The tokina gets my vote. I've wanted a Nikon f2.8 superwide zoom for dx.

I also really want to see the 10mm Fx aspherical f/4 get made (along with the 28-200mm f2.8)...

I have been looking for the Tokina 11-16mm. I will find someone who does sell it. My thanks to R8R for the information on this lens. His notes on how the company started are most interesting!

I would also like to comment on tferroata's thought on the 500mm f/8 reflex. I have owned (past tense) some reflex and a number of other special purpose lenses. Unlike those who lust for 1.8 primes, etc, I'd err more to the side of f/4 and HIGHER f/stops. I think this would be a remarkable lens, but I wonder what the current market would be? Also my thought having a zoom telephoto would be fairly critical in field shooting. Here's why I think that. When I had a 500mm f/8 reflex it was amazing how many times a 80-400VR or a 100-500 zoom telephoto was a better lens. Just a thought. I am also talking quality of the resulting images.

The 70-300VR out of focus details are in my mind very good. The reflex lens somewhat noticeable and even amateurs who seldom notice things in a photo would say "What's up with the little circles of light". That doughnut effect is OK in some images and lighting and not so great in others. What about a 100-500VR Nikkor zoom?

Ready? Here's my answer.
I'd like an update to one of MY new favorite lenses, the 500mm f/8 Reflex N. Such a long lens in such a tiny package for a fraction of the f/4 version price is an incredible thing to play with. I love being able to sneak it into places where I shouldn't. The doughnuts are manageable if you know how to work with the lens.
The minolta/sony people have an AF version of this lens.
I'd like to see a Nikon one.
What do you all think?
;)

R8R said:
I looked at some Sigma and Tamron lenses... They are cheap for a reason. I would maybe consider one used off Craig's List or something if I could find a screaming deal, but I would never buy one new.

The "Pro" Tokinas are very different. These are actually designed/manufactured jointly with Pentax. They are quite robust.

Trivia: Tokina was actually started by former Nikon engineers.

I always try to buy lenses used if possible (especially aftermarket ones that don't hold their value). I don't like Tamron at all after my experience with them. I picked up a Tamron 10-24mm for a really good price and it was very inconsistent on the metering and exposure (biggest issue was it randomly overexposed in aperture mode by up to 3 full stops). It was reasonably sharp and definitely capable of taking a good picture but incredibly inconsistent in all areas. I resold it on eBay about a month later for more than I paid and definitely wouldn't buy another Tamron. I replaced it with a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 that is just absolutely amazing. Some of the newer Sigma EX lenses are actually really good from my experience (owned a 30mm f/1.4). I currently own the older non-OS version of the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 (I couldn't resist trying it for $175 used). I like it way better than my Nikon 18-55mm VR. The newer OS version of it is even better from what I've read (but it's still not a constant f/2.8 and it could use a little more range on the long end).

NSXType-R said:
Did you consider the 17-55 2.8? It's missing macro, but it's fast.

While I agree Nikon is missing a fast DX zoom, I'm not sure if making a pro DX short zoom is a good idea, especially when Nikon is trying to make a small mirror less camera.

I actually wouldn't mind something with around the build quality of the 35mm 1.8 (mostly I just want the rubber rear gasket and metal lens mount) but is still relatively fast.

Maybe a 16-65 2.8 or something. If it's as expensive or heavy as a 17-55, I wouldn't want it.

DX is useful for reach, not so much for wide end work.

The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is just too expensive and heavy for what it is. I've looked at them and decided that I would buy a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 or Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 over the Nikon (I haven't yet because I'm not thrilled with the range of any of them - needs to be longer or I'd rather use primes if I have to carry multiple lenses). A 16-105mm F/2.8 DX lens would suit my needs 90% of the time when I'm out and want to carry my camera without a bag and extra lenses. I would be more than happy if it was on the build level of the 35mm f/1.8 (it doesn't need to be a huge chunk of metal).

DaveyJ said:
I have a number of friends who bought other lenses than Nikons to go on their Nikon DSLRs or Nikon film cameras and the average one is not working at all in two years. I have not tried the Tokina 11-16 2.8 but based on R8R's comment I have been trying to locate one to try. But I have tried a number of super wides in the past and still prefer Nikkor lens. I am still most awaiting the 80-400VR improved lens as the current one is just not what I want.

I looked at some Sigma and Tamron lenses... They are cheap for a reason. I would maybe consider one used off Craig's List or something if I could find a screaming deal, but I would never buy one new.

The "Pro" Tokinas are very different. These are actually designed/manufactured jointly with Pentax. They are quite robust.

Trivia: Tokina was actually started by former Nikon engineers.

