What lenses would you like Nikon to launch in the near future?

<p>Hi everyone!<br /> I know there's no such thing as "the perfect lens", and I know Nikon's lineup comprises dozens of lenses. However, I think there are some empty spaces in their lineup, lenses that at least in my opinion surprisingly aren't there. I'll give just a few examples of lenses I'd like Nikon to manufacture:</p>

<p><strong>More DX primes</strong>. 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 3.5 VR Micro are good starts, but they are not enough. How about:</p>

<p>60mm f/2 DX Micro (VR?)<br /> 28mm f/2 DX<br /> 20mm f/2.8 DX<br /> 16mm f/2.8 DX<br /> 14mm f/2.8 or f/4 DX</p>

<p>It's funny there aren't any ultra wide angle primes for APS-C cameras.</p>

<p><strong>A wide angle zoom for DX format</strong>. For the moment, Nikon only offers two kinds of wide angle zooms for APS-C cameras: ultra-wide zooms like 10-24mm 3.5-4.5 DX and standard mid-wide-to-mid-telephoto zooms like 18-105mm 3.5-5.6 DX. As I'm not too keen on using extremely wide focals and thus not willing to pay for them, I'd suggest a sharp, versatile and not too expensive</p>

<p>14-28mm f/4 DX (VR?) or a 15-30mm f/4 DX (VR?) for landscape photography.</p>

<p>Landscape photographers with a tight budget would surely love one of these! I know Nikon just launched the 16-35mm f/4 VR. The range and the aperture sound fine to me, but there's no point in buying it since it's for full frames (I have a D80) and it costs accordingly.</p>

<p>What about you? What lenses would you like Nikon to have but surprisingly it doesn't?</p>

<p>IMHO Nikon is covering quite well the DX area and I don't think we will see spectacular new coming lenses here.</p>

<p>The missing glass is on FX part... both primes and zooms. For FX primes Nikon has to launch the most expected 35mm f1.4 and to bring AF-S version for 85mm f1.4, 135mm f2 DC, etc. For FX zooms, a great interest is for 24-70mm f4 and 70-200mm f4. Also a new improved version of 80-400mm would be highly welcomed. </p>

<p>The problem with making ultra wide DX primes is the effective focal length is about 1/3 of the mounting flange to image plane distance of 46.5mm. Therefore they won't be inexpensive.<br /> I'd like to see a 35-600 f4 ED full frame zoom that weights about 2kg and costs approx $2k and is as sharp at the current 600 f4 at wide open. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I want a 70-200 VR f4 lens, that's what I want. ultra-wide and wide? I think we're covered with the zooms, and they aren't going to make any primes. "normal"?, the 35mm f1.8 is GREAT. The wide angle zooms you mention will, I fear, simply not sell to anyone but you. (Don't mean to offend, there are lenses I'd love to have that only I want, and will never exist...)</p>

<p>I doubt we will see many more DX primes in the future - it simply doesn't make sense to stagger them the same way one once did the FX primes: 35, 28, 24, 20, 18, 14 - all what's needed besides the already existing 35/1.8 might be a 24/1.4 DX, a 20/2 DX, and 16/2 DX; neither of them will be cheap and I am not even sure the f/2 aperture is technically feasible. As the price of the 10-24 shows, if Nikon were to bring a 10-16/2.8 to market, the price would be $1500-$1800. And as to your zoom choices - just get the 16-35/4 AF-S VR; the ones you propose won't be significantly cheaper.<br>

On DX, a 16-70/2.8 replacing the 17-55 would be nice. Making the 16-85/3.5-5.6 into a 16-85/4 would be welcomed. A 50-150/2.8 (or even 2-2.8)DX.<br>

FX: A 70-200/4 AF-S VR. A 70-200/AF-S Micro. A 24-105/4 AF-S VR. A 200-500/4-5.6 AF-S VR. A 100-300/4 AF-S VR. 35/1.4 AF-S.</p>

<p>I hope they can come up with AF-S 1000mm f/5.6 VR2.</p>

<p>300/4 with VR and AF-S.</p>

<p>80-400 with AF-S and VR.</p>

<p>I would like to see a 28mm f/2 AF-S ED or a 35mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2 AF-S ED with optical quality comparable with or at least nearly as good as that of the 24mm f/1.4 AF-S, but preferably at a significantly lower price due to the more moderate aperture and focal length specs. For DX users I think a 20mm f/2 AF-S DX would be a great lens to have for a portable, lightweight, fast kit (combined with the 35/1.8DX and a 50mm or an 85mm).</p>

<p>I would also like to see a 400mm f/4 or f/4.5 prime that would be a little less expensive than the 200-400mm and somewhat lighter, with VR II. To me there is a big gap in price and portability between the 300/4 AF-S (which I use) and the "big guns." Of course one could argue that beyond the 300mm f/4, one needs to use a tripod or monopod and once you use a tripod, you can support a bigger lens - but then the big question is why does the lightweight, easily hand-holdable (on FX) 300/4 not have VR but all the big ones that one would not normally hand-hold do ... it's a paradox.</p>

<p><em>15-30mm f/4 DX (VR?) for landscape photography.</em></p>

<p>There is the 16-35mm f/4 VR which has a very nice focal length range for DX.</p>

<p><em>I hope they can come up with AF-S 1000mm f/5.6 VR2.</em></p>

<p>For 20000 USD?</p>

<p><em>ultra-wide and wide? I think we're covered with the zooms, and they aren't going to make any primes</em></p>

