realistically I don't think so.

Jan 04, 2008 at 02:35 PM

nikonafs
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #12 · French prediction

They update the 70/80-200 every 5-ish years though, and the 70-200 VR was introduced in 2003. That's 5 years ago.
Some users are reporting vignetting with the 70-200 on the D3. I have been shooting that combo a fair bit and really haven't noticed it, but if that is a problem, they may as well update it. The VR upgrade to VR-II wouldn't be bad, and nano crystal coat would really help with the lens' propensity to flare, which I regard as its main weakness. If they improve wide aperture sharpness, then even better.

Jan 06, 2008 at 06:21 PM

Jorgen Udvang
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #13 · French prediction

85/2 AF-S VR sounds sweet. Add a TC, a D40X, a Sigma 30/1.4 and the new Tokina 11-16/2.8, and I believe I have a travel kit.

Jan 06, 2008 at 07:14 PM

hobbes
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #14 · French prediction

Does anyone know how much a premium Nikon tends to price their lens if say a new 70-200 f/2.8 were to come out? Would they be about the same price as the current model or more? I know it's unrelated but with computer like Apple, prices tend to stay the same but buyers get the benefit of the newer technology. Not sure if this applies with lens, but at least with the D300 that seemed to hold true over when the D200 was released. What do you think? I may see a new lens in the future...

Jan 07, 2008 at 04:51 AM

Pavel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #15 · French prediction

In the past nikon has not been shy with raising prices - in fact you can always count on it so my guess for a 70-200 would be in the $2200 range.

I'm very happy that nikon is not going for specmanship. THe f2.0 is an advantage in my book.
THe price will be about 1/3 of what a F 1.4 would be if you judge by todays pricing model and who the heck wants to carry around the much larger, much heavier, much more "look at me" lens? The iso performance of any of the last few years cameras obviate the need for f 1.4 and with a 85 focus is very chancy. Just look at the portrait that jamach has put up .... focus missed pretty badly there ... and that seems to be the likelihood for most shots. Remember that autofocus in modern cameras is still not exact. It is more like a very close variable.

So the F2.0 if it comes to pass strikes me as a very sensible decision, kind of like the D3 where they didn't resort to keeping up with the Cano-johnses and kept the resolution a modest 12 megapixels.

Go Nikon.

Jan 07, 2008 at 07:31 AM

Rupert Stubbs
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #16 · French prediction

Pavel wrote:
I'm very happy that nikon is not going for specmanship. THe f2.0 is an advantage in my book.
THe price will be about 1/3 of what a F 1.4 would be if you judge by todays pricing model and who the heck wants to carry around the much larger, much heavier, much more "look at me" lens? The iso performance of any of the last few years cameras obviate the need for f 1.4 and with a 85 focus is very chancy. Just look at the portrait that jamach has put up .... focus missed pretty badly there ... and that seems to be the likelihood for most shots. Remember that autofocus in modern cameras is still not exact. It is more like a very close variable.

So the F2.0 if it comes to pass strikes me as a very sensible decision, kind of like the D3 where they didn't resort to keeping up with the Cano-johnses and kept the resolution a modest 12 megapixels.

Go Nikon.
If you've ever shot with the 85 1.4 you'll realise that there is a huge difference between that and the 1.8 wide open. And the D3 is made for wide open shooting, as the AF is good enough to make the most of shallow DOFs, and the high ISO allows you to take shots that you wouldn't even have contemplated before.

There is a reason that the 85 1.4 is famous. An f2 VR version sounds like a cheap-ish consumer lens, not an update.

Jan 07, 2008 at 10:11 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #17 · French prediction

If Nikon release a 80--400 that is better than my excellent 100-400L IS I'll be more than interested in the D300 and if they release a 200 f/4 VR Macro I'll be even more interested. An 85 f/1.4 VR would be the icing on the cake.

Would the PC 28 f/2.8 be tilt-shift or just shift?

