Archive 2009 · Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
p.3 #1Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
millsart wrote:
If you were a DX user and wanted macro, why not use the already very good 60mm or 105mm micro lens they have ? Those are both great glass and work on both DX as well as FX.
I'm personally not dying for fast primes, as the f2.8 zooms are fine for my work, but the logic behind one would make so much more sense.
Nikon did come out with a 35 f1.8 DX which is nice, but that lens only benifits DX users, same as this 85 micro.
A fast prime like a 28mm f1.4 would be something that would appeal to...Show more →
The 60mm micro is too short. The 105VR is bulky and expensive. The 85mm micro fits the bill for the enthusiast who wants a true micro lens with a half-decent working distance without adding a lot of weight, bulk or cost to the bag. Also, I think in general people forget that most of us on this forum are either professionals or the "above average" armature as far as gear goes. Most people are happy with DX and have no plans to ever go FX. Yes, maybe among this FM crowd a 24mm f/1.4 or even a 24mm f/2 would sell better than the new 85mm lens, but I doubt that is the case among the more general population.
I do agree though that Nikon needs to at least 3 FX lenses below 200mm that are fast (f/1.4) and updated with AF-S (and maybe VR). A wide angle (24-30mm), a normal (50mm), and a short telephoto (85-135mm). My vote would be to space them out nicely: 24mm, 50mm, 105mm, all with f/1.4. We have 1 of the three.
panos.v wrote
The slow aperture is a bit limiting, but if you are a DX user and want macro, this is it. If the price is in Tamron 90 money. Which it might as well be, given the pricing of the 35/1.8. And if it as good as the 35/1.8...hmmmm yummy yummy.I'm personally not dying for fast primes, as the f2.8 zooms are fine for my work, but the logic behind one would make so much more sense.
Nikon did come out with a 35 f1.8 DX which is nice, but that lens only benifits DX users, same as this 85 micro.
A fast prime like a 28mm f1.4 would be something that would appeal to...Show more →
The 60mm micro is too short. The 105VR is bulky and expensive. The 85mm micro fits the bill for the enthusiast who wants a true micro lens with a half-decent working distance without adding a lot of weight, bulk or cost to the bag. Also, I think in general people forget that most of us on this forum are either professionals or the "above average" armature as far as gear goes. Most people are happy with DX and have no plans to ever go FX. Yes, maybe among this FM crowd a 24mm f/1.4 or even a 24mm f/2 would sell better than the new 85mm lens, but I doubt that is the case among the more general population.
I do agree though that Nikon needs to at least 3 FX lenses below 200mm that are fast (f/1.4) and updated with AF-S (and maybe VR). A wide angle (24-30mm), a normal (50mm), and a short telephoto (85-135mm). My vote would be to space them out nicely: 24mm, 50mm, 105mm, all with f/1.4. We have 1 of the three.
Oct 14, 2009 at 12:47 PM
p.3 #2Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
I don't see this release as such a bad one. It gets a 1/2 decent macro lens into the hands of people that would otherwise not be able to afford its much bigger and better brothers. I can see this lens being popular in the consumer market for the D60 / D5000 users.
Oct 14, 2009 at 01:23 PM
p.3 #3Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
I owned the 105VR and it's a very, very nice lens. Great for many things. But...I sold it anyway. Now things have changed and I still want a dedicated macro lens, but I'm not up for spending a grand on one. I was thinking of the 60AF-S lately and then this comes out. I'll certainly wait for reviews, but I like it already.
Oct 14, 2009 at 01:25 PM
p.3 #4Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
millsart wrote:
If you were a DX user and wanted macro, why not use the already very good 60mm or 105mm micro lens they have ? Those are both great glass and work on both DX as well as FX.
I'm personally not dying for fast primes, as the f2.8 zooms are fine for my work, but the logic behind one would make so much more sense.
Nikon did come out with a 35 f1.8 DX which is nice, but that lens only benifits DX users, same as this 85 micro.
A fast prime like a 28mm f1.4 would be something that would appeal to...Show more →
The 105 is a great lens but it's twice what a Tamron 90/2,8 cost. Not that many are willing to spend the money.
The 60 is a bit on the short end because most who buy a macro do it to take pictures of insects so again, the Tamron 90 is more attractive.
