Mishu01 wrote:
e. the simple fact that Voigtlander and Zeiss were chipping their lenses for Nikon mount it's a clear sign that they know that Nikon abandoned this path...
f. One possible and expected move for Nikon is to start produce f4 zooms like Canon, to fit the gap between consumer and pro zooms. In the same time Nikon can ignore this as well, putting pressure on users to go directly to pro zooms... and I know lots of beginners who goes on this path, bringing good money for Nikon but being unable to really use the power of the stuff they own.
e. But those are niche companies, further evidence that such lenses have become niche products now that even the most basic cameras do well at high ISO, and zoom quality has often surpassed single focal lenses. I don't think Nikon has abandoned them, but they are clearly not the priority. And, for good economic reasons.
f. Nikon clearly doesn't have much of a line up of modern design lenses to support their FX bodies. Unlike Canon, they don't have a mid priced line attractive to entry level pros or serious amatuers. I see Nikon's using their obviously limited R&D resources to produce niche products (e.g. 24mm f1.4) more as a distraction. Since there seems to be no shortage of beginners that will pay $3,000 for a camera only to put a cheap lens on it, maybe what Nikon needs is an FX version of their 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR, selling for $250 the pair!
traveler wrote:
If the 700x is over $4000 there's not a prayer in heck I'll be able to get one. .
Oh, sure there is. Prices of camera bodies drop like a rock. Two years after release the camera would be plenty affordable. Eight years after release you could almost afford to buy one to use as a boat anchor.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Here's a hit, Andre!
BTW....I'm takin' the Saints +5
hmmmmm .... this Super Bowl is one of mixed fealing for me. On the one hand I grew up in Maine and now live in Maine, so I'm a NE fan and therefore very much dislike the Colts. On the other hand, I lived in Indiana for 6 years, so I guess the Colts should be the team I root for ... I have no affiliation with the football team called the Saints, but then again, being a firm believer in the Communion of Saints (I'm Catholic after all), there is something to be said for taking the side of the Saints ... And then to top it off, the Saints are the "under-dog" so to speak since their record is 13-3 to the Colt's 14-2, but does one game matter? Then there is the Paton factor: nice guy who deserves it all because he earned it, or smug little mama's boy that deserves to be smeared across the field by a 350lbs line-man ...
... hey wait a second, it was Paton's little brother that beat NE in that tragic SB that NE should have one ... the little s--t called ELI playing for a New York team ... Yea, pay back. If I can't get Eli, I'll get his brother!
OK, I think I'm with you, I'll root for the Saints!
Two23 wrote:
e. But those are niche companies, further evidence that such lenses have become niche products now that even the most basic cameras do well at high ISO, and zoom quality has often surpassed single focal lenses. I don't think Nikon has abandoned them, but they are clearly not the priority. And, for good economic reasons.
f. Nikon clearly doesn't have much of a line up of modern design lenses to support their FX bodies. Unlike Canon, they don't have a mid priced line attractive to entry level pros or serious amatuers. I see Nikon's using their obviously limited R&D resources to produce niche products (e.g. 24mm f1.4) more as a distraction. Since there seems to be no shortage of beginners that will pay $3,000 for a camera only to put a cheap lens on it, maybe what Nikon needs is an FX version of their 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR, selling for $250 the pair!
I'm with Kent for the most part. I think Nikon does need to update the consumer level FX lenses with a good quality, "lower cost" FX mid range zoom, but fixed f/4 is not necessary. AND, it is only one lens ... a decent from-scratch redesign of the 24-120 VR would do the trick On the other hand, and f/4 WA makes a lot of sense, especially if it starts at 14-16mm and takes filters. A nice alternative for those of us (like me) who don't need f/2.8 in the WA but DO need filters. (I'm a DX shooter, so the 10-24DX is my ticket )
Conversely though, Nikon has built its reputation on providing the unusual and having a solid range of lenses, so to neglect the fast primes forever does not make sense to me. I think Pro photogs want their primes, but in much lower numbers. Nikon so far has made the smart economic choices, but with most of the line-up refreshed, it's time to hit the long-in-tooth lenses (i.e. fast primes under 200mm)... then start with some new surprises.
But it's all hyperboli right now ... for the fun of it.
Nikon Rumors claim a 24 1.4 for sure and the 16-35 F4 is a for sure (And I am getting on a list for that 16-35 for sure - might have a nice 14-24 for sale soon)
I don't think there are going to be any DSLRs this round. Lots of coolpix though.
I would like to see an update to either the 300 F4 or the 80-400 F4, but nothing out there seems to indicate that is gonna happen (sigh).
There was talk of a new 1.4 and 1.7 TC, both of which I'd trade up for.
That's my take and worth every penny you spent for it
D50 bought new at end of retail cycle, affordable but glad I got that one instead of its replacement
D1h bought used 2 years ago, very affordable and taught me some needed lessons and how to love a professional body
D300s bought last year to combine the best of the two bodies and additional features. I am keeping all three and using them in different situations.
Two23 wrote:
Oh, sure there is. Prices of camera bodies drop like a rock. Two years after release the camera would be plenty affordable. Eight years after release you could almost afford to buy one to use as a boat anchor.
Kent in SD
Sorry Jammy, I'm with Monkey, rooting for the Saints this time,
Two23 wrote:
Nikon clearly doesn't have much of a line up of modern design lenses to support their FX bodies. Unlike Canon, they don't have a mid priced line attractive to entry level pros or serious amatuers.
The only thing that keeps me from going back to Canon is the lack of a body similar in capability and features of the D700. Otherwise, the lens selections are much more appealing with Canon.
Two23 wrote:
Since there seems to be no shortage of beginners that will pay $3,000 for a camera only to put a cheap lens on it, maybe what Nikon needs is an FX version of their 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR, selling for $250 the pair!
