roger_s Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Dream lens: 16-70 mm VR IF ED DX, f3.5-5.6 If Nikon wants to make tons of money, they should make the above lens. - it would have VR, which so many people want. - it would have better image-quality than the 18-200 VR, because it doesn't go so long as 200mm, which forces compromises. - does not have a fixed aperture, so it avoids ridiculously-priced, heavy, and huge lenses such as the 17-55/2.8 - it would have a shorter length when at its longest focal length, compared to the 18-200 bazooka-length @ 200mm. - equivalent to a 24mm FF, rather than the insufficient equivalent 28mm FF of the 18-200 VR. I predict that, if Nikon were to produce the above lens, they'd have an even bigger monster hit than the compromised 18-200 VR. I wonder if Nikon reads posts on photo.net :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 More slow zooms? Doesn't the world have enough of those already? Bring us short AF-S DX f/2 primes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_s Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 p/s I recall Shun saying that Canon make something similar to the above dream lens, however, Canon's 1.6 factor of its DSLR's mean that their lens don't quite get to an equivalent of a 24mm FF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 This is the "dream lens" that I would never purchase. I hope Nikon does not read this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_bez Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 In case Nikon do read this! This is not a 'Dream lens' for me! In fact I am starting to have nightmares that Nikon are only interested in releasing more of this type of lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Well, Nikon was able to make a 24-120 for 35mm, so why shouldn't they be capable of making the equivalent for DX, which would be a 16-80. I'd prefer a f3.5-4.5 or even a constant f4 though. I didn't like the 5.6 on the 24-120 so I wouldn't like it on the 16-80. If they had to shave off a couple of millimeters at the long end to keep the aperture at 4 or 4.5 that would be ok too. Well, I guess I just created the 16-70/3.5-4.5 or 16-70/4. Only the hurdle to convince Nikon to produce it and then sell it (preferably in sufficient quantities right out of the gate) for under $500. And while they are at it they could update the 80-400 to AF-S and keep the price where it currently is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndc Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 <i>"it would have VR, which so many people want."</i> <P> "which so many people <b>suddenly find they can't live without because they've been duped by marketing."</b> <P> <i>"it would have better image-quality than the 18-200 VR"</i><P> doubt it. it would be built to the same standards as the 18-200 VR, so there's no reason to think it's going to be better. <P> <i>"does not have a fixed aperture, so it avoids ridiculously-priced, heavy, and huge lenses"</i><P> does not have a fast aperture, so it avoids ridiculously priced, soft, slow lenses such as the 18-200 VR. <P> <i>"it would have a shorter length when at its longest focal length"</i><P> some lenses have their shortest physical extention at their longest focal length, and some have it in the middle. there's no rule about it. <P> <i>"equivalent to a 24mm FF, rather than the insufficient equivalent 28mm FF"</i><P> must... distort... image... even more... <P> . <P> "Bring us short AF-S DX f/2 primes." <P> <b>word.</b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chromatic-aberration Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Frankly, I'll learn to deal with the 2mm of difference between this hypothetical lens and my 18-70. Never had a single shot where I especially needed VR with that lens, and it would be faster on the tele end to boot. If I need to shoot in available darkness, I'll go for a fast prime anyhow. I can't imagine that they'd bother with a lens so close to an existing lens that's doing well on the market, and well regarded within it's strata. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I gotta say, I got some serious lens envy over Canon's 24-105/4 L. Even tho' I mainly shoot primes. The venerable 28-70/2.8 AF-S is due for an update. I'm not interested at all in DX, but I'd pay for a 35-70/2 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 <I>p/s I recall Shun saying that Canon make something similar to the above dream lens</I> <P> If you are referring to me, I would very much like to see a quote. So please provide all of us a link to the thread where I allegedly have written something like that. In this case it isn't a big deal, but I don't like being associated with comments I never make. <P> I am somewhat glad about the fact that I currently do not own any lens that is slower than f4. Unlike Guy, I don't particular care for Canon's 24-105mm/f4. To me, that would be a focal length range for a wedding and event lens on a FF body, where I would prefer a 24-70mm/f2.8 (or my current 28-70/2.8) instead to deal with low-light indoor weddings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screeny Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 "- it would have VR, which so many people want." What's VR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan park Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 17-55 f2.8 DX AFS VRII. I think canon already has one so Nikon would just be playing catchup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 VR: Very Rich. A lot of people want to be very rich. :-) Vibration Reduction, similar to Canon's IS (Image Stabilization). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emraphoto Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 fast primes...DOUBLE WORD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 John, Have you even used an 18-200? VR is something that TOTALLY lives up to the marketing hype to me. I do NOT find the lens to be soft (many others don't either). I am curious whenever I see someone bash this lens if they've used it (holding it in the store doesn't count...) or if they've just read threads on photo.net. Rockwell, Hogan, and Rørslett all liked it very much and my own experience owning it leads me to agree with their findings. I too don't want a 16-70 VR IF ED DX f5.5-5.6 lens either. If Nikon is reading, please don't make it. Fast Primes? I don't know how many are going to buy them, but I bet Nikon thinks that with this list of primes... 