DX prime lens... what would you REALLY buy

[munim]

+1 for 24/2 pancake and/or 300mm f/4 VR

[hiro]

<p>18 2.8, 70 1.8, and 120 2.8</p>

<p>All DX only with a cheap, light build and a price tag that makes everyone smile.</p>

<p>The 70 and 120 with rounded blades. The 120 with decent, but not overly fast AF speed.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>It puzzles me when Nikon does not discontinue the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX after introducing the 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX. IMO, the new 10-24 is the slightly better lens and is cheaper,</em></p>

<p>Isn't the 12-24/4 an internal zoom, and the 10-24 is not? Anyway, it is sometimes difficult to see why Nikon makes some decisions that they do.</p>

<p><em>a 17-70 is unlikely to be "any good" for these reasons;</em></p>

<p>I wouldn't go that far. I just think it would not likely be as good as the current 17-55 or 24-70. It seems very difficult to design an extended-range zoom that doesn't have a lot of distortion.</p>

<p><em>oh, and the 17-50 isn't noticeably less sharp than the 24-70 by much--the 24-70 is better but its advantages are fairly subtle. </em></p>

<p>The 24-70 has a larger image circle so in a few years when you use it on a 35MP D4X let's see which lens is sharper ;-) If you use them on the same camera, the FX lens is put in a disadvantage since it has all that extra light bouncing around in the lens that doesn't add (constructively) to the image, and also typically lenses designed to cover larger formats are not as sharp (in the center) as lenses for smaller formats.</p>

<p><em>and if the 17-55 IS canon is sharp as you say, then whether optical quality is really compromised is doubtful</em></p>

<p>If Nikon could do it I'm sure they would. Image quality is more than sharpness; the 17-55 DX is a very well-rounded design - its sharpness isn't its greatest asset IMO; at 55mm it displays excellent portrait lens like rendering including smooth bokeh. I preferred it for portraits instead of the 24-70 which I had for a few months at the same time. I sold it with my D200 since I didn't have a camera to use on at that time, but now again I would have use for it on the D7000. Its current price is very high though; I got mine for 1100 USD and I'd consider it a good deal at that price. I find the price increase suggestive that Nikon doesn't really want to promote this lens so much any more. I've heard only good things about its performance on the D7000 though since I don't have it any more I can't test.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Isn't the 12-24/4 an internal zoom, and the 10-24 is not?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really. The 12-24 DX's external barrel does not extend during zooming but the internal tube does. I.e. the front element does move forward and backward during zooming. Therefore, it is not a true interal zoom.</p>

<p>I still own the 12-24. I would have upgraded to the 10-24 if I still used DX wide a lot. The fact of the matter is that I don't think either lens is ideal so that I try to use FX as much as possible if I need super wide. My 17-35mm/f2.8 and 14-24mm/f2.8 are both much better choices.</p>

<p>A lot of high-end users shoot FX. It does not take a genious to figure out that making more high-end DX lenses that cannot be use (or at least should not be used) on a lot of high-end DSLRs (because they are FX) is not the best idea. I wouldn't count on Nikon introducing many more high-end DX lenses, if any at all.</p>

[huntrbll]

<p>A no-brainer.....a 70mm f2 AFS VR with the same or very similar optical quality of the 105mm AIS. The perfect head-and-shoulders portrait lens. I think it reasonable to believe that could be done for less than $500, and I would be one of the first in line.....</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The 24-70 has a larger image circle so in a few years when you use it on a 35MP D4X let's see which lens is sharper ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, i wouldn't be using the 17-50 on an FX body in any event--i got it because i needed a 2.8 zoom for my DX kit and couldn't justify the 17-55's price, let alone size and weight. i have used both lenses on my d300s, but haven't compared head to head. the 24-70 on DX is good when i want the 1.5x crop factor. the 24-70 is a great lens on both DX and FX, but the 17-50 OS is a good call on DX when you need to go small.</p>

[peter_petrov1]

DX (and AF-S) version of the Voigtlander 20/3.5 at up to $500 would be really nice. It could be f/4 too, if this is the price to obtain a smaller lens, with good wide-open performance in the center, and of course, to keep the price low.

