Peter_in_PA Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>So... not a wish list of what you wish Nikon had in their catalog.</p> <p>What DX prime lens, that does not yet exist, would you absolutely, positively buy if it were introduced tomorrow.</p> <p>The rules? I'm glad you asked</p> <p><em><strong>You can choose just one!</strong></em> And say what you'd spend on it. And it must not yet exist from Nikon. And it must be a prime. And you can have some "flexibility" in focal length and/or f/stop.</p> <p>For me...</p> <p>17mm (or 18mm) f3.5 (or even f4) TS lens under $750. f2.8 would be fine, too, but it must be under $750 US retail.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Javkin Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>Peter, I don't know if the lens you want is possible, with a huge degree of retrofocus combined with T/S.</p> <p>I would love to see a 50-150mm f/2.8 VR DX lens from Nikon. Would buy it in a second. Sorry, I'd have to buy a few more Nikon primes before wishing for a new one.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>a T/S DX prime? for under $750? unlikely, to say the least. not sure i'd even buy another DX prime. and hector's lens already exists, except sigma makes it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobye Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>24 f/2. <br> I would jump quickly on any wide prime. <br> A micro 4/3 solution is looking more and more appealing for candid shooting with wide primes, but buying a smaller, lighter DX body than my D300 is more sensible for me for such use IF a viable prime kit existed with DX lenses delivering the size/weight reduction in the lens department.<br> A DSLR could never be replaced for macro work for me & the tracking AF of the D300 is great for action. But I really miss an FM3A experience for candids and the missing ingredient is really lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony_defilippo1 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>I second Keith with the 24/2 - I'd pay up to $400 I think... wonder how much the 35/2 went for new, if it tracked to that roughly I might pay more. No bigger than the current DX 35/1.8 though.</p> <p>The longer than normal prime's are fairly well served in my opinion by the traditional FX lenses though some could use AF-S and or VR I guess.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>I second Hector's 50-150mm f2.8 VR but not too big, maybe about the tokina 50-135mm and sigma 50-150mm sizes. Actually, I would be grateful if they made a modern version of their 75-150mm 3.5 E with AFS, VR etc...:)</p> <p>Ooh Primes?...how about a 21mm f1.8 AFS VR under $500? You know...much like the recent 50 1.8G and 35 1.8G but wider and with VR. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip_chipowski Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>Peter - I think it is telling that even posters in a forum like this gravitate towards zooms....even when it is explicitly against the rules!!</p> <p>To answer your question though, I think I would seriously consider buying a 16mm f/4 prime and here is what I'd like it to look like:</p> <ul> <li>under $400</li> <li>significantly smaller than any of the UWA zooms</li> <li>good sharpness into the corners</li> <li>good flare/ghosting performance</li> </ul> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orcama60 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>16-50 mm f/2.8 VR ... I mean, if Nikon decide to add VR to the already well regarded 17-55 mm f/2.8, then I will go for instead the 16-50. But I also second Hector on the 50-150 f/2.8. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <blockquote> <p>hector's lens already exists, except sigma makes it.</p> </blockquote> <p>Does it really, Eric? I have seen and heard announcements but does the OS/VR version actually exist somewhere? I can't seem to locate one...And the non VR/OS sigma is quite rare these days. Is it the quake? or have they abandoned DX to focus on the FX 70-200mm?</p> <blockquote></blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis_g Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>I'd also go for a 24/2.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted July 12, 2011 Author Share Posted July 12, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Peter - I think it is telling that even posters in a forum like this gravitate towards zooms....even when it is explicitly against the rules!!</p> </blockquote> <p>I am noticing this...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobye Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>I am really interested to see the 50-150 suggestion here. I have the previous Sigma 50-150 II and it is fantastic. I was quite surprised with how good the rendering / performance of the lens is @ 2.8. The out of focus areas are extremely well handled. I wouldn't trade this for the new Sigma OS or a Nikon VR until I had checked it out vs. what I have...if the new one is as good as the old Sigma will likely remain a great deal vs. anything nikon will offer here. I would expect the new Sigma to be great and to slot in a much more friendly price point than a nikkor. I have had very positive experiences with the Sigma 30 1.4 ( I have a the 35 DX nikkor 1.8 which I gave to my wife, as well) the 150 macro and the 50-150. Where there is a competent 3rd party offering I have less nikon need. Hmmm.... but from a nikon perspective about profitability, my gaps are not likely to be there's unfortunately. I think a fast wide nikkor prime would be a home run. B/c no one has this in a current offering (that is not FX and therefore much larger and more expensive than a DX design need be.)