jvarszegi,
the slower shutter speed and increased low light capability are certainly great aspects of the 1.2 over the 2.0, but also the separation and bokeh. Additionally, if Nikon is to make a new lens that is cutting edge, then a 2.0 is not as impressive as would a 1.2.
Denied, Here is the 50mm F1.4 at 1.4, love the lens
I'd bet a 70-200mm VR revision is coming. I've been unable to buy one in the last month and no one can tell me when they are expecting a new shipment. Probably VR II and Nano Coatings to match the 24-70.
A better 80-400 would be cool. The 85mm f/2 VR sounds strange, why would they do that? It'd still cost what $1100, I'm not sure I'd have any interest in an 85mm f/2 VR prime when I've got a 70-200 f/2.8 VR zoom. If that prime was f/1.4 VR that'd be different.
But if an update is coming I think i'll wait. The thing is, i'd like to have an idea of the expected release date. I don't think i'll wait 1 year or so...
louis fusco wrote:
bill any idea when the 80-400 will be announced?
I’m sorry Louis, but I only “know” what he told me, and no time frame was mentioned. I also would like to know for sure if a replacement is really in the works, and when we might be able to buy it.
lol 50mm f1.4 AFS ...there's a very small (or neglible) market for that . If Nikon wants a breakthrough, they have to drop the price of the D3 to US$1000 .
ReyGay wrote:
lol 50mm f1.4 AFS ...there's a very small (or neglible) market for that . If Nikon wants a breakthrough, they have to drop the price of the D3 to US$1000 .
I'd buy a 50mm f1.4 AFS in a heartbeat. Full frame is made for 50mm!
I am not a sport or wildlife photographer but I have encountered lots of wildlife during my landscape photography and many times I missed the shot because I did not have the right lens. I bought a used 80-400 VR lens last year.
This "old" lens is very sharp even wide open at 400mm (my opinion) and it serves me well. I wish the new version comes with AF-S. The old version hunts often simply because its AF, driven by a screw, cannot cope very well with the large torque required from a short to a long distance range. I am happy with its VR so I cannot even imagine how much improved the new VR will be.
As the new lens begins its debut the old lens will most probably sell for a bargain price.
If optically the new lens is superior to this one, we are heading for a treat and the 16-85 will make happy those that cannot afford the 18-55.
Thank you Guy for the valuable information.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
I would be interested in the 85/2 VR, for sure. The DOF at ƒ1.4 is paper thin anyway, and for portraits pretty much unusable, IMHO. I usually stop down to ƒ2.8—if you fill the frame, or tight head and shoulders, the OOF areas with an 85 at ƒ2 will be lovely. If it is razor sharp wide open (as an old AF 85/2 lens was my main money earner in film days) you won't miss the bulk of the ƒ1.4 version at all. YMMV.
A PC Nikkor AFS 28 mm f/2,8, that would be a worlds first wouldn't it?
The first autofocus PC lens as far as I know, actually this addition makes me a bit sceptical of the lists validity.
Not that I would knock it back, if it was tilt as well as shift it would really suit me well, still auto focus on this style of lens may be a waste even if it was only usable unshifted.
david creed wrote:
A PC Nikkor AFS 28 mm f/2,8, that would be a worlds first wouldn't it?
The first autofocus PC lens as far as I know, actually this addition makes me a bit sceptical of the lists validity.
Not that I would knock it back, if it was tilt as well as shift it would really suit me well, still auto focus on this style of lens may be a waste even if it was only usable unshifted.
Cheers,
Creedy
I have to agree about the PC lens. I just "cut and pasted" the list and I think this is a mistake. But on the other hand I have seen other sources confirming the first three... and because of the track record of the source I would bet that this is 90% reliable.
Only the future will tell...
bcaslis wrote
I'd buy a 50mm f1.4 AFS in a heartbeat. Full frame is made for 50mm!
I never liked 50mm focal lenghts on film/full frame...
But I do love 35mm FL, so I'd buy a 35/1.4 AFS providing they make it rather compact like the AIS version.
Anyway I can't see why they should update the 70-200/2.8 VR.
A new f/4 version ? Absolutely.
A longer/slower 80-400/4-5.6 AFS VR ? I'd probably buy it the day after.
But upgrading a pro lens (which already has AFS and VR) introduced only few years ago ? Realistically I don't think so.
They update the 70/80-200 every 5-ish years though, and the 70-200 VR was introduced in 2003. That's 5 years ago.
Some users are reporting vignetting with the 70-200 on the D3. I have been shooting that combo a fair bit and really haven't noticed it, but if that is a problem, they may as well update it. The VR upgrade to VR-II wouldn't be bad, and nano crystal coat would really help with the lens' propensity to flare, which I regard as its main weakness. If they improve wide aperture sharpness, then even better.
Does anyone know how much a premium Nikon tends to price their lens if say a new 70-200 f/2.8 were to come out? Would they be about the same price as the current model or more? I know it's unrelated but with computer like Apple, prices tend to stay the same but buyers get the benefit of the newer technology. Not sure if this applies with lens, but at least with the D300 that seemed to hold true over when the D200 was released. What do you think? I may see a new lens in the future...
In the past nikon has not been shy with raising prices - in fact you can always count on it so my guess for a 70-200 would be in the $2200 range.
I'm very happy that nikon is not going for specmanship. THe f2.0 is an advantage in my book.
THe price will be about 1/3 of what a F 1.4 would be if you judge by todays pricing model and who the heck wants to carry around the much larger, much heavier, much more "look at me" lens? The iso performance of any of the last few years cameras obviate the need for f 1.4 and with a 85 focus is very chancy. Just look at the portrait that jamach has put up .... focus missed pretty badly there ... and that seems to be the likelihood for most shots. Remember that autofocus in modern cameras is still not exact. It is more like a very close variable.
So the F2.0 if it comes to pass strikes me as a very sensible decision, kind of like the D3 where they didn't resort to keeping up with the Cano-johnses and kept the resolution a modest 12 megapixels.
