Where are the DX pro lenses?

[jose_angel]

I wonder about the release of new "pro" line lenses for the D300...

<p>

The 17-55 is for the time being the "only" pro-level lens;

<p>

Those who want anything longer needs to jump for a 70-200. That 55 to

70 "portrait" gap looks to be only filled with the 24-70 FX lens. What about an

AFS 50-135 N VR? (it would be the second 50-135 version)

<p>

Why not a high quality AFS 20/1.4 (or 24/1.4) N lens? I missed it for that

<i>weekend shots</i>, where "the zoom" is too bulky or heavy.

<p>

A 1:2 macro 28 or 35mm lens would be great for DX cameras.

<p>

Surely, the consumer zoom lens range will be increased and overfilled up to

exasperation. But I understand there is a Nikon high quality demanding sector

who pays substantial ammounts of money for the best metal bodied lenses, grips

and cameras (looks like there are people buying expensive D3 cameras, there are

also Leica users who spent "indecent" ammounts for their gear). Canon makes

Nikonists jealous with their 1.4 and 1.2 lenses. NAS infected users buys almost

everything metal made by Nikon.

<p>

Don`t you think this lenses could be best sellers? Why not to put this products

on the market <i>right now</i>?

[juanjo_viagran]

maybe Nikon is giving up on DX and ready to start a new DSLR FX line *D300FX, D90FX.. how knows..! ;)

 

anyway those new Pro lenses are perfectly usable on DX..

 

14-24mm 2.8AFS - 24-70mm 2.8AFS and 70-200mm 2.8AFS sounds like a nice set up on FX AND DX..

[jose_angel]

The 14-24 could be an expensive wide angle zoom choice for DX users (sadly not too much wide for the money), the 24-70 could be a good portrait lens.

 

But assuming the 17-55 is a must for wedding shooters, the 24-70 is a bit overlaping lens for them. Using a second body the 70-200 could be useful but that 55 to 70 gap is a bit annoying, thought.

[Peter_in_PA]

Juanjo writes "14-24mm 2.8AFS - 24-70mm 2.8AFS and 70-200mm 2.8AFS sounds like a

nice set up on FX AND DX"

 

I disagree. Yeah, the 70-200 is great for both. But I think your scenario is a poor setup for

DX. the 14-24 is a HUGE hunk of glass that becomes a FOV-equivalent 21-36 on DX, not

ultra-ultra-wide enough for the price you pay, and is only useful on FX for special

applications. I'd rather have the 12-24 for DX and probably the 17-35 for FX... I think the

14-24 has a VERY small specialized market for the most part.

 

The 24-70 is great on FX but becomes something like a 36-105 on DX. not wide enough

or not long enough depending on what you're using it for, imho.

 

The 17-55 is a GREAT length for DX and the gap between 55-70 is inconsequential with a

little judicious cropping. The 12-24 makes a great ultra-wide addition and I would call it a

pro lens, myself.

 

just my .02

 

btw, we do all agree that we want little fast DX primes, but now that FX is here, maybe we

won't get them.

[Jerry_]

Does that mean the money made by using a 'non-pro' AF 18-70mm DX Nikkor lens was not possible. I've yet to see a Canon camera user that can do anything different that a Nikon photographer.... The person holding the camera should get some credit for creating solid images, I'd guess.

 

 

 

 

Happy New Year!

[ilkka_nissila]

I think the problem with the 'fast wide angle prime for DX' is simply that they cannot make a fast wide angle very sharp wide open in the small DX format. Otherwise *someone* would have done that by now. If you want fast short glass, you want the larger FX sensor. Notice how the 12-24 mm DX is excellent well stopped down but it's not all that fabulous at f/4 in the corners. Would an 20/1.4 DX be better? Perhaps, but possibly not enough better to justify it. I would buy one if they made one, but suspect that less expensive FX DSLRs arrive before this one does.

 

The 17-55 and 70-200 make a really nice pair IMO. I've never missed the FLs between 55 and 70mm. Never even thought about it. I doubt it's a problem for most pros either.

[photo5]

I think the Nikon 18-70mm DX is a pro-quality lens. Just because it is not f2.8 doesn't mean it can't be used by pros. The old NIkon 28-105mm zoom was also a pro lens. I shot a lot of weddings with it and got very sharp results. I preferred it over the Tamron 28-105 f2.8 that I used before it because the Nikon was so much lighter weight. I didn't miss the constant f2.8 aperture either. I would love to have the 70-200mm f2.8 VR zoom but it's too big and heavy for traveling. The Nikon 70-300mm ED zoom is a great one for me.

 

I think Nikon decided that it will focus on the consumer more than the pro because the consumer is the majority of the market and Nikon will make more money that way. With the Tokina 12-24mm, the Nikon 18-70mm, and the Nikon 70-300mm ED zooms, I feel I have most of my photography covered. I will get the Nikon 10.5mm someday, but not soon, it's too expensive for me for such a specialized lens.

