Today I got a confirmation on at least 3 lenses (released at Photokina):
- AF-S 50mm 1.4 G – replacement is coming (confirmed)
- AF-S 85mm 1.4 G – replacement is coming (confirmed)
- AF-S 70-200mm 2,8 VRII – replacement is coming (confirmed)
No confirmations yet on the AF-S 28mm 2.8 and on the AF-S 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 (this may change in the next few weeks).
Don’t ask about the source – can’t say anything else for now. I have sufficient information to believe that this info is legit and this is why I am posting it. My confidence about this rumor is 85% – it is only from a single source (in the past we had 99% confidence). The lenses will probably be N & ED but not VR. Remember, we are talking about rumors here – if you have a weak stomach, wait for the official release.
Related posts:
106 Comments
I am not sure that it is a good idea to talk about “a weak stomach” and “the official release” in the same sentence.
Needless to say I am not at all surprised to hear that Nikon will be replacing it’s reputedly seriously flawed (for FX format and film use anyway) 70-200mm f2.8 VR zoom lens.
Fast 50mm and 85mm lenses with nano coating are going to be incredible!
Still waiting on 200mm macro news.
Figures. I bought a 70-200 last weekend.
As much as I’d love to see the new lenses, I’d rather like it if they got their ass in gear and knocked out a few more 200/2 lenses.
I’m bored of waiting for mine
Well the page is nikonrumorsdotcom so.. rumors are great!
But OMG the price on that 50mm f/1.4 AF-S will soar to heaven! I’m thinking 850.00 Dls
Where the heck are the fast WIDE primes? The 85mm f/1.4 is already stellar. A new 50 would be nice but there’s always the Sigma … but we need fast and WIDE. The 28mm is overpriced and aging.
Agreed – fast wide angle like a new 28mm f1.4. I’m also hoping for a fast standard zoom someday with VR = 18-70 f2.8 VR. But I realise this is probably a dream…
cool!! would love to see they announce the AF-S 35/1.4G ED N as well. if not now maybe next year…together with AF-S 105/2G ED N and AF-S 135/2G ED N
What are the differences between this new 50 f/1.4 and the old one?
1. Price – about $155.00 more
2. AF-S (Silent Wave Motor) should translate to faster and quieter focusing
3. “G” type rather than “D” type lens (no aperature ring which means it will have limited use on most film bodies with the exception of the F-6 and maybe some others)
4. Allegedly improved optical performance resulting from new design and coatings
5. Nine-blade aperature (better than the older version)
The new one is AF-S.
“But OMG the price on that 50mm f/1.4 AF-S will soar to heaven! I’m thinking 850.00 Dls”
That would be crazy for any 50- if it is that much I am going back to the 1.8, I had to ditch the 1.4 due to the flare problems
True that the 70~200 has mushy corners on DIGITAL FX. Not true that the same problem exists on full-frame FILM. Don’t know why: perhaps due to sensor design. certainly no porblems whatysoever with this lens on the F5 and F6. That said, we all need the update for our D3 and D700 bodies.
ibbo
show us YOUR source cause nikon wont come out with all 3 lenses that everybody wants nikon to replace
I don’t understand why yet again people are asking for VR on lenses below 100mm focal length. It has been shown in technical artiicles that fitting a vibration reduction system of some sort, although it aids hand holding at longer focal lengths, actually degrades the resolution of a lens compared to the same design without VR.
Due to some very clever advertising suggesting that it is a case of “no VR no good” it has become the “must have’ feature on all lenses. I think congratulations are in order to Nikon for putting optical quality before the latest fad.
Chris P
I’ve got everything crossed hoping you’re right! Like Chris P I dont see why everyone wants VR on a lens that is a 50mm 1.4, its not something i’d be looking for. And without VR surely that should reduce the cost! Glad to see Nikon are supporting those photographers who bought the D40 etc without an AF motor, I know a lot of people with these lenses who’d appreciate an AFS prime. Not to mention the fact that AFS focussing is faster, and more accurate on cameras such as the D50.. especially when the D50’s focus motor starts giving up the ghost! And finally a G prime!
