I would swap my 80-200mm f2.8 AfD for the 70-200mm f2.8 vr2 hands down

My runner up would be swapping my 17-35mm f2.8 for a brand new one that the repair center didn't screw up...

I'd swap my old 18-55 kit lens for the 24-70 2.8, and my old 55-200 kit lens for the 70-200 2.8 VRII. What a deal!

Hi NSXType-R,

"I'd love for Nikon to make a fast DX wide prime."

Yeah, me too. _Assuming_ it would fall into the DX priced cheap territory. If it's going to be restricted to DX, it needs to have that 'restricted' price tag, too. ;-)

I've lugged film cameras around a lot and don't miss the weight. There's another thread that I won't answer to here about DX quality coming up to FX quality. I'm not sure that's quite true, but I'm sure that my market won't see much if any difference. Most won't. I suppose that leaves noise and ISO and DOF and the pocketbook as the deciding factors.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
Hi NSXType-R,

"The fast wide prime is seriously missing in the DX lineup. No matter what Nikon classifies the 35mm 1.8, it is not a wide angle prime (as said on their website). It might be wide on FX, but no one is going to use it on FX (maybe with a few reservations). It's a fast normal for DX."

Quite agree with that. I usually have it on my D90 and swap it with whatever. To give the devil his due, wides can do with less shutter speed (generally), and still stay 'sharp', so the 'stop' that we lose in speed, we equally lose or gain in shutter.

"The 17-55 is just as heavy as the 105mm macro. Which I've had for about 2 weeks. I haven't carried that lens for an entire day (and I don't plan to). The biggest problem now is that my camera bag won't fit it. It's an odd combination- a D40 with a 105 macro."

My 105 macro is of older design, perhaps 1989 or so. It gets double duty as a portrait lens, too. It works very well and is much smaller than the 17-55.

"Just curious, do you shoot FX?"

Not at the moment. I vacillate on getting the D700 or it's replacement. My market will never care about what I shoot or the difference in product I give them. It would simply be from what difference I might get from it. It seems rather extravagant to shoot FX just for me when the IQ that is gained would be rather small in most cases.

Trouble is, that in some cases, it wouldn't be trivial.

My best,

Mike

I'd love for Nikon to make a fast DX wide prime.

Your older 105 macro is most definitely lighter than the new AF-S version. I'm enjoying the VR (which sucks battery life quickly though) and the close focusing abilities. Too bad the viewfinder is so small on the D40 that it makes manual focusing totally unenjoyable.

I've noticed that although 2 pounds doesn't seem to be a lot, it most certainly is when your hands are involved.

Weight does make a big difference. I enjoy the lightness of DX and was a bit shocked when I got the 105 macro. The 24-70 is quite a good bit heavier than the 105 macro.

Wait! I changed my mind!

AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR ($1,050 refurb) <-> AF-S 200-400mm f/4.0G ED VR II ($6,799 for new, US-warranted version)

The 200-400mm, contant-aperture zoom is the ideal range (anything under 200mm at f/4.0 or f/4.5 is a waste, since I already have a 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I).

AF-S 300mm F4 ---> 300mm f2.8VR II.

Hi NSXType-R,

"The fast wide prime is seriously missing in the DX lineup. No matter what Nikon classifies the 35mm 1.8, it is not a wide angle prime (as said on their website). It might be wide on FX, but no one is going to use it on FX (maybe with a few reservations). It's a fast normal for DX."

Quite agree with that. I usually have it on my D90 and swap it with whatever. To give the devil his due, wides can do with less shutter speed (generally), and still stay 'sharp', so the 'stop' that we lose in speed, we equally lose or gain in shutter.

"The 17-55 is just as heavy as the 105mm macro. Which I've had for about 2 weeks. I haven't carried that lens for an entire day (and I don't plan to). The biggest problem now is that my camera bag won't fit it. It's an odd combination- a D40 with a 105 macro."

My 105 macro is of older design, perhaps 1989 or so. It gets double duty as a portrait lens, too. It works very well and is much smaller than the 17-55.

"Just curious, do you shoot FX?"

Not at the moment. I vacillate on getting the D700 or it's replacement. My market will never care about what I shoot or the difference in product I give them. It would simply be from what difference I might get from it. It seems rather extravagant to shoot FX just for me when the IQ that is gained would be rather small in most cases.

Trouble is, that in some cases, it wouldn't be trivial.

