Canon on the other hand is happy to lob s**t over the wall and hope it sells.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/show/

Maybe there are additional DX primes tucked in there as well which will just appear out of the blue, like the 85mm DX Micro last year.

The old f/1.2 has a huge chunk of glass at the rear. But that does not mean that is necessary for an f/1.2 or that both the front and the back surfaces need to be that large. Nikon could even mount the electrical connections using the glass itself as the support.

There is no physical significance to an f-stop number. It is the ratio of focal length to aperture. Aperture is the physical quantity. The 400mm f/2.8 has an aperture of 142mm, but somehow Nikon and Canon both make one.

There are challenges at the wide end of course. But Nikon just launched a 24 f/1.4 that is nowhere near as extreme as their 14 f/2.8. Most people used to think the 28mm was the limit for f/1.4.

The real challenge to the f/1.2 lens is how to focus the thing. Canon hasn’t solved that problem yet themselves. The depth of field is so narrow that the AF system has trouble. And with such a narrow depth of field any error in focusing is going to show.

Nikon looks to be pretty much done playing catch up to Canon now. The return of the Noctilux would at least clean away some of the fanboys from the forums.

But the 35mm f/1.8 DX is $200. The FX version of the same lens is likely to cost $1200. That is likely to be the case with other wide DX primes.

One feature of the 10-24 is that you can actually use it on FX from about 14-24. It will vignette any wider of course, but certainly viable as a stopgap.

The 85mm f/1.4 is the lens I am after.

The primes have fewer elements and fewer degrees of design freedom. So I would expect the design process to be rather shorter than with zooms and allow for rather more re-use of design approaches. The ultra-teles are very close in design.

What I am somewhat surprised by the absence of on the list is mention of DX primes. The 35mm f/1.8 DX has been a major success for Nikon. Those smaller, cheaper lenses are what keep the smaller independent photo shops going. Nobody predicted the last DX primes, they just popped up out of nowhere. I think we are likely to see another.

The 100-500 still confuses me. If they can make it at a size, weight and price that is not totally ludicrous then great. But at f/5.6 the front element is going to have to be close to 100mm if it is not going to vignette on FX.

Well to him he is the only photographer that matters. Why do i care what you need?

its nice to have options and that the best thing about shooting nikon or canon.

so 85 on Dx = 135mm in the context of perspective compared to FX

The things are darned spendy, tho’. As is the DSLR attachment (itself ~$900, IIRC).

Asked the Nikon rep in Ginza, Tokyo about why they don’t use these (small, compact, but great range) for their DSLR lenses. He said they don’t present the quality needed for DSLR lenses.

Personally, I want an updated 85mm f/1.4. Bad.