What should Nikons lens line up be?

[anubis]

Very interesting.... from THOM, see his favoured line up.....

Also a survey at the end; which he promises to take to Nikon... given his standing with the company something worth filling out.....




http://www.bythom.com/lensrefresh.htm

[Antsl]

Strangely enough I was just having a look at that myself (as I try and put back together a Nikkor 20-35mm f2.8 lens that I have just been giving an overhaul to!). Nikon need to get serious soon and make a fast very wide-angle lens before they loose too many more photojournalists (do not read this as sports photographers) to the dark side. They need to make a 16mm f2 lens or something equivalent if they are going to keep me happy for much longer. An 18mm f2.8 does no cut it and I am already tired of trying to compensate for things with a 24mm f2 MF. Get real Nikon and instead of telling us how great the DX format is, support it with the equivalent equipment we are used to using the in the 35mm format.

There.... got that off my chest.... now I just have to get that little button from the AF/MF mode selector to drop back in place so I can start reassembling this lens! I have this lens since new in 1994 (paid $4400 for it back then) and this is the first time I have had work done on it... there is a few years worth of dust in the corners!

[adam]

Interesting thoughts and a nice read.
Thanks

[Yi-P]

What is with all the DX type fast lenses that goes telephoto range? I thought you only need DX when you are going wide and making DX on a telephoto will not really help that much, you still need the large front element to make it fast...


What I was really wanting is a AF-S 85mm f/1.4G ED VR lens, I know they may bump the price way high to the $2500~3000 range, but how sweet it is to have legendary optic with fast focus, dont mind the VR but nice to have it there.

Another lens maybe a AF-S 17-80mm f/2.8G ED VR DX, the 55mm on the current range is just bit short to work under crowded areas...

Then with these two, I have no more complains about Nikkor lenses, except that I cant afford them anymore with all the high tech goodies built inside.

[Alpha_7]

Interesting, I did the little survey at the end.

[Antsl]

Like the Santa hat Craig! While your in the mood, do you want to take a few notes on my wish list.... its not big and it does'nt involve world peace!

[Yi-P]

Like the Santa hat Craig! While your in the mood, do you want to take a few notes on my wish list.... its not big and it does'nt involve world peace!

Oh, so the santa list is on

Only one for my side... its not very long name, hope you can remember it...

Nikkor AF-S 200mm f/2G ED IF VR

I'd expect that on my doorstep by xmas

With Thanks,

[Antsl]

Make mine that 16mm f2 lens I mentioned above please...Santa can make anything can't he!

[Alpha_7]

I'll get my elves onto it Guys, keep checking your mail, watch the the parcel with the green and red ribbons.

[Razor]

Did the survey too. Some logical errors in it though... why not list the D80? Why make it mandatory to select a DSLR for future purchase?

Also, I am not sure 500 + 600mm VR lenses make sense. That's tripod territory anyway. I love the idea of VR but I doubt Nikon will go quite as enthusiastically about it as Thom would like...

[moz]

I am not sure 500 + 600mm VR lenses make sense.

I suggest reading the reviews of the Canon equivalents, IS/VR is very popular with their versions of those lenses. It seems to be that the tripod removes the gross motions and makes moving the lens more controlled, while VR/IS takes out the smaller motions.

YMMV, but I suspect that on a $10k lens adding $500 for IS/VR even if only half the buyers want it makes commercial sense. It'd be hard to justify making two variants of the lens at that price.

[losfp]

I don't really get his obsession with AF-S and VR. IMO there is a place for lenses in the line-up without one of those, and even both in some cases.

Without AF-S and VR, a lens would be cheaper, smaller and lighter. Cheaper is not really a problem, with advances in manufacturing technology etc this will eventually be irrelevant, but until they can make AF-S and VR lenses that are the same size and weight as their less well endowed cousins, I don't think it's such a great idea to have it across the board - at least he has left VR off a few of the primes he is suggesting.

Oh, some sort of 12-55/2.8 would be on my wishlist

[moz]

To me t.The great thing about IS/VR is that it lets me take photos more easily. The ability to use shutter speeds a couple of stops slower than I'd expect is a great advantage. Somewhat limited with shorter lenses though by subject movement. But for longer lenses (anything over, say, 50mm) stabilisation is a great help. The 70-200 stabilised lenses beat the non-stabilised ones by a substantial margin, to the point where I've looked at the Sigma 120-300/2.8 and rejected it because it lacks stabilisation (I'd rather use my stabilised 70-200 with a teleconverter instead). For short lenses I don't see much subject matter in the gab between stuff that you shoot handheld without stabilisation and stuff that's so slow you'd use a tripod. Tourist stuff where tripods are not permitted is about the only thing - shooting inside without a tripod at 1/2s is useful in no flash/no tripod situations.

The places where I'd leave it out are very fast lenses, where you usually want ultimate sharpness and D0F is so narrow that IS doesn't help - the swaying toward/away as I hold the camera will shift things in and out of focus so much that only background is "sharp" anyway (were it in focus...). But then there's the Nikon 105mm macro VR which is quite a nice lens too, and the VR is useful.

Where I'm stuck is that Canon don't have a fast, stabilised medium range zoom. The Canon 24-105/4 is a little unconvincing for me, it just doesn't work for what I do. But if the 24-70/2.8 was available stabilised for an extra $500-ish I'd have bought that for sure. Or the 24-105 was f/2.8 instead of f/4. What I'd really love is a 24-70/1.8 (or even f/2.2) stabilised lens. I'm quite torn wishing they'd release something in that range but then I'd be very, very tempted to dump my existing 24-70/2.8 for it, which would cost $1000 or so. Ow! Nikon releasing one would be no better, I'd then have two Nikon lenses on my drool list (the 200-400/4 VR is the other), and be very tempted to switch brands. Gary is doing his best to convince me not to, however.

I do love the tiny size and light weight of the little primes that I have (50/1.4 and 85/1., and I'm tempted by something shorter, I just haven't seen a good lens yet (the Sigma 30/1.4 is a crop lens, the 24/1.4 has quality issues, the 35/1.4 is a little long on a full frame). But add in a few primes like that as well as zooms and the camera bag starts to fill up. I already carry 1.4x and 2x TCs most places, plus one of the primes, adding the other two primes would start to bulk me up big time.