TaoTeJared said:
The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC (and without) seems to me to be a better all around lens than the Sigma. I have been wanting to go FX but since the D800 seems to be $4k and assuming not what I'm looking for in low light (D3s like), It looks like DX is in my future and I have regained my interest. If Nikon does upgrade the 16-85 and can match the Tamron, I would like the extra reach and pay for it.

I tried the Tamron and Sigma (17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM) side my side. I thought the Tamron was clunky, noisy and slow focusing...it didn't feel as well made to me and the zoom ring was too loose for my liking. The Sigma was quiet and the focus just as fast as any of my Nikon lenses. I thought the build of the EX model lens was pretty good. It was very sharp from my test shots, but I didn't get to shoot it all that much.

tcole1983 said:
... If I was going to get one in that range I would get the newer Sigma 17-50 F2.8. I haven't really found myself using that range all that much though and could probably totally do without.

The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC (and without) seems to me to be a better all around lens than the Sigma. I have been wanting to go FX but since the D800 seems to be $4k and assuming not what I'm looking for in low light (D3s like), It looks like DX is in my future and I have regained my interest. If Nikon does upgrade the 16-85 and can match the Tamron, I would like the extra reach and pay for it.

Casperwb thats good to know flare and ghosting eh? Thats interesting, I have only tried Tokina lenses on Nikon bodies with outstanding results I'd recommend their glass to anyone. Zeiss of course is fantastic as well. I would not use Sigma though anyways. I'm still certain the 80-400mm VR2 is in the works, doesn't get me too excited but this wasn't a what lens would I like updated thread just what we thought was going to be the next release. I am hearing about more primes and the 70-200mm VR F4 Canon style lens to be released sometime soon too. The flooding in Thailand has to be delaying this release now though unless its made in China like the 50mm.

TaoTeJared said:
I have shot all of those Tcole mentioned and the 16-85 is the by far the best of the bunch with improvements/higher-end tweaks along side the 18-200. You certainly can't call it a Kit lens as it performs and considerably built much better than the 18-55 or the 18-105. 17-55 2.8 is a heavy sucker and is still $1,100 used and $1,500 new - that is double the 16-85. The fulcrum and crux has always been the 18-200, as they perform basically the same.

If they can remove a lot of the distortion on the wide end & get f/4 on the long end, it will make it very tempting for DX shooters looking for a strong lighter walk around/ hiking lens. Pair it with the 70-300 and you have everything covered with good overlap and some very good glass.

I do agree they have saturated this range, but that has always been the case with 24-85 equiv going back decades. That said, I have been missing a lens in the 18-100 range for 3 years now (covered by 12-24, 24-x4 lenses - I don't like swapping lenses) because they have too much distortion and I too have a hard time with swallowing $700 for this range. For more or less you can get a Tamron or Sigma with 2.8 for the same price and VR.

Lol I guess I just have no need for the lens so I don't care for it. If I was going to get one in that range I would get the newer Sigma 17-50 F2.8. I haven't really found myself using that range all that much though and could probably totally do without. I almost soley us my 12-24 and 105 now...occasionally my 18-200 when I need more range or don't want to take multiple lenses.

kanuck said:
24-70mm with VR would be crazy expensive maybe 3 grand? The 80-400mm sold well but people flock to Sigma because the lenses technology is so outdated that they have no choice. No lens needs to be updated more therefore it gets my vote for likelyhood of being refreshed. With the flooding in Thailand now, its all up in the air anyways...

I think people flock to the Sigma because it is much cheaper, and then they find out about the flare and ghosting.

well you get what you pay for with that lens

boo

24-70mm with VR would be crazy expensive maybe 3 grand? The 80-400mm sold well but people flock to Sigma because the lenses technology is so outdated that they have no choice. No lens needs to be updated more therefore it gets my vote for likelyhood of being refreshed. With the flooding in Thailand now, its all up in the air anyways...

I have shot all of those Tcole mentioned and the 16-85 is the by far the best of the bunch with improvements/higher-end tweaks along side the 18-200. You certainly can't call it a Kit lens as it performs and considerably built much better than the 18-55 or the 18-105. 17-55 2.8 is a heavy sucker and is still $1,100 used and $1,500 new - that is double the 16-85. The fulcrum and crux has always been the 18-200, as they perform basically the same.

If they can remove a lot of the distortion on the wide end & get f/4 on the long end, it will make it very tempting for DX shooters looking for a strong lighter walk around/ hiking lens. Pair it with the 70-300 and you have everything covered with good overlap and some very good glass.