So I still think this lens makes a lot of sense. I am actually surprised it took them so long.
And as for why it's a DX and not FX, weight and money. DX needs smaller lenses which are cheaper to make and the lens ends up lighter.
panos.v wrote
The slow aperture is a bit limiting, but if you are a DX user and want macro, this is it. If the price is in Tamron 90 money. Which it might as well be, given the pricing of the 35/1.8. And if it as good as the 35/1.8...hmmmm yummy yummy.I'm personally not dying for fast primes, as the f2.8 zooms are fine for my work, but the logic behind one would make so much more sense.
Nikon did come out with a 35 f1.8 DX which is nice, but that lens only benifits DX users, same as this 85 micro.
A fast prime like a 28mm f1.4 would be something that would appeal to...Show more →
The 105 is a great lens but it's twice what a Tamron 90/2,8 cost. Not that many are willing to spend the money.
The 60 is a bit on the short end because most who buy a macro do it to take pictures of insects so again, the Tamron 90 is more attractive.
So I still think this lens makes a lot of sense. I am actually surprised it took them so long.
And as for why it's a DX and not FX, weight and money. DX needs smaller lenses which are cheaper to make and the lens ends up lighter.
Oct 14, 2009 at 01:38 PM
p.3 #5Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
Based on lens serial numbers posted at http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html the 35mm DX is Nikon's fastest selling prime with over 60,000 units a year.
Nikonians has twice polled members on DX v FX with around 60% saying they intend to stay DX only and only 10% saying they intend to be FX only. With this in mind this new lens should make Nikon lots of money with plenty of sales - most manufacturers are in business to make lots of money from plenty of sales.
Nikonians has twice polled members on DX v FX with around 60% saying they intend to stay DX only and only 10% saying they intend to be FX only. With this in mind this new lens should make Nikon lots of money with plenty of sales - most manufacturers are in business to make lots of money from plenty of sales.
Oct 14, 2009 at 01:42 PM
p.3 #6Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
lxdesign wrote:
I don't see this release as such a bad one. It gets a 1/2 decent macro lens into the hands of people that would otherwise not be able to afford its much bigger and better brothers. I can see this lens being popular in the consumer market for the D60 / D5000 users.
I guess the bigger question might be does the D60/D5000 consumer user really care to do much macro photography ?
Its a rather niche market. More power to those who enjoy doing it, regardless of the gear they use, but still an interesting niche to cater to just the same.
Portraits, landscapes, weddings, pj work, wildlife, sports, street shooting etc all just seem like the type of things that such a wider percentage of photographers are interested in overall.
Again, I'm not knocking macro photography, its cool when done well, though I will admit personally I think bugs and circuit boards and coins and most of the stuff I see are a little boring, just saying....
Back to the point though, a lens like a 80-400 AF-S would just have much wider appeal. Be great for both FX and DX. Wildlife shooters, people that shoot daytime sports and want an affordable longer lens option, etc etc.
It would appeal to a pretty diverse group of shooters, with lots of various photographic interest, and users with every level of camera from a D60 to a D3x.
A DX macro though automatically excluded any FX shooters, and then of the DX users who can take advantage of it, its sort of a very narrow market.
Just doesn't make sense......if your going to introduce one lens, why not introduce something that would have the most appeal to everyone ?
Maybe a 24-105 F4 IS full frame type of lens.
Seems tons of FX shooters want something like that, and if your shooting DX, that would fit in perfectly with a 10-24, 12-24 type of WA option for a perfect 2 lens kit
Only problem the DX macro solved was if you shot DX, loved macro, and didn't like the 60 or 105 options.
For every one person who it appeals to probably a 1000 it doesn't and we've all still go some overlaps or gaps we'd like addressed, or lighter/cheaper options than the f2.8 zooms.
I love my 24-70 and 14-24 f2.8s but dont always like to take them for casual use. BUT...... what other FX option is there ? The old 24-120 which is crap ? The 24-85 AF-S which they stopped making ? 17-35 which is also discountined but still can be bought new ?
None of those really fit the bill for me and I would have to imagine a ton of other users
Canon's 24-105 F4 sells amazingly well and tons of 5D/5D2 users love it.
