Lens Desire:

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>I wantthe 180mm f/2.8D updted to a 180 0r 200mm f/2.3-2.8G AFS. VR-II would be nice as well but is not totally necessary. 72mm ( if f/2.8) or 77mm filter (if f/2.3). Built in lens hood. Sometimes the 70-200mm f/2.8G (much less the 200mm f/2G) is just physically too big.</p>

<p>( I fully realize that such a lens is going to be low on Nikon's priority list but it would nice to see this relatively small, compact classic updated.)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I have been thinking the same. The 180/2.8D, while it's a nice lens, its autofocus can't keep up as well as some AF-S lenses can, for example when tracking winter sports where the AF is confused by flying snow, I've found that better result are obtained with the 105 AF-S. For me an 180 AF-S would be the most desirable lens.</p>

<p>I am even considering the 200mm f/2G but when I tried it out it felt ridiculously difficult to handle for a lens of this focal length. When you need to switch lenses the procedure to do that with such a lens is quite complicated, especially as I wouldn't want to bang it around or get it tramped by a crowd in a concert. And it's isn't cheap, either.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>That's on my wish list too. Skip the VR, tho'. I'd rather keep the 180/2.8 as compact, light and affordable as possible. But AF-S would be a big plus. Any other substantial changes would just kick it up toward the size and cost of the others you mentioned: the 70-200/2.8 VR and 200/2 VR.</p>

<p>If anything, I'd like to see a true close focusing version that could go to 1:2 magnification. That would be nifty.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Given that there is already an excellent (and huge in size) 200mm/f2 AF-S VR, there seems to be absolutely no point for any additional 200mm/f2.3?? lens.</p>

<p>What may make more sense is a 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. Canon has already had the equivalent (without IS and then with IS/VR) for years. That would be a great lens for landscape work. And without the burden of f2.8, hopefully an f4 70-200 can better cover the entire FX frame from edge to edge.</p>

<p>A friend of mine has a 200mm/f2 AF-S VR and I played around with it for a while. Optically it is great. The thing is that I can only air travel with one huge lens at a time. That kind of size and weight is better saved for either a 500mm/f4 or 200-400mm/f4.</p>

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

<p>Yeah, I think the VR can be skipped. They could probably squeeze out 2.3 if they go to the 77mm front element size, Angeniux did it a while back. Keep the 8/6 or 11/9 construction, give it an either pull out hood that can be secured or another hood option. I'd like non-G but thats a dream. N coating please! That would make it the backlit King.</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>As an FX landscape photographer, I would <i>really </i>like to see the 70-200 f/4 that Shun mentions. The current 70-200 just doesn't cut it in the far corners. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Given that there is already an excellent (and huge in size) 200mm/f2 AF-S VR, there seems to be absolutely no point for any additional 200mm/f2.3 lens.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>True enough, but as Nikon seems to be standardizing on the 77mm filter diameter as opposed to the older 72mm standard so f/2.3 is feasible<em>; </em> I just wanted to throw it out there as an option. But I agree it is unlikely.<em><br /> </em></p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>I agree with Lex, besides the AF-S my other big need for this lens is closer focusing. I don't need 1:2 (though that would be nice), 1:4 would be enough. VR would be nice, but not as important as AF-S or closer focusing.</p>

<p>But my real dream is still the compact, handholdable 50-135/2.8 AF-S VR optimized for portraiture on FX (also including close focusing to at least 1:4 through the zoom range).</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It just depends on what is the application, for indoor concert/theatre work there might not be a better lens in terms of image quality than the 200mm. However, I think the f/2 maximum aperture is more of a relic of a time when high ISO results weren't what they are today. With the 180 and the 300/4 I can just keep shooting during the concert while people with 200/2 and 300/2.8 lenses are constantly taking it off the eye as they can't hand-hold their lens continuously. A monopod or a tripod may not be allowed in the crowd. Without doubt the 200mm is spectacular optically but it's not something you can conveniently carry around, which is one of the chief attractions of the 180. An 180 update with AF-S would make it only very slightly bigger and extend its utility.</p>

<p>I would also be happy to see the 70-200/4 mentioned by Shun. It would cover a lot of ground and backpackers would love it. Canon has shown that it's possible to make one at a reasonable price and weight with excellent image quality; their f/4 IS version appears to be excellent (e.g. photozone.de).</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I'd like to see this too, fast AF and good MF operation. I disagree with the built-in hood; for thsi focal length the hood needs to be large, so it wouldn't fit well as built-in. I prefer a bayonet hood. Close focus of about 1:4 to 1:5 would be good, closer than that and the lens size and complexity starts to grow. And even better optical quality than the current one, I would like it to really go to the max in terms of image quality as it is not that far-fetched for thsi focal length.<br>

A 70-200/4 would be highly desirable too. I think that's more likely given the considerable interest in zooms. Nikon should introduce pro-quality slow zooms, as the penalties of fast zooms are often too big compared to the advantages.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>A 70-200/4 AF-S with or without VR would be great. Better even, bring back the old Micro-Nikkor 70-180/4.5-5.6 zoom, updated to 70-180/4 AF-S and allowing 1:1 at 180mm. <br>

The 180/2.8 is a lens I have been eyeing a few times - but the slow AF was a deal breaker every time - ended up buying the Sigma 150/2.8 instead.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>I guess I'm in a minority - - I want an affordable 400mm - I'll take an f/5.6 - - but I don't see why Nikon can't come up with one like Canon can. I had the opportunity to handle some Canon lenses over the weekend - they weigh nothing compared to my Nikon & Sigmonster lenses.<br>