<p>In other words, take any of the 12-24 DX zooms, make it only 20mm (+/- 2mm), smaller, lighter, and cheaper. During the film times we had 17-35/2.8 at a high price, and many smaller primes in this range at 1/2 the price of the zoom. Would be great to have the same in DX.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't count on Nikon introducing many more high-end DX lenses, if any at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not a good prognosis - if it turns out to be true. Also one that might backfire in the longer term - until Nikon offers a lower-priced FX body and a set of decent mid-priced alternatives to their current pro lenses. What good does it do to offer a D400 high-end DX body (if one will be offered but there seems to be little doubt about that) but not at least two or three high-end DX lenses? Canon does the same thing though (even less EF-S lenses - the equivalent of DX). But as was pointed out already above - the enthusiast amateur does not seem to be the clientele Nikon pays particular attention too. There still isn't a 70-200/4 AF-S VR, a 300/4 AF-S VR, or an 80-400/4-5.6 AF-S VR.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>What good does it do to offer a D400 high-end DX body (if one will be offered but there seems to be little doubt about that) but not at least two or three high-end DX lenses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The simple fact of the matter is that FX lenses can be used on DX, but not the other way around (at least DX lenses should not be used on FX). You don't need to introduce very many DX-specific high-end lenses to support higher-end DX bodies.</p>

<p>Instead, high-end DX lenses have limited usefulness since they should not be used on a high percentage of high-end bodies (FX).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There still isn't a 70-200/4 AF-S VR, a 300/4 AF-S VR, or an 80-400/4-5.6 AF-S VR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While technically that is true, IMO it is kind of an unfair complaint. Since the beginning of 2010, i.e. about a year and half ago, Nikon has added these lenses:</p>

<ul>

<li>24mm/f1.4 AF-S</li>

<li>35mm/f1.4 AF-S</li>

<li>50mm/f1.8 AF-S</li>

<li>85mm/f1.4 AF-S</li>

<li>16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR</li>

<li>24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR</li>

<li>28-300mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR</li>

<li>200mm/f2 AF-S VR II</li>

<li>200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR II</li>

</ul>

<p>Even though you discount the last two since those are merely minor updates from the VR 1 versions, that is still quite a few totally new, mid to high end lenses in a year and half with a major earthquake/taumni interrupt in the middle. Just picking on what is still missing without acknowledging what Nikon has done in a short period of time under difficult circumstances is pretty unfair. (I should point out that only the 50mm/f1.8 AF-S plus the new 40mm/f2.8 DX macro are introduced after the earthquake.)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>You don't need to introduce very many DX-specific high-end lenses to support higher-end DX bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point exactly. It's also a simple fact the the focal length range of most FX lenses doesn't exactly suit an advanced DX shooter - or forces him to purchase and carry two lenses instead of just one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While technically that is true, IMO it is kind of an unfair complaint. ... Just picking on what is still missing without acknowledging what Nikon has done in a short period of time under difficult circumstances is pretty unfair.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think I am being unfair - the AF-S upgrade for the 80-400 and the VR upgrade for the 300/4 are long long long overdue - the 300/2.8 has been updated twice in that time. And so is a 70-200/4 AF-S VR; each one has been asked for for many years. I am not discounting the difficult circumstances - but all three lenses I asked for above have been requested years before the earthquake/tsunami. <br>