I don't see this release as such a bad one. It gets a 1/2 decent macro lens into the hands of people that would otherwise not be able to afford its much bigger and better brothers. I can see this lens being popular in the consumer market for the D60 / D5000 users.
I guess the bigger question might be does the D60/D5000 consumer user really care to do much macro photography ?
Its a rather niche market. More power to those who enjoy doing it, regardless of the gear they use, but still an interesting niche to cater to just the same.
Portraits, landscapes, weddings, pj work, wildlife, sports, street shooting etc all just seem like the type of things that such a wider percentage of photographers are interested in overall.
Again, I'm not knocking macro photography, its cool when done well, though I will admit personally I think bugs and circuit boards and coins and most of the stuff I see are a little boring, just saying....
Back to the point though, a lens like a 80-400 AF-S would just have much wider appeal. Be great for both FX and DX. Wildlife shooters, people that shoot daytime sports and want an affordable longer lens option, etc etc.
It would appeal to a pretty diverse group of shooters, with lots of various photographic interest, and users with every level of camera from a D60 to a D3x.
A DX macro though automatically excluded any FX shooters, and then of the DX users who can take advantage of it, its sort of a very narrow market.
Just doesn't make sense......if your going to introduce one lens, why not introduce something that would have the most appeal to everyone ?
Maybe a 24-105 F4 IS full frame type of lens.
Seems tons of FX shooters want something like that, and if your shooting DX, that would fit in perfectly with a 10-24, 12-24 type of WA option for a perfect 2 lens kit
Only problem the DX macro solved was if you shot DX, loved macro, and didn't like the 60 or 105 options.
For every one person who it appeals to probably a 1000 it doesn't and we've all still go some overlaps or gaps we'd like addressed, or lighter/cheaper options than the f2.8 zooms.
I love my 24-70 and 14-24 f2.8s but dont always like to take them for casual use. BUT...... what other FX option is there ? The old 24-120 which is crap ? The 24-85 AF-S which they stopped making ? 17-35 which is also discountined but still can be bought new ?
None of those really fit the bill for me and I would have to imagine a ton of other users
Canon's 24-105 F4 sells amazingly well and tons of 5D/5D2 users love it.
Oct 14, 2009 at 01:46 PM
p.3 #7Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
Len Shepherd wrote:
Based on lens serial numbers posted at http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html the 35mm DX is Nikon's fastest selling prime with over 60,000 units a year.
Nikonians has twice polled members on DX v FX with around 60% saying they intend to stay DX only and only 10% saying they intend to be FX only. With this in mind this new lens should make Nikon lots of money with plenty of sales - most manufacturers are in business to make lots of money from plenty of sales.
As soon as there is something like a D800 with a 24meg FX chip for $2000, or perhaps a D8000 or something along those lines with a 12meg FX chip and a sub $1000 price tag see how many of those 60% still want to remain DX
As for the other aspect of the poll, only 10% of FX users want to stay FX ?? I really don't know a single FX shooter thats bought a DX lens since buying a D3, D700 etc. Just doesn't really make sense
Based on lens serial numbers posted at http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html the 35mm DX is Nikon's fastest selling prime with over 60,000 units a year.
Nikonians has twice polled members on DX v FX with around 60% saying they intend to stay DX only and only 10% saying they intend to be FX only. With this in mind this new lens should make Nikon lots of money with plenty of sales - most manufacturers are in business to make lots of money from plenty of sales.
As soon as there is something like a D800 with a 24meg FX chip for $2000, or perhaps a D8000 or something along those lines with a 12meg FX chip and a sub $1000 price tag see how many of those 60% still want to remain DX
As for the other aspect of the poll, only 10% of FX users want to stay FX ?? I really don't know a single FX shooter thats bought a DX lens since buying a D3, D700 etc. Just doesn't really make sense
Oct 14, 2009 at 01:49 PM
p.3 #8Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
millsart wrote:
I guess the bigger question might be does the D60/D5000 consumer user really care to do much macro photography ?
Its a rather niche market. More power to those who enjoy doing it, regardless of the gear they use, but still an interesting niche to cater to just the same.
Portraits, landscapes, weddings, pj work, wildlife, sports, street shooting etc all just seem like the type of things that such a wider percentage of photographers are interested in overall.
