if nikon makes 24-70 f/1.4 or 1.8 and 70-200 f/2 then i'll stick to the zoom....:):)

well basically i buy their primes only for f/1.4 :)

The wide AF-D primes (20mm, 24mm, and 28mm) are not sharp compared to the modern zooms, partly because the designs are much older. They really need to be updated, but you have to wonder if Nikon sells enough of them to justify the R&D cost. If they do update them, the price goes up, which could lead to even fewer sales.

Gentoo said:
trust me, there's a huge difference in a 2.8 prime over a 2.8 zoom.

Yeah, size. From everything I have gathered the 2.8 zooms have better picture quality than the 2.8 wide / super-wide primes.

AaronFoto said:
I love primes. So much lighter and easier to carry around. I just wish Nikon would only make primes with faster apertures than their awesome zooms. It's harder to justify purchasing a prime for the light weight for traveling when it only has f2.8 and you already have a zoom f2.8 that covers the same range

trust me, there's a huge difference in a 2.8 prime over a 2.8 zoom.

I love primes. So much lighter and easier to carry around. I just wish Nikon would only make primes with faster apertures than their awesome zooms. It's harder to justify purchasing a prime for the light weight for traveling when it only has f2.8 and you already have a zoom f2.8 that covers the same range

They are less prone to flare... On the same note primes will not be dead until nikon makes an 15-300mm f/1.2 super zoom nanocoated AF VR lens (like it will ever happen!)

I thought the simpler (RE: prime) lens designs should be less prone to flare? Fewer elements lend themselves to fewer internal reflections etc...

I'm not familiar with the newer Ai-S or AF-D 35/2, but mine is an Ai'd original F mount Nikkor-O, and for some reason it seems to outperform the more modern iterations! Who knows, maybe it's just a particularly good sample...

No kidding - I didn't know the 16-85 was that prone (when I've used the 35 2.0 I noticed quite a bit more than the 35 1.8). . .hmmm, I guess it's just the lens formula then. . .

I find it odd that my 17-55 2.8 flares hardly at all compared to my Tokina 11-16 2.8 and 24 2.8. . .but I guess, it's a standard zoom vs. a WA zoom vs. a WA prime, so. . .(no point of comparison, lol!)

It's easy enough to adjust for, but thought it was worth mentioning if one was debating. . .

Recording an image on film, a plastic sheet, essentially, doesn't take pixels and bayer patterns into account, so fringing was much less of an issue than it ever was on the pre-auto correcting bodies. Flaring really depends on the lens's optical formula, and less on the coating. My Nikkor-O 35/2 flares less than the AF-S 16-85/3.5-5.6.

oh just to be fair as well, a NEG for the older primes are their tendency to flare. . .

a lot of the newer coatings give way to significantly less flare and slightly more fringing, but since most newer bodies already correct for the fringing, I think this was a deliberate move on Nikon's part. . .

I guess back in the film days, a lot of the issues with fringing were hardly noticeable (who pixel peeps 8X10's!) or the flaring was less of any issue?

It's not just prime lenses we need, we need well built prime lenses. Focus rings on new lenses suck. 35/1.4 would be simple enough to start with, they already have the optical formula (some hated the 35/1.4, others loved it, as with all lenses...), and they would just need to fit it into an AF-S barrel with appropriate electronics.

Jazmodo said:
Just a quick thing Pete, I think you've got your focal lengths a little mixed up =P! A 50mm "film camera" lens would be the Eqv. of a 75mm on a DX sensored camera. And likewise, the 50mm F/1.4G would simply be that, a 50mm lens on a FF camera. =)

I think you and Pete are saying the same thing. He's saying 50mm on a FF (film) camera is what he used to use, and so he would recommend 35mm on a DX camera.

Good point shivaswrath, I can't believe I didn't think about that when I wrote my post!

WEIGHT!!

And subject. . .if you're travelling abroad and taking pictures of locals, sometimes a 17-55/28-70/24-70 hooded is a LITTLE obvious and intimidating. . .

a small prime usually is more discreet and less obtrusive. . .(esp on a D3)

Hey tai!

Yeah I agree with you on the primes. The zooms are good but the primes still have their place.

@Jazmodo — I have the 18–200, and It's a great walking around & holiday lens, but I use it much less than almost any of my primes. The reasons are it's slow and DX only. The IQ isn't as good as my primes, either, but it's certainly good enough.

nau said:
- weight - oh plz go to gym get some muscles

This is a little simplistic. Leicas aren't just used by people who are unable to lift Nikons.

For me, both primes and zooms are useful in different situations and I think there definitely is a place for primes within Nikon's lens lineup.

If you can stretch your budget to it, the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens(35mm eqv. 27-300mm) is absolutely excellent. It can be used in almost any situation, gives VR, and can even work well as a 200mm macro lens! You may also be able to pick one up a little cheaper 2nd hand if you wanted as they recently refreshed this lens, but made very little differences to it.

bmxdad said:
They are lighter and a less costly option to get a fast and sharp lens. Alright you are shooting something inside, like a function with moving people, that 1 or 2 stops can make all the difference, your flash can expose a bigger area

I used to go out and shoot with my old 50mm on a film camera, I enjoyed the challenge of only having that lens to work with. That would be 35mm on DX cameras. I think I am going to try that with my new 50mm (75mm ff) and see what kind of shots I can find

Pete

Just a quick thing Pete, I think you've got your focal lengths a little mixed up =P! A 50mm "film camera" lens would be the Eqv. of a 75mm on a DX sensored camera. And likewise, the 50mm F/1.4G would simply be that, a 50mm lens on a FF camera. =)

The 35mm F/1.8G DX lens is designed to give a film/FF focal length of 52.5mm - thus creating a cheaper, lighter version of the FF 50mm lens for DX sensor owners who want 50mm effective lens (Rather than the FF 50mm lens giving a more portrait suited 75mm eqv.)

What I would really like is a 28mm F1.4 dx but I would settle for the 24mm1.4 and crop...If they are going to cost 2000 then its outside my budget. (More realistic for me would probably be a 28-80 F2.8 VC Tamron. Hope that comes out soon.). Yeah.. I think I could live with only a 28mm 1.4 prime for my DX camera.

ChrisLange said:
depth of field character is something hiking iso won't change.

You are 100% right, could not be told any better, their is also something about the feeling of using a prime lens, that sadly lots of people just don't get

Pete

Nikon needs to make primes as long as there is a 85/1.4 and 50/1.4, even more so if we are blessed with the 24mm/1.4 and 35mm/1.4 in the upcoming months.

depth of field character is something hiking iso won't change.

heartyfisher said:
I have seen some magical images with the 50 F1.2 . Hope they make a modern version of that soon... Yup Looking forward to that 24 F1.4 too.. (flutter .. flutter :)

They would both be great but if Nikon went all out on them with Nano coating and all would you be ready to pay close to $2000.00 for each

Pete

I have seen some magical images with the 50 F1.2 . Hope they make a modern version of that soon... Yup Looking forward to that 24 F1.4 too.. (flutter .. flutter :)

Most importantly (for Nikon, at least), primes will sell. And for good money too. It would make business sense for them to make more primes.