<p>They certainly are; they just brought the 24mm f/1.4 AF-S to the market, and there will be more. When, is the question.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>1. I want a 400mm f 3.5 AFS or a 400mm f 4.0 AFS similar to the old manual focus version. 2. 800mm f5.6 AFS. I really do not care about the VR, but I realize it probably has to be added for marketing purposes. Both lenses should be FX. These teles will fill gaps in the long lens lineup.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would also like to see a 400mm f/4 or f/4.5 prime that would be a little less expensive than the 200-400mm and somewhat lighter, with VR II.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Canon makes the 400/4 DO IS that is perfectly hand-holdable - and about as expensive as the 200-400/4. Looks like there isn't going to be a free lunch here either. 400/5.6 AF-S VR? 500/5.6 AF_S VR?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>why does the lightweight, easily hand-holdable (on FX) 300/4 not have VR but all the big ones that one would not normally hand-hold do ... it's a paradox</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed. Just buy the 300/2.8 AF-S VRII instead - never mind the additional weight and cost.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It would be really nice if they would release a few classics in the Canon EF mount. As it is, I use a lot of pre-AI lenses. :)</p>

<p>The only modern Nikkor I've used on a Canon was the 8mm fisheye, and it worked fine, but that's obviously a special case and then some.</p>

<p>I see little use in that many DX primes - even though I am a DX shooter, mainly using primes these days. But please, let them all be FX as much as possible.<br>

The only one I would think should be DX only is a wide prime (16mm f/2.8, to have a decent 24mm equivalent would be very appreciated, else 18mm), to keep size and price a bit normal. But from about 20mm on, the primes could all just as well be FX, I think (*). Should be easier for Nikon too (more market coverage).</p>

<p>So, my only personal wish is only that 16mm DX prime. Otherwise, I'm fine for the moment. Maybe I should start re-thinking the D700, in which case I won't need the 16mm DX either....<br>

Overall, I feel the main effort for a new lens should be the 80-400VR. I think an thoroughly updated version of this lens would be a reasonable good seller. All other lenses - nice as they could be - serve much more fragmented markets with much lower sales, so I'm not holding my breath.</p>

<p><em>(*) I don't think any other prime will sell as well the 35 /f.18 - that ~50mm equivalent simply has more attraction than any of the other primes, I think. So let that be the DX exception, since it filled a clear gap in the market at a more aggressive price point. </em></p>

<p>I'd like a fast ultra-wide for DX cams. Tokina has the 11-16mm f/2.8 DX, but the Nikons with comparable range are f/4. For night shooting especially this can make a tremendous difference in exposure times. The added flexibility for low-light is obviously nice to have, too. The couple of stops can matter. I'm likely to get the Tokina, the only non-Nikon brand I tend to really like, but I'm disappointed I don't have a Nikon option.</p>

<p>You guys have GOT to try that 11-16 from Tokina. You might find that it makes it so you don't need those wide primes like you think you might. It's really not so big.</p>

<p>Peter, got the 12-24, which I quite like; not that big indeed, but not small either compared to a 24 f/2.8... It's just, in my case, I really like primes better than zooms. Some fuzzy reason... and frankly, I do not "feel" the lack of this wide prime that hard, for most of what I want to do, I can perfectly live with what the Tokina 12-24 delivers - at f/5.6 it's a seriously good lens.</p>

<p>A 10-300 f/1.4 VR zoom retailing at about USD 100 would be nice...</p>

<p>To be serious, adding AF-S and VR to the 85mm primes would be welcomed by many, I believe.</p>

<p>i do own some decent Nikon glass, but after the 24 1.4 my whish list has been decreased to AF-S 35 1.4 FX only ....<br>

So Nikon Marketing : Please Surprise me with this lens before Christmas 2010</p>

<p>A 50-135 f/2.8 VR DX lens, giving DX a similar range as FX gets from the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, but lighter, and presumably cheaper.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon's lineup comprises dozens of lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Darius, I salute you for using the verb "to comprise" properly. It makes me cringe when I hear someone say "<em>is comprised of</em>" which is totally and painfully incorrect.</p>

<p>I would like to request:</p>

<p>16-40 f/2.8 VRII G, NO BARREL DISTORTION, takes filters</p>

<p>35 mm PC-E II</p>

<p>100-400 f/4-5.6 VR II G</p>

<p>24-85 f/2.8 VR II G</p>

<p>Only FX lenses for me:<br>

50-135/4 AF-S (or f2.8 if the size, weight and optical quality aren't compromised too much). The IQ needs to be good from the largest aperture onwards. This lens would be extremely flexible for people photos and certain styles of landscape.<br>

28-105 AF-S, the carry anywhere travel lens, high image quality when stopped down, usable at full aperture.<br>

28/2 AF-S nice, flexible, focal length works both for DX and FX and would be smaller and cost less than the 24/1.4 (also the focal length is more useful for me).</p>

<p>14 F2.8 (or F4) DX With a 67mm Filter Mount to match with the 16-85 and 70-700. I just dont like the wide angle zooms because they are not compact and have a large filter size.<br>

52 mm filter size would work also to match the filter sizes of the 35 F1.8 and 85 F3.5</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>28-105 AF-S, the carry anywhere travel lens, high image quality when stopped down, usable at full aperture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1, Oskar. That's a significant gap since the 28-105 AF-D was discontinued. Shouldn't be too heavy or expensive (so probably f3.5 max). Obviously VR as well, for the moderate tele end.</p>

<p>Either a 300mm f4 VR or updated 80-400mm VR AFS, both under $1,800.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>My needs are simple. A 24-120 f/4 for FX with glass as sharp as the 28-105 variable aperture lens. Hell, I'll take a 24-105 f/4.</p>

<p>A portrait lens for the DX format will be nice. Maybe a 60mm f/1.4 DX AF-S VR with smooth bokeh.</p>