AF-S 2,8/18mm – AF-S 2,0/24mm – AF-S 1,4/35mm and AF-S 1,4/85mm

All incl. Nano …

and for thenew consumerlenses a 4/24-135mm VR Nikkor for the new D800

Clever marketing sold the DX (poorer format) in a positive light. Stupid people and those that HAD to move to digital bought into it.

I HAD to do DX but sold everything DX the moment I got my hands on a D3 before the bottom falls out of that market.

Er, yes, all the reviews are wrong. Like I say these are people that should either never have picked up a digital camera – because they never picked up a 35mm one or have simply forgotten how a zoom lens performed on 35mm. I have little time for most digital ‘photographers’ as they tend not to know what real photographty is about and usually thier lack of grasp is apparent in about three minutes tops!

Of course they will replace it – eventually – that’s like me stating that my current M5 will be replaced by BMW at some point.

I never said it wasnt insanely sharp in the middle. But it was obviously optimised for the DX cameras that were the “future” at the time… With a nod to full frame on film.

Trust me they will replace it with a lens that matches tha nano coated previous 2 zooms. And it wont have the edge/corner sharpness issues. Full frame is now the future and this lens isnt great on full frame no matter how much it earns you.

All these people that post ‘reports’ on lenses all over the web but don’t really use a lens day to day for commercial purposes. They base their conclusions purely on numbers and scientific data which, though valid, is often interpreted in a way that is not representative of the facts, and certainly not in any way relating to day to day usage.

Often in everyday real use – that it to say not photographing optical charts or plain brick walls – are negligible.

The trouble with the digital age in photography is that it introduced photography to alot of people in padded cells and introduced some people to photography that I, for one, would rather had stayed sleeping.

If your 70 – 200 is SO bad, then I suggest it is a flawed lens and you might want to speak to Nikon about a replacement, rather than telling everyone how bad it is.

ONE FINAL TIME FOR THE HARD OF UNDERTANDING. A ZOOM SUCH AS 70 -200 HAS ALWAYS HAD FLAWS, LIKE EVERY ZOOM DOES, AND JUST BECAUSE YOU HAD THE USE OF THE SWEET SPOT WITH DX FORMAT, DON’T FORGET OW THESE LENSES BEHAVED ON 35MM FILM.

MY NIKON 70 -200 VR IS ALMOST THE SHARPEST LENS IN MY KIT – ACROSS THE RANGE – ZOOM OR PRIME!! ONLY MY 85MM AND 105 VR MACRO ARE SHARPER WHEN AT 100%.

IF YOU NEED PIN SHARPNESS USE A PRIME LIKE MY 85MM NIKKOR – IT BLOWS EVERYTHING AWAY OTHERWISE YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT SOME FLAWS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ZOOM.

This kind of sharpness and performance is needed for 12 million pixels on my D700 never mind the D3X as its sensor already out resolves all the earlier zooms even at ther best aperture. . Thats why those two were brought out at the same time. The third family member is conspicuous by its absense, DP review said the same thing. The 70 200 looks and feels dated and image quality is just not up to the standards of the other two new full frame zooms.
Read these real world reviews by Bjørn Rørslett that has a few lenses to see what he says about those 3 lenses. Because I find exactly the same thing in real photos.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating