Mike Mohrmann wrote:
I'll be sitting on the sidelines still wishing for an AF-S 24/2 and/or an AF-S 28/2.
I'd guess that eventually we'll see something like that. Maybe not soon though, Nikon wants to people the folks shelling out cash for D3s and D3x's in the loop and needs to do something in light of Canon's L primes to appease the pro users.
They may not be their big sellers, but there's something to be said for prestige products you can put in adds.
Mike Mohrmann wrote:
I know what I want (equipment-wise). I just don't know how to get there.
Based on this, then either (a) what you want is not available, or (b) you need other sources of information to get there. If you can describe clearly what you want and what you want to do with it, then I'd say start another thread with that description and see if a bunch of us can help to hammer it into reality shape.
So very true. But I still want more and more and more even if I have to unload my house too. I have a nice trailer just in case. You can never have enough lenses I think Nikon will give us what we want and then what,
Wouldn't it be great if we all had a trailer load of lenses and a caddy to fetch them for us?
I looked at that pile of Nikkors in the picture and drooled all over my keyboard.
I will have to leave now. The house breakers are going off and sparks are flying.
That's been pretty much my belief with Nikon and their AF lenses. When I switched from manual focus to autofocus SLRs back in 1993, I went with Canon over Nikon because their lens options suited my shooting style more. Over the past 17 years, Canon has added to those lenses I like to use, while Nikon has barely budged.
I opted for the D700 a little over a year ago because it was the DSLR I have been waiting for, but I am still fighting the lens issues with Nikon. You would think after 17 years I would have learned my lesson.
Mike Mohrmann wrote:
...For whatever reason, I have not made a smooth transition from film SLRs to DSLRs. Been struggling with it for over three years....
Mike Mohrmann wrote:
I opted for the D700 a little over a year ago because it was the DSLR I have been waiting for, but I am still fighting the lens issues with Nikon. You would think after 17 years I would have learned my lesson.
I would never switch systems just for a camera body. They come and go. Lenses, flash performance--yes.
Two23 wrote:
I would never switch systems just for a camera body. They come and go. Lenses, flash performance--yes.
I tried a 7D for 10 days and if I could've realised the same AF performance of the D300/D2 Nikon bodies on fast close range subjects I'd have made the jump in a heartbeat for those nice f4 L lenses.
With Nikon I have either large f2.8 glass or slow variable aperture lenses.
Unfortunately, I just could not make the 7D work in such applications as well as the D300/D2H(s) does. Admittedly, 10 days of use cannot supplant decades of Nikon use but the end result is the same - the Nikon bodies are noticeably better in my hands for my preferred shooting so I do stay with the brand because of the bodies more than the glass.
I'm fortunate though that Nikkor has an excellent line of higher grade consumer lenses that perform nicely even if on the slow side aperture wise.
But I still lust for Canon's compact 70-200mm f4, their affordable stabilised 300mm f4, and their lovely USM 200mm f2.8 lens. But all that glass does me no good if the AF system in their affordable DX machine won't keep up with the Nikon counterpart... and it doesn't in my hands.
Thus, I had no choice but to treat myself to a D300s
For me, it is ergonomics. It kills my hand to hold the AF button down on a 40D or 1Ds Mk11. The 5D specs were very tempting until they pulled the bad image samples from the web and the autofocus problems started surmounting.
The only thing I like better about their lens is price. I would not trade the 14-24, 24-70, or 70-200 Nikkors for Grey lenses.
I will wait for the 700s & x or what ever Nikon calls them and the 10-14 and 100-500 FX Nikkors.
Why does Nikon need an 85/1.2? It needs no such thing. The 85/1.4 is great as it is, and just needs to be updated as an AF-S lens. The Canon 85/1.2 has its share of issues, and it is not always smooth sailing with it, at least so far as I understand.
luminosity wrote:
Why does Nikon need an 85/1.2? It needs no such thing. The 85/1.4 is great as it is, and just needs to be updated as an AF-S lens. The Canon 85/1.2 has its share of issues, and it is not always smooth sailing with it, at least so far as I understand.
There really is just something different and amazing about the 85 1.2 that's not in the 1.4. The images have a quality and depth that I haven't seen yet in a nikon lens.
I think Nikon will give us what we want and then what, 
??