Anon: He’s not going to show the source, use some common sense!
I cant see a NEW lens being cheaper than the ‘overpriced’ one it replaces?
I concur with Chris P on that one – VR = more complex and heavy lenses which aught to be small and handy. Question is, I guess, with the better and better VR, will the optimum focal lenght above which to apply VR decrease?
Personally I have the 24-70 2.8 and I’m happy with it excatly as it is – would not trade any quality (or size/weight) for VR.
Nikon knows this, which is why it doesn’t have VR on its high-end short focal length lenses like the 24-70. But it also understands that VR sells, especially to consumers that don’t know better, which is why it has VR on tons of short focal length kit-grade or slightly better lenses.
I hope this means that I’ll be able to get my hands on the older af-d versions cheap, as I doubt the price will be attractive for a while.
Now I speculate wildly base on the “fact” that we get the three lenses:
That would mean that the also long awaited sub-50mm lenses, the 80-400 (or is it going to be 70-400 to fit the 24-70?) and 200 micro are postponed
Well, you cant win the lottery and get the grand price on one day…
By delaying those lenses do Nikon think:
our 14-24 is great, so we can wait a bit with the sub-50mm lenses?
The 200mm micro will never be — because it will be a 70-200mm micro (!) and we dont want that introduced together with a 70-200VRII
The 80-400, is a very good lens for slow AF needs already.If AF got improved enough would it take too big a share of from the new 70-200vrII? Albeit they not really competitors the 70-200 also has a larger costumer base (i guess?), and have gotten massive negative press attention (more or less decerved or undecerved).
Now these are just thoughts…
Sorry but IMHO that’s just crap! I worked several times with two different 70-200 lenses on my D3 (wide open, ISO 1600 and up) – the images were PERFECT. Never unterstood why people (test-chart-shooters I suppose?) continue to bash it.
EDIT: I’m referring to the very first message!
I would never pay hundreds of dollars/euros more just to have AF-S!! That’s stupid! Im perfectly happy with my old AF 85mm and 50mm f1.4 IF the new 85mm has improved sharpness wide open and less fringing – yes, THEN I would consider buying it.
I sure do hope they release the 80-400 AFS although I don’t expect it. Or if they did announce it, it would take months before they would deliver.
SO HAPPY!!! I have been waiting for a 70-200 for soooooo long that I almost gave in and bought a used one this weekend!!
-Any ideas/guesses on the price for the 70-200??
Well I seriously doubt that it will be the same price as the existing 70-200. At least $2.000? Maybe $2.200? Maybe more… Pure speculation of course.
I’m hoping for the 80-400 AFS as well, and kind of expecting it too. There are rumors about this lens for a long time now. And with Sigma releasing two lenses in the same range (120-400 and 150-500)Nikon kind of needs to react. Or am I hoping too much?
You might if you didn’t have a drive motor….d40 and d60 folks _will_ pay for fast primes that autofocus on their cameras, trust me.
I just brought my 70-200mm 2.8 last week…. ;_;
But I will love my lens, I will love my lens, I will….
it is worth to buy the new 70-200mm no matter how high the price.. as long as they fixed vignetting + Nano + VRII and macro. So D3 will never suffer again!
This line up certainly makes sense. Fast AFS primes are needed for the D40/D60 crowd – otherwise Nikon is giving away to Canon customers moving up from P&S. And the 70-200VR is the missing brother of the 14-24 and 24-70. That last bit could spell good news: If it falls in the same price range as those 2, it’s not much more expensive than the current 70-200, and if it’s of the same quality, than it’s going to be awesome!
SAME!!!!! shld i sell it? lol
Does this mean the “old” 70-200 will drop in prices 2nd hand for us DX users?
We have it in stock over here in Norway – no waiting just nip in and pick one up
..the downside is it costs 5000 dollars or 3000 pounds ;-(
I agree, I bought my wife a D60 and bought her a AF-S 18-70mm DX lens because the kit lens had the plastic mount, no distance scale and no internal focus and it was slower. I think that the 18-70mm is better even without VR.