And in all honesty, Shun, which one do you think would sell more copies - the 24/1.4 or an updated 80-400 or 300/4? The 24/1.4 is useful on both FX and DX - but I doubt many will purchase it for DX simply because of the price. (I seem to remember that the expensive 28/1.4 wasn't exactly selling like hot cakes when it was still in production - the popularity and price increase came later.) Even less DX shooters will purchase the 35/1.4 - with the Sigma 30/1.4 (DX) as a direct competitor. And at least to me it appeared that the welcome for the AF-S upgrade of the 85/1.4 wasn't overly enthusiastic - a very good lens was made better but at a substantial increase in price. Now, in an attempt to be fair, I expect the same for the 80-400 upgrade and the 300/4 upgrade - prices close to or even north of $2K. But there aren't alternatives - so like the - to me - overly expensive 70-200 (twice the price of the non-VR, non-AF-S 80-200), these lenses will sell.<br>

Had the 16-35/4 VR been around at the time - I might have reconsidered the purchase of the 17-55. In my case - using Nikon since 1979 - Nikon has among other things the poor ergonomics of the Canon bodies to thank for that I didn't switch brands five or six years ago - the lure of the 300/4 IS USM and 400/5.6 USM was very strong. Even a 500/4 IS was about $2000 cheaper than the Nikon equivalent at that time - Canon has closed the gap with their upgrades in the mean time.<br>

Nikon has catered to the pro and rich quite well in the last few years, I am not denying this. And they finally brought out some f/4 lenses - though there are still gaps.</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>There still isn't a 70-200/4 AF-S VR, a 300/4 AF-S VR, or an 80-400/4-5.6 AF-S VR.</blockquote>

 

<p>To be fair, though, there <i>is</i> an 80-200 f/2.8 that's very well-priced (although not in the UK) and works on any body that's above the basics; the 300 f/4 AF-S is very well-regarded optically, for all the absence of VR is an inconvenience, and the 80-400 is also very well-thought of and will focus (slowly) on, again, any but the cheapest bodies. In contrast, there <i>was</i> no 24mm f/1.4, previous 35mm primes are more than a bit dodgy optically, and the old 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses were extremely soft at the edges wide open. Nikon have fixed the lenses whose optics weren't up to modern sensors first; adding VR and AF-S to lenses that are already optically good when they're already likely to be used on a camera with screw drive and on a tripod is probably not at the top of their list - not that I wouldn't like to see these lenses upgraded as well, but when they are they'll probably be priced above what I'd like to spend. As for a 70-200 f/4 VR, I'd love one, but would I love one more than an 80-200 f/2.8 at the same price? I'm not sure.<br />

<br />

We can all have our wish lists, but I can see why Nikon might have made the choices they did, even if I'm not after the lenses in question.<br />

<br />

If we're really looking at DX primes, I think we need to concentrate on the cheap options. And how do you make a cheap DX prime that's a worthwhile improvement over the available zooms?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Looking back, the AF-S version of the 50mm/f1.4 was announced on 22nd September, 2008: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QvlA">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QvlA</a><br>

It took another 2.5 years before Nikon added the 50mm/f1.8 AF-S (27th April, 2011): <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YdS8">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YdS8</a></p>

<p>Given that these lenses were updated on:</p>

<ul>

<li>70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II -- 30 July, 2009: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/0907300370mm200mm.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/0907300370mm200mm.asp</a></li>

<li>300mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II -- 9th December, 2009: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VDYx">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VDYx</a></li>

</ul>

<p>It wouldn't make much sense to introduce a 70-200mm/f2.8 and then a 70-200mm/f4 back to back. Now that the f2.8 VR II version is about 2 years ago and the 16-35mm/f4 and 24-120mm/f4 were both introduced in 2010, I would expect the 70-200mm/f4 any time now. But that is merely my educated guess, and my track record for guessing future Nikon products is poor. I have no insider information.</p>

<p>I should also point out that none of Canon's EF-S lenses has the higher-end L designation: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount</a><br>

As Ilkka points out about, I have handled Canon's 17-55mm/f2.8 EF-S with IS. While it does have image stabilization over the Nikon version, the Canon lens has much inferior construction; it has a plastic barrel that extends out very far when you zoom to the long end.</p>

