Super-fast mid-tele on the horizon?

WARNING: THIS IS NOT A RUMOR! I HAVE HEARD NOTHING ON THIS, I AM ONLY

MUSING!!

 

Okay, now that I've gotten that disclaimer out of the way, I wanted to

say that I'm fascinated by the new 200 f/2 lens that's coming out. I

do a lot of available-light photography and, while I can't justify the

cost of this monster, I'd love it. However, when I go digital I'll be

dealing with a 1.5x factor, and I don't really want a 300 f/2 (well,

okay, I DO, but it wouldn't be practical!). What do you all think the

chances of Nikon putting out a 135-150 f/2 (or so) lens would be? And

remember, a couple of months ago, the majority of us would have

laughed at the thought of the 200 f/2. Anyway, this focal length

range on a DSLR with a 1.5x crop factor could be VERY useful to many

of us who photography indoors under available light, and it could be a

killer portrait lens for film (not that the 105 f/2.5 needs replacing)

. Remember, on a D70 or so, I'd have a hard time using the 105 f/1.8

because it wouldn't be able to meter.

 

What do your crystal balls show you?

Maybe I'm not understanding something. Nikon already sell a 105 f/2 AF and a 135 f/2 AF. You can just ignore the DC feature of these lenses if it's not interesting to you. Does that help?

"...300 f/2 (well, okay, I DO, but it wouldn't be

practical!)." --Chris Haake<br>

<br>

An effective 300mm f/2.0 sure as hell sound sounds practical to

me!

What do I think the chances are? Zero.

Nikon already has two "killer" lenses in that range - the 105 2.0 DC and the 135 2.0 DC.

I agree with John Morris regarding the AF 105/2.0 and AF 135/2.0

DC(s). You can also set just a touch of rear smoothing if you

like. As far as fast medium telephotos youve got a killer

85/1.4, 105/2.0 and 135/2.0. If you want a fast medium telephoto

that is lighter there is the AF 180/2.8D ED-IF. What else could

one want?<br>

<br>

Id like an 105/2.5 AI-P but then Im a little strange.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

I decided to go back into my early catalogs to review the old MF Nikkor 300f/2 EDIF. That was a heavy "puppy" at 7100 gms (15.7 lbs). I know that it usually came with the legendary 1.4x TC14C. I wonder if there is really a market for a AF/VR version today? I don't know what the cost was back in '85 (the catalog year), but I can only surmise that the market might not justify its existance today. (Not that I wouldn't like to see it though!)

Alex, what I meant was the AF-S 200/2.0G ED-IF VR on a DX

format camera as an effective 300/2.0. I believe the 200/2.0 is

about the size and weight of a AF-S 300/2.8D ED-IF.<br>

<br>

I think the 300/2.0 ED-IF AIS was a special order lens back in

the mid 80s. I dont think todays market would

support another 300/2.0 either because with DSLR(s) there is more

freedom to crop. Even with a full frame DSLR you'd just do a 67%

crop.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

Postscript: This translating between 35mm and DX is confusing. I

dont translate between 4x5 and 6x9 when using the same

lenses on both. Its too bad we dont think in terms of

angle of view and use the angle instead of the focal length but

not many do this, I dont, I wish I did.

"An effective 300mm f/2.0 sure as hell sound sounds practical to me!"

 

I mean for my own shooting. I don't need a super-fast 300 nearly as much as I need a super-fast 150-200.

 

As for the DC, I'm sure I wouldn't mind them, except for the sticker shock. I don't want the DC feature, quite frankly...okay, I don't want to PAY for the DC feature. I just want a really fast lens at around this length. However, I didn't think Nikon would REALLY introduce a lens like this with the 135 DC already in the lineup...just wishful thinking.

By the way, the 300 f/2 WAS a special order lens, and the last I heard, it cost $29,000 at the time (don't know precisely what year). Ouch.

<em>"I don't need a super-fast 300 nearly as much as I need a

super-fast 150-200." --Chris Haake<br>

<br>

"I don't want to PAY for the DC feature." --Chris Haake<br></em>

<br>

105x1.5=157.5, 135/2.0x1.5=202.5. <br>

<br>

The 105/1.8 AIS was not a cheap lens when it came out. If Nikon

made a 105/2.0 and 135/2.0 in an AF but in a non-DC model it

wouldnt cost that much less anyway. I dont remember

the price of the 105/1.8 AIS but Ill guess about $535.00 in

1987. In CPI dollars it would cost $882.00 today. Now you can

look at B&H photo and the 105/1.8 AIS is only $650.00 but its

a milk cow at this date. The R&D is long paid and they milk

it for all its worth.<br>

<br>

You cant compare top of the line lenses to the low end AF

Nikkors price wise. They now sit in the seat of the Series-E

lenses and yes, like the Series-E lenses some have excellent

performance and some are (and were) rather ordinary. <br>

<br>

Conclusion: stop worrying about the DC feature or hoping for a

cheaper 105/2.0 or 135/2.0 and just buy one. If it needs to be

used to save a few bucks then do it.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

PS: the AF 105/2.0D DC is $770.00 and 920.00 at B&H today,

the AF 135/2.0D DC is $890.00 and $1,070.00. Just logon and buy

one. Itll only take about five minutes at most ;)<br>

<br>

I wish I could.

Chris,

 

Curious as to why you say the majority would laugh at the thought of a 200f2. Nikon started making one (not AF obviously) in the 70's or 80's. Canon also made a 200f1.8 as I recall. Price for Nikkor was in same range as 300f2.8, not cheap but not ultra expensive (and heavy) like the 300f2. Even before the rapid increase in digital imaging, it seemed as though the used 200f2 came on the market much more infrequently than they used to. With the proliferation of the Nikon digital cameras with the smaller image frame, it appears that the market for the lens, especially with AFS and VR, may be good.

 

Regards,

Actually, the very reason I said most people would laugh at the thought of Nikon introducing a 200 f/2 right now is precisely BECAUSE they discontinued the AIS version and, even more importantly, because Canon discontinued the 200 f/1.8. Any long f/2 lens is pretty esoteric (in that it won't sell a lot, not because it wouldn't be useful), so my assumption would be that Nikon would concentrate on other, more marketable things (especially with Canon breathing down their necks right now).

A 'new' 300mm f2 lens at (approx.) $5,500

 

 

 

or

 

 

 

a LN 135mm f2 lens at $780 (used AF 135mm f2D DC-Nikkor at KEH.com)

 

 

 

 

 

It would be a tough decision to make, I'd guess.

A VR version of some of the primes nikon now makes, possibly with a slight widening - say AF-S 135mm f/1.8 ED IF VR, same for 105 - would be nice.

 

I find myself shooting a lot in the 100-200 range and the AFS 70-200 VR will probably be my next lens. I don't find the 200mm f/2 laughable and Canon discontinuing theirs makes it an even better asset. Will I buy it? Not in the next 12 months (its not out yet either) after that it becomes a maybe.