The D3X with a Sony sensor is probable. It mirrors what they did with the D2H/D2X. D2H was a Nikon designed, Sony fabbed sensor (LBCAST) and the D2X was a Sony sensor with some Nikon tweaks.
diggitydawg510 wrote:
Does it have to be Nikon? I have the Sigma 50-150 (newest version) and this lens ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Super fast focus w/ the D300, sharp, great colors, bokeh. $740 at amazon, w/ no tax, join the free 30day trial of amazon prime and get free 2 day shipping, or $4 next day air.
sigma never worked for me. glad you are happy with yours but already reviews prove for me that i should not try again.
some pics to post?
I a poor amateur, and a D90 will make me happy so far Nikon does not remove too much features from its brother, aka D300.
otherwise I will end up with a D200 to replace my good old D70.
regarding lenses, I would love a 200-400 F5.6 VRII, dedicated to amateur, so a not a Pro lense, but giving enough zooming feature for me. The current 80-400 VR is simply not so good, even for an amateur (70-300 VR is better).
By the way, mid june upgrade makes sense with the current discount period of D80 ending up June 14th in Europe .... last week, I saw a D80 + 35-135 for less than 700€...
Apr 30, 2008 at 03:05 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Based on the reviews I have seen from Bjorn R. and M. Webber, the 200-400VR is every bit as good as the primes from an IQ point of view. If it can match up with the f/2.8 primes, it will just fine against an f/4 prime. I'm sure the prime lovers and pixel peepers will disagree.
You may have a point regarding the size and weight, but you are in the minority in general; most people will take the zoom over the prime. I just don't see Nikon making a 400 f/4 prime as long as the 200-400VR is in production. Feel free to keep hoping!
As for a 400 f/5.6, here again, the 80-400 already covers it. You are not going to do much better for the money in terms of IQ (again, see M. Webber's review). The 80-400 is surprisingly compact and you are not doing to save much by going to a prime ... in fact, the zoom will be smaller when zoomed to the 80mm end. What you WILL see is an updated 80-400VR with AFS. As long as that lens exists, I just don't see Nikon making a 400 f/5.6. Again, feel free to keep hoping!
Note: I did not say it would not be nice to have such lenses, I just don't see Nikon doing it.
binary visions wrote:
Andre, Pavel... I don't want the weight of the zoom, nor the cost. When you spend your entire time at the long end of the zoom, you are simply paying for weight, complexity, and inferior image quality (the 200-400 is clearly excellent, mind you, but, all things equal, a prime will deliver better quality).
The Canon lens is significantly more expensive than a normal 400mm f/4 would be, due to the DO design which makes it a lot smaller and lighter. Good qualities, for sure, but at increased cost. Consider the 70-300 DO at a whopping $1,200... for a f/4.5-5.6 lens! Nikon's is less than half the cost.
I think there is a good market for such a lens. Wildlife on a budget. The 300mm f/4 with 1.4x teleconverter is excellent, if 400mm is your stopping point. You can put a 1.4x on the 400mm, though, and get to 560mm or a 1.7x and get to 680mm. Loss of light for sure, but such are the sacrifices for not dropping $5k+ on a lens. ...Show more →
Yakim Peled wrote:
1. Which limitations? As far as I know it is one of the best UWA, if not the best.
2. There's always the 10.5/2.8.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Why does everyone always suggest the 10.5 as a wide angle.. Not that it's completely useless, but as a landscape shooter who uses Grads, it pretty much is. Not to mention that you cannot compose your image through the viewfinder very accurately.
It sure would be nice to have a 10-??mm zoom that could compete with canons 10-22mm. As far as the 12-24mm NIKKOR is concerned, the Tokina version is sharper at half the price.
binary visions wrote:
Yeah, I certainly see your points Andre.
I disagree with some of them, but I see where you're coming from
I'm gonna keep hoping!
It would be a boring world if people agreed on everything! Different needs for different people is what drives the market and choice. I think it's a great thing and would love to see everyone have exactly what they want ... but the reality is, all companies have to limit their focus and they tend to go where the $$$ is.
i'll believe this round of rumours up till the 400 5.6. though i'd like to see it, i don't see it happening.
that said, my visa would indubitably dislodge itself from my wallet for that 300 f/4 VR.
of course i would like to see updated AF-S short primes but i think we'd probably see another 18-xx zoom before they get around to it oh well, there's always that sigma 50 that's coming out. i want a 35 1.4 and 24 1.4 AF-S but in the meantime the Sigma 20 and 30 holds me over great. at least the third parties get it.