I have a D300 and my wife has a D60. The current models of the 28mm, 35mm and 50mm will work on my camera but not my wife’s. I have been waiting for primes with an AF-S motor so we both may use them.
I bet it’s redesigned as well, both primes. The test on the Canon f/1.4 on FF at DPr shows lots of problems at corners, both softnes and strongvignetting wide open. These lenses were not designed for digital.
For 50mm I agree VR is no big deal, but at 85mm (which in DX is already >125mm), it would make sense. It may degrade IQ a bit under use, but then you’d be shooting handheld at lower shutter speed and VR would be better than w/o it. At more critical shooting, for landscapes for example, just turn it off and use a tripod.
Would VR dectract of intrisnic optical Q of lens? I don’t think so, just make it a bit heavier and more expensive. But Canon have been doing it for a long time and I think Nikon should do same.
They should relabel it DX and sell it for 1,200, I’d get one now! In fact, it seems to have been designed fo DX, even though for film the problems are not as apparent as in digital FF.
Man… I was planing on buying the 80-200 and while I wait for the 70-200 save myself 700 for a few months… Guess ill be spending 1600 earlier then I thought…
It could be, we’ve got fifteen years of lens design technology advancements since that lens was first released, plus I would hope that they learned their lesson and not price themselves out of the market.
If the new will be good on FX it will probably not be bad on a cropped sensor… And a drop in Nikon prices? Well you can take a look at what happened to the 28-70 when the 24-70 arrived for an indication of what to expect… We all want Nikon to give away gear.
Me too. For all the primes that need updating, the 35 1.4 needs it the worst. As good as they are, I don’t think that the 105 and 135 sell well enough as AF-D lenses for Nikon to upgrade them, but if they did, I would run and grab a 135….
There are rumors about an AFS 28 2.8? Why 2.8? Nikon’s AIS 28mm F2 is highly regarded, why not modernize that lens? If we can’t get 1.4, at least give us F2
I want the 50mm and the 85mm – but I would love Nikon more if they came out with f/1.2 lenses!
It most certainly would be — the 28mm f/1.4 is overpriced because it’s discontinued and has become a collector’s item. It now goes used for more than twice what it sold for new.
the 85 doesn’t need VR either, you really need VR on longer focal lengths, I would go as far to say 150mm and above. You can go down far as 1/50-1/40 with a 85, even slower with good technique
Err, why? The reviews of the f/1.2 Canons are not good. I don’t think you will find many people willing to have a defective lens for the sake of being a half stop extra wide.
Admittedly some of the Canon issues are being ascribed to shoddy manufacture, but reviews of the Nikon 1.2 version are not that great either.
The 80-400 lens is very clearly the lens that is in most desperate need of an update. It is not just the fact that it is slow, it is the fact that it does not work at all with the entry level bodies.
But it is hardly a surprise that Nikon would not announce an update at Photokina. The message there is the launch of the D3x/z. The fast primes and a new 70-200 are on message, the 80-400 is not.
Another factor might well be that the 80-400 is a harder design challenge.
I really cannot see Nikon being at all worried that the 80-400 would take market share from the 70-200 though. Both lenses have the same price tag.
The 80-400 might take some market share from the 200-400 f/4. But that is in a completely different price range. Nobody is going to put one of those on a D60, but plenty of folk will buy an 80-400. If Nikon does not fill that gap in their lineup others will.
I have tested my 105 VR carefully, because I use it for portraits. W/o Vr I can do 1/60s, which is more than half of the expected 1/FL rule (=158mm equiv).
With VR I get exactly same results at 1/15s, a gain of 2 full stops. This is wonderful for portaits in available light at low ISOs. Why not have it? If you think you don’t need it, just turn it off.
I tend to agree with you – just wanted to see if the current rumor made sens from a Nikon point of view
Any other takes on that?
Each person has their favourites, some want a new 20mm, some a 80-400. Personally I would like Nikon to thow out the 135DC and make it non-DC (did anybody have time to use that feature in real life anyway?), but make it an f1.8 or 2.0…and drop the VR, just a nice small handy … perfect equivalent to the 85mm on FF. Ok I’ll keep dreaming…
I sencond that – and I can run fast to get one of those 135..