[douglas lee]

"I think Nikon decided that it will focus on the consumer more than the pro because the

consumer is the majority of the market and Nikon will make more money that way. "

 

I didn't realize the 14-24 and 24-70 zooms I just bought were consumer lenses. Darn! :-)

 

Drat, guess that D3 in the bag must be a consumer body, too. :-)

 

On a more serious note: I think the 17-55 and 70-200 is perfect combo for DX. The gap

never bothered. Of course, I jumped on the 24-70 for my D300 and like that range,

although I know others think it not wide enough.

[barry schmetter]

If Nikon would just introduce a 17-55 with VR, it would go a long way in supporting the DX bodies. Put the VR in the lens or the body--but give us one or the other. Maybe a new 17-55VR will be in the mix of the rumored new lenses.

[russ_konrad]

Almost everyone classifies "Pro" lenses not only by image quality - but by build quality. Heavy duty metal construction does indeed weigh more but it also helps guarantee that the lens will last longer under the more abusive/harsh conditions that many professional photographers work in.

 

Additionally - it is rather difficult to get any sort of decent bokeh with such a slow lens as the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5. If you think about it logically - a fast lens can capture images in low light and can be stopped down to get exactly the same image as the slow lens - but it doesn't work the other way around.

 

There have been many times that capturing ANY images would have been nearly impossible with a slow lens like the 18-70. The 17-55 shot at f/2.8 and/or the 70-200 f/2.8 CAN capture those dark precious moments (as well as fast primes).

 

Pros tend to be rougher on their equipment and plastic kit lenses are not designed to meet that criteria.

 

IMHO - weight should be a minor concern to a professional photographer. Does this lens allow me to get ALL the shots in challenging and changing lighting conditions as well as give me GREAT bokeh? That is a much more critical question than how much a particular lens weighs.

[jose_angel]

Probably most people are shoting at less than two meters or cropping 55mm portraits from the 17-55 (like me) to have H&S portraits. But I think that`s not the best solution for a pro-system... also, how many of you use the 70-200/2.8 @ 150-200mm on DX bodies? That`s useless bulk.

<p>

I consider the 70-200/2.8 a good <i>temporary</i> solution, but a good camera system like the D300 asks for smaller&lighter dedicated lenses.

[mjt]

hey Barry (Schmetter) ...

 

would a "Nikkor AF-S 16-85 f3.5-5.6 ED VR" make you happy?

[Hector Javkin]

I would love to see a 17-55 f/2.8 VR and a 50-135 f/2.8 VR in the DX format. Canon has proved that the 17-55 VR lens will sell, and Nikon is already providing VR in these focal lengths for its consumer lens. The 50-135 would provide, in DX, the same FOV that the 70-200 f/2.8 VR provides in FX, but would be much lighter, even with the best build quality. However, the time for Nikon to deliver on these dreams has passed or is quickly passing. While some Nikon users may demand lenses like these, more will ask for, or wait for, lower-price and smaller FX cameras.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...also, how many of you use the 70-200/2.8 @ 150-200mm on DX bodies? That`s useless bulk.

<p>

I consider the 70-200/2.8 a good temporary solution, but a good camera system like the D300 asks for smaller&lighter dedicated lenses..."</b>

<p>

Here is an alternative for you if the 70-200 Nikkor is too heavy for you:

<p>

<a href=http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=203396333&listingid=11760947&dcaid=17902>Sigma 50-150 f/2.8</a>

[vivek iyer]

Jose, Read Bjorn Rorslett's review of the D3. There could be some hints there about the future of DX and lenses.

 

Nikon never did whole heartedly support the DX format (No DX primes except the fisheye)from the beginning. Why would they come up with quality primes now?

 

I do not buy Illka's argument (just look at the Pentax DA lens line up!). I think Sigma and Tokina are the best bets for anything worthwhile.

[waltflanagan]

<i>Don`t you think this lenses could be best sellers? Why not to put this products on the market right now?</i><p>

The best sellers are the cheap consumer zooms. Nikon probably sells a 1000 18-55 lenses for every 17-55.<p>

Resources are limited, lenses take time to design, test, manufacture. The management has decided to use those resources for other projects so they can't design your lens right now.<p>

Personally I want a 58mm f1.2 DX lens with great bokeh for portraits. This would be close to the 85 f1.4 on FX. Basically I want a Noct for $1000. The new Voightlander bokeh doesn't look that good.

[ilkka_nissila]

The 21mm DA is f/3.2. The 14mm DA is f/2.8. Where is the f/1.4 WA lens which is sharp wide open?

[vivek iyer]

Ilkka, Those two are *way* faster than the non-existent DX primes from Nikon.

 

They could have attempted to make something like the Sigma 30/1.4 HSM (yes, the non-users will pipe in, as usual).

[ilkka_nissila]

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_30_14/index.htm

 

If you look at the MTF shown on the above page at f/1.4 in the corners (of an 1.6x sensor) you'll see exactly why I said what I said about fast wide angles and DX. And it is a normal lens, not a wide.

 

I don't discount the value of this lens. I believe it is a nice lens for indoor people photos, for example. I've been thinking about buying one for a friend of mine for photographing her kids. But it doesn't look like it has the recipe for a fast sharp DX wide.

