Which lenses do you wish Nikon would make/update?

[fpessolano]

<p>A 120-300/2.8VR FX would be great. I would dump my 70-200 in a second for it.<br>

Maybe a new fisheye FX.<br>

Apart from that ... since the 24 is now out, there is nothing more missing.<br>

And only 24 and 400 missing from my collection (well, 400 will be missing forever I guess).</p>

[darren_c1]

<p>AF-S 16-70/2.8 VR II</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>28-105/4 AF-S and very sharp (24-105 would be nice, but there are always compromises with a larger range and I want a decent tele-end).<br>

50-135/2.8 AF-S, VR if it doesn't worsen the other parameters too much.<br>

A 150 mm f4 macro lens without focusing helicoid, bellows only, macro only. no infinity focus needed (sure this is not going t be popular, but still).</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>70-200mm f4 AFS VR<br>

35mm f1.4 AFS<br>

85mm f1.4 AFS</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>Downsizing DX to consumer grade just robs the format of street credit.<br>

I (dedicated DX digital, FX film user) would like:<br>

10mm/4 DX<br>

70-200/4 FX<br>

An updated 17-55/2.8 DX</p>

 

[orcama60]

<p>16-85 f/2.8 VR ( DX )<br>

80-400 f/4 AFS VR ( DX ) or ... ( but I would prefer this one instead the 70-300 ) ..<br>

70-300 f/2.8 VR ( DX ) <br>

150 ( 180 ) f/2.8 VR macro<br>

I would not need more than those I think and I will so happy with them. </p>

<p> </p>

[lesterphoto]

<p>85mm f1.2 FX<br />35mm f1.2 FX</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>28-105/2.8 AF-S VR</p>

<p>50-150/2.8 AF-S VR DX</p>

<p>8-16/3.5 VR DX</p>

<p>16-165/3.5-5.6 VR DX</p>

<p>85/1.4 VR AF-S</p>

<p>70-210/4 VR</p>

<p>20/1.8 AF-S</p>

<p>20/1.4 AF-S</p>

<p>28/1.8 AF-S</p>

<p>28/1.4 AF-S</p>

 

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>I would like an update on the 85 1.4 to add VR and the same with the 17-55 (DX) or the 24-70 (FX).<br>

Of course, in a perfect world I would like a 10-600 1.4 VRII and a small truck to carry it in! LOL.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>17 or 18mm Perspective control TS lens, like Canon have. Then; . . . agree with <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3864413">Charles: </a> <strong >FX</strong>: 24-120 f/4 VR or no VR. and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=437734">Mark: </a> I still yearn for a 50-135/2.8 AF-S VR for FX.<br>

I always had a trouble with my (D700) 24-70/2.8 Most of the time I using on the 24-35 range, and when I need to reach something, a little closer, the 70mm is not enough. Basically the big heavy and long lens (a pig) is useless for me. Most of the time, when I need something longer, I using the D300 with the 135mm f/2 AI-S or, a 105mm/1.8 AI-S. Supper.<br>

An AF-S 35-135/2.8 VR ( even no VR) would be fantastic. Witch I have in a AI version( 3.5-4.5 ). A sharp lens. And Nikon, please do a one touch push-pull type zoom. Thank you Nikon.</p>

[marekd]

<p>Absolute number one: 135 f2 (I love - and envy - Canon's)<br>

85 f1.2 or updated 85 f1.4<br>

So happy 24 1.4 is out! Price is a little steep though...</p>

[buster douglas]

<p>Any extra wide AF-S lens F2.8. It seems AF-S lenses are in big demand.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>100-300 f/2.8 AF S<br>

180 f/2.8 AF S</p>

<p> </p>

[Mike D]

<p>Ironically, Sigma already makes many of the lenses that are being requested above.</p>

[bill_burke1]

<p>Only one - a DX equivilent of the 24-70 f/2.8 !!!</p>

[wenhan_xue]

<p>From 35 f2 to 35 f1.4G AF-S</p>

[bgorum]

<p>How about a 100-300 micro, constant f4, good at infinity and up close, good with 1.4x converter, first rate tripod collar. Might as well throw in vr, though I really wouldn't need it.<br>

Then a good dx ultrawide. Something between 10 and 14mm, minimum focusing distance of 6 inches, close- range correction, sharp out to the corners, and flare resistance at least as good as the current 12-24. It doesn't need to be fast, nor does it need vr.<br>

Of course both would be af-s like all recent lenses. Sigma? Tamron? Tokina? If Nikon wont do it is anyone else listening?</p>

[wade_roth]

Since the 70-200 2.8 VRII was announced a month after I bought the VR version, we should hear from Nikon any day now that they will be updating the 24-70 2.8.

--Wade

[mark liddell]

Wade: I was expecting the announcement of the 85mm f/1.4 AF-S the day after I bought the AFD, thankfully that was 2 years ago now!

[fast_primes]

<p>DX:</p>

<ul>

<li>compact 14-28 zoom</li>

<li>70mm F1.4</li>

<li>90mm F2.0 VR lens</li>

<li>18mm F2.0</li>

</ul>

<p>FX:</p>

<ul>

<li>28mm F2.0 AF lens (with 62mm filter thread matching the new 50F1.4G)</li>

<li>105 F1.8 AF VR lens (with 62mm filter thread)</li>

</ul>

<p>That's it for me! </p>

[michael_alger]

<p>16 - 400 / 1.4 AF-S VR II Micro, weighing not more than 600 grams ....<br>

well ok, may be in the next life. Meanwhile:<br>

Some primes:<br>

105 /1.8 VR portrait lens, 200 or 180 / 2.8 micro, 13/4, 50/1.0, 400 /4 VR<br>

Some zooms:<br>

24-105/4 VR II, 14 - 28/2.8,<br>

Some specials:<br>

PC-E 16, automatic extension rings<br>

all that for FX, please!</p>

<p> </p>

[joshloeser]

<p>The 24-70 won't be updated for several more years, if that was a serious post. It was released less than three years ago, and Nikon will likely give five to seven years at the least.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>35/2 or 35/1.4 with AF-S, 28/2 with AF-S and more modern optics, with hopefully reasonable wide open performance and more moderate cost than the 24/1.4.</p>

<p>105/2 with AF-S, 180/2.8 with AF-S, and 300/4 with VR II. A compact, reasonably priced 400/4 AF-S VR would be fabulous for outdoor concerts and winter sports (easier to handle than the 200-400 zoom).</p>

<p>18/3.5 PC-E and 135/3.5 PC-E Micro-Nikkor.</p>

[alex_sofer]

<p>Easy: Nikon Series E 75-150/3.5 AF-S VR<em> (with a zoom lock at the 75mm mark) <br /></em></p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I`d like to see a 16-35/2.8G <em>without VR if it helps to keep things smaller, </em>and a 24-105/4 with VR... but I`m equally worried about the final size this thing could be. I`m turning timid, lately...</p>