I’m all for turning VR off, I just would rather have the lens cost a couple of hundred dollars cheaper without VR even on it. But I understand it’s usefulness, but only on longer glass, like the 70-200 or the 200 F2.
The photozone review praises the Canon 85mm 1.2 like nothing else and so does Rockwell. I wouldn’t know. Don’t like Canon cameras. Terrible ergonomics.
essentially it boils down to, as i understand it, film’s better sensitivity to high angle of incidence light. because of the way light interacts with film, it is more forgiving of light coming in at all angles, whereas the photosites on digital sensors are strongly biased towards light coming in perpendicular to the surface of the sensor and do not do as well with light coming in at an angle. that, at least, was my understanding from the discussion about the lens on the d3.
Aarrgh! Selling my 85mm f/1.4 D just got harder. Somebody please buy it!
Are you seriously refering to Rockwell on lens evaluation?
All credible photo magz I’ve read downrated the 1.2, as to not being able to use the lens full open anyhow. So real waste of money.
I can add some substance to the 50 mm lens. I have one ordered from MostlyDigital.ca that has been backordered since June 20th 2008, and Nikon is not giving any ETA for shipping.
> I don’t understand why yet again
> people are asking for VR on lenses
> below 100mm focal length. It has
> been shown in technical artiicles
> that fitting a vibration reduction
> system of some sort, although it
> aids hand holding at longer focal
> lengths, actually degrades the
> resolution of a lens compared to
> the same design without VR.
Who’s asking for VR? All I ever read on forums are people making your anti-VR point, with which I strongly disagree.
A 50mm f/1.4 with VR would be wonderful. If you do a lot of available-light shooting at night, indoors, this lens is usefully four stops faster than a 24-70mm 2.8 @ 50mm. That’s the difference between ISO 12,800 and ISO 3,200. Huge in terms of noise.
Right now, at f/1.4, I’m shooting around 1/15th sec at ISO 6400 on my D3 in dim indoor environments. I’m already on the ragged edge of what’s possible with modern photo equipment. VR would be a welcome improvement.
Right now, there is no setup available from Nikon that throws every available technology at the problem of low-light shooting. You have to pick VR or fast glass — you can’t have both.
I went to Samys Camera in Los Angeles this past Saturday and they had the AF-S 70-200mm VR lens in stock. I asked them what the price was and they stated that it was exactly what they are on their web site. Samys almost always sells merchandise for more in their stores than on their web site. So I may have seen some price movement.
We need an af-s version of the super amazing 35mm f/1.4 ais.
I’ve got one and it is amazing (f/5.6) but it would be even better updated with af-s and some of those nano coat crystals and better performance in the 1.4-2.8 range.
Here, here. I LOVE my 28mm f/2.0 ais. An af-s version with the nano-CC would be great so long as it stays good for IR shooting as the ais is THE sharpest prime lens for IR I have ever used.
Both lenses will certaily be better than their older counterparts. If you look at what Nikon has done on their recent marquee lenses they are all way better than their predessesors wide open and at the other larger f-stops.
I love my AF 50mm f/1.4 D but 1.4 to 2.8 need some serious improvement from the current wizards at Nikon. Same goes for the 85mm.
It’s the new optics that are getting me excited.
The 24-70 and 24 PC-E are amazingly resistant to flare and ghosting due to the nano CC so that will help both 85 and 50 as well.
I just hope the 50mm 1.4 doesn’t get bigger. I really like the small size of if, so easy to carry everywhere. Same goes for the 35mm f2 – if they make one, please don’t make it bigger.
As for VR, would be nice having
it, but only if they keep the current lenses in their line-up (and make them a bi
t cheaper…) – you’d have the AF-D lenses for people on budget and entry level photographers, and AF-S VR lenses for pros and enthusiasts.
that has to be one of the most absurd things i have EVER heard. it is only the 50mm 1.2L that gets no respect.
the 85mm 1.2L (I or II) is a phenomenal performer even wide open. it is a matter of knowing how to work with such a narrow DoF that gets people bitching.
end of discussion — 1.2 lenses from Nikon would be a very good move, very good.
