Thom figures that we will get a new 85 F1.4G lens soon and it will properly set you back a cool $2200 just like the current trend in high end Nikon FX primes.
Would future lenses incl a 50 F1.2G at same fixed price level
Pete
Wow another $2200 lens
(8 posts) (6 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
If it's a 1.2 lens, you betcha. 1.2 is a massive aperture.
Also, keep in mind, Nikon also plans to release more cheap lenses. I don't remember who it was, but there was an interview on the main blog earlier.
Posted 3 years ago # -
This price makes me glad I got the current 85 / 1.4 lens when I did (last year). It seems Nikon is releasing low end or high end lenses, when I'm looking for something in the middle (like a new 300 F4 with VR that's priced somewhat close to the current lens). I haven't seen many new lenses for a self proclaimed advanced amateur for a while.
Posted 3 years ago # -
NSXType-R said:
Also, keep in mind, Nikon also plans to release more cheap lenses. I don't remember who it was, but there was an interview on the main blog earlier.It was Nabuaki Sasagaki, General Manager, Marketing Department of Nikon Imaging Japan.
It seams to me that one should get good old Nikon lens while they are available, I doubt new over 2000$ ones are build any better.Posted 3 years ago # -
Two things that made me glad to read TH's most recent post were 1) his reasoning that it probably makes sense to update the 24-70 2.8 with VR before bothering with a lot of other lenses in need of an update and 2) that he still keeps his Tamron 17-50 2.8 in his DX kit, and that's coming from someone who can definitely afford (and definitely owns) the Nikkor 17-55 2.8. I've said it to my photographer friends before that even if the Nikkor had the same price I would still take the Tamron over it for size and weight considerations. It sounds like sour grapes but it's the truth.
In fact, my first post in this forum was because someone over on the blog had requested I do a comparison to check my claim that I couldn't tell the difference in IQ between those lenses.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Anyone tried newer Tamron VR 17-50? It does not seam that handy and light anymore ...
Posted 3 years ago # -
I've heard the sharpness isn't very good on the VC model. I haven't tried it, though.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The only way I'd ever spend over $2,000 on glass would be for Leica M lenses. However, I did spend $1500 + $500 (traded in Tokina 11-16mm) for my 14-24mm Nikkor. It's really tough for me to justify spending such a huge amount of money on primes with the one focal length. If you really use that focal length then I guess its fine. I love 35mm so I bought a Zeiss ZF F2 35mm and its vey sharp. I use it frequently. Got to look at cost/benefits closely.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
