Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Dan Wells on October 15, 2009, 03:23:07 pm
-
There are a couple of wonderful-looking Nikon lenses floating around in rumorland that haven't been announced yet (despite pictures of them AND the optical diagrams having appeared). I was a little disappointed that the only lens we saw with the D3s was an 85mm DX macro (why release a DX lens with an FX camera)? The easy one to build is the 16-35 mm f4 FX - that should be achievable with superb optical quality for a very decent price for a pro lens($999?)... It is quite a bit less radical than the excellent 14-24mm f2.8, which I don't own only due to the bulging front element (which scares me as a nature photographer in the field). I'm also looking forward to the 100-500, although that might be hard to get top optical quality out of (it's supposed to be a successor to the 80-400, NOT a $6000 bazooka like the 200-400). The only zooms I have heard of reaching 500mm or more are either mediocre (mainly various $1000ish and below Sigmas) or incredibly heavy and expensive - Sigma, Nikon and Canon have all released VERY long zooms in the $10,000 and above range with superb optical quality, but so heavy that they are really meant for fixed mounting at a sports stadium or on a vehicle for wildlife work - no tripod short of a Gitzo 5 will hold them! If Nikon really has something that goes to 500 in a handhold/monopod lens (size and weight of a typical 80-400 or at most modestly heavier) with great quality (or at least great quality to 400 with an acceptable "emergency use" 500), I think a lot of people who photograph in the field will thank them for it (even if it IS a bit slow at the long end) - I know I will... That could be a $2000-$2500 lens and still sell a bunch of copies.
-Dan
-
Yeah the announcement of the 85/3.5 was pretty disappointing. I was really looking forward to a 16-35 announcement (I would have been happy with either f/2.8 or f/4). I'd love to have that focal range with 14-24 class performance.
I don't know what they were thinking announcing a DX macro lens aimed at consumers alongside the D3s. Sometimes you really have to wonder about the marketing dept at Nikon.
I have my doubts about a 100-500. The picture that was floating around was obvously fake. 100-400 AF-S VRII seems more likely to me.
-
I agree that 500 seems ambitious - the only zooms I've ever seen get that far are either fixed-aperture "bazookas" that weigh 10 lbs or more (and cost many thousands of dollars) or they are Sigma's modest-quality consumer superzooms. Nothing says for sure that Nikon couldn't thread the needle between them and introduce a good-quality, professional 100-500 (f6.3 on the long end would keep the front diameter down, and it could still be f5.6 at 400 mm, losing nothing to the previous 80-400), but it IS an ambitious lens nobody has made yet (in order to replace the 80-400, it couldn't be much bigger, especially when not zoomed out). It would almost certainly need some interesting aspherics or even a diffractive element (does Canon have a patent on that?) to reach 500 without being much larger and heavier than the 80-400..
-Dan
-
The 85/3.5 was a disappointing announcement since we still have no AFS 85mm f/1.4 as was the 35mm f/1.4 being a DX lens. The new 50mm f/1.4G is a bit a mixed bag too.
Nikon seriously lack some smaller and lighter f/4 alternatives to many of their zooms.
-
I'm holding out for a 24-120mm f/2.8 or f/4 FXVR lens or some similar longish pro zoom before moving to FX. If Nikon doesn't get off it's duff soon on the FX lenses, I'm going back to Canon. At least when buying new lenses to go with my new body, I can get what I want. DX is useful, but I can easily see myself using a Canon clipped frame alongside FF in order to get the lenses I need.
-
I'm holding out for a 24-120mm f/2.8
This would be a dream wedding lens if the performance matches the 24-70.
-
I bought a D700 mainly on the strength of the Nikkor 14-24. It doesn't have VR of course and nor does the excellent 24-70/2.8. VR is not so critical with ultra-wide-angle lenses, but beyond 24mm it's particularly useful.
Since I have a few Canon DSLRs and lenses, I wouldn't want to duplicate a focal length in a Nikon fitting which is no better than, and possibly inferior to, what I've already got. Image stabilisation is an expected feature of modern lenses. It's a great invention. I'm disappointed that Nikon have no stellar zoom lenses with VR that follow on from 24mm. It means I'll have to travel with a two-camera system.
-
Since I have a few Canon DSLRs and lenses, I wouldn't want to duplicate a focal length in a Nikon fitting which is no better than, and possibly inferior to, what I've already got. Image stabilisation is an expected feature of modern lenses. It's a great invention. I'm disappointed that Nikon have no stellar zoom lenses with VR that follow on from 24mm. It means I'll have to travel with a two-camera system.
Considering the amazing number of Nikon VR zooms for DX format, it is indeed rather puzzling that Nikon hasn't released a good quality 24-105 FX lens yet.
Thom must be right, they don't know they user base, or they have advanced plans for in-body VR that prevents them from developing more stabilized lenses?
Cheers,
Bernard