p.1 #1 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
In other words, what do you think are the three biggest holes in Nikon's lineup? For me they are:
17mm PCE
400mm F5.6 autofocus vr
135mm f2 vr
If Nikon could introduce these lenses tomorrow, which I know they can't, they would be a lot more competitive with Canon. Just curious, what three lenses do you feel would have an immediate effect on their competitiveness?
p.1 #4 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
BenV wrote:
Right now, the only lens I envy that Canon has and we don't is a 400 5.6, other than that, everything works really well for me.
I'd put the 300mm f/4 + 1.4x up against the 400mm f/5.6 any day...
I think an update to the 80-400mm is bizarrely overdue. Canon's 100-400 is a great lens that is widely used by wildlife enthusiasts on a budget, and the success of Sigma's 50-500 and 150-500 shows that people on the Nikon side are interested in a long zoom like this.
I wouldn't mind if they whacked a little off the wide end - if they could produce an optically better 100-400 or 120-400 or something, more power to them.
p.1 #6 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
+1 to 100-400. Although I am sure it will come with a hefty price, if it ever comes. I always wondered why Nikon prices are way more than their Canon "equivalents", of course not every lens but in general.
Other things I'd like to see would be a 50 1.2 AF-S, 24 1.8G, 300 AF-S f/4 VR... Finally, white (grey) lenses shouldn't be an exotic option!
p.1 #7 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
As a landscape guy:
400/5.6 ED-IF AFS VR
20/2.0 AFS (that's very very very good wide open)
16/2.8 AFS FE (a really good one, the current 16/2.8 FE is not very good at 36MP)
p.1 #15 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
I agree that the 100-400mm f5.6 would be great to have, but I bet Nikon would want 3-4 grand for one. Whereas, Canon does not have a 400mm 5.6 with vr and nano coating. Nikon might be able to make such a lens affordable, say around 2000.00.Having recently made the big switch,I find some room for improvent in Nikons offerings.By the way I shoot landscapes. Who ever said it all depends is certainly correct.
p.1 #16 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
m1mgd00 wrote:
Since these are all fairly specialized lenses, I doubt any of them would make the f-mount "more competitive." But I'll chip in a vote for a 17 PC-E.
John, I suspect a 20 f/2 would be a pretty sizable piece of glass, no? Maybe gets people to stop complaining about the 14-24's mass?
Mike
Yes, it should have read 20/2.8! Thanks for catching that.
p.1 #20 · I'm curious which three lenses would make Nikon more competitive overnight?
jhinkey wrote:
16/2.8 AFS FE (a really good one, the current 16/2.8 FE is not very good at 36MP)
I'd love to see a new 16/2.8 FE
Also a FX version of the old 17-55/2.8 which is currently only available for DX cameras. The third lens is not something I'd buy but I'm sure a lot of Canon shooters would switch if Nikon could produce a cheaper better 85/1.2