<p>I really don't think the market demands very many high-end DX/EF-S lenses. Otherwise, both Canon and Nikon would be making lots of them.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>a lower-priced FX body</em></p>

<p>The D700 is 1700 EUR today; how much cheaper should it be? At least I would not be happy to see a fuzzy pentamirror viewfinder and Multi-CAM 1000 in an FX body.</p>

<p><em>What good does it do to offer a D400 high-end DX body</em></p>

<p>Because there are a lot of people who prefer to use DX for telephoto and macro, and they have good reasons to do so. If you're focused on these applications the 17-55 may be your only short (DX) lens that is truly needed. If you want to use f/1.4 and f/2 primes then I really think you should consider getting a D700. I find the performance of such lenses to be better on FX than DX and you will appreciate the high ISO image quality. Since the lenses are very expensive whichever format they're made for, the cost of an FX body may be money well spent if you're keen on the applications that these lenses are typically used in.</p>

<p><em>focal length range of most FX lenses doesn't exactly suit an advanced DX shooter</em></p>

<p>This is something I do not understand. A lot of people find the range of the 70-200 to be great on DX (while it's kind of too heavy for the range on FX in my opinion). For wide angle zooms, and standard zooms, there are several options tailored to each format. As to primes, well, a 35 is similar to a 50, a 60 to an 85, 85 to an 135, a 24 similar to 35 and so on. The angles of view are not that different. What I find a bigger issue is that an 24/1.4 used on DX does not show a light source that is just outside the DX FOV but within the FX FOV in the viewfinder ... and so you end up with flare and ghosting that is difficult to predict and control when using an FX wide angle on a DX camera. For this reason (and for lighter weight for travel) I think it would be prudent for Nikon to make at least one wide angle prime for DX format only.</p>

<p><em>the expensive 28/1.4 wasn't exactly selling like hot cakes</em></p>

<p>True, but the 24/1.4 in one year has already outsold the number of copies the 28/1.4 sold in 12 years. The market has changed. Nikon has become a premium brand for low light shooting and they can sell these lenses to get the most out of the D3s etc. and expand photography into new territories.</p>

<p><em>it appeared that the welcome for the AF-S upgrade of the 85/1.4 wasn't overly enthusiastic</em></p>

<p>It is just the case that the 85/1.4D was already excellent not that many people felt a pressing need for an update. However, having made the switch to the AF-S version I can say that the image quality wide open has been improved considerably, and that the focusing accuracy is much better, now it is sufficient for reproducible results at f/1.4. The old lens I had to stop down to f/1.8 to get good image quality while the new lens I can safely use wide open without too much difficulty. Manual focusing is also much improved. It also maintains contrast better when shooting into the light. The new f/1.4 lenses are expensive, true, but I think they offer something tangible for the price. When Nikon updates a lens like the 85/1.4 or 300/2.8, to understand why they do it, it helps to take a look at the Nikon serial number database ... these two lenses are quite hot sellers (among such expensive lenses). Nikon gives the 300/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 85/1.4 a priority in their development and update schedule because they are important to many photographers and bring in lots of money. The 24 and 35 f/1.4 on the other hand fill a gap within Nikon's lineup that is important to e.g. wedding photographers and PJs. Nikon in the past made 24/2, 28/2, 28/1.4, 35/1.4 (most of those in manual focus) but then for many years those were discontinued (apart from the 35/1.4 Ai-S) while Nikon didn't have an FX digital body on which their use would make sense. For some reason, technical or otherwise, instead of making a fast DX prime, Nikon waited until they had a good FX camera to offer before reinventing the fast wide angle. While I waited I was upset about it but now I'm quite happy. As I've said many times however I think Nikon should also offer something in this category that is affordable. The fact that Nikon introduced lenses like 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 AF-S suggest that if we wait longer there will also be some wide angles. On the other hand maybe Micro Four Thirds will be what people turn to when they need a more affordable, compact, fast wide angle. They benefit from the fact that there is no mirror. Dieter, have you considered getting into that system? An Olympus or Panasonic body, along with 12/2, 20/1.7 and 45/1.7 would be quite a hot kit for a compact, available light photographer. I want one but since I already invested a lot in Nikon I can't really get into that system (these lenses aren't exactly cheap though not as expensive as the f/1.4 Nikkors).</p>