</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_wisniewski Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Peter, I don't know if the lens you want is possible, with a huge degree of retrofocus combined with T/S.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, Canon makes a 17mm tilt/shift, so it is possible. The only thing impossible is the $750 price.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <blockquote> <p>does the OS/VR version actually exist somewhere?</p> </blockquote> <p>ah, leslie, well, the 50-150/2.8 OS was announced in Feb. 2011. but you are correct that it hasn't yet been released. i believe they discontinued the previous model pre-quake, and the quake may have slowed production of the new one, but lately sigma has been busy with $8k 'flagship' cameras which no one actually owns either.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted July 12, 2011 Author Share Posted July 12, 2011 <blockquote> <p>lately sigma has been busy with $8k 'flagship' cameras which no one actually <em><strong>wants</strong></em> either.</p> </blockquote> <p>fixed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daverhaas Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>Okay - Prime, Not currently in Nikon's Catalog - no brainer for me - </p> <p>A 55 mm f1.4 DX - to get as close to the 85mm view as possible on a dx mount and not priced over $600.00 (US) - I'd buy in a heartbeat - as long as the bokeah is as good as the 85 f1.4 or 1.8. </p> <p>Dave</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>While I won't say I'd positively buy one, I would take a very, very close look at a 300mm f4 VR.</p> <p>Kent in sD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Well, Canon makes a 17mm tilt/shift, so it is possible. The only thing impossible is the $750 price.</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly. Unfortunately, a lot of the prices getting thrown around here are just unrealistic.</p> <p><em>If Nikon could sell the D3X for $80 each, I would buy three.</em> But that is merely a totally meaningless statement.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>I'm going through DX lens withdrawal with you guys talking about the Sigma 50-150. I dropped mine and bent the barrel a couple weeks ago in Monterrey and am now waiting for Sigma to return it after repair. It's a $300 repair but I couldn't find one on the Internet. They seem to be getting really rare. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuel_lipoff Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>There is a third party tilt-shift lens, the MC ARAX 35mm f/2.8 T/S, widely available for $600. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <blockquote> <p>They seem to be getting really rare.</p> </blockquote> <p>the 50-150 is indeed a classic DX lens, if such a thing exists. keith's shot is really great and fairly representative of what that black beer can can do.</p> <p>but i dont really want to hijack this thread talking about how great that lens is. It <em>is </em>interesting that many of the gaps in the nikkor lineup are already filled by lenses like tamron's 60/2 macro, sigma's 150 macro OS, the voigtlander 40/2 and 58/1.4, etc. in fact, the CV 58 comes in at almost $150 under david's max. cost. if you need AF, the 60/2 is even less expensive, with the current $100 rebate. even the new 40/2.8 macro fits a range and price point previously occupied by the tokina 35/2.8.</p> <p>if nikon could do a 24/1.8 DX (non-VR) for under $400, or an 85/2 DC (DX) for under $750, they'd raise my eyebrow. but lenses like the 55-300 and 85/3.5 macro make me want to hit the snooze button.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>FWIW Michael, I have been following the sigma resale value and they go for no less than $550. So $300 is still a good, pricewise. And the similar rare tokina 50-135mm often sell for above $700 new... All the best with the repair.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Sperry Photogr Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 <blockquote> <p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3830155">Chip Chipowski</a><br /> . . . I think I would seriously consider buying a 16mm f/4 prime . . .</p> </blockquote> <p>+1 This is just the lens I was thinking of yesterday. Sounds good as described.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunray1 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 <p>A DX version of a 20mm AF D/ f2.8, so that would be 13 or 14mm<br> AF-S if they could keep it small & light, otherwise screwdrive is fine<br> Priced 300 euro's max<br> (I know I can only pick one.... but my next would be 35mm/ f2 DX-equivalent)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CvhKaar Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 <p>I know, pricewise not possible, but .... :<br />If Nikon would produce a 35 or 40mm Noct (so not only F1.1 , but also good Coma corrected...) , I would buy one immediatly.. :-) even at $1000,-</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now