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

[john schroeder]

<p>What Nikon needs to do is fairly obvious. They need AF-S updates to their line of prime lenses. Personally I would like to see the 85mm f1.8 get the AF-S treatment, followed by the 35mm f2.0 DX format 60mm (or 55mm) AF-S, and an 18mm AF-S lenses are needed in the consumer market. Branching away from OEM lenses; The aftermarket industry needs to produce an affordable ($300.00 range) APS-C ultra wide zoom. Back in the film days Tamron, and others, produced some fairly decent 19-35mm ultra wides. Today's consumer is asking for an affordable 12-24mm lens.</p>

[billsymmons]

<p>Only two wants:<br>

Either of 24-120mm f4 for FX or<br>

50-150mm f2.8 for FX</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Full frame;<br>

AF-S 18mm f/2.8 ED<br>

AF-S 24-135mm(35-135) f/3.5 ED (50-150mm f/2.8 logical too)<br>

AF-S 200mm (or 250 ) f/2.8 ED</p>

[kk_yu]

<p>i have been craving:<br>

70-200mm f/4 AF-S VR for film and FX<br>

and for DX, the equivalent lens (in terms of size and weight and DOF options): <br>

50-135mm f/2.8 AF-S VR</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>I'll second the 24-135mm f4 VR request! Please, please, give us a good walkaround lens...! There were actually some rumours about such a lens, but so far nothing...:-(((</p>

<p>But my dream lens would be a 18-105, AF-S, f4 VRII....!!!!!!</p>

[john_caradimas]

<p>Someone suggested a 24-85 f/2.8 VR II G.</p>

<p>Please Nikon, ignore that, a 24-85mm f/2.8 VRII with an aperture ring for FX, if you do not mind! There are some of us who still use Nikon F2s and we need that ring.</p>

<p> </p>

[andreas_manessinger]

24-70/2.8 VR

 

Canon and Sony have that range in a stabilized version. It's one of the most useful ranges as I recently found out with my Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC on a D300, and having stabilization makes a world of a difference. This is my most favorite winter lens, ideal for low light street photography. If I were to change to FX, even the low light capabilities of a D3s could not make up for the loss of stabilization.

[ted_raper1]

<p>I only own one DX lens - the 16-85 VR, which I like. But if we're wishing, I'd take the 16-85 with a constant 2.8, keep the VR, and keep it under $1500.</p>

<p>We can hope, right?</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>24-105mm F2.8 non-VR</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>28mm f2<br>

28mm PC-E<br>

20-50mm f4<br>

75-150mm f4</p>

[sven keil]

<p>Is it really necessary to put <em>VR </em>in a non-tele prime...? Well, I would like to have a <strong>300mm/f2.8</strong> with <em>VR</em> (FX), and if the remake the 85/f1.4 then make it a <strong>85mm/f1.2 </strong>(but without <em>VR</em>). Also, some sort of <strong>Noct-Nikkor around 50mm with f1.2 </strong>or smaller. For me it is not so important whether they are screwdriver or have a built-in S-motor. For me optical quality at high apertures is decisive, and weight.<br>

Of course I would not re-buy any lenses that I already have. For example, my AF-D-180mm/f2.8 is really excellent, but I like it more on DX than on FX. Thus, for FX I would like to see some equivalent around 300mm or such, and with <em>VR</em>.<br>

Best,<br>

MS</p>

[alex_sofer]

<p>An AF-S version of the E-Series 75-150/3.5.<br>

Even if it has lens creep, I'll be happy ;-)</p>

[marian_deaconescu4]

<p>A D4 with stabilization (to take care of the old lenses in my shaky hands). If not possible, a 28-105<br>

with vr , at 2.8 max opening and super, corrected optics at both ends.</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>400/5.6 DX VR</p>

[hiro]

<p>A $400 AF-S 24mm F2.8. <br>

A $600 AF-S 135mm F2.8. Sharp center, nine blade rounded aperture.<br>

An $800 AF-S 180mm F2.8. Fast AF-S please. No micro motor.</p>

<p>Hold the nano tech and VR. Plasticky build OK to cut costs. Maybe a new E line?</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>24-105 f4 VR for FX with optical quality equal to the 24-70 2.8.<br>

I would buy another D700 and weld the lens to it.</p>

[peter_k4]

<p>A 28 f2 for 600 bucks. One of the few lenses I'd buy right now.</p>

[kyle_mcmahon]

<p>Nikon once made a 400mm f/5.6 AI-S. They sell used for about $1,000. I'd be interested in a 400mm f/5.6 AF-S. Even without VR. It would sort of be a poor man's daylight sports lens, if you will. If it could come in around the current 300mm f/4 AF-S' $1,500, that'd be great.</p>

[peter_kervarec]

<p>An 85mm F1.8 VR with close focusing in FX</p>

[jphotog]

<p>How about an updated 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 with AF-S, VR2 and with improved optics and AF speed...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Nikon once made a 400mm f/5.6 AI-S. They sell used for about $1,000.</em></p>

<p>Which year was the price that? I remember that it cost 15000 FIM in late 1990s, that's 2500 EUR or about <strong>3200</strong> USD... Ok, prices in the US were lower, but still. For me that is too slow, especially considering the price.</p>

[kyle_mcmahon]

<p><em>Which year was the price that?</em></p>

<p>There is one in B&H's used store right now for $1,100. And you're right, it's probably too slow for Nikon to ever consider making in this day and age. But with FX ISO performance, I don't know if it would bother me as much. The autofocus would work well enough in daylight. And it could be a nature lens used on a tripod anytime, and you wouldn't need autofocus then. Really, the biggest advantage is getting that focal length at that price point and weight.</p>

[jwallphoto]

<p>200mm Micro AF-S</p>

[chris_davis10]

<p>I hope this hasnt been said. I would love an updated 85mm f/1.4 from Nikon.</p>

[bmm]

<p>I agree with the calls for a good FX walk-around zoom. I'm in a state of perpetually being about to buy the 24-70/2.8 at the moment but its just too wide and too short for what I really like to do.</p>

<p>Then after that Nikon can get on with gradually AF-S'ing, VR-ing and nano-coating their lineup of primes in whatever order they deem to be commercially best for them... as long as in the next 5 years or so they give me a fast 35, 85, 135 and 180 I'm happy (they have obviously already got the 24 and 50 FL's sorted)</p>

<p>But the AF-D's at each of these FLs are perfectly good, so for me, again, the priority would be a pro-level walkaround zoom lens for FX which is more useful to me than 24-70's focal length when I want a one-lens solution. If I was designing just for my own tastes I'd do a 35-105 at f/2.8 or a 35-140 at f/4 (I'm assuming you'd need to go to f/4 in a 4x zoom to hold quality as well as size/weight).</p>