Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR AF-S
millsart wrote:
If you were a DX user and wanted macro, why not use the already very good 60mm or 105mm micro lens they have ? Those are both great glass and work on both DX as well as FX.
...
A fast prime like a 28mm f1.4 would be something that would appeal to both DX and FX users.
...
Same with something like a 16-35 or similar F4 range zoom. That would be an amazing lens for the FX shooter who doesn't want the weight of the 14-24, or wants to use filters. They'd sell a ton. If it was optically in the league of the 14-24 they'd sell a bunch to DX users as well.
The 60 is too short and lacks VR, and the 105 is a lot heavier and more expensive.
A 28/1.4 prime would cost $1500 and weigh 20 ounces or more. The 35/1.8 is $200 and weighs half a pound.
I agree about the 16-35/4. I would love a lens like that. If it comes out, it's the single most likely thing to push me to FX. For now, the options are older primes that are optically weak, or the expensive and unacceptably heavy 14-24 (or nearly as expensive and heavy 17-35).
I don't understand the people complaining that the 85/1.4 needs to be updated. It's spectacular -- amazing image quality, fast AF, and good handling. VR and AF-S would be nice I guess, but VR might screw it up optically, and it would almost certainly be a $2k lens. It's hard for me to put that anywhere near the top of the list. I'd rather have some updated shorter primes (or the rumored 16-35/4).
The only thing that would make Nikon's reinvigoration of their lightweight high-quality primes even better would be if they were done for FX (would LOVE a 20/4, for example). But the fact that they're doing it at all, after a couple of decades of optically inferior consumer "convenience" zooms (24-120, ugh) is great news.
If you were a DX user and wanted macro, why not use the already very good 60mm or 105mm micro lens they have ? Those are both great glass and work on both DX as well as FX.
...
A fast prime like a 28mm f1.4 would be something that would appeal to both DX and FX users.
...
Same with something like a 16-35 or similar F4 range zoom. That would be an amazing lens for the FX shooter who doesn't want the weight of the 14-24, or wants to use filters. They'd sell a ton. If it was optically in the league of the 14-24 they'd sell a bunch to DX users as well.
The 60 is too short and lacks VR, and the 105 is a lot heavier and more expensive.
A 28/1.4 prime would cost $1500 and weigh 20 ounces or more. The 35/1.8 is $200 and weighs half a pound.
I agree about the 16-35/4. I would love a lens like that. If it comes out, it's the single most likely thing to push me to FX. For now, the options are older primes that are optically weak, or the expensive and unacceptably heavy 14-24 (or nearly as expensive and heavy 17-35).
I don't understand the people complaining that the 85/1.4 needs to be updated. It's spectacular -- amazing image quality, fast AF, and good handling. VR and AF-S would be nice I guess, but VR might screw it up optically, and it would almost certainly be a $2k lens. It's hard for me to put that anywhere near the top of the list. I'd rather have some updated shorter primes (or the rumored 16-35/4).
The only thing that would make Nikon's reinvigoration of their lightweight high-quality primes even better would be if they were done for FX (would LOVE a 20/4, for example). But the fact that they're doing it at all, after a couple of decades of optically inferior consumer "convenience" zooms (24-120, ugh) is great news.