Todd Warnke wrote:
Prior to the D3 you'd have said the same thing about an FX sensor. And while I agree that this sensor is likely not up to quality 12.8k images, I think the D400 will be.
Peace,
Todd
That's wishful thinking but you never know - Nikon may pull it off..... It's all speculation anyway. I bet the D400 will have a very similar sensor to the D300S...
Oooooh, it'll be interesting to see what kind of optical quality they can manage over a 24-120mm range at f/4.
I'm not surprised by the lack of VR in the 85mm, it would have been a major hat trick to have it. It's probably more durable for the lack of it though, less moving bits and what not.
I'm not surprised by the lack of VR in the 85mm, it would have been a major hat trick to have it. It's probably more durable for the lack of it though, less moving bits and what not.
Same here, Jammy. A) an f/1.4 lens hardly needs VR if you're using it at high ISO, and is of little benefit (in terms of stopping subject motion) at slow shutter speeds anyway... B) the VR element just adds more expense to an already expensive lens... and C) the lens would be HUGE around the middle like the Canon 85/1.2 if they added a moving VR optical group.
I think they could have done it without much of a size penalty, most of the smaller interior lens elements have some room around them. Check out their patent for the 85mm f/1.4VR, it seems though the wording is a bit ambiguous and they probably didn't have the actual mechanism for VR worked into the design.
Quoted:
“A lens group or a portion of a lens group may be shifted in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis as a vibration reduction lens group for correcting an image blur caused by a camera shake. It is particularly preferable that at least a portion of the second lens group or the third lens group is used as a vibration reduction lens group."
So yeah, we might shift one of those lens groups around, we're not really sure which one. We'll get back to you on that.
Thom Hogan raises an interesting point about the 28-300, Nikon could be positioning this lens as a move to a more consumer friendly (read cheaper) FX body line.
With the 16-35, 24-120, 50G, 28-300, & 70-300 they have a lineup that could satisfy the vast majority of users wanting an FX body in a D90 style package that don't want f/2.8 glass. They are missing a version of the 18-55 for FX, something very cheap for a low cost kit, users would still benefit from the nicer VF and high ISO quality of FX even with a f/3.5-5.6 lens.
Uggghhh, my 85 f/1.4D is already my best lens...as if it needed a new version. Why on Earth would they remake it before the 35 f/1.4?!? Unlike how most of us get pissed off because Nikon caters to the consumer market (since it's obviously where the money is) the 85 f/1.4 is pure pro - why leaves us 35mm-less while updating one of their best lenses?
Do I really have to drop CAD$3.5K (DX body and a 24 f/1.4) to get a fast 35
Yeah, no 35/1.4 AF-S sucks, but I'm sure its in the pipe line. One thing to look at is what Nikon has brought to the table all within the last 3 years:
That is 9 NEW FX lenses in 3 years. That doesn't include the 200/300/400/500/600 and 200-400 updates that happened in there as well. Not to mention all the DX lenses they have made in the last 3 years.
Nikon is going hardcore at the FX line up. I know it feels like people have been waiting forever for Nikon to get off their asses and start making new lenses, but c'mon, name one company that has been producing more new lenses in the last 3 years than Nikon.
^ You also left out the 60/2.8 AFS (Late '07/early '08 I believe?) and 105/2.8 AFS VR (Late '06/Early '07).
Nikon's pumping the FX pipeline full of some nice goodies, and they have what I would argue is the best low light performance AND the best autofocus in the industry... for my needs, I'm happy.
For my wants, I still crave that coveted 35/1.4 AFS, and we'll see if these fabled 28-300VR and 24-120 f/4 lenses materialize in the next few days, and if they're worth their presumably heavy price tags.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Nah, you can get a used 5D and 35L
Haha, believe me, I've almost done that a few times. The only reason I don't is the extra $1500 I'd spend on the Nikon gear gets me another backup body (that can be used with all my glass, brand new stuff, and the 24 f/1.4 on FX, and not having to worry about memorizing all the Canon buttons
Price seems right to me. With the amount of people who want to buy these and the capacity you have to produce, there's no need to sell to the lowest bidder.
The lenses are expensive, yes. Get the alternative.
We already knew there would be no VR in the 85mm, so there should have been no expectation. Nice to have, but not a deal breaker. There are technical limitations to these things.
I know of at last one store that will sell 1 x Sigma 120-400 OS lens a week. It is an excellent lens. I know it's the same talk over and over, but the 80-400 must be coming soon. And look out competition.!
PurplePix wrote:
Hope that 100-12800 are not pushed (or pulled iso settings). If that is the case, it comes out to native 200-6400 iso. D3 good but not as impressive as it originally sounds! Still, big improvement for a dx sized sensor.
Huge improvement. However, I would speculate that it's actually 200-3200 with Lo-1 and Hi-1/Hi-2 settings. I think that would be more likely... but I could well be wrong.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
The hell with All VR lenses. Why doesn't Nikon just make a stabilized sensor like Minolta or Sony? That would be the cure for the expectations of new VR lenses that don't come through.
The overall reason for preferring in-lens VR is that it's more effective than in-body VR. More expensive, and not on all your lenses, but more effective. It's quicker to move a small amount of glass in the lens than to move the entire sensor, and the VR in each lens can be better tuned to its mass and behavior.
Still, they might someday make a stabilized sensor for the consumer group. Or, I wonder if it's possible to use both a stabilized sensor and a stabilized lens in concert (coordinated by a single computer) to achieve über-effective and fast VR. Probably not yet and not in the foreseeable future, maybe, but an interesting idea...
