Hope for a few new "mediocre" primes and zooms

[hiro]

<p>I'm all for the new F1.4s - 24, 35, and 85 although I probably will never get the chance to own them.</p>

<p>I can't help to think what some of the older designs would be like with a revamp. The 50mm and 60mm upgrades are outstanding and are available at prices I can afford. The 70-300VR is outstanding.</p>

<p>How about a 24mm F2.8AF-S or 85mm 1.8AF-S? Maybe even a 135 F2.8 AF-S. I wouldn't even mind if it they d esignated it as their new E class. $375, $550, and $650. Not unreasonable and I'd bet with 2010 tech, they would b e outstanding performers across the board.</p>

<p>While I'm out here in my little fantasy world, I might as well add an 18-35 3.5-4.5 and a 28-105 f3.5-4.5.</p>

<p>Marketable? Probably not. In fact I might be the only one in the world that would want an F2.8 135mm.</p>

<p>Oh well, back to reality.</p>

<p>���</p>

[miguel_martinez4]

<p>I'd certainly find an 85mm f1.8 AF-S attractive... if it had a very similar price to the current one. Another nice option would be a 50-150 f/2.8 DX, not weighing a ton and not costing $2200. On the other hand, given the price of the sigma 50-150 f/2.8 is about $750, it is very unlikely that a similar Nikkor cost less than $1200. And for that price you could certainly get an FX 70-200 VR1 used, or an 80-200, so it may not make that much sense.<br>

In any case, I seriously doubt Nikon would go for those zooms. After all, the 16-35 f/4 VR has been out for about 6 months now and there is a new 24-120 f/4 that you can just preorder.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hiro - I have a 135 f/2.8, although it's an AI lens. Very nice it is too, especially for less than a new 50 f/1.8 - but I got a 135 f/2 DC almost as much for the AF as I did for the bokeh. Since I'm considering doing a switch to a 200 f/2, I, too, wouldn't say no to a cheap AF 135 f/2.8 option (although I might want cheaper than Nikon are willing to go). Likewise a lightweight 24mm (I have the 14-24, but sometimes dinky is nice - although if I ever see a 20 f/4 AI going cheap again...) or 85 f/1.8 (a gap in my range of primes, given the current prices - although I'd feel bad about how close it would be to a 105 micro if I get one). Here's hoping.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>You're not alone. I believe the compact primes with moderate apertures would be very popular among people who value compactness and high quality. There are many such photographers; in fact I and nearly all of my friends who use DSLRs belong to this category. Many of these people do not buy new lenses because the specifications do not match their needs; either the quality is not satisfactory (e.g. 35/2D), focusing is outdated (e.g. 180/2.8D) or the price is extortionate (e.g., 35/1.4 AF-S; 200/2 AF-S). Often a satisfactory price vs. performance is only found in older lenses of more moderate specs and manual focus.</p>

<p>I guess the MBAs simply calculate that giving people what they need is a commercial suicide, as then after a short production period, people would be basically happy and feel no need to buy new lenses in the next 20 years or so. Few customers actually need the extreme stuff that is sold today due to a lack of intermediate options.</p>

[michael_huizenga]

<p> How about the other end of the spectrum, a relatively inexpensive long telephoto. 400 or 500mm. I need something in this range for my D300, but can't swing a $7000 lens. Maybe a DX 400mm 5.6?</p>

[emiliogtz]

<p>Another vote for the 135mm f/2.8. I have the AI version and love it.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>With a 50-150, my guess would be that Nikon would include VR (the Sigma 50-150 has no vibration reduction/optical stabilization), which would very likely make it a $1200 lens, but $950 would be a great price point.</p>

[hiro]

<p><strong><em>In any case, I seriously doubt Nikon would go for those zooms. After all, the 16-35 f/4 VR has been out for about 6 months now and there is a new 24-120 f/4 that you can just preorder.</em></strong></p>

<p>Miguel.<br /> That's what I'm talking about. The lightweight/lower price zooms recently introduced still top the scales at over $1k each. What about an adequate pair of zooms(18-35, 28-105) in the $500-600 range? Variable aperture, lower build quality, slower AF, and leave the nano coatings out. The focal ranges/apertures aren't pushing the design envelope. They just fit in the convenient slots of the modest photogs bag. No build quality just nice images with better control over distortion, flare, etc.<br /> A 50-150 VR would be great <strong>and</strong> expensive. Still yet, I would prefer an 85mm and a 135mm.</p>