There are some who believe that an f/4 FX zoom is a "cheap lens".
What I expect to see announced is more point and shoot cameras and a few more DX lenses.
What I want is a D700s and D700x (on the shelf) available before the end of the year.
And at least an AF-S VRII upgrade to the 80-400, but a new FX 100-500 would be better.
Also a new FX 8-10mm (f/2.8 or less) wide prime would be very nice too.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Zooms superior to primes - now that is funny!
Just compare any of your 14-24mm primes to the AF-S Nikkor 14-24 and you will quit laughing.
Yes, of course, there are the exceptions as no zoom compares to a 200 f/2 nikkor. Nor can they do what the specialty primes like the TiltShift, FishEye, or some macro lenses do.
But I would rather buy a FX Nikkor 8-14 f/2.8 zoom than an 8mm and 14mm prime as it would be a whole lot more useful to me.
As I found the Sigma 300-800 more useful than combining everything in between.
I was able to keep a Hill Climbing motorcycle framed and in focus from 300 to 1000 ft.
And I would rather carry an Nikkor 200-400 than a 200, 300, and 400 lens.
You just can't beat the portability and range of a zoom.
RRRoger wrote:
Just compare any of your 14-24mm primes to the AF-S Nikkor 14-24 and you will quit laughing.
Yes, of course, there are the exceptions as no zoom compares to a 200 f/2 nikkor. Nor can they do what the specialty primes like the TiltShift, FishEye, or some macro lenses do.
But I would rather buy a FX Nikkor 8-14 f/2.8 zoom than an 8mm and 14mm prime as it would be a whole lot more useful to me.
As I found the Sigma 300-800 more useful than combining everything in between.
I was able to keep a Hill Climbing motorcycle framed and in focus from 300 to 1000 ft.
And I would rather carry an Nikkor 200-400 than a 200, 300, and 400 lens.
You just can't beat the portability and range of a zoom....Show more →
+ 1
I used to shoot primes simply because they were sharper, but that isn't the case any longer. So, in my opinion, about the only reason for a prime is if you need something faster than 2.8 for either DOF or low light. Beyond that, I'll usually take a zoom.
Even the "my prime is lighter than a zoom" argument doesn't help. To cover the same range, the zoom is still lighter, and you don't have to change it all the time.
I was changing lenses on Sunday in about three to five seconds when I was in the flow of things. Looking at my images from the day's work, it's clear that I just don't do zooms. Well, I try, but it isn't in me. Almost all of my good images came from the 85/1.4. If I could just get a 35 or 24 fast prime, I'd be in great shape.
luminosity wrote:
I was changing lenses on Sunday in about three to five seconds when I was in the flow of things. Looking at my images from the day's work, it's clear that I just don't do zooms. Well, I try, but it isn't in me. Almost all of my good images came from the 85/1.4. If I could just get a 35 or 24 fast prime, I'd be in great shape.
The 85 f/1.4 is great for portraits but so are the 14-70 and 70-200 zooms.
The 14mm f/2.8 prime cost as much as the 14-24 zoom and is not better.
And the much cheaper 24mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2.8 are no where as good as the Pro Zooms.
However, back to the PMA predictions:
I do not expect to see any new fast wide FX primes announced.
We may see a minor upgrade like AF-S or VRIII to an existing lense or the 1.4 and 1.7 teleconverters.
It will be a 24mm and 85mm 1.4. Some zoom update from what I was told several months ago by a Nikon Rep and my brick and mortar store. 35mm 1.4 latter in the year.
Nikon needs to match Canons primes - they will, know that, and it's about time.
I used to shoot primes simply because they were sharper, but that isn't the case any longer. So, in my opinion, about the only reason for a prime is if you need something faster than 2.8 for either DOF or low light. Beyond that, I'll usually take a zoom.
Even the "my prime is lighter than a zoom" argument doesn't help. To cover the same range, the zoom is still lighter, and you don't have to change it all the time.
Yup, I'll take my zooms
Oh men... again a fake war: primes versus zooms! IMHO is not this situation.
Roger and Steve... the situation seems to be like you try to convince us not because zooms are better... No way! That's only a circumstantial situation because Nikon did not invested any cent in R&D to produce pro primes in digital era. Looking in mirror Nikon did huge investments towards zooms. That's good for you and for them! This can change radically if Mr.Nikon will change a little bit his mind, producing some good AF-S primes.
For you the versatility of a focal range is important... for others the versatility of aperture is most prefered. Each position has good points but none is really dominating the other.
As I have said many times - to each their own. It just irks me when people claim that zooms outperform primes which is simply untrue. They both have their uses and MY personal preference is to use primes over zooms.
Gary Clennan wrote:
As I have said many times - to each their own. It just irks me when people claim that zooms outperform primes which is simply untrue. They both have their uses and MY personal preference is to use primes over zooms.
there is no prime in its range that can beat the 14-24.
Roger and Steve... the situation seems to be like you try to convince us not because zooms are better... No way! That's only a circumstantial situation because Nikon did not invested any cent in R&D to produce pro primes in digital era. Looking in mirror Nikon did huge investments towards zooms. That's good for you and for them! This can change radically if Mr.Nikon will change a little bit his mind, producing some good AF-S primes.
Yes, Nikon can produce superior primes.
Let's use the Nikkor 200 f/2.0 for an example as it is undeniably stellar.
Who can afford one? For $4700 I can buy a AF-S 24-70 and an AF-S 70-200 VRII + get change back.
How many will they sell?
Will they ever make a profit on them?
So, maybe I answered why I do not expect very many new Primes of that caliber.
If they announce a 24 f/1.4 at PMA, how much will it cost?
