Man, I'm pretty disappointed that the new 85mm f/1.4 won't have VR.
I do find the new 24-120mm f/4 VR to be kind of interesting. I wonder what the size of that lens will be. It would be great if it's weathersealed. My question is whether this lens have a niche at all?
lsquare wrote:
My question is whether this lens have a niche at all?
Shuold have one or 2 niches.
for current fx users....some of us came over with a love of primes. We aren't buying the 2.8 pro zooms for the obvious reason we have 2.8 or faster glass already. Know I would like to to see a nice cheap zoom that is the fx version of the dx's 18-70 ( a lens so good if you did not need the 2.8 of the 17-55....you bought this lens, got almost the same IQ, and could die a happy man/woman). Nikon gives a decent zoom like this....I'd put some money on it if price is right. So would other prime lovers who jsut want a fun, yet good iq lens for the easy just chilling days.
And for current dx users...fx a big step up since unless a prime lover.....no easy transition to fx if they haven't got fx zooms (most have dx glass imo....some have the 17-55 to add to the pita of moving to fx). Potential market for this is a nice cheap zoom to help those on the fence of dx to fx make a choice. At some point if nikon makes cheap "intro" fx bodies....could sell like hotcakes.
Also, the 24-120 and 28-300 should both appeal to the FX users who need alternatives to carrying around the 24-70 and 70-200 all the time for non-critical shooting.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Also, the 24-120 and 28-300 should both appeal to the FX users who need alternatives to carrying around the 24-70 and 70-200 all the time for non-critical shooting.
If the 28-300 is anything like the Canon one, it will be rather large and heavy. I'd rather have the 24-120 and a 70-200/4 VR.
loudtiger wrote:
if the d3100 is $499 for the body i am going to order one asap. something tells me it's going to be more expensive than the d3000 was, though.
It's impossible to tell though, Nikon's going to be feeling the pressure from other cheap market offerings and still needs to offer a budget option even if it's revamped with the new hotness sensor and video wise.
lsquare wrote:
Man, I'm pretty disappointed that the new 85mm f/1.4 won't have VR.
Does every lens NEED VR these days? This is not just directed at you, but everyone who thinks every lens needs VR. If you can't get sharp images wide open with this sort lens, then work on your technique and/or use a tripod.
Avi B wrote:
Does every lens NEED VR these days? This is not just directed at you, but everyone who thinks every lens needs VR. If you can't get sharp images wide open with this sort lens, then work on your technique and/or use a tripod.
Let me add to what avi said... With the incredible high ISO I'am surprised you'd even need VR with a lens this fast. Unless your shooting in a cave?
Most people will be happy since VR would add another couple of hundred dollars on top of a already expensive lens.
Avi B wrote:
Does every lens NEED VR these days? This is not just directed at you, but everyone who thinks every lens needs VR. If you can't get sharp images wide open with this sort lens, then work on your technique and/or use a tripod.
Tripods are often impractical. That is why lenses with optical stabilization are so beneficial. Maybe I sometimes want to shoot at f/7.1, low ISO, VR on rather than wide open or at f/1.6.
Avi B wrote:
Does every lens NEED VR these days? This is not just directed at you, but everyone who thinks every lens needs VR. If you can't get sharp images wide open with this sort lens, then work on your technique and/or use a tripod.
Wedding Photographer.. the idea of VR is so that I don't have to shoot it wide open all the time.. If I want to shoot at f 2.2 inside a church, I would be able to do that. I can't take a tripod to the front of the church and be discreet. I want it to be a lens that has more uses then just portraits.. That is why the AF-S is a good start, but VR would make it a much more versatile lens for situations I run into on a daily basis at a wedding.
JHerr wrote:
Wedding Photographer.. the idea of VR is so that I don't have to shoot it wide open all the time.. If I want to shoot at f 2.2 inside a church, I would be able to do that. I can't take a tripod to the front of the church and be discreet. I want it to be a lens that has more uses then just portraits.. That is why the AF-S is a good start, but VR would make it a much more versatile lens for situations I run into on a daily basis at a wedding.