<p><strong><em>Hiro - I have a 135 f/2.8, although it's an AI lens. Very nice it is too, especially for less than a new 50 f/1.8 - but I got a 135 f/2 DC almost as much for the AF as I did for the bokeh. Since I'm considering doing a switch to a 200 f/2, I, too, wouldn't say no to a cheap AF 135 f/2.8 option (although I might want cheaper than Nikon are willing to go). Likewise a lightweight 24mm (I have the 14-24, but sometimes dinky is nice - although if I ever see a 20 f/4 AI going cheap again...) or 85 f/1.8 (a gap in my range of primes, given the current prices - although I'd feel bad about how close it would be to a 105 micro if I get one). Here's hoping.</em></strong></p>

<p>Andrew.<br /> I like the 135mm length, but don't like F2.8 zooms. So the choices for me are MF lenses - which I like but poor technique forces the use of AF - or it's the 135mm F2. A 135mm AF-S F2.8 with rounded aperture blades for the portrait shooter and decent AF speed. VR would be nice but then the marketing niche/price would surely outweigh the actual cost of production.</p>

<p><strong><em>although if I ever see a 20 f/4 AI going cheap again...) </em></strong></p>

<p>Passing the borders of ridicule for a moment, <strong>how about</strong> an AF-S 20mm F4 with a 52mm thread and great flare control. </p>

<p><strong><em><br /></em></strong><br>

<strong><em>I guess the MBAs simply calculate that giving people what they need is a commercial suicide, as then after a short production period, people would be basically happy and feel no need to buy new lenses in the next 20 years or so. Few customers actually need the extreme stuff that is sold today due to a lack of intermediate options.</em></strong></p>

<p>Ilkka,<br /> Will this be the underlying factor against the un-extreme? The gaps are filled for the elite. Maybe now they can concentrate on the smaller holes.</p>

<p><strong><em>How about the other end of the spectrum, a relatively inexpensive long telephoto. 400 or 500mm. I need something in this range for my D300, but can't swing a $7000 lens. Maybe a DX 400mm 5.6?</em></strong></p>

<p>I hate to say it Michael but I believe I will see my lenses before yours. (: But, I hope not!</p>

<p><strong><em>Another vote for the 135mm f/2.8. I have the AI version and love it.</em></strong></p>

<p>Emilio,<br /> Thanks. I am not alone. Now we all we need is another couple of thousand others. (:</p>

<p><strong><em>With a 50-150, my guess would be that Nikon would include VR (the Sigma 50-150 has no vibration reduction/optical stabilization), which would very likely make it a $1200 lens, but $950 would be a great price point.</em></strong></p>

<p>Michael.<br /> I owned the Sigma and liked it a lot. A Nikkor VR with that focal length and priced at $950 along with new additions like the D7000 would make me think twice about the FX format.</p>

<p>Thanks all for chiming in!</p>

<p> </p>

[photo5]

<p>The Nikon 28-105 3.5-4.5 was my favorite lens while still shooting film with my F100 in 2002-2005. I sold it shortly after buying my D70, and regret it. I bought the Nikon 28-105mm brand new in 2000 before going to Japan, so it was in mint condition, and my results were always stellar. If I still shot FX I'd buy a used one of them, over a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 any day. I really like the 28-105mm zoom range, and I never felt the 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 was as sharp a lens, though not bad. I'd love to see Nikon introduce a new 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 FX AF-S zoom lens with Nano coating, but I think they want to just focus on the pro zooms, which is a shame.</p>

[darius.tulbure]

<p>Hiro, I feel too there should be an upgrade to the primes at a reasonable price. A 24mm f/2 AF-S should do the trick, although I hate the new "G" designs.<br /> @<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a> I own the 35mm f/2 D and I absolutely love it. It's very sharp and extraordinarily flexible (landscapes, portraits, close-ups, street) on DX format.</p>

[bmm]

<p>Darius / Ilkka - as another one in the 'small prime' camp I tend to agree with what you write. I currently have 6 lenses - all AF-D primes, ranging from the 24 to the 180. Just 2 things:</p>