I do love my Nikon/Nikkor build quality lenses - - but please Nikon - - is this really all that hard.........</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>I have a 200/2 AI and can vouch for the need of something almost as sharp in a much smaller package. I have used it on both Nikon and Canon bodies and have considered, at various times, the Nikon 180/2.8 ED AF or AIS, Contax/Zeiss 180/3.4 APO, Canon 70-200/4 L, and Canon 200/2.8 L to use when I don't want the weight.</p>

<p>At the moment I am using Nikon bodies and a 180/2.8 AF-S with closer focusing sounds very inticing. If f3.4 made it even sharper and more viable then that too would be acceptable.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>Nikon currently lacks following lenses<br>

1) 400 f/5.6G prime, AF-S VR<br>

2)80-400G or 100-400G AF-S VR<br>

3)70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 AF-S VR with consistent FX performance<br>

4) 300 f/4G prime AF-S VR</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Agree Arash -<br>

the list could be extended though:<br>

9-18/4 AF-S DX<br>

16-85/4 AF-S VR DX<br>

35-135/2.8 AF-S VR (DX or FX)<br>

24-85/2.8-4 AF-S VR</p>

 

[Rene11664880918]

<p>I totally agree with Ellis. I dream with the AFS 180 f/2.8G VR version. A 2.3 would work with me too. It would be great but as said, there is a 200 f/2 and the 70-200 f/2.8 so I don't see an upgrade to the 180 any time soon if ever. </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>It`d seem a bit odd to me if Nikon return to the 72mm filter thread... with 77mm filter threads on current pro lenses it could be considered a low blow for many users.</p>

<p>I want a compact sized, <i>very high quality</i> 24-85/3.5 or 24-105/4 with constant aperture for trips. I mean, very high optical and construction quality, no bolt telescopic plastic barrels with a hood at the nose knocking everywhere. I`d favour compactness over VR performance. If they release a new 70-200/2.8AFS "G" it`d be very tempting to me, too.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p><em>35-135/2.8 AF-S VR (DX or FX)</em></p>

<p>An FX 35-135/2.8 would be *big*. There's a reason why all the f/2.8 zooms have a zoom ratio under 3x...</p>

[greg jansen]

<p>I would love a constant F4 zoom set for travel and just keeping things light. 24-80 f4, and a 70-200 f4.<br>

AFS would be great. For keeping things light and smal, I use an older 28-105 and a 70-200 f4. THe 70-200 is optically pretty good, but the focus is real slow. It does focus closer than the 70-200 2.8 VR AFS. If they could update that lens it would be great. My 70-200 F4 is about 1/4 the weight of the 2.8, and about 1/2 the size. <br>

My regular heavy kit now: 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 afs VR, 28mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4.<br>

My light kit: 28-105, 70-200 F4, 35mm f2, 85mm 1.8. Would love to replace the zooms and primes in the light kit with newer, better build, faster foccusing lenses. I would pay a premium, too.</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>Dieter, I was about to nominate a 24-105 / f4 AF-S VR FX , but your 24-85 / 2.8-4 sounds good.<br>

IQ being equal (i.e., really good!) I'd be happy with either.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I have 52mm, 58mm, 62mm, 67mm, 72mm, and 77mm filters ... and Nikon uses all these threads in their optics. What I find convenient is that Zeiss and Mamiya both use 58mm and 67mm filters, which Nikon has started to use also, so I can share filters between all my systems. There doesn't appear to be much of a pattern to any single size. If a 72mm thread makes the lens smaller, it's a good thing. Both the 105mm and 135mm DC Nikkors and the 180/2.8 are 72mm so prime users are likely to have accessories at this size.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>Yes, a 180/2.8 AF-S would be really nice. But I don't need an f/2.3 version since I'm often stopping down a bit to increase DOF.</p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

<p>Nikon used to limit the filter size to 52mm for most prime lenses years ago...<br>

I don't think the new pro zooms can endure such kind of limitation. A very wide frontal lens is needed to keep a constant and reasonable maximum aperture and conversly the rather "mamoth" size of these lenses is to be kept to the minimum required for obvious practical reason...<br>

One cannot ask for everything and its opposite ! ...<br>

As for a required new lens, and as I'm a full FX supporter and future user (I need the money to buy a D700 and save to this goal) I consider the present 24-70 standard zoom too wide and too short (it is IMHO perfect in range for DX format). So I would like a new standard zoom more in accordance with my requirement, namely a 35-85 or 35-105mm zoom lens with a f/2 to f/2.8 constant maximum aperture as a "maid of all work" lens when I don't want to carry many lenses.<br>

I don't care about VR but far more to an affordable price (for a pro zoom of course), nor I care about the filter size.<br>

FPW</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>O.K. Everybody has a wish. My is; NIKON . . . I don't need AF, I like a solid build, like the older . . . AIS 105/1.8, . . . 135/2 with build telescopic lens hood (would be happy if the 135mm is f/1.8 too) Nikon, please start manufacturing the AF 28/1.4 lenses again! . . . ( people paying 3-5-6000 dollar for it in the used market. Ridiculous!) Those lenses, not necessary AF but with a chip. A new redesigned 18mm or 17mm prime, and for them a f/4 would be just enough, and if they are TS, would be even better. (Like Canons new TS-E 17mm f/4) Do I wish to mach ? And redesign the damn 80-400 VR to 100-400 VR and little bit faster. Yessss ! You right! Redesign the 180mm f/2.8 ( would be diamond, with f/2) with a tripod collar and a longer telescopic lens hood. . . . . Please!</p>

[billsymmons]

<p>50-135 f2.8 VR FX, Please, Please Please.</p>