I do agree they have saturated this range, but that has always been the case with 24-85 equiv going back decades. That said, I have been missing a lens in the 18-100 range for 3 years now (covered by 12-24, 24-x4 lenses - I don't like swapping lenses) because they have too much distortion and I too have a hard time with swallowing $700 for this range. For more or less you can get a Tamron or Sigma with 2.8 for the same price and VR.

NSXType-R said:
I kind of agree- it would be a nice lens to fill in the low light DX lens gap, but I probably wouldn't buy it.

I guess I don't see the point of it as an overpriced kit lens. At least for the same price the 18-200 covers a large range. The 16-85 gives you a little more on each side of the 18-55, but costs the same as 6 of them. I don't see it as a better performer in any category...really I don't see any advantage to it especially for the cost. Save a little more and get the 17-55 F2.8 or spend the same and get the 18-200, or spend less and get the 18-105 or...get the 18-55 and 70-300 VR for the same price. Too many choices :)

TaoTeJared said:Nikon and Canon users have been desiring this for years. I just can't imagine how big (and heavy) that lens would be. I think the 24-120 f4 kind of filled that gap.

I know I'll get a 24-70 irregardless once I have the money saved for it. I just want to hope a VR version (hell if it's good enough even a Sigma OS version) comes along before I'm at that point.

My money is on that. Make it like the old 24-85 f2.8-4.

Unless they could achieve that without increasing the weight much more than it is now, I'd rather they just keep it with the current aperture. I'd consider taking a 47 ounce lens backpacking since I've taken my 70-200, but much more than that would be out of the question.

tcole1983 said:
Booo for the 16-85 update. Do not want.

I kind of agree- it would be a nice lens to fill in the low light DX lens gap, but I probably wouldn't buy it.

tcole1983 said:
Booo for the 16-85 update. Do not want.

Boo indeed. Boo for making us wait too long. Boo for releasing silly products like 40mm macros instead of lightweight low-cost bird teles. Boo for stalling the D4/D800/D400 body releases. Boo boo boo.

Booo for the 16-85 update. Do not want.

csbreiland said:
What do you want from nikon, and how likely do you think that it's coming?

AF-S 16mm f/4 DX prime. Probability 2% in the next 300 years.
AF-S 20mm FX prime. Probability 70% in the next 4 years.
AF-S 105mm f/2 DC VR prime. Sure to come sometime, albeit without DC feature.
AF-S 400mm f/5.6 prime (just like the Canon hit product). Probability 5% in the next 10 years. Nikon just can´t be bothered to make a lightweight 400mm fast-focusing tele prime.

(..and the D400 to beat Sony alpha 77 in low light.. probability 60%)

kanuck said:
You got to believe that the 80-400mm VR is coming very soon. There is no other lens in the current Nikkor lineup that is need of a refresh more. It still uses the older AF even!

Ummmmmm
16mm, 24mm 2.8, 35mm f2, 85mm 1.8, 105 & 125 DC, 70-180macro, 200mm macro - What else did I miss? ;)- People have been saying the 80-400mm VR will be coming for 4 years now. Great lens, but most shops say they never have sold many and sell more Sigma's in that range due to the price. I would bet a price would be in the $2,500 range.

NSXType-R said:
What if they made it 1 stop faster from end to end- F2.8 at the wide end, F4 at the long end and kept the same build quality and price?

My money is on that. Make it like the old 24-85 f2.8-4.

El_Pickerel said:
One I definitely would love to see is a 24-70/f2.8 replacement that has VR (and maybe they can squeeze a few more mm, who knows).

Nikon and Canon users have been desiring this for years. I just can't imagine how big (and heavy) that lens would be. I think the 24-120 f4 kind of filled that gap.

One I definitely would love to see is a 24-70/f2.8 replacement that has VR (and maybe they can squeeze a few more mm, who knows).

I also would love to see a revitalization of my ancient 50-300/f4.5 with AF-S, VR, ED, etc. I have the 55-300 DX VR lens, but even if the 50-300 is 5# and would certainly be an expensive pro lens, a parfocal 6x zoom with a constant aperture is nice, and add on all those abbreviated nice things and they'd get my money for that no problem. (Moreso if they can use modern tech to make that thing f4.0)

PB PM said:
There is a rumour floating around about an updated version of the 16-85mm F3.5-5.6G VR. Likely just a quick refresh like the 18-200mm VRII.

What if they made it 1 stop faster from end to end- F2.8 at the wide end, F4 at the long end and kept the same build quality and price?

