I am no pro....and don't need pro AF...but this is why I have moved on to purchase Zeiss lenses (better optics IMO) for Nikon and other mounts (Leica):
Well, sh*t. There goes my savings account. hahaha j/k
I'm definitely interested to see how the 28-300 performs, and the D3100 as a potential backup body also. The 85/1.4 could be very interesting also... curious to see how it does wide-open in terms of CA (my only gripe with the now-current model).
rsolti13 wrote:
I am no pro....and don't need pro AF...but this is why I have moved on to purchase Zeiss lenses (better optics IMO) for Nikon and other mounts (Leica):
I'm surprised the new 85 doesn't seem to have VR. You would think that would be a welcome addition, since I imagine most 85mm shooters are hand-holding (although with crazy good ISO and F1.4, maybe you just don't need vr??)
I am curious about the 24-120. If it's as good as the 24-70 @ F8+, I might have a lens for sale. <not holding breath>
mach250 wrote:
yeah, the 24-120 and 28-300 seem like nice ranges til you get to f4 and f3.5-5.6
If this turns out to be true, not making the 24-120mm an f4 to compete with Canon is a big mistake IMO. No way I'm spending that kind of money for a slow lens. The linked article says it's f4, which makes sense. Nikon badly needs a midpriced f4 line.
iso 100-12800. Finally, native iso 100 again! And, what? iso 128000. D3 goes only up to 6400 in normal iso modes!
I can only imagine what's in store for the coming higher end models.
JHerr wrote:
I am pretty pissed off over the lack of VR on the new 85...
I don't think it is technocally possible to make 1.4 VR lens, the lens becomes to big and heavy and the moving part to heavy.
vchowdhary wrote:
Does the new Sigma 85 have VR?
Might be it was not added to keep price and weight in check
Doubt that they did that to match what Sigma is doing. This lens was designed years ago. Personally, don't want vr in a fast 85. It will just slow me down, be a lot bigger and more complex too!
Two23 wrote:
If this turns out to be true, not making the 24-120mm an f4 to compete with Canon is a big mistake IMO. No way I'm spending that kind of money for a slow lens.
Kent in SD
I looks like it is a straight F4 according to the rumor. The 28-300 is the vari aperture.
Two23 wrote:
If this turns out to be true, not making the 24-120mm an f4 to compete with Canon is a big mistake IMO. No way I'm spending that kind of money for a slow lens. The linked article says it's f4, which makes sense. Nikon badly needs a midpriced f4 line.
Kent in SD
Thought Canon's is a 24-105/4! This goes up to 120 and also f/4.0.
Hope that 100-12800 are not pushed (or pulled iso settings). If that is the case, it comes out to native 200-6400 iso. D3 good but not as impressive as it originally sounds! Still, big improvement for a dx sized sensor.