Again, I'm not knocking macro photography, its cool when done well, though I will admit personally I think bugs and circuit boards and coins...Show more →
As I said previously, I hang around a bunch of Swedish forums with mostly low end amateurs who shoot with D40, D60 and now D3000. Their first lens is often a 18-55 or 18-135 or something like that. Their second lens is either a 55-200VR or other cheap zoom, a fast prime or a macro. I read threads several times a week about what macro to get and if this one is as sharp as Nikt claims it will be THE lens to get.
Many people will get a macro before they get a f/2,8 zoom.
This segment wants to take nice pictures and with a macro, it's easy to get good looking shots.
lxdesign wrote
I don't see this release as such a bad one. It gets a 1/2 decent macro lens into the hands of people that would otherwise not be able to afford its much bigger and better brothers. I can see this lens being popular in the consumer market for the D60 / D5000 users.Its a rather niche market. More power to those who enjoy doing it, regardless of the gear they use, but still an interesting niche to cater to just the same.
Portraits, landscapes, weddings, pj work, wildlife, sports, street shooting etc all just seem like the type of things that such a wider percentage of photographers are interested in overall.
Again, I'm not knocking macro photography, its cool when done well, though I will admit personally I think bugs and circuit boards and coins...Show more →
As I said previously, I hang around a bunch of Swedish forums with mostly low end amateurs who shoot with D40, D60 and now D3000. Their first lens is often a 18-55 or 18-135 or something like that. Their second lens is either a 55-200VR or other cheap zoom, a fast prime or a macro. I read threads several times a week about what macro to get and if this one is as sharp as Nikt claims it will be THE lens to get.
Many people will get a macro before they get a f/2,8 zoom.
This segment wants to take nice pictures and with a macro, it's easy to get good looking shots.
Oct 14, 2009 at 02:06 PM
p.3 #9Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
Gustaf Lindber wrote:
As I said previously, I hang around a bunch of Swedish forums with mostly low end amateurs who shoot with D40, D60 and now D3000. Their first lens is often a 18-55 or 18-135 or something like that. Their second lens is either a 55-200VR or other cheap zoom, a fast prime or a macro. I read threads several times a week about what macro to get and if this one is as sharp as Nikt claims it will be THE lens to get.
Many people will get a macro before they get a f/2,8 zoom.
This segment wants to take...Show more →
Absolutely.
As I said previously, I hang around a bunch of Swedish forums with mostly low end amateurs who shoot with D40, D60 and now D3000. Their first lens is often a 18-55 or 18-135 or something like that. Their second lens is either a 55-200VR or other cheap zoom, a fast prime or a macro. I read threads several times a week about what macro to get and if this one is as sharp as Nikt claims it will be THE lens to get.
Many people will get a macro before they get a f/2,8 zoom.
This segment wants to take...Show more →
Absolutely.
Oct 14, 2009 at 02:17 PM
p.3 #10Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
millsart wrote:
Nikonians has twice polled members on DX v FX with around 60% saying they intend to stay DX only and only 10% saying they intend to be FX only. With this in mind this new lens should make Nikon lots of money with plenty of sales - most manufacturers are in business to make lots of money from plenty of sales.As soon as there is something like a D800 with a 24meg FX chip for $2000, or perhaps a D8000 or something along those lines with a 12meg FX chip and a sub $1000 price tag see how many of those 60% still want to remain DX
As for the other aspect of the poll, only 10% of FX users want to stay FX ?? I really don't know a single FX shooter thats bought a DX lens since buying a D3, D700 etc. Just doesn't really make sense
Most people want to spend $500-$1000 for an ENTIRE DSLR system (lenses included). Your $2000 number is still out of reach for these people. Add to it the fact that people want small & light weight but still want reach, DX is much more attractive to people. These same people will spend up to $500 on a lens (a few years later) if they get into photography more avidly once they start, but few make an upgrade to a $1000 body let alone a pro-level upgrade. Like I said earlier, Nikon has to market to the masses and the avid ametures/pros but this forum is mostly just the latter.
Len Shepherd wrote
Based on lens serial numbers posted at http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html the 35mm DX is Nikon's fastest selling prime with over 60,000 units a year.Nikonians has twice polled members on DX v FX with around 60% saying they intend to stay DX only and only 10% saying they intend to be FX only. With this in mind this new lens should make Nikon lots of money with plenty of sales - most manufacturers are in business to make lots of money from plenty of sales.
