Likelyhood of these lenses? « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Likelyhood of these lenses?

(28 posts) (13 voices)

Tags:

12 Next »

csbreiland

junior member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 5
offline

The re-release of the 50 1.8 got me thinking of what nikon might be putting out in terms of lenses for the consumer market. My hopes, all G, AF-S and weathersealed:

28 f/2 600$ +200$ for nano coat
- Affordable wide prime that doesn't directly cannabalize the 1.4 wides.

85 f/1.8 500$ +200$ for nano coat
- Af-d Great lens, but an updated version would sell like mad if it showed the improvement of the 50 1.8 over the last version.

24 f/2 DX 400$
- 35/2 equiv for dx, enough said.

85 1.8 DX 400$
cheaper way to redo the 85 1.8 and not cannabalize the 85 1.4

17-55 or 17-70 f2.8 DX VR Nano Coat 1400$
-perfect d400 companion!

What do you want from nikon, and how likely do you think that it's coming?

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Dreamer you are! 1- according to Nikon, nothing is weather sealed but weather resistant. You have some DX wants here but with FX refreshes I don't see many DX updates soon.

:-:I really doubt we get many more primes for DX. Nikon seems to keep most lenses around for 10-15(+/-) years then do updates. If I were a betting man, in 10 years DX may all but the old tech size being phased out. For Nikon to release great glass for this DX series and FX is not very practical. Zooms maybe, but not primes.

:-:Although Nikon Bodies are released on a regular schedule that can be anticipated, lenses are not. Last I heard, to re-do a lens takes 3-5 years. Leica redid the f/1 Noct and it took them 10 years to re-engineer that. If they haven't done the design or AF before, it can be a huge endeavor.

:-:28 f/2 600$ +200$ for nano coat
Nope - Nikon has not had a f/2 since the 70's. The 28mm f/2.8 was a dog by most standards. With the 24mm 1.4, the 35mm 1.4, there is little room for a 28mm. The 24mm & 20mm were fairly successful 2.8s so I'm guessing we will see those first. The 28mm is also an odd focal length (42mm equ) on DX which drives it way low on the list.

:-:85 f/1.8 500$ +200$ for nano coat /85 1.8 DX 400$
DX - No, FX - Yes. $500-800 range for sure. I combined your two since they really are the same. I do see this being updated soon, probably before many other. Nothing will cannabalize the 85 1.4. Either you have the money for it or you don't.

:-:24 f/2 DX 400$
DX- No, FX - Yes. F/2- no, F/2.8 yes. $400-you make me laugh - $500-800. I do suspect (or maybe just hope) they will release a FX of 24mm f2.8 soon. It was a good design and was very popular. This lens is due for an update and as you said, 35mm on a DX body.

:-:17-55 or 17-70 f2.8 DX VR Nano Coat 1400$
No - As I said before, I do not see any more pro DX only glass being developed. I do like the idea and range of a 17-70mm 2.8 VR though.

Posted 1 year ago #
NSXType-R

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

I dunno- there may not be a room for DX lenses, but there will definitely be room for DX bodies. The birders would throw a fit if they got rid of DX bodies.

Posted 1 year ago #
PatMann

member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 37
offline

I think there is certainly room for wide primes for DX. We are starting to see them from the other smaller format makers. I think the following are needed:
18mm or 16mm f/2 - the most important one.
24mm f/2
12mm f/2.8

I think FX is well taken care of by the new f/1.4s.

Not everyone likes the big heavy zooms. Lots of people would like more than f/4 speed at the wide end. For reportage, the 24-28mm focal length is a real sweet spot.

Another thing we need with these faster lenses is the ability to focus them in the viewfinder, which means different screens, or changeable screens.

Posted 1 year ago #
csbreiland

junior member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 5
offline

A 24/2, 35/1.8, 50 1.4 between a pair of d7000's would be a fantastic reportage kit.

There are sigma 20/24/28 1.8's, but I'd prefer nikon to fill this gap. Also, there is a sony-zeiss 24/2 (sensor stabalized!) coming out this summer for e-mount, but I guess that's made easier with the lack of mirror.

