Would be awesome if instead of putting the 24mp sensor which I admit is very good, Nikon focus on extracting the full capability of the 16mp D7000 sensor. Like how Pentax has done so with their new K5ii. Also I am sure adding expeed 3 in itself will improve low light performance on JPEG's. I wouldnt really get my hopes up on new pro DX lenses. Seems Nikon has forgotten about pro DX and is focusing on FX. Either that or we will see a slew of new and awesome DX cameras using cutting edge technology with a few new releases such as a new 80-400 AF-S VR and an updated 300/4 VR or maybe even a 100-300/4 VR like what Nikon patented a few months ago.

captainelmo: Yes, I have argued that for a long time. In fact, that was the reason I started this tread. The Tokina and the Sigma have been identified as the only two options now available but neither has equaled a Nikon pro lens and the new Sigma is too big. Nikon makes the 17-55 f2.8 DX pro level lens (roughly equivalent to a about 24mm to 80mm in FX) which sells for $1,400. But they don't make a DX pro level lens roughly equivalent to 70-200mm f2.8. It would be nice for DX shooters to have at least two of the "Holy Trinity" type lenses in DX size.

With the next two DX sensors likely being spectacular 24mp sensors, it really would be nice if Nikon made a DX pro level lens roughly equivalent to the 70-200mm f2.8. We can be hopeful. Nikon just announced an f4 version of the 70-200, presumably for those wanting a lens lighter than the f2.8 version so they are aware of a desire for lightness. Maybe Nikon will see a market opportunity for a fast DX sized medium tele zoom.

Maybe Nikon should make an AF-S,VR, 2.8 version of the 50-135 AIS. Would sell like hot cakes to pro DX shooters if its small and the performance is up to par.

Finally, Thom Hogan reviews the Sigma 50-150 2.8.

http://bythom.com/Sigma50-150mm_lens_review.htm

As a "rule of thumb" it is perhaps best to stick with Nikon lenses, unless Nikon offers nothing of the lens type you are seeking or independent testing/experience demonstrates a third party lens is superior to the nikon offering. As Thom points out there are some gaps in Nikon's DX lens line-up. We will soon have a new D400 and a new D7200 with top of the line DX sensors (or the same sensor) fully capable of producing professional quality images. It would be nice if Nikon filled in the DX lens line-up gaps.

I owned the first Sigma 50-150 and thought it was a great lens. did not notice any focus issues.

then I purchased a nikon 70-200 VR1 and when I was editing the photos my wife walked by and make a (rare) comment that they looked very good.

the difference between the 50-150 from sigma and the 70-200 from Nikon was evident even to her.

I never thought the 50-150 was a bad lens, though the difference between it and the nikon made me sell the Sigma.

Now the Version 2 may be better, however I wont be trading my Nikon for it.

Finally, Thom Hogan did a review of the Tokina 50-135 f2.8.

http://bythom.com/Tokina50-135mm_lens_review.htm

Thom also has been criticizing Nikon for not producing DX glass equal to commonly used FX glass. He calls them the "missing DX lenses" and he is referring to counterparts for the FX 70-200 f2.8, the 85mm f1.8 and f1.4, and the 14mm, 20mm, 24mm, 35mm f1.8-f2.8 lenses.

See "Does this make sense?" http://bythom.com/dxweek1.htm

And http://bythom.com/dxlenssets.htm

Will Nikon produce a killer D400 suitable for professional use (it should be so capable with a 24mp sensor) and still not produce these "pro" counterpart lenses to use with it? We will have to wait and see.

sample images with the new Sigma

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaredpolin/sets/72157629470849852/

I bit on the Sigma 17-50 OS while they were offering an instant rebate that brought it below $600. I loved the Nikkor 17-55 when I rented it, but at twice the price and no VR...

I will consider the Sigma 50-150 OS (vs. Nikkor 70-200) when it comes out. Fast sports shooting or large indoor events are not common for me though, so it's not a high priority.

Sigma 17-50 OS @ 50mm, f/2.8, 1/1600 SOOC (D7000->Aperture->Flickr)

donaldejose said:
Sigma Corporation of America has announced the pricing and availability for its stabilized 50-150mm F2.8 APO EX DC OS HSM lens. The lens, designed to offer a roughly 70-200mm equivalent zoom range, will have a street price of $1099. The OS version of the lens is 46% longer than the existing, non OS version.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/8/sigma50-150

It's the same size as the current version - longer than the Tokina though.

About time they finely release it - was it announced about 2 yrs ago?

Street price is $1099 or that is list? Hard to believe the street price will be that high. I have the Tokina that Studio 460 is raving about, No IS, not AFS but it was 1/2 that price (used-- the new price wasn't much different).

Sigma Corporation of America has announced the pricing and availability for its stabilized 50-150mm F2.8 APO EX DC OS HSM lens. The lens, designed to offer a roughly 70-200mm equivalent zoom range, will have a street price of $1099. The OS version of the lens is 46% longer than the existing, non OS version.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/8/sigma50-150

Great! Keep reporting on that lens. Anyone with the Sigma 2.8. Report on that one also. Those are our only two choices at this time.

