Pick ONE lens that Nikon should make or update

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Pick ONE lens that Nikon should make or update

(168 posts) (73 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 1…345…7 Next »

kanuck

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

I agree with Johnny Apple's post. Maybe not his suggested zoom range, but I'd like to see a new FX VR zoom lens that can replace the 24-120 lens. Nikon's VR zooms are lacking for full frame I think. Older glass and of course the 24-70 is all thats currently available. Fortunately Nikon has made a lot of incredible primes. People have discussed this often.

The rumour of a new 16-35mm wide lens with VR would be great as well I think. This would replace the classic 2000 year 17-35mm which would be nice. I hate the fact that you can't use filters on the 14-24 lens except for the Hoya $700 system. My 2 cents.

Posted 3 years ago #
PatMann

member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 37
offline

These would fill out my kit nicely -
18mm or 16mm f/1.4 DX (I don't want a monster to cover FF, I would settle for f/1.8 or f/2)
18mm or 16mm f/4 PC-E DX (shift enough, don't need the swing/tilt)
35mm f/1.4 - don't cut corners on this one
50-135 f/2.8 DX VR
70-200 f/4 VR macro
400mm f/5.6 VR
and the 50mm f/1.0

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

PatMann said:
These would fill out my kit nicely -
18mm or 16mm f/1.4 DX (I don't want a monster to cover FF, I would settle for f/1.8 or f/2)
18mm or 16mm f/4 PC-E DX (shift enough, don't need the swing/tilt)
35mm f/1.4 - don't cut corners on this one
50-135 f/2.8 DX VR
70-200 f/4 VR macro
400mm f/5.6 VR
and the 50mm f/1.0

Wow: A fast 16 - 18mm lens would be expensive $ 1500+ and PC DX lens would lack demand to be made, 50-135 f/2.8 DX VR, 70-200 f/4 VR macro, 400mm f/5.6 VR are great lenses, love to see them. The 50mm F1.0 would be a monster, I mean the one form Leica is selling for $ 6000 area, I think a really well made F1.2 would make more sense, it could sell if it was a killer lens, nano coatings and all, app at $ 1500

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
photoboy2005

member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 12
offline

hikerboy47 said:
You are going to love that lens. Out of all my lenses, that is my fave!!!

yeah i shoot alot of macro, i was going to get the new 85 macro, but im just going to wait for the new 85 1.4 or 1.8, to come out and use extion tubes

Posted 3 years ago #
RRRoger

member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 21
offline

ONE lens that Nikon should make or update, actually two.

1. Update the Nikkor 80-400 to AF-S VR II
or make an FX 100-500 with AF-S VR II

2. Update 28-200 to AF-S VR II
or make something FullFrame within the range of 24-300 with AF-S VR II

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

I actual think it would be neat to see what Nikon could do if they went all out on a new 50mm F1.2, it would have to have it all(maybe not VR) incl the best glass, N coating. This kind of quality is needed to get ready for the level of MP in future Pro FX bodies

Maybe a higher than 1:1 macro lens, but not 5:1 like the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro, that lens is not that great past 3 power and resulting view is very dark. So maybe 1-3X again well done N coating etc, don't even think of adding VR, this is tripod only lens

What about a Nikon 300-800 F5.6 like the Sigma APO 300-800 F5.6 EX DG HSM

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

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

nikon 300-800 would be very pricey, sigma costs around $9k so Nikon would cost even more (app $13-$14k) - way too much
although I wouldn't mind to see a nice long tele prime - 400/f4 or, don't want to see any short primes, there's a lot of lenses to choose from in the 14-200 range

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

What does a 400/f4 give you over a 200/f2.8 + TC?

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

adamz said:
nikon 300-800 would be very pricey, sigma costs around $9k so Nikon would cost even more (app $13-$14k) - way too much

Yes I agree it would be pricey and certainly not one I would purchase, neither would I purchase the 600mm lens, but I think that some one that could afford the 600mm F4 could properly afford to spend app $3000 more for a 300 - 800 lens, if done as well as Nikon have done on other Pro zooms this lens could sell, maybe special order only

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

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

soap - quality, quality and speed - 200/2.8+TC2.0 gives You 400/5.6 and lower IQ than 400/4, 200/2.8+TC1.7 gives You 340/4.8 - too short, 400/4+TC14 gives You - 560/5.6 - needs a lot of light but still great length

pete - as for 300-800, I've played with sigma week ago, and this lens is so long, that there's no way to put it into carry on language

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

adamz - doesn't a 2.0 TC halve the light? ie 2.8 to 4.0? It really quarters it? Dang.

edit:
Looked it up again - 2 stops. Dang.