Posted 1 year ago #
Michael DeRose

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 277
offline

i would love to get a new 85mm fx, in that price range. I don't really know if dx will be here in 10 years. I think that it could become a "mode" on a future fx camera.
That being said, i would really like to see Nikon give the any new lens some sort of marker, tag, etc to designate a "pro" lens. Canon does the "L", why cant nikon do something like that? (please not in white!!)

Posted 1 year ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

Nikon does, the Gold Ring. Mind you, the gold ring isn't as meaningful as it once was. Never the less, lenses with the gold ring are just as good if not better than some of the Canon "L" lenses.

Posted 1 year ago #
shigzeo

senior member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 73
offline

And you don't have to have a gold ring to have a good/great lens. Nikon's lenses come in all prices and aims. I have only one lens with a gold ring (24-70 2,8G) and it isn't as sharp as my other lenses, 28 2,8 AiS, 50 1,2 Ai at the same focal lengths, but it does have more contrast wide open than either.

I'd have price be the deciding factor in L'ish ness or not, not the ring.

Posted 1 year ago #
NSXType-R

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

PatMann said:
I think there is certainly room for wide primes for DX. We are starting to see them from the other smaller format makers. I think the following are needed:
18mm or 16mm f/2 - the most important one.
24mm f/2
12mm f/2.8

I think FX is well taken care of by the new f/1.4s.

Not everyone likes the big heavy zooms. Lots of people would like more than f/4 speed at the wide end. For reportage, the 24-28mm focal length is a real sweet spot.

Another thing we need with these faster lenses is the ability to focus them in the viewfinder, which means different screens, or changeable screens.

I agree, wide DX primes would be great, if they were the same price or around the ballpark of the 35mm 1.8.

Other than a new FX 85mm 1.8, counting zooms and primes, FX has it covered from 14mm to 600mm, except perhaps the 200mm macro which needs refreshing.

I would imagine DX lenses to be refreshed next- perhaps a new 18-135 VR? I'm still hoping for new pro DX lenses, perhaps a cheaper non-metal but optically great 17-55 2.8 or 4 with VR? It'd be stupid to ignore that range.

The 24-120 isn't really all that wide on DX.

And the FX 24-70 still needs VR.

Other than a fast short zoom, any long and fast lenses a DX body could use you could borrow from the FX line.

shigzeo said:
And you don't have to have a gold ring to have a good/great lens. Nikon's lenses come in all prices and aims. I have only one lens with a gold ring (24-70 2,8G) and it isn't as sharp as my other lenses, 28 2,8 AiS, 50 1,2 Ai at the same focal lengths, but it does have more contrast wide open than either.

I'd have price be the deciding factor in L'ish ness or not, not the ring.

Great point- the 18-135 is quite sharp, and so is the 35mm 1.8 too.

Posted 1 year ago #
terran_dk

new member
Joined: Oct '11
Posts: 1
offline

Well the likelihood of a re-do of the Nikkor AiS 50mm f/1,2 would be great! Imagine an AF-S 50mm f/1.2G IF ED N!

Posted 1 year ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

There is a rumour floating around about an updated version of the 16-85mm F3.5-5.6G VR. Likely just a quick refresh like the 18-200mm VRII.

Posted 1 year ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

You got to believe that the 80-400mm VR is coming very soon. There is no other lens in the current Nikkor lineup that is need of a refresh more. It still uses the older AF even! The refresh would really be something the lense would probably be priced almost as high as the current 70-200mm VR2 though. I keep hearing a Canon equivalent 70-200mm VR F4 Nikkor on the way as well. As for my dream lens, how about a non protrouding bulb ultra wide angle lens that takes filters? haha can't be done I'm sure :(

Posted 1 year ago #
NSXType-R

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

PB PM said:
There is a rumour floating around about an updated version of the 16-85mm F3.5-5.6G VR. Likely just a quick refresh like the 18-200mm VRII.

What if they made it 1 stop faster from end to end- F2.8 at the wide end, F4 at the long end and kept the same build quality and price?