Very true, but then again the practical side of my brain says I haven't seen much church lighting that shooting at f/2.2 and ISO 6400 won't give you an acceptable shutter speed. *shrug*
I do understand what you're saying though, all things being equal. I'd rather have VR than not have VR. Lens durability be damned.
Not all people shoot wide open all the time or just want to crank iso up. VR gives some slack in the area. Also some places you can't/may not want to bring a set of legs (tri or monopod).
Would have been a nice to have feature to give the new 85 a more general use aspect the lens its replacing just does not seem to have. In many side by side shootings, unless a fulltime head shot shooter who likes to nuke backgrounds, 1.8 was a very viable alterrnative once the lens backing off began.
VR on a new lens could have been a step in the right direction to buying for general use. time will tell if nikon did something special in the 2.8 to 11 range to warrant the price. If so...cool. If not...see how low the used D market goes for some a good strategy imo.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Very true, but then again the practical side of my brain says I haven't seen much church lighting that shooting at f/2.2 and ISO 6400 won't give you an acceptable shutter speed. *shrug*
I do understand what you're saying though, all things being equal. I'd rather have VR than not have VR. Lens durability be damned.
Well, for a lot of ceremonies I have to shoot on the d300 at ISO3200 instead, for the extra reach. And what about everyone not using the 85 1.4 on a d700 or a d3 or d3s?
Frankly, if they made a 135 f/2 VR then I would have no problem with not having VR on this lens. I guess I will just have to save up for a 70-200 2.8 VRII in addition to the new 85 1.4. I know I will still end up a happy owner of the new 85 1.4.
I still don't see where they can POSSIBLY read a VR-unit into that patent - it's a physical (almost) impossibility. The individual elements of the back part of the lens are all in direct physical contact.
The sentence "Elements in the rear group MAY have a dimension of motional freedom in an axis perpendicular to the optical axis to facilitate a vibration reduction blah blah blah...."
....is a sentence that Nikon puts into ALL and EVERY lens-patent to give themselves as much freedom as possible with regards to use of the patent. If a certain lens construction MIGHT have the possibility to include VR, they can build a version without VR and STILL have the intellectual rights to the same construction WITH VR.
Other than this, I'm really looking forward to testing the D3100.
As I find it highly improbable that they used the 14MP CCD and pushed that to ISO12800, the only sensor choice is the base sensor in the Sony NEX5 and the A550/450. And that's, to be honest, a brilliant sensor. Even in Sony's implementation, I think it's superior to the D90 (I have both here), and Nikon usually manage to tweak even a bit more from the Exmors than Sony themselves. And if the Nikon implementation of the sensor is even a few tenths of an Ev better, the market will have a new "entry-level" performance leader, by quite some margin.
It looks like the 85mm 1.4 AF-S is going to cost around $1,650. I just picked up a refurbed 85mm too, gosh darn it. Oh well, I'll wait to see how people like the new 85.
So it's official. 3 lenses that will sell extremely well and one I like to label WTF?
85/1.4 AF-S - people have been talking about this since the invention of AF-S. It'll have to be seriously bad optically for it not to be an instant success.
24-120/4 VR - Seems like a very good walkaround lens that's been missing. A bit on the pricey side but I doubt that will matter for now.
28-300 - Guess some photojournalists are going to be very happy now.
And finally, 55-300/4.5-5.6 VR DX. WTF? It's only marginally less expensive than the 70-300 VR and it has the same crappy AF without the AF/M option and the non existing focus ring as the 18-55. Why did they make this? It would have to drop to a price level of the 55-200 or slightly above to be of any use and then they'd most likely have to cancel the 55-200. I just don't get it.
YES! YES! YES! 24-120mm f/4 G VR, Nano, I have been waiting for this lens for years! I will probably sell my 24-70mm, and/or my 14-24mm to fund this one. I seldom shoot wider than 24mm. I might also get rid of my 85mm f/1.8 lens as well.