14mm f/2.8D ED, 16mm f/2.8D AF Fisheye, 18mm f/2.8D AF, 20mm f/2.8D AF, 24mm f/2.8D AF, 28mm f/2.8D AF, 35mm f/2D AF, 50mm f/1.4D, 50mm f/1.8D, 85mm f/1.4D, 85mm f/1.8D, 105mm f/2D, 135mm f/2D, 180mm f/2.8D, 300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S, 400mm f/2.8D, 500mm f/4D, 600mm f/4D ...they have it covered. Sure, we'd all rather have f2 or f1.4 in some of these lengths (especially the ones that used to be wide but are now "normal", but fewer of us will pay the money the 28mm f1.4 cost... which is what those would cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seawolff Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Just maybe, if they made it 2.0 I would consider it. I hope they don't do a 17 - 55 VR as I just ordered the 17-55. IT cost enough that the extra money for the VR would be no big deal. Can't afford to buy the same lens 2x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mawz Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 No thanks. You've got 2 good ideas (16mm on the long end, VR) and one REALLY bad idea (Slow, variable aperture zoom). A 16-50 f2.8 VR would be nice. Better yet, how about a body with in-body stabilization, that could bring me back from Pentax for digital (I do still shoot Nikon film). There's nothing quite like shooting a fast 50 wide open at ISO 3200 and 1/6th of a asecond handheld. I can do that with my K100D. I'd love to do that with my Nikkor glass. I don't really care about small and light zooms. This is already over-covered (The second 18-55 and 18-135 were a waste of Nikon's time). Oh, and I'd love the f2 DX primes. As long as the 35mm is a 1.4. But a 24mm f2DX and 70mm f2DX would make my day, the lack of DX primes to replace certain common focal lengths at an adequate speed is my major beef with Nikon today. If Pentax(14DA, 21DA Limited, 40DA Limited, 70DA Limited, upcoming 35 and 55 DA's, DA=DX) and Sigma (30/1.4, 70/2.8) can do it, why can't Nikon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jheimsch Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 While I agree with your 16-70mm range, Roger, I too would prefer a fast maximum apeture. I am patiently awaiting more information regarding the Tokina 17-50 f2.8 (or was it 16 -50) that is rumored to be coming out this year. Also, I am envious of the Canon 50mm f1.2 HSM lens...not the new Canon lens'price, but I really like my manual Nikon 50mm f1.2; giving it AF-S would make it a real sweat short telephoto portrait lens. Yum! Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndc Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 "John, Have you even used an 18-200? VR is something that TOTALLY lives up to the marketing hype to me." Yes, I've used a number of copies of the 18-200 VR. They are fine for what they are, but knowing there's better image quality to be had from other stuff, albeit with a little less convenience, I'm just not impressed. VR works great at 105mm and beyond, but you scarcely need it in a lens equivalent to 24-105, where half of your zoom is wideangle. I'd much rather have the faster aperture all the way through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I'd love to see a 50-150/2.8 (or even a 3.5-4.5) AF-S VR in a diminutive package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huntrbll Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Dream lens? 70mm f2 AFS - VR would be nice but not necesary - with the same optical as the 105 f2.5. The PERFECT portrait lens on a DSLR........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_s Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 Shun Here is the post I referred to where you answered my question. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HBc8 I was yearning for something wider than 18mm, and you referred me to the Canon 17-55, however, it occurred to me that a 17mm on a Canon is not the same as 17 on a Nikon DX, because of the difference in 1.5 and 1.6 factors of Nikon and Canon respectively. Did I misrepresent you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Nikon already makes the 12-24 G dx. That is good enough for me. Forget the VR. If anything, make a fast 16 or 18mm af-s prime vr for those who must have vr. I am not one of them. Joe Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Hi Rogert, so my quote you are referring to is this one: "<I>If you must have a 17-55mm/f2.8 with VR, get the Canon EF-S version with IS along with a Canon body. Otherwise, IMO speculating on what Nikon will introduce in the future is kind of a waste of time;</I>"? <P> Canon indeed has a 17-55mm/f2.8 EF-S IS, but that is very different from the 16-70mm VR that is f5.6 on the long end you consider a "dream lens." I have the Nikon 17-55mm/f2.8 DX and it is my most used lens, and I don't really need VR on a short lens like that. As I pointed out earlier, I am glad that I don't own anything slower than f4, so I have zero interest in your "dream lens." <P> And to Adam, I am very interested in seeing some representative crops of your 1/6 sec hand held shot. I'd bet that you have plenty of camera shake. To me, shutter speeds below 1/15 sec is fairly meaningless anyway because of subject movement issues. If you are talking about totally still subjects, I would say why you just don't use a tripod. You can probably find some edge applications, but I am mainly interested in VR for longer lenses. <P> And did I say speculation on what Nikon will introduce in the future is a waste of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimolden Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 My real dream lens will be : 35mm AF ED f:1.2... A real fast prime lens for a D2 body and usable on any F body... DLA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now