As for the other aspect of the poll, only 10% of FX users want to stay FX ?? I really don't know a single FX shooter thats bought a DX lens since buying a D3, D700 etc. Just doesn't really make sense
Most people want to spend $500-$1000 for an ENTIRE DSLR system (lenses included). Your $2000 number is still out of reach for these people. Add to it the fact that people want small & light weight but still want reach, DX is much more attractive to people. These same people will spend up to $500 on a lens (a few years later) if they get into photography more avidly once they start, but few make an upgrade to a $1000 body let alone a pro-level upgrade. Like I said earlier, Nikon has to market to the masses and the avid ametures/pros but this forum is mostly just the latter.
Oct 14, 2009 at 02:19 PM
p.3 #11Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
Valorin wrote:
Many people will get a macro before they get a f/2,8 zoom.
This segment wants to take nice pictures and with a macro, it's easy to get good looking shots.Absolutely.
+1 Macro is fun and easy to get into and can be done anywhere. Birds and wildlife are not as easy, and require large, heavy, expensive lenses. Most people don't bother once they see what an 80-400 costs and how much it weighs .... yea, they think it's too big and heavy!!!!!
Gustaf Lindber wrote
As I said previously, I hang around a bunch of Swedish forums with mostly low end amateurs who shoot with D40, D60 and now D3000. Their first lens is often a 18-55 or 18-135 or something like that. Their second lens is either a 55-200VR or other cheap zoom, a fast prime or a macro. I read threads several times a week about what macro to get and if this one is as sharp as Nikt claims it will be THE lens to get.Many people will get a macro before they get a f/2,8 zoom.
This segment wants to take nice pictures and with a macro, it's easy to get good looking shots.
+1 Macro is fun and easy to get into and can be done anywhere. Birds and wildlife are not as easy, and require large, heavy, expensive lenses. Most people don't bother once they see what an 80-400 costs and how much it weighs .... yea, they think it's too big and heavy!!!!!
Oct 14, 2009 at 02:22 PM
p.3 #12Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
24 1.8, it's sigma but supposed to be good though.
http://www.adorama.com/SG2418NKAF.html?searchinfo=nikon+*24mm*
Nikon 28 1.4 does exist by the way noobs, they stopped making it because they didn't sell enough of them
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF-Nikkor_28mm/index2.htm
I hate to quote kr but hey he's right on this
You'll probably never see one of these. Because it was so expensive, no one bought them. Because no one bought them, Nikon stopped making them. Because Nikon stopped making them, photographers and collectors now want it, so the price, used, went up to over $2,000 in 2006. As of 2008, the used price has skyrocketed to over $4,000, which is really silly since any day now Nikon owes a new AF-S replacement. It also makes the 28mm f/1.4 more expensive than most 300mm f/2.8 lenses.
The canon one is just as expensive
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&source=hp&q=canon+24+1.4l&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=14949849611967265388&ei=NDPWSqenHs_ZlAeE_sicCQ&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBIQ8wIwAw#ps-sellers
http://www.adorama.com/SG2418NKAF.html?searchinfo=nikon+*24mm*
Nikon 28 1.4 does exist by the way noobs, they stopped making it because they didn't sell enough of them
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF-Nikkor_28mm/index2.htm
I hate to quote kr but hey he's right on this
You'll probably never see one of these. Because it was so expensive, no one bought them. Because no one bought them, Nikon stopped making them. Because Nikon stopped making them, photographers and collectors now want it, so the price, used, went up to over $2,000 in 2006. As of 2008, the used price has skyrocketed to over $4,000, which is really silly since any day now Nikon owes a new AF-S replacement. It also makes the 28mm f/1.4 more expensive than most 300mm f/2.8 lenses.