VelocityStop said:
It wouldn't have to be that heavy and expensive, but I would expect it to be reasonably heavy and expensive if it was any good. I hate the Nikon 18-XXX 3.5-5.6 lenses. The closest lens made to what I want is the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS (if they extended it a little on either end, made it a constant f/2.8, and added Nikon's quality control... it would be just about perfect).

Did you consider the 17-55 2.8? It's missing macro, but it's fast.

While I agree Nikon is missing a fast DX zoom, I'm not sure if making a pro DX short zoom is a good idea, especially when Nikon is trying to make a small mirror less camera.

I actually wouldn't mind something with around the build quality of the 35mm 1.8 (mostly I just want the rubber rear gasket and metal lens mount) but is still relatively fast.

Maybe a 16-65 2.8 or something. If it's as expensive or heavy as a 17-55, I wouldn't want it.

DX is useful for reach, not so much for wide end work.

I have a number of friends who bought other lenses than Nikons to go on their Nikon DSLRs or Nikon film cameras and the average one is not working at all in two years. I have not tried the Tokina 11-16 2.8 but based on R8R's comment I have been trying to locate one to try. But I have tried a number of super wides in the past and still prefer Nikkor lens. I am still most awaiting the 80-400VR improved lens as the current one is just not what I want.

NSXType-R said:
Would you still buy it if it were the size and weight of a 70-200 and more expensive?

It wouldn't have to be that heavy and expensive, but I would expect it to be reasonably heavy and expensive if it was any good. I hate the Nikon 18-XXX 3.5-5.6 lenses. The closest lens made to what I want is the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS (if they extended it a little on either end, made it a constant f/2.8, and added Nikon's quality control... it would be just about perfect).

I just picked up the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and I agree with many reviews of this lens: this is the one DX lens Nikon should have made all along. It's phenomenal.

The build quality is amazing. I would go so far as to say it's much better than the DX Nikons in the same price range.

They also make a 50-135mm f/2.8 DX to replace the traditional full frame 80-200mm f/2.8.

WAKE UP Nikon. Tokina found holes in your lineup.

VelocityStop said:
I want a 16-105mm F/2.8 Macro VR DX lens.

Would you still buy it if it were the size and weight of a 70-200 and more expensive?

I want a 16-105mm F/2.8 Macro VR DX lens.

PatMan said:
, or put a camera up on a pole,

I use a D700 and ether the 16-35 or the 24-120 for panos, on a 35 foot window cleaning pole

A solution to focus creep, is to set the focus to manual,
then put tape over the focus ring, messy but it does work

both lenses should be fine on DX

PattMann- I agree that the DX line is severely lacking in wide primes. Going to the large FX 1.4 primes is one way to rectify it, but I agree, not everyone can shell out close to $3,000 just to get both the 24mm and 35mm prime, and even then that's barely wide enough on DX.

If they were able to replicate a wider prime than the 35mm 1.8 and still keep it around that price point, it'd be a dream.

Just a question though- what's wrong with the 60mm macro? Sure it's not DX, but it already exists.

Which compact DX zoom are you talking about that has creep? I don't remember ever hearing anything about creep on anything other than the 18-200. Occasionally I get it on the 18-135, but that rarely ever happens enough for it to be a bother.

I also agree that there isn't a fast DX zoom, but that's also easily rectified if you have a large pocketbook with the 70-200 2.8 or the 24-70 if you want something shorter.

Still not ideal in terms of size, price and weight, but absolutely serviceable.

Unless of course it's the price you're against.

1st choice: 18mm or 16mm f/2.0 G DX
2nd choice: 24mm f/2.0 G DX
3rd choice: 60mm f/2.0 G DX
4th choice: VR 50-135mm f/2.8 G DX

(I would prefer f/1.4 for each of the primes, but at $1200 - $1500 for f/1.4 I would probably only get the 18/16mm, and I don't consider that realistic for Nikon, at least not yet. They probably wouldn't expect a big market in DX at that price, and it would cannibalize FX sales to have such high-specification lenses for DX. They need to do something, though, since it looks like Sony and Zeiss are headed dead seriously in this direction, starting with the 24mm f/1.8 and the NEX 7. If Sony gets a decent enthusiast user interface worked out with key functions immediately accessible without menus (mode, WB, ISO, C/S/M focus, focus mode and location, meter mode) and settings visible on the switches/dials or a permanent info display, I'm there.)

These lenses were due with the D200 and are now LONG, LONG OVERDUE and causing me to lose patience with Nikon.

Nikon needs to make DX a complete system - without these lenses, it is not.

One of my principal needs for these lenses is that you can't shoot straight down, or put a camera up on a pole, with most of Nikon's compact zooms without worrying about zoom, and therefore also focus, creep with the force from any movement of the camera or the shutter shock from each shot. The newer G lenses have much better optics than the old Ais primes (except perhaps the 28 f/2.8, which isn't wide enough on DX), and are really needed for high-resolution DX sensors.