I really don’t think any prime lens will ever have VR. Does not really need it. I hope they are nice and small in size to, but will probably be bigger like the older 28mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 lens are.
You forgot about the 105mm/2.8 VR…
I think Sigma’s new 50mm f1.4 is going to sell like hotcakes to D40/40x/60 users because of it’s motor. I wouldn’t buy a new one, but plenty of lowerend users are fed up with MF on their DSLR’s because Nikon doesn’t make anything faster then 2.8 in the shorter focal lengths that will focus on them.
Congratulations! Your post has been unanimously selected as a finalist for our youtube channel for forum posts!
BTW..
I would suggest a tripod and/or flash, but since I have been successful in achieving the same shutter speed of 1/15 on a cheap 18-55 @F3.5 in dim lit indoor enviroments at ISO 1600 (no flash). In other words, a much slower lens AND lower ISO achieving the same shutter speed!?!? perhaps a change of hobby is in order?
We would LOVE to hear an example of what you are shooting as well, as we are intrigued as to how VR would prevail. (Crossing our fingers for fast moving objects!)
Congratulations! Your post has been unanimously selected as a finalist for our youtube channel for forum posts!
BTW..
I would suggest a tripod and/or flash, but since I have been successful in achieving the same shutter speed of 1/15 on a cheap 18-55 @F3.5 in dim lit indoor enviroments at ISO 1600 (no flash). In other words, a much slower lens AND lower ISO achieving the same shutter speed!?!? perhaps a change of hobby is in order?
We would LOVE to hear an example of what you are shooting as well, as we are intrigued as to how VR would prevail. (Crossing our fingers for fast moving objects!)
Klaus wrote:
“Who’s asking for VR? All I ever read on forums are people making your anti-VR point, with which I strongly disagree.
A 50mm f/1.4 with VR would be wonderful. If you do a lot of available-light shooting at night, indoors, this lens is usefully four stops faster than a 24-70mm 2.8 @ 50mm. That’s the difference between ISO 12,800 and ISO 3,200. Huge in terms of noise.
Right now, at f/1.4, I’m shooting around 1/15th sec at ISO 6400 on my D3 in dim indoor environments. I’m already on the ragged edge of what’s possible with modern photo equipment. VR would be a welcome improvement.
Right now, there is no setup available from Nikon that throws every available technology at the problem of low-light shooting. You have to pick VR or fast glass — you can’t have both.”
——————————————-
Congratulations! Your post has been unanimously selected as a finalist for our youtube channel for forum posts!
BTW..
I would suggest a tripod and/or flash, but since I have been successful in achieving the same shutter speed of 1/15 on a cheap 18-55 @F3.5 in dim lit indoor enviroments at ISO 1600 (no flash). In other words, a much slower lens AND lower ISO achieving the same shutter speed!?!? perhaps a change of hobby is in order?
We would LOVE to hear an example of what you are shooting as well, as we are intrigued as to how VR would prevail. (Crossing our fingers for fast moving objects!)
P.S. Reply feature incompatible with safari?
Bingo. The 28 1.4 is the lens we’re talking about, the ONLY wide angle f/1.x lens Nikon makes in AF form. The 28 1.4 goes for over $3000 on Ebay sometimes, because it is discontinued and sharp copies are ridiculously in-demand…
I’d expect a NEW, AF-S G Nano etc. 28 1.4 to cost no more than $1000-$1500…
=Matt=
Good question! First of all, any new (pro grade) prime that Nikon makes will of course be AF-S, which is SWM. (USM) Also, it will probably be ED, G, and maybe Nano-coated. So all in all, the potential is there for an INCREDIBLY better lens, before you even consider that they may re-design the lens elements altogether.
Only time will tell!