[vivek iyer]

What exactly is an example of a fast, wide open, wide or a normal by your standards (no MTF quotes please, feel free to use any real examples)?

 

What factor in the MTF charts make you think the Sigma 30/1.4 is a good lens for photographing people?

[ilkka_nissila]

I think the Sigma 30/1.4 would be good for indoor people photos because corner sharpness is usually not needed in such shots while the center area seems to be really good according to the photozone numbers. Of course if you want a group shot then stopping down would be needed, but in that case more DOF is needed. I would think that photographing people indoors in window or artificial light with the Sigma would be enjoyable.

 

I have the 28/2 Ai-S Nikkor. It gives useful images wide open on 35mm film, I especially like it on black and white film. It doesn't have the more saturated look of some AF Nikkors such as the 50/1.8 AF-D. But I enjoy using it. Right now it's quite dark in Finland, we haven't gotten a proper snow blanket yet.

 

Did you check Bjorn's D3 review, the first pic taken with the 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor? I think Bjorn shows a great deal of creativity in the pics of this review.

 

My example shot was taken with the 28/2 on 400VC-2. I didn't write down the f-stop but it wasn't far from wide open. I remember struggling with the shutter speed in the shade. http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1509317072&size=o

[vivek iyer]

I don't see any connection to Bjorn's D3 review or his creativity to the current topic.

 

The particular image you point to has nothing to do with corner sharpness or the lack thereof. :)

 

Have a good night!

[DB_Gallery]

Nikon has been around for a long time. It has made it's mark with the legendary and able

F Mount that has allowed lenses as wide as the 6mm 2.8 fisheye to as long as the 1200-

1700mm super zoom. But in the mid 90's...camera makers got stuck. They got stuck with

cropped chip cameras like the Kodak/AP NC2000 camera....it drove me nuts...it drove

many pros nuts...it made a mockery of fantastic glass like the 85 1.4 that had gorgeous peripheral bokeh when used on a "real" 35mm camera. It reduced great wides to odd-ball

uses.

 

In the Fall of 1999, Nikon had to release the only DSLR they could at the time, the D1.

Once again, it was a cropper. So some 8 years and one month later, they finally got out of

the DX rut. And it was a rut folks, but that rut is no more.

 

DX was never to be Nikon's future, just a temporary present that will soon become second

fiddle and very much the past. Sure, DX will be supported for some time to come, but it

was never to be where the cutting edge will slice into the future.

 

I have 14 Nikon lenses, one is 18-70 DX for mountaineering adventures with my D300.

Once a full frame D300 type body is introduced, I will never-ever use DX again.

 

Lenses like the ***spectacularly sharp**** 14-24 are expensive to make as are greats like

the future FX primes will be. Nikon will not be putting that kind of R/D into DX glass,

period.

 

I know a lot of folks like to say that they like how DX gives them more "Reach" with

cheaper or lighter lenses, but in my years as a pro, I just don't see that being the case.

You shave a few pounds in totality, but not much more.

 

DX is the past, welcome back to the future....

That my friends is full frame, otherwise coined as "FX".

[dcraton]

And we all can thank the DX cam bods and lenses for the money it spawned to pay for Nikon's R&D. . .coming from another pro. I wonder how many D40s, D40xs, and D300s sold this holiday season along with DX lenses as compared to D3s and the new lenses?

 

It's called marketing which in most cases drives a company rather than R&D. As a matter of fact, where does the money come from to pay for R&D? I have no doubt however that Nikon will continue to support and cater to the "pro", but if that was all Nikon did. . .

 

And that my friends is the past that pays for the present and future. I wouldn't get in a snit about DX lenses and their future. There are too many DX cams on the market as even the third party companies keep releasing new lenses. Relax. Film is still around. Even in an underwater box cam.

 

Side note: The demands of a pro most often differ from the gen pop per buying needs and the demands of the gen pop far outweigh any significant number of sales to a pro. As a pro, I really don't even like to differentiate myself from any other photographer as there are so many better than I am who never made a dime from a shot. Keeps me humble and hungry to stay on the edge.

 

Business 101.

[lee_ricks]

I have never heard so many "nevers" and "always" in my life.

 

First the 18-70 is not slow. And frankly F2.8 ain't that fast either. I have published literally hundreds of pictures taken with the 18-70. It IS a tough lens. I have it on the camera much more than my 17-55 f2.8. It is light, focuses fast, and produces great images.

 

I don't think Nikon is behind on the "Pro" lenses. I also think that most people mistake what pros have on thier cameras. You would be surprised at what you see if you follow PJs around.

 

I don't think Nikon makes a lens that is would not be of acceptable quality for any pro. Some may be less convenient but the quality is good enough. I use a 50 F1.8 to shoot boxing for publication. It is just right on the D2H from ringside and sharp as a tack even wide open. Is it a pro lens or a consumer lens? Can a pro lens cost $100.00? Fast tank like telephotos I am down with. On the short end...not so much.