That'd be a dream DX lens there huh? It's a bit slow to be asking almost $700 for as it is right now.

kanuck said:
You got to believe that the 80-400mm VR is coming very soon. There is no other lens in the current Nikkor lineup that is need of a refresh more. It still uses the older AF even! The refresh would really be something the lense would probably be priced almost as high as the current 70-200mm VR2 though. I keep hearing a Canon equivalent 70-200mm VR F4 Nikkor on the way as well. As for my dream lens, how about a non protrouding bulb ultra wide angle lens that takes filters? haha can't be done I'm sure :(

That and the two fisheyes need AF-S upgrades.

You got to believe that the 80-400mm VR is coming very soon. There is no other lens in the current Nikkor lineup that is need of a refresh more. It still uses the older AF even! The refresh would really be something the lense would probably be priced almost as high as the current 70-200mm VR2 though. I keep hearing a Canon equivalent 70-200mm VR F4 Nikkor on the way as well. As for my dream lens, how about a non protrouding bulb ultra wide angle lens that takes filters? haha can't be done I'm sure :(

There is a rumour floating around about an updated version of the 16-85mm F3.5-5.6G VR. Likely just a quick refresh like the 18-200mm VRII.

Well the likelihood of a re-do of the Nikkor AiS 50mm f/1,2 would be great! Imagine an AF-S 50mm f/1.2G IF ED N!

PatMann said:
I think there is certainly room for wide primes for DX. We are starting to see them from the other smaller format makers. I think the following are needed:
18mm or 16mm f/2 - the most important one.
24mm f/2
12mm f/2.8

I think FX is well taken care of by the new f/1.4s.

Not everyone likes the big heavy zooms. Lots of people would like more than f/4 speed at the wide end. For reportage, the 24-28mm focal length is a real sweet spot.

Another thing we need with these faster lenses is the ability to focus them in the viewfinder, which means different screens, or changeable screens.

I agree, wide DX primes would be great, if they were the same price or around the ballpark of the 35mm 1.8.

Other than a new FX 85mm 1.8, counting zooms and primes, FX has it covered from 14mm to 600mm, except perhaps the 200mm macro which needs refreshing.

I would imagine DX lenses to be refreshed next- perhaps a new 18-135 VR? I'm still hoping for new pro DX lenses, perhaps a cheaper non-metal but optically great 17-55 2.8 or 4 with VR? It'd be stupid to ignore that range.

The 24-120 isn't really all that wide on DX.

And the FX 24-70 still needs VR.

Other than a fast short zoom, any long and fast lenses a DX body could use you could borrow from the FX line.

shigzeo said:
And you don't have to have a gold ring to have a good/great lens. Nikon's lenses come in all prices and aims. I have only one lens with a gold ring (24-70 2,8G) and it isn't as sharp as my other lenses, 28 2,8 AiS, 50 1,2 Ai at the same focal lengths, but it does have more contrast wide open than either.

I'd have price be the deciding factor in L'ish ness or not, not the ring.

Great point- the 18-135 is quite sharp, and so is the 35mm 1.8 too.

And you don't have to have a gold ring to have a good/great lens. Nikon's lenses come in all prices and aims. I have only one lens with a gold ring (24-70 2,8G) and it isn't as sharp as my other lenses, 28 2,8 AiS, 50 1,2 Ai at the same focal lengths, but it does have more contrast wide open than either.

I'd have price be the deciding factor in L'ish ness or not, not the ring.

Nikon does, the Gold Ring. Mind you, the gold ring isn't as meaningful as it once was. Never the less, lenses with the gold ring are just as good if not better than some of the Canon "L" lenses.

i would love to get a new 85mm fx, in that price range. I don't really know if dx will be here in 10 years. I think that it could become a "mode" on a future fx camera.
That being said, i would really like to see Nikon give the any new lens some sort of marker, tag, etc to designate a "pro" lens. Canon does the "L", why cant nikon do something like that? (please not in white!!)

A 24/2, 35/1.8, 50 1.4 between a pair of d7000's would be a fantastic reportage kit.

There are sigma 20/24/28 1.8's, but I'd prefer nikon to fill this gap. Also, there is a sony-zeiss 24/2 (sensor stabalized!) coming out this summer for e-mount, but I guess that's made easier with the lack of mirror.

I think there is certainly room for wide primes for DX. We are starting to see them from the other smaller format makers. I think the following are needed:
18mm or 16mm f/2 - the most important one.
24mm f/2
12mm f/2.8

I think FX is well taken care of by the new f/1.4s.

Not everyone likes the big heavy zooms. Lots of people would like more than f/4 speed at the wide end. For reportage, the 24-28mm focal length is a real sweet spot.

Another thing we need with these faster lenses is the ability to focus them in the viewfinder, which means different screens, or changeable screens.