<p><em>the AF-S upgrade for the 80-400 and the VR upgrade for the 300/4 are long long long overdue</em></p>

<p>I think now that Nikon has 16-35/4 and 24-120/4 it is only the logical next step that this lineup be extended into the telephoto. I know the two 70-200/4 (IS and non-IS) Canon lenses are very popular; I see them very commonly at outdoor events and on the street. However, personally I prefer having larger apertures available for event/people photography, so if I want compact I bring in the 180/2.8, and other such lenses. I don't spend all that much time in the wilderness but I think 70-200/4 would be a great landscape lens. I photograph landscape normally within the 24mm to 100mm or at most 135mm focal length range; in my experience the longer focal lengths suffer from atmospheric effects too much to yield clear landscape images (of course there are successful images that make use of this effect, creating layers that give a feeling of depth, but I prefer something clear in the foreground). So I like carrying a 24-70 and a 100-105mm macro for this. The 70-200/2.8 II is also a good landscape lens with its high contrast it can "compensate" to an extent to the atmospheric effects. I don't feel my bag is too heavy with a 24-70 + 100 or 24-70 + 70-200II. If you want to add a 300mm or 400mm for wildlife then I understand the f/4 zooms become very attractive but since I do not often photograph wildlife I am unmoved ;-) When I had the 300/4 I would sometimes photograph deer, hare, and so on; to be honest in the light in which I would find and like to photograph those animals, it would be summer evening light which in practice meant I had to go to ISO 3200-6400 to stop the movement at f/4 so unfortunately I think f/2.8 is (almost) mandatory for such applications in the Finnish evening light. During daytime of course the situation is different but then I never found bright daylight attractive for pictures of animals (it's too commonplace and not moody). I like this kind of foggy, moody, evening light with a moose in the distance ;-) Examples from Finnish nature photography competition in the past:</p>

<p>http://www.vuodenluontokuva.fi/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=5109<br>

http://www.vuodenluontokuva.fi/vuodenluontokuva/media/2010/galleria/750/nisakkaat_seppo_pollanen_susi_hyokkaa_web.jpg<br>

http://www.vuodenluontokuva.fi/vuodenluontokuva/media/2010/galleria/750/nisakkaat_jyrki_kalliokoski_myrskyn_armoilla_web.jpg<br>

http://www.vuodenluontokuva.fi/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=5743</p>