=Matt=
Here’s what I say: Put VR in the “consumer” 85 1.8, let them get all excited about their high-tech lens, and then give US PROS a no-nonsense 85 1.4 or 85 1.2 without VR…
I would say that VR may harm bokeh, but I don’t think this is true past 100mm at least, judging by the glorious bokeh in the new 200 2.0 VR and 300 2.8 VR, etc…
=Matt=
Sorry, I don’t think there will be a “more than 3.5x” f/2.8 zoom-lens from Nikon…
joseph (joey) was right… his official answer when i pointed this out to him few days ago, “haha, nikon dont plan to release anything because their mission for this year is now complete, the d90 is the last equipment to be announced”
…seems like you got some weak source and rumors
this is not correct on a couple of points. firstly the performance. the 1.2L is NOT an outstanding performer at all wide open. the nikkor 1.4 in pure resolution outperforms it in the centre wide open by a considerable margin. when you shoot at 1.4 or 1.2 the centre resolution is all that matters due to the razor thin dof.
photozones review of the 85/1.2 is obviously done by a groupie becasue the comments do NOT match the MTF performance. they do sing its praises but it is not backed up by actual results. this is a common problem with PZ testing.
i am not suggesting the 1.2L is a bad lens, not at all, its overall a fantastic bit of glass but it is NOT a phenomenal peformer wide open by any means.
secondly, due to the massive aperture difference the lens elements are HUGE which means that the lens itself needs to be massive. the 85/1.2L is TWICE the weight of the 85/1.4 nikon weighing in at over a kilo. thats heavier than the new and massive nikon 24-70/2.8. i mean that is just outrageous.
to make this point clearer about weight, with a 24-70/2.8 the weight is not so much an issue cos you can use your hand to support the weight and its comfortbale. not so with the 1.2L, its very difficult to control becasue its short, stubby and the shape does not lend itself to stable handholding. this in itself exacerbates the problem of focussing becasue its difficult to hold well and it has a razor thin dof and its not that crash hot wide open either.
i carry my camera all day and i for one do NOT want any of this 1.2 nonsense that will double the weight of my kit. i would have no problem if the 1.2 was ADDED to the 1.4 to give people a choice; but if a 1.2 REPLACED the 1.4 then that would be the WORST thing nikon could offer me as a pro shooter.
I should have said any prime lens under 100mm will probably never have VR.
I would like to see the 180mm updated. With AF-S, VR, a limit switch and a tripod collar. It’s about time for it to be updated anyway.
Man! That’s a lens that just slipped through the cracks there. I have the AIS version and I love it, but I would love to have an AF one. It’s long past due an update, now that’s a lens that would benefit from having VR.
> Congratulations! Your post has been
> unanimously selected as a finalist
> for our youtube channel for forum
> posts!
Charming. Smugness is bad enough, but
a smug guy who doesn’t have a clue
what he’s talking about is even worse.
> BTW.. I would suggest a tripod
> and/or flash
Would you?
> but since I have been successful
> in achieving the same shutter
> speed of 1/15 on a cheap 18-55
> @F3.5 in dim lit indoor enviroments
> at ISO 1600 (no flash). In other
> words, a much slower lens AND lower
> ISO achieving the same shutter
> speed!?!? perhaps a change of hobby
> is in order?
Let me get this straight: do you
seriously believe that it NEVER gets
so dim indoors that at ISO 6400 and
f/1.4 a properly-exposed image would
require a shutter speed of 1/15th of
a second?
Because that’s what you’ve just
written. Well guess what, it does.
Here’s an explanation: “dim” is a
subjective description. My indoor
environment must have been “dimmer”
than yours. One would think this
was obvious.
> We would LOVE to hear an example of
> what you are shooting as well, as
> we are intrigued as to how VR would
> prevail. (Crossing our fingers for
> fast moving objects!)
That old canard. Camera shake can
cause significantly more blur than
(slow) moving objects, depending. VR
allows sharper images of people
sitting reasonably still even down to
1/8th – 1/4th sec.
> P.S. Reply feature incompatible with
> safari?
Safari made you repeat that inane post
two more times? Is it also responsible
for the errors in content?
I would say that’s a good compromise.
when a new 300? AFS, VR and less than 1kg.