<p>1. Though I'll undoubtedly enventually upgrade to AF-S (though with no rush whatsoever) I can't help but notice the additional size of these lenses - especially the ones that were the old 52mm diameter. No doubt, for what they are and what they do, the 24/35/50 in AF-D are gloriously tiny and light. Literally pocket-sized. I know they have added 1.4 aperture to the 24 and new 35, but even the 50 is far bigger in AF-S, and the 85 is also larger than its AF-D counterpart.</p>

<p>2. Ilkka - interested and a little surprised in your comments on 35/2. Like Darius I find this an awesome little lens; sharp and contrasty with good colours. Is it that I have not tried it on FX yet?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Darius, I don't disagree with you ... stopped down to f/2.8-f/5.6 the 35/2D is nice on DX, I recall at some apertures it produces sharper images than the 17-55/2.8 DX. But at f/2 there is a lot of CA. On FX (and 35mm film) the peripheral parts of the image can be a little soft at the wider apertures (f/2-f/4). It is very compact, and inexpensive, so the trade-off is understandable. However, I would like a modernized version with AF-S and maybe by adding a few elements they could fix the edges of the frame. Instead, Nikon made a DX 35/1.8 which solves the wide open sharpness problem nicely, but it doesn't help with FX. I think the 35/1.8 DX makes a great gift at its current price though. If I used DX I would however miss inexpensive and compact high quality wide angle prime with autofocus - the 20mm f/3.5 Voigtländer is great but it's manual focus.</p>

<p><em>Maybe now they can concentrate on the smaller holes.</em></p>

<p>Hiro, I hope so. I often have had to recommend Canon for the beginning photography enthusiast because they had a more complete line of intermediate primes and zooms that function fully on all the cameras. Now the situation has gradually changed and I can recommend Nikon thanks to the rapid filling of holes in the lens lineup after FX was introduced. Unfortunately Nikon seems to cater very much to the high end with their newest FX primes, but at least they exist and in 5-10 years some may be found 2nd hand.</p>

<p>If the 24-120/4 is too expensive for an FX standard zoom, then I think the older 28-105/3.5-4.5D is worth considering, or one of the 24-85's.</p>

 

[peter_gaunt]

<p>I would just love an f2.8 (or f1.8 if it were affordable) 16mm for my D80. It would be the equivalent of a 24mm FX and save me from carrying my heavy Sigma 10-20mm except when I know I'm going to need it. Such a lens would see me more or less complete in primes for most of the stuff I do (I already have 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8) and the zooms I have can deal with everything else.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>I'd like more DX primes.... 24/2 DX-AFS would be awesome, as would a 300/2.8DX VR. Or even maybe a 200-400DX VR :D</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Alvin - making DX versions of supertelephotos doesn't help much - coverage isn't the problem with those lenses, it's more an issue for retrofocal wide-angles. I doubt a DX version of a supertelephoto would be significantly cheaper than an FX version, although you might be able to cut glass if you knew the edges could be worse. You could argue who needs the supertelephotos more - FX users have a disadvantage if they want length, but maybe a lot of supertelephoto buffs have already gone with DX bodies as an alternative to a 1.5x teleconverter. Making a slower supertelephoto is another matter, but less light and possible need for a tripod aren't exactly catering to the DX market. I won't be shocked if the 80-400 gets AF-S-ified soon, though.</p>

[steven_p]

<p>I think that the reason Nikon is reintroducing high end "replacement" primes is that they are going to offer something extraordinary in the FX dept, upcoming. My guess, it's either going to be around/under the D700's price point or tip the scales of the D3x. Possibly, both.</p>

<p>I assume that most may have read that the D3x (at intro.) out resolves many of their current lens lineup. Myself, I have many MF/fast primes & zooms, that I cannot justify upgrading to AF. Some work well with digital, and some do not.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I assume that most may have read that the D3x (at intro.) out resolves many of their current lens lineup. </em></p>

<p>Since most of the investment in photography equipment is (normally) in lenses, wouldn't it be better that the camera outresolves the lenses so you can get all the detail you paid for. </p>

<p>In my opinion the f/1.4 Nikkors are more about making images in low light and the wide aperture "look" than high resolving power. If Nikon wanted to aim for the highest resolution, they'd make expensive slow primes, not fast ones.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nikon is introducing f1.4 lenses, PC-E lenses, 200mm/f2 AF-S VR, and 600mm/f4 AF-S VR ... because they want to be the market leader, at least a co-leader along with Canon. Nikon may actually lose money by introducing a 35mm/f1.4 AF-S (and 24mm/f1.4 ...) in absolute terms because that market is very small, but in order to get high-end pros and amateurs to buy their D3S, D3X, Nikon has to offer a "complete system" to meet those customers' needs. In other words, you have to have a 600mm/f4, 24mm/f1.4, etc. in order to sell a lot of those high-end cameras.</p>