<p>However, for outdoor concert photography I find telephotos with moderate maximum aperture (f/4 and f/5.6) very useful. In these situations I cannot use a tripod from the audience and monopod use is uncertain (depending on my position it may not be safe to use). A 300/4 VR or 400/4 VR would be perfect (together with 70-200II). A 80-400 AF-S VRII would also work if the quality is good but people who have owned both tell me that the current 80-400 VR is not as good optically as the 70-200II + TC-20E III. I am suspicious of teleconverters from past experience but nevertheless for the Elton John concert in Pori on Saturday I purchased a TC-20E III the day before (finally these are widely available after several years of wait) and used it to photograph the concert with the 70-200. I was right up front so I had a good view and in fact it turned out that on the D7000 the 70-200+2X was too long at times, but I wanted to test it extensively so I kept using it. I wasn't expecting much but honestly the results are not bad. I shot at f/8, 1/200s, ISO 400-640 and apart from there being some subject movement at that speed, the VR did an amiable job of holding the vibration of an EFL 210-600mm setup in control. I will do more testing in two weeks when I'm taking pictures at a WRC event in Finland - I think the TC will be useful for my personal safety, I have no desire to be hit by rocks or other objects flying in the air as the cars go by. I'll give a more detailed report once I've shot that event. I think when you assess the cost / benefit ratio of the 70-200 II you should also consider that it seems to work fairly well with teleconverters so you may actually find the 70-200 II + 2X an acceptable solution to applications where an updated 80-400 would be your ideal lens. I think the quality of the zoom is very high without TC, but with TC it drops to something of an intermediate or upper class consumer zoom in quality - which is what the 80-400 is, anyway. I did not like the 70-200 MK I + TC-14E II + D200 for concert photography - it was too soft with the TC, but the D7000+70-200II+TC-20EIII seems ok (for the gain in reach you do lose image quality but I got some good results). Of course if the 300mm-400mm application is primary to you then it will not do, but for my very occasional needs it seems a good compromise while waiting for Nikon to make newsolutions which I am sure they will, in time, do. Nikon has apparently some new patents on long zooms so perhaps our wait is soon over. A key factor for me for deciding to get the new TC is that there are some encouraging reports on how well it works with the 200/2 VR which I have, by Simon Stafford in the Grays of Westminster customer magazine Marianne Oelund on dpreview, and another test http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/4waysto400.html. That gives me a 400/4 AF-S VR, another lens I've been longing for and that Nikon doesn't make as such. I'm eager to test these combinations in the next two weeks. If Stafford's review is accurate (and not biased by TC optimism which is IMO very common) I think I may have all the long glass I will need. It's not like I need these often; it's more like three events in the summer and that's it. Anyway, as I said I think it's probably unwise to plan on relying on a TC for the majority of shots so if you shoot a lot at 300mm and 400mm and if you do not want to get a 300/2.8 (+TCs) then you will have to wait a bit longer for VR.</p>

<p>Canon does have an extensive intermediate aperture long lens collection: 70-300/4-5.6L IS USM (see photozone.de 5DII review), 70-200/4L IS USM, 300/4 IS USM, 400/5.6L USM, and 400/4 DO IS USM. Depending on how important this application area is to you, and how much you want to get light weight, high quality, and stabilization, you might consider getting a Canon body (7D or 5DII) and one of these lenses for the intermediate term until Nikon brings out a product that meets your needs. I considered this but then came to think that it's too expensive to get a mid/high end Canon body just for telephoto use. The lenses I would get are the 70-300L and maybe the 400/5.6L but those aren't exactly cheap either! With the money spent on a 5DII or 7D, and those two lenses I could purchase a 300/2.8 or 200-400/4 Nikkor, which for me defeats the whole point of the purchase. (Sorry for the long post.)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Long post indeed, Ilkka, but very informative. As to your question about me considering the m4/3 system - the answer is no. I don't want to add yet another system to my bag and I don't want a camera with a sensor smaller than DX. For the same reason, I don't want to add a Canon body and lens for one specific purpose to my bag - it just complicates things too much. I am not even considering a Nikon FX body at this point - at the level I am shooting at, DX is sufficient and the Tokina 11-16/2.8 does the job for which I would have to purchase the 14-24/2.8 to go with an FX body otherwise.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka - I'm proud of you for a post as long as some of mine. :-) I agree that a lot of people wanting low light and shallow depth of field for their fast apertures may be better starting with an FX camera. I've mentioned before that I could see some people having an interest in a focal reducer (reverse teleconverter) for DX bodies, should anyone (I doubt Nikon) start making such a thing and if its image quality isn't too horrendous. That's a big "if", with the pixel density of modern DX sensors, of course; just as a DX sensor is a "perfect" 1.5x teleconverter compared with FX, so FX is a "perfect" 1.5x focal reducer compared with DX. Thanks for the heads-up about the 200 f/2 + TC20-EIII combination, too.<br />