The square dance continues…
But a set of legs you won’t see shaking are that of a nice Gitzo. Sure VR might work up the courage to ask the prom queen out for a tune, but you’d better let her lead as no one enjoys having their toes stepped on no matter how cute he looks fumbling around in awe. The fact is she’s out of your league. And you can blabber about you’re car, job, money, etc… but, just cause she is gorgeous doesn’t mean she has an airhead. She knows what the really right stuff is and she knows that anyone who claims to be “on the ragged edge of what’s possible with modern photo equipment “ and chooses VR ( a feature made to COMPENSATE, to a short degree for the lack of a tripod ) over using a tripod, is just ignorantly pulling her legs.
In your defense,
The dance will be over waiting to cut in on all the Pros, as they are very much so content with their partners.
and that was the last song.
Keep pushing that edge Klaus!
lol you guys have a funny argument there. but somehow I have the feeling that you two would get along pretty well without the internet between you. sorry im in a goofy mood, a wonderful model just agreed to be photographed by me.
Part of me wants to say that’s crazy. But, if people will shell out $500 for a 3rd party 50mm(Sigma), Nikon will surely charge plenty more for a fancy Nano coated AF-s bokeh-machine. That 85 will surely make the Zeiss 85 look like a bargain!
AT 180mm, the lens would be less oriented towards BOTH FX and DX. I’d say, give us an AF version of the 105 f/1.8 or f/2.5 or something, one of those legendary bad boys. THAT would sell well to both FX and DX shoters!
=Matt=
If they could do that, that lens would fly out the door so far, they probably wouldn’t be able to keep up with the demand.
Actually 180 is a very nice length on a DX sensor, and then it’s of course a classic for 35mm(or FX), just with the 70-200 and 80-200 zooms, that lens just doesn’t get the attention that it truly deserves
gkkvyhov http://mcckgxdd.com ifuavsii ljeammar
tkpzkjok http://eblfrqdm.com tbgmlwbn ltlveyhy
yuhsrpif
yuhsrpif
yuhsrpif
yuhsrpif
[URL=http://kaewpslk.comzjeymidn/URL] jrlnrbca“>http://qpepfgsq.com“>jrlnrbca gfhzqvky http://tusrhqgr.com aswauiov dtqwcudb
Just sold my 70~200mm 2.8 because it VIGNETTED so badly on my D700. Will be happy to see the new one.
I need a Nikon (70) 80-400 / 3.5-5.6 VR II
I am really hoping they come out with the following:
24 1.4G
35 1.4G
50 1.4G
85 1.4G
And what about AF-S 50mm f/1.8 or AF-S 85 f/1.8? Can we expect that lens soon? And how soon? `Cos the f/1.4 versions will be too expensive for me.
And what about AF-S 50mm f/1.8 or AF-S 85 f/1.8? Can we expect those lenses soon? And how soon? `Cos the f/1.4 versions will be too expensive.
Well, where is the new 70-200 that was “confirmed” at the very top?
I am asking my source the same question
Figures…this site lives true to its name…just a bunch of rumors.
Any news on the arrival of a possible new 80-400 (AF-S VR II) ??? “This fall” was mentioned somewhere…
I am very interested in the AF-S 70-200mm 2,8 VRII as I want a flatter image that the VR is said to provide when used with an FX body like the D700. However I have manual focus only film bodies too with which I would like to use this lens therefore I’m wondering it it will be “gelded” (i.e., lacking the aperature control ring) as is the VR.
Does anyone here have any idea about this?
Thanks,
Jack
Just bought a 70 200 and sold it after a month because it was soft at anything above f8 at both sides and all corners when focussing on close subjects on FX. I mean the only sharp part of the image was a circle that fitten the frame top to bottom.
If you have a D700 or D3 or D3X try it. I dont normally shoot brick walls or newspapers but I saw this in so many actual images it made me check it out. Try it. Focus at the closest (which is another problem!) and shoot a wall. You will be disturbed… Studio work? Forget it unless for portraits.
They have to bring out a replacement that matches the quality (and family) of the 14-24 and 24-70 as they are superb and focus close enough to be useful too.