We need these primes.

I've been dreaming recently about semipro AF-S 28/2G somewhere near $500-600 price range. This or my previous wish for AF-S 35/2G :)

stanlm said:
Another vote for, just for fun, some non-serious super tele.. 600mm-800mm f6.7-f8 afs, for how about, $700?
I'm satisfied with everything else already available :)

An old reflex mirror lens would do very nicely and cheaply too.

Long as you like donut bokeh and focusing manually.

At f8 that might be hard.

Any AF-S wide angle prime without barrel distortion, just like the MF AI-S 28mm f2.8. I don't care if it's 20, 24, 28, or 35mm, just as long as all distortion is gone. I wouldn't want it wider than 20mm, though. And I could care less about the maximum aperture.

stanlm said:
Another vote for, just for fun, some non-serious super tele.. 600mm-800mm f6.7-f8 afs, for how about, $700?
I'm satisfied with everything else already available :)

check the Feonix, Kosina, Cromaster, Xivitar, Cirkon section

Another vote for, just for fun, some non-serious super tele.. 600mm-800mm f6.7-f8 afs, for how about, $700?
I'm satisfied with everything else already available :)

kyoshinikon said:
It varies for every photog. I took merely a 14-24 f2.8 and a 300mm f2.8 to the us open and got better shots than many of the people using a 70-300mm or 80-400mm... I will agree although I would perfet the replacement to be at the quality of canon's 100-400mm "gasp!"...

Kyoshinikon, you're so funny...at a combined cost of over $7,740 USD your "mere" 2 lenses had better blow the 70-300mm and 80-400mm out of the water!

I do too like my 70-300mm VR but if Nikon introduced an updated 80-400mm VR I'm likely to trade up. In fact, my wife was hinting around about getting me the current 80-400mm lens as a gift and I told her not to. We'll just see if Nikon changes my mind with a new model this Fall.

I'd like to see Nikon do a 20mm 1.8

It varies for every photog. I took merely a 14-24 f2.8 and a 300mm f2.8 to the us open and got better shots than many of the people using a 70-300mm or 80-400mm... I will agree although I would perfet the replacement to be at the quality of canon's 100-400mm "gasp!"...

I use the 70-300VR almost everyday. I use it on the D300 most but the D90 is a close second and once in awhile the D700. That lens never fails to impress me. Yet the 80-400 is simply way too slow......it takes that lens forever to get with it. Nikon needs to revamp that lens. Many who use the 80-200 are surprised how well the 70-300VR compares but with longer reach. If you think the 70-300VR lens is not sharp enough I'm guessing you don't have that much experience with the lens. I'm not saying the present 80-400 Nikkor is a total loss, but it is one lens Nikon could rebuild and improve very much and SELL it. Another factor in the 70-300VR is despite the lens ability the price is amazingly affordable. It is also so good I would NOT buy a revamped version of the 70-300VR. If the revamped 80-400 was anymore than the present one it would be most foolish from a sales standpoint. One problem is that many photographers think they need 2.8 glass and from my ownership of those Nikkor telephotos I can say I will NEVER buy another. Sharp is one thing but to heavy is crippling. I have some awesome wildlife shots and there isn't a lot of time before even a hummingbird becomes wary. Zoo shots are quite another thing. Even a hummingbird at a feeder is another. So my vote is the 80-400 in a VR and very fast focus version with optics that lend itself to affordable and therefor marketable pricing. Another thought I have is that prime lens (fast and one focal length) might be necessary in Macro but other than that give me a zoom. Too many times I put a prime lens on and can't even get ANY shot as it was the wrong lens at the right time.

Would like to see the 55mm f1.2 Noct re-done, sure it won't happen but it would be cool. Like a previous poster, I had hoped for a redone version of my thorium glass 35mm f1.4 and I was disappointed that the one they came up with was so much larger.

Didn't mean leaving the frame. meant bird does not sit still long enough for the camera to make it to my eye, focus, steady, stabilize, and release before he has blasted off to parts unknown. Just don't have the $$ for a 500mm or better and as I said, made the mistake of wanting that 'modern; 50-300mm that I fell in love with when I was 10(much earlier post elsewhere), got sucked in by the "ED" portion of the lenses full name, and of course the price was all I was willing to do for my first digital camera (at age 50.) Have actually made some bird shots that I am happy with, just have to learn the Tao of Nikkor prosumer lenses to get the best of it. but would it not be sweet if the zoom barrel didn't require that you go into weight training to operate smoothly. At this point a 'G' version would be fine, thing makes me crazy when I try and use it on my F3.