<br />

I just wanted to disagree about the reasons for the 85mm AF-S's lack of popularity, at least from my perspective. I can speak only as someone who deliberately didn't buy either of them: the f/1.4 AF-D is very soft off-centre wide open, enough so that I'm not prepared to shell out its going rate. The AF-S is much sharper than the AF-D and the bokeh is much better than the f/1.8, but it's preposterously expensive (although so is the Zeiss for Sony) and the LoCA is horrendous (for someone who cares about it, a minority including me). Both the f/1.4s are nice lenses, but I suspect a lot of people are thinking very carefully about whether they're worth the money compared with the Sigma or manual-focus Samyang (the choice I made), especially given the global economic climate. Canon have the f/1.2 (although more expensive still), and that's got to be a draw for someone wanting wide aperture portrait lenses - the two f/1.2 USM lenses are the main option I knew I was giving up by switching to Nikon. If Nikon find a way to make the 85mm AF-S cheaper, or if the exchange rates change, I suspect it would be more popular to amateurs. My $.02, anyway. Given this, would a 70mm f/1.4 to keep the DX crowd happy under-cut the 85mm? Unless it was pretty expensive, I imagine so. An f/1.8 somewhere in the 70-85mm range turning up some time soon wouldn't surprise me, though, especially now the 50mm has been updated.</p>

[kenneth_cortland]

<blockquote>

<p>And at least to me it appeared that the welcome for the AF-S upgrade of the 85/1.4 wasn't overly enthusiastic - a very good lens was made better but at a substantial increase in price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would tend to disagree with this. I ordered my lens in February of 2011, and it didn't arrive until the end of June. Granted this is after the tsunami/earthquake, but I have friends that ordered last year prior to the disaster and it took them a while to get their lenses as well. There was a lot of hype around that particular release, and I doubt the lack of supply is due to low manufacturing output by Nikon only; the demand is clearly there. That's why there are some retailers today still trying to price gouge on Amazon and eBay by selling a $1699 lens for over $2300.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>There still isn't a 70-200/4 AF-S VR, a 300/4 AF-S VR, or an 80-400/4-5.6 AF-S VR.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Patience...not trying to be a prognosticator, but I don't think these are too far away (at least the first one given the 16-35mm f/4 and the 24-120mm f/4 releases). I agree with you that they are overdue. I would actually like to get a 300mm f/4, but at that focal length VR is a must. And I agree with Shun on this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It wouldn't make much sense to introduce a 70-200mm/f2.8 and then a 70-200mm/f4 back to back. Now that the f2.8 VR II version is about 2 years ago and the 16-35mm/f4 and 24-120mm/f4 were both introduced in 2010, I would expect the 70-200mm/f4 any time now.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Call it what you want, but announcing these two products on top of each other (especially if the f/4 version is stellar), will eat into some sales of the f/2.8 version. This is simply clever marketing and product releases in our capitalist environment. :-)</p>

[peter_n1664876959]

<p>One prime and I don't care if there <em>are</em> zooms to cover the focal length:</p>

<p><strong>16mm/f2.8 AF-S DX</strong></p>

<p>I just love the 24mm FL...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Just an update on my testing of the TC-20E III. I have been very positively surprised by the performance of the 200/2 AF-S VR with the TC on 12 MP FX so far, the images are sharp wide open at f/4 as long as I get the shutter speed high. I have been using a wimberley sidekick with the setup and to be stable the rig needs additional support; for correct balance I have to mount the lens at the very end of the RRS foot and then there is just too much vibration. (It's more stable when mounted directly on my Arca Z1 from the front end of the RRS foot, but this won't work with the gimbal configuration). So I inserted a rubber piece between the foot and the barrel of the lens and now it's pretty stable at least to my satisfaction. The combination maintains the excellent bokeh and beautiful colour rendition of the 200mm prime. This is the first time I can say I'm actually happy with a TC + lens combination. On the D7000 I think the lens is stretched too far (EFL 600mm); maybe stopped well down it would give a good image but now it looks a bit below my standard so I will use it with FX.</p>