Jan 07, 2008 at 10:55 AM

Kit Laughlin
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #18 · French prediction

Rupert, I have owned and made money from the old non-AI 85/2 in film days, the AF 85/1.4 and the 85/1.8 in digital.

I disagree that there is a "huge difference" between ƒ1.4 and ƒ1.8 on these lenses. Most of the time, as a portrait shooter, you are at ƒ2.8 anyway, if not ƒ4, and the latter two lenses perform very similarly at these apertures. Any differences are minor, IMHO, and suitable foreground to background distances and composition render these aspects trivial. I agree with Pavel completely: a lighter (and less intimidating) lens with VR looks like a winner to me, and I plan on buying one if Nikon make it. ƒ2 is perfect.

And even the AF of the D3 is not spot on for portraiture, it is better than it was, I will agree—small enough AF points to focus, for example, on bottom eyelid or iris.

But I find myself using my eyes (and the DK-17M) to get the focus where I want it to be as often as shooting AF, so it's not there yet. I use the ZF 50/2 on the D300 and the 100/2 on the D3 for portraits regularly. YMMV, of course.

Edited on Jan 07, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Jan 07, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Rupert Stubbs
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #19 · French prediction

Kit - I know you feel strongly about this, but I heard you the first time...

My point is that there is already a lighter and less intimidating 85mm lens - the f1.8. If it is this version that is getting the f2 + VR treatment, then that would seem appropriate.

My contention is that this would still be more of a consumer lens, however much it may work for your style. There's a reason that people pay the significant penalty in cost, size and weight for fast primes. And frankly I'm not sure that sticking a smaller lens on a D3 will make it any the less intimidating - once that D3 'snicker-snack' shutter starts going, that's intimidating enough...

Jan 07, 2008 at 12:51 PM

DragonflyDM
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #20 · French prediction

I want a 300mm f/1.2 AFS VR!!!

Jan 07, 2008 at 09:00 PM

jbear
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #21 · French prediction

camerapapi wrote:
This "old" lens is very sharp even wide open at 400mm (my opinion) and it serves me well.

Haven't heard many people say that. I'd consider an AFS lens, but from what I've seen...better IQ at 400 in general would be appreciated from my perspective.

Edited on Jan 07, 2008 at 09:06 PM

Jan 07, 2008 at 09:05 PM

fscherz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #22 · French prediction

Why I would take a 85/2VR: Here is a D300-shot with my 105VR @ f3, ISO 1600, 1/10s handheld, 100%crop with LR NR+Sharpen...

Edited on Jan 07, 2008 at 09:14 PM

Jan 07, 2008 at 09:13 PM

slappomatt
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #23 · French prediction

I would take a 85 2.0 VR if the price was right. about 600 max. which It wouldnt be. it would be about 1000. so forget it. and I dont buy the D3 as being "made for wide open." thats a load. its made for whatever aperture you need. the larger sensor will give a shallower DOF then DX camera's so if anything its "made for being stopped down"

Jan 07, 2008 at 09:55 PM

gugs
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #24 · French prediction

I am not sure the 85 f2 (if confirmed) will be expensive. Nikon is investing in a lot a consumer lenses and wants to grow their market share. They reduced the cost of VR as seen in their recent introductions (55-200VR for example) and a consumer grade version should not be much more expensive than the current 85 1.8... looking at the performance of the 85 1.8, consumer grade definitely doesn't mean bad lens....

Guy

Jan 07, 2008 at 10:15 PM

SnaggS
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #25 · French prediction

Kit Laughlin wrote:
Any differences are minor, IMHO, and suitable foreground to background distances and composition render these aspects trivial.

And when there is a horrible fence or shed behind the user which you just want to wipe away.. then what? Sure for studio portraits f/2 is ok, but many use the f/1.4 outdoors in informal situations.

Daniel.

Jan 07, 2008 at 10:26 PM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 end