New rumour - June - 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

Aaron Macomber
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #1 · New rumour - June

Yakim Peled wrote:
pdxmac wrote:
I wish they would put some effort into a DX UWA lens.. the 12-24mm is showing its age and limitations

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.

I'd call that a limitation!

Apr 30, 2008 at 10:23 PM

binary visions
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #2 · New rumour - June

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!

Apr 30, 2008 at 11:38 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · New rumour - June

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.

Do keep hoping ... I hope you get your wish.

Edited on May 01, 2008 at 12:32 AM

May 01, 2008 at 12:32 AM

tuan151
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #4 · New rumour - June

Here is what I would like to see for now:

50 1.4 AF-S
85 f2 AF-S VR
70-200 F4 VR

Thats all I would need for now.

May 01, 2008 at 12:35 AM

General Tso
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #5 · New rumour - June

I think the prime lenses are the ones in dire need of an upgrade

coming from canonland, the USM primes are really quick and well built. Nikon needs to introduce AF-S for ALL their primes.

particulary:

50mm F/1.4 AF-S
85mm F/1.4 AF-S or 85mm F/1.2 AF-S (canon's 85L-II is just awesome)
35 F/1.4 AF-S
28 F/1.4 AF-S

of course 17-55mm VR

Edited on May 01, 2008 at 12:48 AM

May 01, 2008 at 12:46 AM

Avi B
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #6 · New rumour - June

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

May 01, 2008 at 01:52 AM

dinoadventures
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #7 · New rumour - June

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.

May 01, 2008 at 02:16 AM

penghai
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #8 · New rumour - June

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.

Eric.

May 01, 2008 at 05:36 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #9 · New rumour - June

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.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

May 01, 2008 at 06:47 AM

Radiohead
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #10 · New rumour - June

Nikon is screaming out for fast, AF-S primes at 24, 35, 50, 85 and 135mm IMO. Particularly at 50mm and below.

May 01, 2008 at 07:15 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #11 · New rumour - June

pdxmac wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
pdxmac wrote:
I wish they would put some effort into a DX UWA lens.. the 12-24mm is showing its age and limitations

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.

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 07:15 AM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #12 · New rumour - June

penghai wrote:
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.

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.

Edited on May 01, 2008 at 03:09 PM

May 01, 2008 at 03:04 PM

mawz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #13 · New rumour - June

May 01, 2008 at 03:13 PM

mawz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #14 · New rumour - June

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.

May 01, 2008 at 03:15 PM

Radiohead
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #15 · New rumour - June

Please let's see a 35/1.4 AF-S

May 01, 2008 at 03:28 PM

mawz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #16 · New rumour - June

Radiohead wrote:
Please let's see a 35/1.4 AF-S

Or even a 35mm f1.2 ;-) Voightlander makes one, sadly only in M mount.

May 01, 2008 at 03:50 PM

Radiohead
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #17 · New rumour - June

Just something better than the very average 35/2 AF-D.....anything!

May 01, 2008 at 03:52 PM

Roger Mattos
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #18 · New rumour - June

mawz wrote:
Radiohead wrote:
Please let's see a 35/1.4 AF-S

Or even a 35mm f1.2 ;-) Voightlander makes one, sadly only in M mount.

I like my MF 35 f1.4

May 01, 2008 at 05:06 PM

DragonflyDM
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #19 · New rumour - June

I am still waiting for my 14mm-400mm f/1.2 AFS VR III for under $2,500.

I would settle for a 85mm f/1.2 like Canon has, or a 105mm f/1.8 VR.

Edited on May 01, 2008 at 05:26 PM

May 01, 2008 at 05:25 PM

Avi B
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #20 · New rumour - June

mawz wrote:
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.

VR would add even more size and cost to the lens. That's about the very last lens I would expect for Nikon to "update", as it works very well (aside from flare into sun/bright light sources) and is built like a tank.

I do hope that Nikon updates the sub-100mm prime lenses with AFS, and perhaps VR for the 85 range. I also hope that they put out a AFS 300 F4 with VR.

May 01, 2008 at 05:34 PM

Joe Marques
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #21 · New rumour - June

Andre Labonte wrote:
penghai wrote:
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.

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)

The real value of the 400 5.6 is AF speed and hand hold ability. It might be the same size as the 80-400 but it is more narrow and thus easier to handle (much like the nikon 24-70 vs. 28-70). And the AF performance of the 400 prime is blazing compared to the zoom in the canon world. Nikon would probably be similar.

May 01, 2008 at 06:31 PM

fpnunes
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #22 · New rumour - June

Avi B wrote:

There is no way they are putting out a 17-55 VR. Sorry.

I sure hope not! The UPS just dropped mine off about 2 hours ago and I am dying to get home and try it.

Edited on May 01, 2008 at 06:36 PM

May 01, 2008 at 06:34 PM

fpnunes
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #23 · New rumour - June

Oh, and I'll take a 300 f4 VR in a hot Nebraska minute. Couple with a 1.4 tele and my D300 and I'll have the perfect youth soccer/baseball setup!!!

Sign me up.

Edited on May 01, 2008 at 06:38 PM

May 01, 2008 at 06:38 PM

dasams
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #24 · New rumour - June

Yakim Peled wrote:
400/5.6 AFS VR.
200/4 Micro AFS VR.

These are the two lenses that would get my $. dave

May 01, 2008 at 06:43 PM

mawz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #25 · New rumour - June

Roger Mattos wrote:
mawz wrote:
Radiohead wrote:
Please let's see a 35/1.4 AF-S

Or even a 35mm f1.2 ;-) Voightlander makes one, sadly only in M mount.

I like my MF 35 f1.4

While I like that lens as well, it's simply not comparable in performance to the other 35mm f1.4's currently available (The Canon L, Sony G, Leica R and the now-discontinued Zeiss in CY mount all outperform the ancient Nikkor design at wide apertures). Frankly, if I was going to buy a 35mm today, I'd get the Zeiss ZF 35/2 which is a better performer at wide apertures.

I'd love a modern 35/1.4, even if it was AI-S or AI-P (c'mon Zeiss, give us a ZF 35/1.4).

May 01, 2008 at 07:36 PM


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