That'd be a dream DX lens there huh? It's a bit slow to be asking almost $700 for as it is right now.

kanuck said:
You got to believe that the 80-400mm VR is coming very soon. There is no other lens in the current Nikkor lineup that is need of a refresh more. It still uses the older AF even! The refresh would really be something the lense would probably be priced almost as high as the current 70-200mm VR2 though. I keep hearing a Canon equivalent 70-200mm VR F4 Nikkor on the way as well. As for my dream lens, how about a non protrouding bulb ultra wide angle lens that takes filters? haha can't be done I'm sure :(

That and the two fisheyes need AF-S upgrades.

Posted 1 year ago #
El_Pickerel

preferred member
Joined: Jul '11
Posts: 581
offline

One I definitely would love to see is a 24-70/f2.8 replacement that has VR (and maybe they can squeeze a few more mm, who knows).

I also would love to see a revitalization of my ancient 50-300/f4.5 with AF-S, VR, ED, etc. I have the 55-300 DX VR lens, but even if the 50-300 is 5# and would certainly be an expensive pro lens, a parfocal 6x zoom with a constant aperture is nice, and add on all those abbreviated nice things and they'd get my money for that no problem. (Moreso if they can use modern tech to make that thing f4.0)

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

kanuck said:
You got to believe that the 80-400mm VR is coming very soon. There is no other lens in the current Nikkor lineup that is need of a refresh more. It still uses the older AF even!

Ummmmmm
16mm, 24mm 2.8, 35mm f2, 85mm 1.8, 105 & 125 DC, 70-180macro, 200mm macro - What else did I miss? ;)- People have been saying the 80-400mm VR will be coming for 4 years now. Great lens, but most shops say they never have sold many and sell more Sigma's in that range due to the price. I would bet a price would be in the $2,500 range.

NSXType-R said:
What if they made it 1 stop faster from end to end- F2.8 at the wide end, F4 at the long end and kept the same build quality and price?

My money is on that. Make it like the old 24-85 f2.8-4.

El_Pickerel said:
One I definitely would love to see is a 24-70/f2.8 replacement that has VR (and maybe they can squeeze a few more mm, who knows).

Nikon and Canon users have been desiring this for years. I just can't imagine how big (and heavy) that lens would be. I think the 24-120 f4 kind of filled that gap.

Posted 1 year ago #
Godless

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 241
offline

csbreiland said:
What do you want from nikon, and how likely do you think that it's coming?

AF-S 16mm f/4 DX prime. Probability 2% in the next 300 years.
AF-S 20mm FX prime. Probability 70% in the next 4 years.
AF-S 105mm f/2 DC VR prime. Sure to come sometime, albeit without DC feature.
AF-S 400mm f/5.6 prime (just like the Canon hit product). Probability 5% in the next 10 years. Nikon just can´t be bothered to make a lightweight 400mm fast-focusing tele prime.

(..and the D400 to beat Sony alpha 77 in low light.. probability 60%)

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

Booo for the 16-85 update. Do not want.

Posted 1 year ago #
Godless

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 241
offline

tcole1983 said:
Booo for the 16-85 update. Do not want.

Boo indeed. Boo for making us wait too long. Boo for releasing silly products like 40mm macros instead of lightweight low-cost bird teles. Boo for stalling the D4/D800/D400 body releases. Boo boo boo.

Posted 1 year ago #
NSXType-R

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

tcole1983 said:
Booo for the 16-85 update. Do not want.

I kind of agree- it would be a nice lens to fill in the low light DX lens gap, but I probably wouldn't buy it.

Posted 1 year ago #
El_Pickerel

preferred member
Joined: Jul '11
Posts: 581
offline

TaoTeJared said:Nikon and Canon users have been desiring this for years. I just can't imagine how big (and heavy) that lens would be. I think the 24-120 f4 kind of filled that gap.

I know I'll get a 24-70 irregardless once I have the money saved for it. I just want to hope a VR version (hell if it's good enough even a Sigma OS version) comes along before I'm at that point.