The canon one is just as expensive
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&source=hp&q=canon+24+1.4l&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=14949849611967265388&ei=NDPWSqenHs_ZlAeE_sicCQ&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBIQ8wIwAw#ps-sellers
Oct 14, 2009 at 02:24 PM
p.3 #13Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
I see exactly where Nikon's aiming this lens and I'm surprised at the negative backlash. The 60mm macro is a great lens, but to have a longer-reach and affordable macro to allow people with D40's and similar bodies to have some close-up shooting capability is a smart move I say. I'm with Nik... this thing is gonna sell well. I won't buy one of course, but I definitely see where Nikon's aiming with this. The 105VR is great, no question, but it's also double the price. You have any idea how many people have D40/D60/D3000/D5000 and the X-version bodies right now? To those people, they will grab the 85mm f3.5 over the 105VR almost all day long I bet.
I already know 2 people with pre-orders...
Again, doesn't do anything for ME and likely a lot of YOU... but it sure doesn't mean Nikon made a redundant lens IMHO.
I already know 2 people with pre-orders...
Again, doesn't do anything for ME and likely a lot of YOU... but it sure doesn't mean Nikon made a redundant lens IMHO.
Oct 14, 2009 at 02:42 PM
p.3 #14Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
I also think this will be a out of the ballpark type lens. Watch it work well on FX to boot.
Oct 14, 2009 at 02:47 PM
p.3 #15Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
dj dunzie wrote:
I see exactly where Nikon's aiming this lens and I'm surprised at the negative backlash. The 60mm macro is a great lens, but to have a longer-reach and affordable macro to allow people with D40's and similar bodies to have some close-up shooting capability is a smart move I say. I'm with Nik... this thing is gonna sell well. I won't buy one of course, but I definitely see where Nikon's aiming with this. The 105VR is great, no question, but it's also double the price. You have any idea how many people have D40/D60/D3000/D5000 and the X-version bodies...Show more →
Yeah , they'll sell alot of them to people with the 40/60 series cameras i'm sure. If they could have stayed in the same price point and made a 85 1.8 vr I might have looked at it but it doesn't do me any good.
Being vr at 3.5 at the same iso in bad light will probly be as blurry as mine at 1.8
I see exactly where Nikon's aiming this lens and I'm surprised at the negative backlash. The 60mm macro is a great lens, but to have a longer-reach and affordable macro to allow people with D40's and similar bodies to have some close-up shooting capability is a smart move I say. I'm with Nik... this thing is gonna sell well. I won't buy one of course, but I definitely see where Nikon's aiming with this. The 105VR is great, no question, but it's also double the price. You have any idea how many people have D40/D60/D3000/D5000 and the X-version bodies...Show more →
Yeah , they'll sell alot of them to people with the 40/60 series cameras i'm sure. If they could have stayed in the same price point and made a 85 1.8 vr I might have looked at it but it doesn't do me any good.
Being vr at 3.5 at the same iso in bad light will probly be as blurry as mine at 1.8
Oct 14, 2009 at 02:48 PM
p.3 #16Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
Most of the frustration is being let fly because of the real or perceived inadequacies of the Nikon system. Namely f/4 zooms, fast wide primes, some aging lens designs and lack of a high resolution budget alternative.
I see this lens as a good candidate as a short telephoto for hiking. Doubles as a micro lens, is small and light, and since most casual hikers are in good light the large aperture isn't as necessary.
I see this lens as a good candidate as a short telephoto for hiking. Doubles as a micro lens, is small and light, and since most casual hikers are in good light the large aperture isn't as necessary.
Oct 14, 2009 at 03:04 PM
p.3 #17Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
dj dunzie wrote:
I see exactly where Nikon's aiming this lens and I'm surprised at the negative backlash. The 60mm macro is a great lens, but to have a longer-reach and affordable macro to allow people with D40's and similar bodies to have some close-up shooting capability is a smart move I say. I'm with Nik... this thing is gonna sell well. I won't buy one of course, but I definitely see where Nikon's aiming with this. The 105VR is great, no question, but it's also double the price. You have any idea how many people have D40/D60/D3000/D5000 and the X-version bodies...Show more →
Not just people with the consumer bodies, I'm thinking I'll get one myself. I have the D300 and will likely always buy the pro-level DX body in the future. I had crossed the 105VR off the list due to cost and the added bulk/weight to my bag. This new lens is just perfect for my macro needs and as I never plan to ever go FX, the fact that it is a DX lens does not bother me in the least. But, it'll be a little wile as I need a WA lens first.