<p>Given how good and how popular zooms are in these days, we are not going to see as many "mid-price" primes as we did 30 years ago, when zoomes were mostly considered to be junk back then.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Shun - from a marketing perspective, I have to agree. When I switched to Nikon, I had to decide what the Nikkor range offered over staying with Canon - mostly, I gained the 14-24 and DC lenses, but lost the modern f/1.2 autofocus lenses, 135 L and soft focus options. (Canon also have the edge on tilt/shift, although the details have changes with various update.) When I jumped ship, I knew it would be a while before I got a DC lens - but I knew I probably wouldn't ever want the f/1.2 L glass, so it was a trade-off I'd make. People don't choose a system because of the cheap stuff - it's the lenses they may eventually aspire to own without having to change system that makes the choice for them. I didn't look twice at Pentax/Samsung or Minolta/Sony because at some point in my life I'll be able to get a fast supertelephoto, and (other than Sony's 300 f/2.8) they don't have any (other than Sigma's). What lenses I actually buy is another matter. It's the same with bodies - if I win the lottery I know I can buy a D3x and not worry about the rest of my system, but I'm in no rush to replace my D700 otherwise.</p>

[emiliogtz]

<blockquote>

<p>People don't choose a system because of the cheap stuff - it's the lenses they may eventually aspire to own without having to change system that makes the choice for them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, I couldn't have said it better. The Nikon system truly gives you that 'not that you would, but you could' reassuring feeling.</p>

[hiro]

<p><em><strong>The Nikon system truly gives you that 'not that you would, but you could' reassuring feeling.</strong></em></p>

<p>This statement sums up my partly sarcastic mostly wishful post.</p>

<p>Nikon has made gains in the last two-three years far past my expectations or needs. New gamers with aspiring visions don't have to read about the missing F4 zooms or the lack of wide F1.4 primes. Current gamers have piece of mind knowing that soon or one day they can get that 24/35 1.4 to cover the wedding/event.</p>

<p>Sadly, the current economic market has set my reality to <strong>wish</strong> for lenses like a new 24mm 2.8 or 28-105. I hope my posts didn't come off like a complaint because I'm very happy with my current kit(24D, 50G, 105DC, and 180D). It's just nice to have something to wish for that I can say, I can afford that one day in the not so distant future.</p>

[steven_p]

<p>Early on, when I was confused with Nikon equipment and there was no internet, I bought a book by "Moose" Peterson. I'm sure there may be better references, but it allowed me to discover the many aspects and types of 35mm lenses Nikon has produced since 1959.</p>

<p>They were pretty much gear heads and innovators from the get go, and I admired that. I still refer to that book, from time to time. In today's "profit from plastic/instant gratification chip" society, they may have slowed things down, quite a bit.</p>

<p>(But I'd love to spend some time in their R & D department.)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hiro - I sympathise, and the sales department may come to agree also. It's all very well having lenses that you can grow into, but if there's nothing to get started on then this can still put someone off a system - I'm vaguely tempted by some Leica kit, but however nice a Noctilux may be there's no way for me to get a foot-hold on the system for a reasonable amount of money. (Actually I have a Bessa R and a 90 f/4 ancient Leica lens, but even if I ignore digital and metering, and M3 and a used low-end normal prime is still extortionate.)<br>

<br>

There's also the problem that - barring the second hand market - if your potential customers are sitting there waiting to be able to afford the $1500 lens they'd really like, they're not giving you money. When they do get that kind of money together, a lot of people will realise they could spend it on a car instead. If Nikon are lucky, they'll get Ferrari behaviour - if you don't make a cheap model, people will buy used and hopefully upgrade by selling on as new models appear. If Nikon <i>aren't</i> lucky, and customers would rather buy something cheap under warranty than something better but in unknown condition, then the lack of cheap kit will hurt them. Since the people just starting out in photography are probably least likely to hunt for used equipment, I suspect some harm is being done.</p>

[israel]

<p>Ya well, we all know that the 85/3.5G AFS Macro should have at least been an f/2.8- 'nuff said.</p>