My money is on that. Make it like the old 24-85 f2.8-4.

Unless they could achieve that without increasing the weight much more than it is now, I'd rather they just keep it with the current aperture. I'd consider taking a 47 ounce lens backpacking since I've taken my 70-200, but much more than that would be out of the question.

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

NSXType-R said:
I kind of agree- it would be a nice lens to fill in the low light DX lens gap, but I probably wouldn't buy it.

I guess I don't see the point of it as an overpriced kit lens. At least for the same price the 18-200 covers a large range. The 16-85 gives you a little more on each side of the 18-55, but costs the same as 6 of them. I don't see it as a better performer in any category...really I don't see any advantage to it especially for the cost. Save a little more and get the 17-55 F2.8 or spend the same and get the 18-200, or spend less and get the 18-105 or...get the 18-55 and 70-300 VR for the same price. Too many choices :)

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

I have shot all of those Tcole mentioned and the 16-85 is the by far the best of the bunch with improvements/higher-end tweaks along side the 18-200. You certainly can't call it a Kit lens as it performs and considerably built much better than the 18-55 or the 18-105. 17-55 2.8 is a heavy sucker and is still $1,100 used and $1,500 new - that is double the 16-85. The fulcrum and crux has always been the 18-200, as they perform basically the same.

If they can remove a lot of the distortion on the wide end & get f/4 on the long end, it will make it very tempting for DX shooters looking for a strong lighter walk around/ hiking lens. Pair it with the 70-300 and you have everything covered with good overlap and some very good glass.

I do agree they have saturated this range, but that has always been the case with 24-85 equiv going back decades. That said, I have been missing a lens in the 18-100 range for 3 years now (covered by 12-24, 24-x4 lenses - I don't like swapping lenses) because they have too much distortion and I too have a hard time with swallowing $700 for this range. For more or less you can get a Tamron or Sigma with 2.8 for the same price and VR.

Posted 1 year ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

24-70mm with VR would be crazy expensive maybe 3 grand? The 80-400mm sold well but people flock to Sigma because the lenses technology is so outdated that they have no choice. No lens needs to be updated more therefore it gets my vote for likelyhood of being refreshed. With the flooding in Thailand now, its all up in the air anyways...

Posted 1 year ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

kanuck said:
24-70mm with VR would be crazy expensive maybe 3 grand? The 80-400mm sold well but people flock to Sigma because the lenses technology is so outdated that they have no choice. No lens needs to be updated more therefore it gets my vote for likelyhood of being refreshed. With the flooding in Thailand now, its all up in the air anyways...

I think people flock to the Sigma because it is much cheaper, and then they find out about the flare and ghosting.

well you get what you pay for with that lens

boo

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

TaoTeJared said:
I have shot all of those Tcole mentioned and the 16-85 is the by far the best of the bunch with improvements/higher-end tweaks along side the 18-200. You certainly can't call it a Kit lens as it performs and considerably built much better than the 18-55 or the 18-105. 17-55 2.8 is a heavy sucker and is still $1,100 used and $1,500 new - that is double the 16-85. The fulcrum and crux has always been the 18-200, as they perform basically the same.

If they can remove a lot of the distortion on the wide end & get f/4 on the long end, it will make it very tempting for DX shooters looking for a strong lighter walk around/ hiking lens. Pair it with the 70-300 and you have everything covered with good overlap and some very good glass.

I do agree they have saturated this range, but that has always been the case with 24-85 equiv going back decades. That said, I have been missing a lens in the 18-100 range for 3 years now (covered by 12-24, 24-x4 lenses - I don't like swapping lenses) because they have too much distortion and I too have a hard time with swallowing $700 for this range. For more or less you can get a Tamron or Sigma with 2.8 for the same price and VR.

Lol I guess I just have no need for the lens so I don't care for it. If I was going to get one in that range I would get the newer Sigma 17-50 F2.8. I haven't really found myself using that range all that much though and could probably totally do without. I almost soley us my 12-24 and 105 now...occasionally my 18-200 when I need more range or don't want to take multiple lenses.

Posted 1 year ago #