for those of you requesting f/1.2s, i think i read somewhere that Nikon can't make them due to the size of the mount. The best they can do with the mount is f/1.4... not sure, but i believe that's what i read.
According to the rumours we can/may expect some announcements at/before Photokina.
The Nikon mount is much smaller than the Canon mount. I had the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 and that is a big chunk of glass. I can image it won't fit on a Nikon.
Ummm..... Nikon did make AI versions of 50 f/1.2 glass (and the 58 Noct-nikkor). So no, Nikon's mount isn't the problem. More likely, they don't believe that the market for f/1.2 glass is large enough to make their money back on their R&D investment...
Jammy Straub wrote:
I want an equivalent to the 50L that doesn't suffer from focus shift when stopping down. I'd pay dearly for one on a D700... clients would pay dearly for the photos
Seriously though, I bet we'll see a D90 and a D3x before we see more lenses.
And I think the reason Nikon is not making one, is because they can't.
Nikon likes to make good products that excel, maybe there is no way to make a 50 f1.2 that is fast focusing. the 50l and 85l are a joke when it comes to Af, there are other issues too. I like my nikkor 85 f1.4 focus fast on my cameras, so maybe a AFS version would be better? who knows. Maybe Nikon can't make it better.
Roger Mattos wrote:
And I think the reason Nikon is not making one, is because they can't.
Nikon likes to make good products that excel, maybe there is no way to make a 50 f1.2 that is fast focusing. the 50l and 85l are a joke when it comes to Af, there are other issues too. I like my nikkor 85 f1.4 focus fast on my cameras, so maybe a AFS version would be better? who knows. Maybe Nikon can't make it better.
Things can always be made better after 20 years have past. I thinks it's a matter of resources on Nikon's part. They were behind on bodies and put a huge push there where it is needed. And they have been doing a good job on lenses too. What we need is a roadmap so that people can plan their kits on the long-term. I make one purchase a year and it has to last me for many years.
Andre Labonte wrote:
OK, at this point Nikon has fleshed out its line of bodies but still lags in lenses ... OK OK, or all you resolution nuts, I hope a 24-32 MP D3x comes out soon ... but after that, I want some lenses.
I very much doubt that the same design engineers work on both bodies and lenses, so it should not matter what bodies do or do not come out, the lens engineers should be working hard on the lenses anyway. For sure they will all have to make sure they play well together, but I very much doubt that "Engineer A" who normally works on lenses stopped working on Lenses to design the D700 for instance, and will now go back to designing lenses again. Rather the body designers will maybe pay a little more attention to the lower end products again, as well as the much hoped for D3x.
In terms of lenses, it does not matter what they bring out next, there will always be some one disappointed, either because it was a prime instead of a zoom (or visa versa) or it isn't as sharp as they had hoped, or perhaps because it's too expensive!
So, for now, I would like the 10mm-1200mm f1.4 in the size of .... oh.... maybe a (small) coffee cup. Oh, and of course it needs to be < $500 with 6th generation VR meaning I can hand hold 1200mm in the dark for 5 seconds and get sharp shots. It ain't going to happen any time soon
Andre Labonte wrote:
What we need is a roadmap so that people can plan their kits on the long-term. I make one purchase a year and it has to last me for many years.
Andre Labonte wrote:
What we need is a roadmap so that people can plan their kits on the long-term.
Absolutely. If Nikon hadn't been so unclear about whether they were ever going FX I wouldn't have bought a large Canon outfit about 18 months ago. I can't have been the only one to have jumped ship for the lack of a little reassurance.
David Baldwin wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
What we need is a roadmap so that people can plan their kits on the long-term.
Absolutely. If Nikon hadn't been so unclear about whether they were ever going FX I wouldn't have bought a large Canon outfit about 18 months ago. I can't have been the only one to have jumped ship for the lack of a little reassurance.