Andre Labonte wrote:
As for a 400 f/5.6 at a $1000-$1200 price point, I could see that, but it makes more sence to get the 300 f/4 and use the 1.4x TC which gives great results OR get the 80-400VR which already gives you 400mm f/5.6. Thus, I think Nikon will update the 80-400VR and never bother with a 400mm f/5.6 prime.
I don't know whether Nikon will do. But in the Canon land where I used to be, Canon 400 f5.6 is probably the most recommended lens for hand-hold bird-in-flight shots. It beats all the more expensive siblings, including 100-400 IS, 300 f4 IS + TC, and Canon 400 f4 DO in sharpness, light weight, fast focus.
I'd think 400 f5.6 is for bird shooters. Giving the weight of Nikon 200-400, the slowness of 80-400, I think there is more than enough room for the 400 f5.6.
He said that all these lenses are "in the pipe" i.e. ready for a close launch. He did not say all will be announced in June and released immediately. I think I should have said so in the beginning. Sorry.
He also commented that while some lenses are innovative like the 105/2.8 VR, 200/2 VR and 200-400/4 VR, others are just "me too" lenses. Among those he lists all the newly released telephoto VR lenses (if Canon has, we muse have one as well) and the alleged 300/4 VR.
pdxmac wrote:
Why does everyone always suggest the 10.5 as a wide angle.. Not that it's completely useless, but as a landscape shooter who uses Grads, it pretty much is. Not to mention that you cannot compose your image through the viewfinder very accurately.
It sure would be nice to have a 10-??mm zoom that could compete with canons 10-22mm. As far as the 12-24mm NIKKOR is concerned, the Tokina version is sharper at half the price.
I'd call that a limitation!
1. The 10.5/2.8 is a valid option. You are right that it does not fit all needs as a rectilinear lens but it another option to consider, with its unique strengths and weaknesses.
2. The Nikon is build better than the Tokina, has less CA, handles flare much better, is as sharp (according to several tests and user reviews) and focuses faster. Is that worth the added price? Well, that is a subjective question.
3. As a Canon shooter and as a 10-22 owner I must confess that I'd much rather have the extra build quality and the constant aperture over the 10mm option.
4. There are several other lenses coming but not soon. One of them is a rectilinear 9.5/2.8 and the another is a circular fish-eye 8/2.8. Prices, of course, will be above 1K$.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
May 01, 2008 at 02:15 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
penghai wrote:
I don't know whether Nikon will do. But in the Canon land where I used to be, Canon 400 f5.6 is probably the most recommended lens for hand-hold bird-in-flight shots. It beats all the more expensive siblings, including 100-400 IS, 300 f4 IS + TC, and Canon 400 f4 DO in sharpness, light weight, fast focus.
I'd think 400 f5.6 is for bird shooters. Giving the weight of Nikon 200-400, the slowness of 80-400, I think there is more than enough room for the 400 f5.6.
Eric.
Actually this is not correct. The 100-400 IS is about the same weight as the 400mm f/5.6 and is 3" shorter!!! You may be correct on the IQ issue, but likely that is a difference that will only be seen if pixel peeping. The Nikon 80-400 performance is excellent @ 400mm (again, read the reviews I recomended)
Again, I'm not saying it would not be nice for some people to have, but I just don't see Nikon doing it given the other options Nikon provides people.
Now, a 600mm f/5.6 would be cool as at that focal length, there are no other options.
pdxmac wrote:
Why does everyone always suggest the 10.5 as a wide angle.. Not that it's completely useless, but as a landscape shooter who uses Grads, it pretty much is. Not to mention that you cannot compose your image through the viewfinder very accurately.
It sure would be nice to have a 10-??mm zoom that could compete with canons 10-22mm. As far as the 12-24mm NIKKOR is concerned, the Tokina version is sharper at half the price.
I'd call that a limitation!
And the Sigma 10-20 is at least as good as the Canon for half the price (and wider than the Canon on a DX body, 15mme vs 16mm-e due to the differing crop).
Avi B wrote:
There is no way they are putting out a 17-55 VR. Sorry.
The Nikon primes are pretty fast focussing on the pro bodies, it's just that they're noisy. I would like to see AFS versions of sub-100mm primes tho
Why not? Canon already makes a 17-55 f2.8 IS and the 17-55DX could use an update with nano-coating to solve its flare issues. VR would make the update a fair bit more compelling.
It would be a boring world if people agreed on everything! Different needs for different people is what drives the market and choice. I think it's a great thing and would love to see everyone have exactly what they want ... but the reality is, all companies have to limit their focus and they tend to go where the $$$ is. 