Got a chance to take the D7000 out again with my new (used) Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX lens. I love this lens! It's super-sharp! Below, a 100% view in Aperture 3.0 (it's actually less than 100%, as shown here), with "view focus points" turned on:

Nikon D7000; Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX @ 110mm; ISO: 1000; f/2.8 @ 1/250th; available-light.

Imagechefs said:
I have 50-150 version II, I primary use it for taking portrait. It's really a good lens and weight half of 70-200, Only cons is lacking of VR.The HSM motor is fast, my sample deliver a sharp image especially in 100-150mm.

Good to hear there's good copies out there--thank you for posting that. Yes, VR would be handy on my Tokina as well, but the smaller barrel allows me a tighter grip. I would probably prefer the Sigma, both for its HSM motor, and the extra millimeters. I saw one for the same price as my Tokina at the time, but was still a bit wary of its reputation.

donaldejose said:
I didn't think it would be simple and cheap to realign the many elements in a zoom lens. Glad to hear you can get it done for just $40. The last Nikon lens which was dropped (by someone else who had borrowed it from me!) and knocked out of alignment cost me $100 to repair. (They refused to admit they dropped it and wouldn't reimburse me.) No broken parts, just focused uneven on the left and right size like the Sigma does. Don't know why it cost me $100 and you only $40. Maybe prices are higher in Philadelphia. I would rather get something that is right in the first place.

There can be a huge difference in a dropped lens where multiple things get out of wack compared to a small focus adjustment. For $100, I bet you got away cheap for what they had to do. I figure about $40/hr for any work done and that seems to cover the cost no matter where it may get sent to. I did have a shop In KC that would do CLAs on non G lenses for $10 - But they went under when the economy tanked.

I have 50-150 version II, I primary use it for taking portrait. It's really a good lens and weight half of 70-200, Only cons is lacking of VR.
The HSM motor is fast, my sample deliver a sharp image especially in 100-150mm. I want Nikon to make one in this range and one from rumors long time ago, 60-95 F2 !

Sample image from 50-150
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7033/6531083507_2a6fdab84a_z.jpg

I didn't think it would be simple and cheap to realign the many elements in a zoom lens. Glad to hear you can get it done for just $40. The last Nikon lens which was dropped (by someone else who had borrowed it from me!) and knocked out of alignment cost me $100 to repair. (They refused to admit they dropped it and wouldn't reimburse me.) No broken parts, just focused uneven on the left and right size like the Sigma does. Don't know why it cost me $100 and you only $40. Maybe prices are higher in Philadelphia. I would rather get something that is right in the first place.

Many just assume lenses are always focused correctly. I have had Nikons even off new. It is such a simple adjustment for $40 or less you can get it re-aligned used or free if you get it new. I just don't find it a big deal.

Whenever I buy used I always plan on a CLA for lenses and work that into a price that I'm willing to pay.

Right, and I mentioned I found Sigma's on ebay with no indication they had a focus issue. The owner didn't even know until I asked him to take a photo at f 2.8 of some close object. When he sent me the photo the focus issue was clearly evident. He claims it was the first time he saw it and that might be true because most of these owners probably are not shooting the lens at f 2.8 but are shooting at f 5.6 or f 8 where the depth of field covers the misaligned element.

My experience suggests buyers should be wary of this lens, even though it is not advertised as having any focus issue. The owner many not realize it but if you are buying it specifically to use at f 2.8 you better check it out.

Now I had an ethical quandary. Should I have ruined his sale on e-bay by posting something about the focus issue in this lens or not?

"Repair, READ, parts & bad" usually are the terms most use to indicate a bad item.

Before the thread goes way off - we were talking about Sigma focus issues and how many were listed on ebay as such.

A search for "Nikon not working" on US ebay found 378 items.

TaoTeJared said:
I rarely look under UKs site - just the US and Canada.

Sidebar: What does the term "spares" mean in the UK? Not a term I would ever use in a search. Here (US) it would mean "extra" as in "I have 6 extra lenses" but not anything negative. Would it be like "spare parts"? Here we would just shorten that phrase to "parts" and search for that.

I find it funny how the English language can vary from region to region in the US let alone the world.

It was just used as a search term in this case because I noticed people list faulty lenses as 'spares or repair' rather than faulty. The word has the same meanings in the UK as you state above too.

TaoTeJared said:
I rarely look under UKs site - just the US and Canada.

Sidebar: What does the term "spares" mean in the UK?

As a native born Londoner (and UK resident for 44 of my years), your spare part assumption is exactly what I would have thought too.

I rarely look under UKs site - just the US and Canada.

Sidebar: What does the term "spares" mean in the UK? Not a term I would ever use in a search. Here (US) it would mean "extra" as in "I have 6 extra lenses" but not anything negative. Would it be like "spare parts"? Here we would just shorten that phrase to "parts" and search for that.

I find it funny how the English language can vary from region to region in the US let alone the world.