I see exactly where Nikon's aiming this lens and I'm surprised at the negative backlash. The 60mm macro is a great lens, but to have a longer-reach and affordable macro to allow people with D40's and similar bodies to have some close-up shooting capability is a smart move I say. I'm with Nik... this thing is gonna sell well. I won't buy one of course, but I definitely see where Nikon's aiming with this. The 105VR is great, no question, but it's also double the price. You have any idea how many people have D40/D60/D3000/D5000 and the X-version bodies...Show more →
Not just people with the consumer bodies, I'm thinking I'll get one myself. I have the D300 and will likely always buy the pro-level DX body in the future. I had crossed the 105VR off the list due to cost and the added bulk/weight to my bag. This new lens is just perfect for my macro needs and as I never plan to ever go FX, the fact that it is a DX lens does not bother me in the least. But, it'll be a little wile as I need a WA lens first.
Oct 14, 2009 at 03:24 PM
p.3 #18Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
I still say that Nikon feels the demand for the 70-200/f4 is being met currently by the 70-300VR. The 300/f4 AF-S on the other hand could definitely benefit from a VR update and nano coatings. Will be interesting to see the 70-200VRII's performance once people start getting their hands on them and testing them out. From early reports it looks like a stunner.
Oct 14, 2009 at 03:26 PM
p.3 #19Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
Andre Labonte wrote:
Not just people with the consumer bodies, I'm thinking I'll get one myself. I have the D300 and will likely always buy the pro-level DX body in the future. I had crossed the 105VR off the list due to cost and the added bulk/weight to my bag. This new lens is just perfect for my macro needs and as I never plan to ever go FX, the fact that it is a DX lens does not bother me in the least. But, it'll be a little wile as I need a WA lens first.
See... there indeed IS demand for this lens, and not just with the entry-level market either. Yes it doesn't give everybody the uber-expensive 85mm f1.4 AF-S VR or 24mm f1.4 AF-S VR a small niche is crying for, but at the end of the day it will sell, and further - I don't think the new lens announcements are done. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see more lenses announced before the new year, and likely some high-end pro stuff.
Not just people with the consumer bodies, I'm thinking I'll get one myself. I have the D300 and will likely always buy the pro-level DX body in the future. I had crossed the 105VR off the list due to cost and the added bulk/weight to my bag. This new lens is just perfect for my macro needs and as I never plan to ever go FX, the fact that it is a DX lens does not bother me in the least. But, it'll be a little wile as I need a WA lens first.
See... there indeed IS demand for this lens, and not just with the entry-level market either. Yes it doesn't give everybody the uber-expensive 85mm f1.4 AF-S VR or 24mm f1.4 AF-S VR a small niche is crying for, but at the end of the day it will sell, and further - I don't think the new lens announcements are done. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see more lenses announced before the new year, and likely some high-end pro stuff.
Oct 14, 2009 at 03:30 PM
p.3 #20Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
yukselserdar wrote:
cturko: please, dont lower the standard. Clearly we disagree, thats fine, thats how the world is, but you being personal, thats just....low.
panos.v: I agree that the dx market is much bigger in terms of profit and volume. But i still believe that, for exampel, a FX 24mm f2 afs lens will sell better then the new 85mm. Because it will not be limited to dx only, and i think the demand for a relatively fast prime is bigger then the demand for a macro for dx.
Very well put.Hmm its very new to me that all pros are just plain happy...Show more →
Then I offer an apology, because my intent was not to be "personal". I will leave it at that.
cturko: please, dont lower the standard. Clearly we disagree, thats fine, thats how the world is, but you being personal, thats just....low.
panos.v: I agree that the dx market is much bigger in terms of profit and volume. But i still believe that, for exampel, a FX 24mm f2 afs lens will sell better then the new 85mm. Because it will not be limited to dx only, and i think the demand for a relatively fast prime is bigger then the demand for a macro for dx.
Earlier quote
cturko wrote: You forget that the "FX and pro market" are already pleased. Professional photographers do not sit and mull over lens ratings for hours on end. They know what works, they know what they want, and they do not sit and complain when camera companies choose to release a consumer lens.Very well put.
Then I offer an apology, because my intent was not to be "personal". I will leave it at that.
Oct 14, 2009 at 03:47 PM