My best,

Mike

I have the 50 1.4, 18-105VR and 70-300VR. I would like an ultra wide like the Tokina 11-16 but can't swap one of the others for it so I guess it would be the 70-300VR for the longer zoom - 80-400VR is it? I could really use the extra 100mm. Us poor folk don't keep up with what's happening as it just hurts!

I personally do not want to swap out any of the lenes i have now. (holy trinity 2.8's) and 50 1.4 AF-S. But if there was a 50 1.2 AF-S i would trade my 50 1.4 in for that

Well, of course, I have to ask for all three:

1. AF 24mm f/2.8 <-> AF-S 24mm f/1.4G
2. AF 35mm f/2.0 <-> AF-S 35mm f/1.4G
3. AF 85mm f/1.8 <-> AF-S 85mm f/1.4G

But if I had to choose one, I guess it'd be the AF-S 35mm f/1.4G.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,

I have the 17-55 2.8, and it's the lens that I sometimes wish I didn't have. It's a great lens, but the sumbitch is a heavy thing to tote.

I also tend to primes, and the 17 isn't wide enough, although the 10-24 I have isn't fast enough, but it gets me by. (I know, gripe, gripe...) And the 12-24 wouldn't be enough faster to go for it.

It would be terrific to have a 12-24 2.8, but that would be 'heavy' and outrageously priced.

I suppose we want it all.

My best,

Mike

The fast wide prime is seriously missing in the DX lineup. No matter what Nikon classifies the 35mm 1.8, it is not a wide angle prime (as said on their website). It might be wide on FX, but no one is going to use it on FX (maybe with a few reservations). It's a fast normal for DX.

The 17-55 is just as heavy as the 105mm macro. Which I've had for about 2 weeks. I haven't carried that lens for an entire day (and I don't plan to). The biggest problem now is that my camera bag won't fit it. It's an odd combination- a D40 with a 105 macro.

Just curious, do you shoot FX?

Hi,

I have the 17-55 2.8, and it's the lens that I sometimes wish I didn't have. It's a great lens, but the sumbitch is a heavy thing to tote.

I also tend to primes, and the 17 isn't wide enough, although the 10-24 I have isn't fast enough, but it gets me by. (I know, gripe, gripe...) And the 12-24 wouldn't be enough faster to go for it.

It would be terrific to have a 12-24 2.8, but that would be 'heavy' and outrageously priced.

I suppose we want it all.

My best,

Mike

I'd probably swap out my 18-135 for a 17-55 2.8.

Or probably not get any lens at all and buy a bigger camera bag.

Hard to say, I'm usually pretty satisfied with what I have already.

My first thought would be to switch out my 18-70 to the 17-55, but I don't use the first, and I'm pretty sure I would never use the second, so I guess that doesn't count.

My second thought would be to change my slower 10-20/4-5.6 to the faster 10-20/3.5, which I would probably use more than my 11-16.

I'd swap my 50 f/1.8 for a 600 f/4.
I'd sell the 600 f/4, buy a 50 f/1.8, and pocket the rest.

I'd swap my 50mm f/1.8 for a 135mm f/2 DC in a heartbeat.

I would swap my 18-200 for the 17-55 f2.8 (really I want the Sigma 17-50 f2.8) and the 70-300. Eventually add the 50 f1.4.

This is something I'm currently agonizing over. I'm fairly OK with my new Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 but getting this strong urge to sell it already and get 17-55mm f/2.8 DX as a walk-around lens. Trying to wait and see if Nikon updates that lens soon. I'm staying DX for economic reasons.

kanuck said:
I'd like to stretch this topic a bit

your wish is granted
The lens fairy

I'd like to stretch this topic a bit to fit my F2 35mm ZF Zeiss lens. I'd really love to have the newer ZF .2 35mm so I can be nice and lazy and just adjust the aperature in camera instead of manually on the lens only. Oh if I had an extra $600 right now :)

basically it's another version of "if i won lotto".

It goes like this.

I'd swap my 50 1.4G for a 400 2.8. although a 200 2, 14-24 or PC would also be nice.

The 400 would get heavy usage, but I have to admit, the 200 probably more so.

What ?
Why ?

Nikon have recently brought out a lot of new lenses
The lens fairly will grant you just one wish
You can change one of your current Nikkor lens for any new one
No cheating it must one of your lenses you normally use
If you have a FX camera cannot swap an old DX lens for a new FX one
I would swap my 50mm f1.4 for a 24 mm f1.4
But if that was not available I would accept the 600mm f4

( and if you do go for the 600mm, you cannot sell afterwards and buy three "ordinarly" lenses )