Comments on: Nikon lenses poll

By: Pat Mann

Pat Mann — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:07:20 +0000

F/1.4 is two stops faster – two shutter speeds faster – than f.2.8 typical zooms and Nikon’s current wide primes. That’s the difference between 1/8 second and 1/30 second for a dimly lit shot of people at work or having fun – very significant for interiors, night shots, etc. It’s the difference between 1/500 and 1/125 in a gymnasium or stadium for someone shooting action with moderate levels of interior lighting. For the person who shoots available light in these conditions, the extra speed is worth every penny.

The image quality doesn’t have to suffer with higher speed. The Leica f/1.4 Summicrons are every bit as sharp as the slower lenses at the same apertures, and quite respectably sharp at f/1.4.

Autofocus mechanisms can also be faster and more precise at the limits of performance with more light coming through the optics as well.

These may not be reasons for you, but they are reasons for me and many others to seek faster lenses.

By: WoutK89

WoutK89 — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:34:04 +0000

if only they had a lens longer than the 70-300, and up to date, I would have bought it 2 years ago, but it took far too long, so I spend it somewhere else

By: WoutK89

WoutK89 — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:24:53 +0000

VR-I is probably dead

By: WoutK89

WoutK89 — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:19:34 +0000

2010, the year of the lens boom?

By: WoutK89

WoutK89 — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:13:46 +0000

YEAH, bring back the 70-180 macro Nikon, you know we want it

By: Erik Lund

Erik Lund — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:32:36 +0000

Next could be a new 200mm 2.0 shorter MFD Nano coating carbon hood VRIII and tripodmount with integrated plate type RRS
Noct-Nikkor with bokeh as the original and Nano coating

By: PatMann

PatMann — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:01:01 +0000

DX wide primes, fast ones, please. How about a 28-mm equivalent prime for DX – that would be 18mm, f/2, f/1.8 or f/1.4. Much cheaper than an 18mm that has to cover FX, much more compact. And a 16mm or 18mm PC for DX. I’m serious about my DX camera, pleased with image quality and the potential smaller size of the whole kit, as long as I don’t have to pay for lenses that have to cover FX. Is that too much to ask? And how about a 9mm f/4?

By: PatMann

PatMann — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:47:15 +0000

I suspect the 80-400 will be updated. A 500mm f/5.6 lens is in another category of size and price, and I for one would like to have the budget option of a fast-focusing 80-400 or 100-400 f/5.6, or even just a 400 f/5.6 VR for $2000 or $2500 rather than an exotic 500mm f/5.6 for $3500 to $4000.

By: zeeGerman

zeeGerman — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:11:32 +0000

f2.8 is also heavier, or if they have the same weight, the f4 zoom gives you a better range. Like canons 24-70mm f2.8 vs the 24-105mm f4 IS.
My point is, that a zoom lens should be versatile and I feel like constant f4 gives you a fantastic trade off here.
The 2.8 standard zooms aren’t versatile enough, for my taste, and they are not fast enough to replace any fast prime. Well the 14-24mm is sharp enough, and one can argue that it is fast enough for a wideangle lens. But I would much rather pair my 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 with a 24-105mm f/4 VR instead of the 24-70mm f/2.8.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000

Other then price, why does everyone complain about a f2.8 zoom instead of a f4 zoom. I thought no lens was its greatest at the far ends. Why not get a f2.8 and bump it up to f4. Just asking. All the glass I have is just fine for me maybe your needs are different, Im sure they are

By: Prakash

Prakash — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:55:59 +0000

100-500mm Long overdue.

By: Daf

Daf — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:16:03 +0000

I meant to say – *FX* wide primes

By: Daf

Daf — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:14:28 +0000

Agreed – wide/ultra wide prime please.

For me the 50mm 1.4 (lovely lens) is just a little too long on a DX.

I’d guess that other than the cheap 50 1.8 (which is not so cheap any more!) most primes are bought by intermediate to advanced users and as such we try to avoid DX lenses just in case we upgrade soon.

By: VoreEroto

VoreEroto — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:35:14 +0000

Seems like you are a real expert. Did ya study about the subject? haha..

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:16:14 +0000

I’m with zeeGerman… I owned both the 70-200′s in Canon (f4 and f2.8)… I liked the f4 FAR better… it was as sharp as the other at 2.8, smaller, built as well, and a hell of a lot cheaper. F2.8 really just isnt THAT fast, especially considering the high iso capabilities of FF cameras today (I shoot d700). I have F2 and F1.4 for low light… I’d like something to carry around that doesn’t weigh a ton or doesn’t suck.

By: fugue137

fugue137 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:54:14 +0000

Am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that “prime” and “zoom” are opposites? I always thought “prime” was short for “primary”, and that the 18-55mm was at least as good a prime as the 35mm. (And also my prime has more primes than your prime: 19, 23, 27, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53).

Want an alternative? How about “fixie”, like the bicycle world uses for bikes that can’t change ratios?

Just a rant. I’ve gradually come to accept other changes in our language (although I still can’t come to grips with “its/it’s”). But still, *sigh*

By: zeeGerman

zeeGerman — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:57:57 +0000

if you take a portrait, with 70mm @ 2.8 and 105mm @4, and the head takes both times the same space in your frame, the 105mm will separate your object just as good, even a ted better.
For me the question is rather, why 2.8? Not fast enough for low light, not open enough to separate the subject. A 2.8 zoom just doesn’t replace a 1.4 prime. So, why not a more versatile f/4 zoom?

By: zeeGerman

zeeGerman — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:50:02 +0000

Ha, thanks, but I meant the guy who said that there’s a dealer who offers both, gray and white market lenses.

I don’t like the big retailers, and I don’t set a foot in there, unless I’m forced to. The service is terrible, and those self-appointed specialists that try to sell you stuff, can’t do much more than reading the little sign beside the product to you.
But next week I can check one out and report back.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:41:49 +0000

I did not want to mention online the dealer name because they may change their system and then we will not have any more rumors
email me and I will tell you the name – you can then check and report back if you got any more info

By: Sea

Sea — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:38:41 +0000

I want a 18-70 (28-105) f2.8 ! Who needs f4 ???? no depth of field, you can’t use it to shoot portrait at 105 !