FM'r TWoK and I recently came to the conclusion that, in our opinion, Nikon will never make another good lens. Good meaning a lens that we will enjoy and actually want to own.
Why is this?
The G lenses are all so flimsy, plastic, and lifeless, and have slower AF than their AF-D counterparts (at least in the shorter primes). They are also bigger and more expensive.
Yes, they have outstanding glass, QUIET focus, and will AF on all the newer (cheap) DSLR's, but i can't use them on my FE2 or F.
My 35/2 AF-D focuses closer and faster than the 35/1.8G DX does on a D90.
I will just keep buying AI(and pre-AI) and AF-D stuff.
So- with all that being said, are we the only ones that don't really have any hope for new Nikkors?
The 24-70 is a big chunk of glass that can stand up to plenty of abuse, should a given owner be okay with scuffing it up. Part of the issue is that the newer lenses capable of handling what you want are also expensive, and people tend to want to keep them spotless.
The 200/2 is a huge piece of glass that you could probably kill someone with. Actually, that probably goes for any number of lenses, particularly the 28-70, 24-70 and 70-200.
I think the 28-70 is one of Nikon's best lenses because of its super-compability. It works on just about every Nikon camera ever made, thanks to its aperture ring, but it has blazing focus speed.
i don't care about 2.8 pro zooms, as they are generally very boring lenses. Yeah they are great for "working" but not what i enjoy shooting. I'd much rather have some small primes.
The 200/2 is the lowest thing on my list of things i want. I'd rather have a 1998 Honda Civic EX for that kind of money.
Flimsy? I take it, then, that you've destroyed several and that you're not just thinking that anything not cut from a big chunk of metal automatically equals flimsy, right? Right?
Lifeless? I'm sorry, but my old lenses don't get up and walk around any more than my new ones do.
Bigger? More expensive? Yes: they have, as you admitted, outstanding glass. And they're new.
So, what you really have here is "plastic" (eh, not really, but for arguments sake okay, parts are rubber/polymers), slower AF and won't work on your old cameras.
Plastic I don't give as a good argument: that's based strictly on this reminiscing and whimsical feeling - in fact, most of these lenses are very sturdy and are mostly metal. Just because the focus rings are rubber or there are rubber/plastic parts to the lens doesn't automatically make it inferior. The slower AF is marginal, but a valid point, as is not working on your old cameras. So those two items, the first of which is utterly irrelevant to the future of the lenses since it's per-lens, mean Nikon will never make another good lens?
Well the 35 F2 is a more expensive lens than the 35 1.8, not to mention the 1.8 is a DX only lens, its not meant for film/FF bodies, that it works with them is just a plus. Its a 200 dollar prime built in similar fashion to the 50 1.8, which while decently built is not a tank by any stretch of the imagination. For the "pro" level of primes, well there aren't many out yet, though the 60 2.8 G is pretty rock solid as is the 105 macro. As for platics, I have 0 issue with them, hell lots of cars now use them for most everything, even engine parts.
What you and your extremely intelligent 'pal' have concluded is that no major camera maker will introduce another 'good' lens. That must be pretty depressing for you.
ISO1600 wrote:
FM'r TWoK and I recently came to the conclusion that, in our opinion, Nikon will never make another good lens.
I find this to be a pretty odd point of view and conclusion. Nikon today is making lenses that have more value per dollar spent than ever before. Plastic? Yes, many are. But so what? If you take care of the gear, it should last a lifetime. Look at Nikon's 18-55 VR. When before in Nikon's history could one ever get such high IQ for less than $200? Same goes for the 55-200 VR.
Nikon also continues to make the 50mm f/1.2, which I own and use almost daily. Beautifully made of metal with the typical Nikon AIS smooth focus ring. And the IQ is in a class of its own. It goes for a shade under $700 new.
Nikon will never make another good lens? Seems they're making quite a few.
ISO1600 wrote:
Good meaning a lens that we will enjoy and actually want to own.
Why is this?
Because you are simply two people and Nikon like most any business caters to what a majority of its market wants.
"Most" Nikon shooters, ie; far more than 2 people, happen to love glass like the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200 f2, 200-400, 300 f2.8, 18-200, 17-55, 17-35, 16-85, 35 1.8 DX, 10.5 and 16mm Fisheye etc etc
They are lenses that, most, shootrs enjoy using and actually want to own. Therefore they are "good" lenses from a business standpoint because they sell quite well and many are hard to even find in stock.
All of my favorite lenses that I own are af-d or ai-s spare the 55-200vr because of it's value per dollar aspect.
I like you have absolutely no interest in trading my 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 d's for newer g lenses I can't shoot on my older bodies on a whim.
Now in the long lenses I like af-s as long as it's not a "g" lens. I think the g's should be consumer grade only and all pro level lenses should keep the ap ring.
I rented a 300 f/4 af-s this weekend, it's not a g had I felt the urge to burn some ilford with it I could have.
If it was a g I would have had to have used the n-75 and I couldn't shoot ilford with that, i would have had to use t-maxx(which i like too) because it has the auto iso detection.
With everything they remove it limits what we can do with our gear. On a cheap lens like the 18-55 or 55-200vr I could care less, they're great for the value as is the 35 1.8. But I don't like having a 1k + lens I'm limited in what body or film I can shoot with it if I so desired.
Also as a macro shooter a 50 g is worthless to me because I cannot reverse it.
Wow, I think you and your buddy may have had a few too many when this little epiphany hit you.
So, we can't talk about 2.8 zooms because YOU don't like them? I'd put my 14-24 / 24-70 up against any old Nikon prime for quality, weather sealing, and durability. But hey, those don't count as "good" lenses since you don't happen to like them.
I suppose we can't talk about the 300 2.8, the 500 F4 etc either, since those aren't small primes.
Truth is, Nikon simply hasn't really updated a lot of their primes, so there isn't any way to know for sure if in 5 years from now they have a lineup that you'll like.
I like how you more or less stacked the deck against all of the newer lenses that contradict your idea of a "sturdy" lens. You may prefer primes, and so do I, but remember that Nikon has yet to release the big primes that are undoubtably going to be here at some point. I can't imagine them being "flimsy."
If you hold something a certain way, but not like that, or that, and with this, you may be able to arrive at your desired conclusion.
I'm with you on most of these points but I have to say the 105VR and 60 af-s are great lenses. But I'm with you Chris, My older gear never gets to feel these lenses on it. I'm down to an FE2 for my film nikons, and my other lenses have aperture rings, like the 55 micro, AI'd. That old glass is great. My 135mm 2.8 nikkor-p is almost as sharp as my 85 1.4, and it was like $50
haha i'm surprised people are getting so emotional about this.
I tried out a 300/2.8 AF-S VR II ALPHABET SOUP lens at BIC Camera in Tokyo, on my D700, and the AF didn't come close to the speed i got with the Canon 300/2.8L IS on any EOS camera i ever tried it on. That is the only experience i have with the Nikkor "big guns", and it was a total letdown. That, coupled with their price (compared to Canon's equiv lenses) is not a pretty picture.
I bought a 50/1.4 AF-D earlier this year for $120. Was getting deployed to Iraq, thought the 50G would be a good idea (sealing), so i sold the AF-D and picked up a G lens from B&H. Other than the Imaqe quality, i absolutely hated that lens. The focus was abysmally slow, the focusing ring has about as much feel and character as a pencil sharpener, the G was huge in comparison to the AF-D, AND it took 58mm filters.... 58mm filters on a 50/1.4? haha. Yeah, for the price it is a good lens. It is extremely capable and i did get some good use out of it. Also sold it for 90% or more of what i paid. Now i'm shooting a $40 50/1.8 E on my D700 and FE2 and enjoying it.
When and IF Nikon puts out another 28/1.4 or 35/1.4, it will be priced in the stratosphere, and be built just like the 50G. The focus will be slow, the focusing ring will have a horrible throw/feel, but it will take great pictures.
and HOPEFULLY it lowers the market value of the 28/1.4 AF-D, because that is the lens i want.
ISO1600 wrote:
haha i'm surprised people are getting so emotional about this.
I tried out a 300/2.8 AF-S VR II ALPHABET SOUP lens at BIC Camera in Tokyo, on my D700, and the AF didn't come close to the speed i got with the Canon 300/2.8L IS on any EOS camera i ever tried it on. That is the only experience i have with the Nikkor "big guns", and it was a total letdown. That, coupled with their price (compared to Canon's equiv lenses) is not a pretty picture.
Given the sheer number of sports photographers who have all switched to Nikon, including many of the very best in the industry, I don't think it would be accurate to say they are a total letdown
millsart wrote:
Given the sheer number of sports photographers who have all switched to Nikon, including many of the very best in the industry, I don't think it would be accurate to say they are a total letdown
Trying a lens for a few seconds in a camera store is the ultimate test you know.
but in my own obsessiveness, I do feel a little irked about the lack of aperture ring.. its nice to be able to put a Great Lens like my 85 1.4 af-d on my F3 body and have it all work. Not that I've been doing that much lately..
90 5.0 wrote:
Trying a lens for a few seconds in a camera store is the ultimate test you know.
Interesting. I shot a Nikon D3 with a 300 f2.8 side-by-side with a Mark III and 400 f2.8 for about two months. Covered MLB games, college football, and youth sports. The only difference I noticed was that the images from the D3/300 f2.8 combo were much cleaner than the MK III/400 f2.8. Absolutely no difference in AF speed as far as I could tell. I found the Nikon 300 f2.8 to be absolutely amazing and is one of the best lenses I have, hands down.
luminosity wrote:
The 200/2 is a huge piece of glass that you could probably kill someone with. Actually, that probably goes for any number of lenses, particularly the 28-70, 24-70 and 70-200.
Funny you say that. I've been questioned by the TSA about my 70-200 before, they think it is a weapon of some sort and I have to explain to them what each thing in my camera bag does. For some reason one guy couldn't understand what a ballhead did, he kept thinking it was a counterweight. But yes, all of the Nikon Pro Glass are things OJ Simpson may have used in his arsenal of weapons.
