mawz wrote:
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.
Andre Labonte wrote:
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.
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).
Avi B wrote:
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.
The Canon 17-55 IS is smaller and cheaper than the Nikon, but offers IS. I see no reason why Nikon couldn't build a 17-55 VR on the same basic footprint with no more than a minor increase in cost.
If they are updating the 85 f1.4 i sure hope they don't mess up and take away the magic about the lens. It worries me that they'll try to cram AF-S and VR in to that lens and end up having to change the optical formulae entirly.
Looking at the pro glass zooms that Nikon has realeased of late I'd hazard that they are all in the prime quality arena, thats my opinion anyway. So who needs primes?....bugger...!
I would prefer to see Nikon up their 105 f2.8 telephoto, fantastic portrait lens (optically) to a faster responding f2 AFS-ED model. That would be sweet on the D3 or D3x (when it comes out).
If they do update the 80-400 to AFS I will sell my 18-200 and buy the 16-85 and the updated 80-400. I sold my 80-400 and really liked the bokeh. I sold it to finance another hobby along with the 12-24.
If they do update the 80-400 to AFS I will sell my 18-200 and buy the 16-85 and the updated 80-400. I sold my 80-400 and really liked the bokeh. I sold it to finance another hobby along with the 12-24.