I "jumped ship" for the exact opposite reason. I went Canon --> Nikon because of the better offerings (that suited my needs)
Now that Nikon has 2 FX bodies they need a 70-200 f/2.8 that's pro-quality in FX format. 70-200 f/2.8 is a popular pro focal length for PJ's working press conferences, runway fashion, concerts, etc, but Nikon's current 70-200 is only pro-quality in DX format.
plnelson wrote:
Now that Nikon has 2 FX bodies they need a 70-200 f/2.8 that's pro-quality in FX format. 70-200 f/2.8 is a popular pro focal length for PJ's working press conferences, runway fashion, concerts, etc, but Nikon's current 70-200 is only pro-quality in DX format.
I'd also like to see VR for the 300 f/4.
I've used my AF-S 80-200 on my F5 with great success... looking forward to my D700 and I will post some sample shots... only thing is the lack of VR...I'll hold on to my 80-200 until a replacment VR lens comes out... but with the high ISO's available with the D3/700 it's not as big a deal...
Edited by r_o_b_s_o_n on Jul 16, 2008 at 02:31 AM GMT
DaveEP wrote:
I very much doubt that the same design engineers work on both bodies and lenses, so it should not matter what bodies do or do not come out, the lens engineers should be working hard on the lenses anyway...........
That may be true, but it's not as much about the engineers as it is about their budgets.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Things can always be made better after 20 years have past. I thinks it's a matter of resources on Nikon's part. They were behind on bodies and put a huge push there where it is needed. And they have been doing a good job on lenses too.
Agreed, if they can make a 200 f/2 VR they can make a 50mm f/1.2 AFS lens. They already have a manual focus version as someone else said. The rear element size shouldn't be that big of a problem, if you look at the 85L the electrical contacts cut into the side of the rear element, they'd probably have to do something similar. It's probably a case of them not seeing selling many $1600 50mm prime lenses, but with the D3 and D700 that could change, especially with a large influx of people interested in shooting available light. I smell many wedding photogs being interested in the D700 because of it's high ISO performance and the consistency of the flash metering, fast primes are the one thing lacking from the equation right now.
I always found the focus speed of the 85L II and 50L to be just fine for their intended purposes, you'd have trouble photographing sports with them for sure, but for available light people shooting and studio work they work dandy IMHO.
DaveEP wrote:
Yes, the competitors would love that too.....
Good point .... it does not have to be too detailed, but they could at least give a general direction. For instance, when they brought out the new 24PC they mentioned the 45 and 85. They could give some indication about fast primes and the a 200mm micro update.
Raphael T-M wrote:
for those of you requesting f/1.2s, i think i read somewhere that Nikon can't make them due to the size of the mount. The best they can do with the mount is f/1.4... not sure, but i believe that's what i read.
Nikon has made at least three f/1.2 primes in the past; the 55/1.2 (which I own), 50/1.2 AIS and 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor. So it is possible, but the question is if there is any room for electrical contacts for CPU and AF-S.
In my opinion, f/1.2 is overkill for FX since these new cameras do handle high ISO speeds very well and the DOF will still be very short with f/1.4 on 35, 50 and 85 mm. In fact, a 50/1.4 gives shorter DOF than 80/2.8 on 6x6.
Some new primes would be nice though, since the new zooms are far too heavy and bulky to carry around all the time, in my opinion. I will probably get the D700 when I can afford it (later this year) and I currently own a D200 with some very nice manual focus primes. I will then probably buy the 24-70 for occasions when weight is not an issue, but I'd really like a couple of new AF primes with low vignetting and good sharpness corner to corner. That would be 20/2.8, 35/1.4, and 50/1.4. The new Sigma 50/1.4 seems to do the job, but it is a bit on the heavy side.
But, when people speak and dream of new primes, there always seem to be a demand for AF-S. I don't really understand this. For short to normal lenses, the AF-D would do just fine and be cheaper, smaller and probably more reliable. That's right, more reliable! The AF-S lenses does wear out in time. The silent motor just doesn't live forever. But the "screwdriver AF" of the older lenses seem to do that. Last forever. And how fast AF do we need for these shorter primes? I've never ever had any trouble with AF speed with short AF-D lenses.
