Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
I'd guess the 35/1.4 is not far off.
they need to have it out soon though.
Zeiss will be out with theirs soon (think on the rumors site we even got a price for it now). They have a rep for good quality and already produce a 3rd party 35mm F2 lens known for its performance. If anyone can pull off a super IQ, great build release to make people jump the fence it could be them.
And if another thread is correct we have us a cheaper alternative samyang 35 1.4 as well . All this lens has to do is be usable more at 1.4 than the AIS (should not be a duanting task I imagine) , and not be over 1000 and it will sell decent I imagine.
Basically 3rd party is filling the gap nikon has been blind too for quite a while (decades to be priecise). Something nikon does not want. Zeiss gives people bad ideas of replacing NAS with ZAS and even the samyang 85mm has some people going its not the 85 mm 1.4d Nikkor but......its not a bad substitute for the price all the same.
There is always going to be someone cheaper, but I don't think Nikon is too scared of that. Look at the 70-200 VRII. Its a very expensive 70-200/2.8 lens and yet it is selling like hotcakes. The new 24/1.4 is in such demand that Nikon can not keep up. These are both very expensive lenses and there are 3rd party alternatives to these but Nikon is still not able to keep the supply up with the demand.
Let Zeiss come out with their 35/1.4. It will probably have a good run for the time before Nikon releases their 35/1.4, but once that happens, Nikon will be selling those out in mass numbers as well.
Interesting selling propositions. This gives a good idea of what we can expect in the future dx bodies. I am curious about the performance of the lenses. In the meantime, I own both the old 24-120VR and the Tamron 28-300VC (6.3@300mm) , the 28-300VR 5.6 could be a nice addition as fx walk around lens. We'll see about the 85 1.4 as well. I am not in a hurry, I have way too many lenses anyway...
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
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.
The camera it is replacing (D3000) is a ISO 100-1600 with an additional HI 1. I do not see why the D3100 could not just as easily have ISO 100.
I would personally prefer this order
some nice UWA fixed that can use filters ie 15mm or 16mm those have not been touched for long time
80-400mm
300mm
35mm
maybe 85mm
to me 70-200/4 is not a big deal and getting new 35 as well - they will charge you arm and a leg for it anyway.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
I would speculate that it's actually 200-3200 with Lo-1 and Hi-1/Hi-2 settings.
RoyC wrote:
The camera it is replacing (D3000) is a ISO 100-1600 with an additional HI 1. I do not see why the D3100 could not just as easily have ISO 100.
There is no reason why is couldn't have ISO 100. I believe 200-3200 is more likely because there are many more people who care about improving low-light performance at 3200 than those who care about reducing noise or improving DR at 100 versus 200. But as I said before, that's my thinking and it does not necessarily have to be right.
PurplePix wrote:
I didn't think they even made sensors with native ISO100. I've always read they are ISO 200. I'm betting you are right on both ends. I'm now getting a bit excited to see what the D300 replacement is going to look like, spec wise. Surely it will gain at least a stop of ISO and add the AF video.
Kent in SD
D1x was ISO 125 and D2x was 100. How soon ye forget.
That was the other reason I figured 200-3200 was more likely... since the report was that ISO 12800 was available, I guessed that 200-3200 with Lo-1, Hi-1, and Hi-2 was more likely than 100-1600 with Hi-1, Hi-2, and Hi-3 or even 100-3200 with Hi-1 and Hi-2.
, the 28-300VR 5.6 could be a nice addition as fx walk around lens. We'll see about the 85 1.4 as well. I am not in a hurry, I have way too many lenses anyway...