<p>With the 70-200II, I have shot so far only hand-held images of concerts, airplanes and some brown hare. ;-) The 70-200 II + TC-20E III is quite sharp at f/8 at the 200mm on the D7000, but the images are not as "clean" looking as they are with the 200mm prime (with TC). Both autofocus and VR seem to work well with the zoom+TC. I am not as pleased with results at the short end of the zoom (they seem a little soft and TC-like for a lack of a better expression), but then you can just take off the TC (if you have time), and get excellent quality and f/2.8 maximum aperture. I'm not really a long lens shooter and I don't have the back needed to haul around the big glass, but it's good to have an option to get a shot in case the subject presents itself. Anyway as I said before if your need is for a 300mm or 400mm lens the majority of the time then don't rely on a TC to get to those focal lengths but if you would be satisfied by a slow zoom (i.e. 80-400) then these TC setups probably give reasonably close to what you'd get with one at the long end of the range, unless we're talking about very fine (and pricey) slow zooms such as the 70-300/4-5.6 L from Canon. Regarding another point of reference, the Nikon 70-300 VR, I think at the short end that zoom is clearly better than the 70-200II+2X TC but at the 400mm end you do get an advantage in detail over the 70-300 VR (which is a bit soft at 300mm). So if you do get this setup do take the TC off when it's not needed, otherwise you'll be shooting yourself in the foot.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: I only have four days of experience with the TC-20E III so forgive my enthusiastic blabber about it. I usually get around and find flaws with new equipment after longer use but my initial feeling is that the setups I mentioned above suit my applications and quality requirements well.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>The 70-200 II + TC-20E III is quite sharp at f/8 at the 200mm on the D7000,</em></p>

<p>Meant: the rig is quite sharp at f/8 at the 400mm end on the D7000.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks Ilkka. I've found a 500mm f/4 Ai-P + TC-16A is a bit long for a lot of birding, and I can't persuade them to hold still so I can use the 500mm naked (the lens, not me, otherwise that would explain them running away), so I'm quite tempted to save up for a TC-20 and give this a go (although it sounds like I may regret my Manfrotto 393 rather than a true Wimberley). Along with saving for an 80-200, an SB-700, some studio flashes, a 45mm Ai-P, a 20mm f/4, a 35mm f/1.4 Samyang and a Yashica A. Time to remortgage...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I managed to solve the vibration issue using a suitable object as a second support between the RRS foot and lens barrel. I'm getting stunning image quality from the 200/2+TC-20E III even wide open (on D3 using a tripod)! Colors, sharpness (in a 12x18 print it looks perfect), and even the bokeh are excellent. In the 100% view I can see that the sharpness isn't quite that of a native lens, but this is much better than I had hoped for.</p>

<p>On the D7000 however, the autofocus of that camera seems lost with the 200/2+TC. :-( I haven't managed a single sharp image with that combination. The 70-200II+TC focuses perfectly on the D7000 but the image is not as clean in other ways. Quite useable though, in a pinch.</p>

<p>This was hand-held at 1/60s, f/4, f = 400mm, with the D3 at ISO 3200. This image is actually decent also at the pixel level but my back can't handle hand-holding this setup for long.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>This is with the 70-200II+2X on the D7000. EFL 600mm. </p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>And a 100% crop. Dieter, what do you think?</p><div></div>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka - I just had a look at the review you linked to. As usual, it reminded me that I wish I could afford a 400mm f/2.8, which seemed a world better (pixel peeping) than anything else, even at f/8. <i>Sigh.</i> I always thought I'd like a 400 f/2.8 for ultimate losing-the-background and wildlife, but only more recently have I realised quite how special it is compared with the more "consumer" options. From the MTF, the same is true of the current 500 f/4 (I've not yet shot with my AI-P enough to analyse it, but I expect it to be trounced). Now, if I could just win the lottery...</p>