What new DX lenses? « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

What new DX lenses?

(12 posts) (7 voices)

Tags:

heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

ASSUMING that there will be a bunch of DX lenses that will be announced this year/early next year.

What do you think they will be? What do you hope they will be? How many? Lets say 4-6 lenses... What are the current gaps in the DX range of lenses.

OK Give me your list !! And Why you have chosen them!

My list..
1) the 10-24 was one on my list.. and its been ticked off! I have the 12-24 but I would like wider because the 10mm would be able to have a FOV of a bit greater than 90 degrees horizontally which is great for taking photos of rooms from one of the corners!

2) Prime 28mm DX F1.8 or 1.4 , Provides a VERY nice "normal" lens equal to 42mm FX.

3) 50-150 F2.5 VR Dx. Small, light, fast DX version of the 70-200

4) 100-400 VR DX F4.5 small light version of the 200-400

5) 16-50 F2.5 DX or 18-50 F2.0 DX - super fast Normal Zoom - This may now be possible due to the technology they have developed for the 14-24 FX and the 24-70 FX.

6) 60mm macro F2.0 VR DX - Tamron already have one why not Nikon? would make an excellent portrait lens too..

Posted 4 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

80-400VR with AF-S added. It's about time.
400mm 5.6 (hopeful/wishful)
an F4 version of the 70-200? (doubtful, not like I need it but it would compete with Canon)
perhaps a 200-500 variable zoom like Tamron

Yeah I mostly use telephoto lenses. I am happy with the available zooms in the pro line as I feel that line is complete; 12-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400.

Posted 4 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

I wouldn't mind one wide DX prime. I'm pretty happy with the DX kit zooms. They aren't great, but I'm not going to pay more than $300 for a DX lens (except for a wide angle zoom, as the FX alternatives won't work). I'm about 2 lenses away from rounding out what I need for my purposes, and the good news is that they both currently exist:

The bad news is, the money to buy them doesn't because they are the
105mm Micro
70-200mm F2.8

I wouldn't turn my nose up at the 80-400 either. Especially if it had AFS. Good call Gentoo.

Posted 4 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I also would love to see the 80-400 with AF-S, as the current one has a little bit too slow AF (although quite fast for a lens without hypersonic); generally I would love to see any 400 lens with a constant aperture (f4 is fine with me) with a decent weight (below 2kg), size (the 200-400/4 vr is a great lens but it is too big) and price (no more than $1500).

willis - the 70-200/2.8 is really a nice lens, worth every penny (especially on DX), works great with TC

Posted 4 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Adamz

I think that will be the one I go after the 70-200 first. I wish I could buy it at last January's price though. $1600 is much better than $1900. My only concern is that it would be to big to carry around on a second body (my 24-70 is my main lens). I need to put some thought into my bag setup. I'm thinking a waist bag with a holster on the side might be better than my cheapo cannon backpack I use right now.

Posted 4 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

I would really like the lenses you guys suggested, but it would also be nice if they kept the price down so amateurs like me might actually be able to afford them.

Posted 4 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

@NSXType-R : I guess what I am suggesting is a Pro line of DX lenses.. so it will probably be not too cheap :-(. If you read between the lines I am advocating a more tangible split between the FX and the DX lines (like there is between the FX and Medium format). This is because there are advantages of the DX over the FX that in my opinion have not been taken advantage of. Also in some ways they have crippled the DX cameras! What do I mean?

1) There is a potential to make brighter(faster) lenses in the DX format. For example see the F2.0 version of the 70-200 by olympus ie. the Zuiko 35-100 F2.0. See also the Tamron 60mm macro F2.0 DX. I am advocating a series of F2.0 or F2.5 zooms. and F1.4 or 1.2 primes. Ie a series of DX lenses that are 1/2 stop to 1 stop better than their FX counterparts.

2) The sensor cleaner filter thing that shakes and resides in front of the sensor is like a ND filter, so you loose about 1/2 to 1 stop of light from reaching the sensor !!! . I have heard that some people have removed it from the D300 to get more High ISO capability. Why have they made that filter Dark? So that the D300's high ISO capability is not too close to the D700 and D3? I don't know if the D90 and D5000 has this dark filter on the sensor. but the D300 has it. I hope they don't put it on the D400! May be its to make way for a D400 with higher MP but Equal ISO to the D300?

Posted 4 years ago #
JimCouch

member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 12
offline

Two lenses for me please :)

A compact DX wide prime, something in the 12mm range. The lens does not have to be exceptionally fast, but rather should exploit the promise of light and compact. an f/3.5 or f4 would be fine for me, just keep it small and light. If I have to carry one pound lens then I might as well carry a zoom.

A 50-135 f/2.8 VR zoom. this should be a real winner, smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the 70-200 vr with a similar range fro DX shooters.

Oh, and then give me a nice compact, but weather sealed body to go with it. :)

Jim Couch

Posted 4 years ago #
snaketail

senior member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 66
offline

I want pro version of the 24-120mm maybe a 2.8 VR lens AND a 16-45mm 2.8 VR lens. Both with a metal hoods that do not "snap" on (or off). I'd be willing to pay for pro-prices if I get profession results - the current 24-120 is, well this forum knows that quality level, and my 17-35...bought it in 1999 and they haven't changed...time for Nikon to catch up to Canon (Oh,is that OK to say on this forum...I'm new?).
Snaketail

Posted 4 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"The sensor cleaner filter thing that shakes and resides in front of the sensor is like a ND filter, so you loose about 1/2 to 1 stop of light from reaching the sensor !!! . I have heard that some people have removed it from the D300 to get more High ISO capability. Why have they made that filter Dark? So that the D300's high ISO capability is not too close to the D700 and D3? I don't know if the D90 and D5000 has this dark filter on the sensor. but the D300 has it. I hope they don't put it on the D400! May be its to make way for a D400 with higher MP but Equal ISO to the D300?"

Is that safe to do? Couldn't you destroy your sensor?

Posted 4 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

@gentoo : Its the same process as converting to IR except that you don't go as far, since you need to remove the dust cleaner filter to get to the IR filter. So yes its dangerous both to the camera and to you(high voltage)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ethankillian/3068541803/

Posted 4 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

Not something I'm going to screw around with I guess. Not gonna take any chances on destroying my camera despite the improved ISO.

Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

What new DX lenses?

Reply