Posted 3 years ago #
Johndbr

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 102
offline

OK guys! What about a 400-600mm F4.0 or F5.6 or F4.5 or something. This is something I could use if I could afford it.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

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

soap - once I mount my tc20 on 70-200/2.8 I get 400/5.6 - that's what it shows if You want to have f4 than You need to use TC14 - but You will get only 98-280 lens

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

adamz said:
soap - once I mount my tc20 on 70-200/2.8 I get 400/5.6 - that's what it shows if You want to have f4 than You need to use TC14 - but You will get only 98-280 lens

Ok this how this works, when you add a 2X tele converter you are loosing 2 stops of light. first stop is half the light second stop is half the light again So lets call the beginning light value 20: 20/2 = 10 > 10/2 = 5, so you end up with 1/4 light from using your 2X doubler

OK so lets start with F2.8 one stop is F4, two stops is F5.6

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

Can we assume the TC14 is actually a 1.414213X magnifier, then? ;)

Posted 3 years ago #
optimaforever

senior member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 85
offline

I'd like a PC-E 14mm. f/3.5 is ok for me, since I'll use it at f/8 :D
and why not a new micro 200mm f/4 VR?

Posted 3 years ago #
Derek

new member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3
offline

135/1.8 AF-S or an update of the 135/2D.

Id like a 24-105/2.8 as the same quality as the 24-70.
Im totaly ok to pay for that.

Posted 3 years ago #
ShadeofBlue

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 158
offline

soap said:
Can we assume the TC14 is actually a 1.414213X magnifier, then? ;)

Yes, ± whatever Nikon has deemed appropriate.

Posted 3 years ago #
Trenton_Romulox

member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 25
offline

Unfortunately I don't have the patience to read through every single post in this thread since I just stumbled upon it today (unless of course I'm forgetting that I added to it a while back or something...)

I want an FX lens like the 14-24mm except with a normal front element so that I can use my 4x4 grads on it with success.

Also, I want a new fisheye for FX.

And a new 85mm f/1.4.

And a 1200mm f/2.8. :p (this lens would be so ridiculously gigantic and probably not even optically possible...)

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

Trenton_Romulox said:
And a 1200mm f/2.8. :p (this lens would be so ridiculously gigantic and probably not even optically possible...)

I don't think you will see one like it from Nikon, this one from Zeiss is special order only, and have a few mobility problems at 255 Kg, cost $ 2,000,000+

I think the big Sigma 200-500 F2.8 with a doubler is more real and you can get on for app $25,000

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
bernard

preferred member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 309
offline

I'd like a 70-200 with automatic lock on for moving subjects like airplanes which would ensure perfect panning ! :o)

That's on top of the VR of course ! :oD

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

Trenton_Romulox said:

And a 1200mm f/2.8. :p (this lens would be so ridiculously gigantic and probably not even optically possible...)

Trying to Calculate some figures for this lens, it would be huge:

300 f2.8 > has app 115mm diameter front element
600 F2.8 > would if made have an app 220mm diameter front element
1200 F2.8 > would if made have an app 440mm diameter front element and would be larger than the above Zeiss Lens

BTW Canon used to have a 1200mm F5.6 for $100,000+, this one:

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

I sure hope they update the 300mm f/2.8 that they released 5 years ago or so. I'd love to have that in VRII.

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

jonnyapple said:
I sure hope they update the 300mm f/2.8 that they released 5 years ago or so. I'd love to have that in VRII.

Funny, how do you think it works close up

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
Panamon_Creel

senior member
Joined: Jun '09
Posts: 95
offline

bmxdad said:
BTW Canon used to have a 1200mm F5.6 for $100,000+, this one:

looking for an AF-S version of the Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6~8.0s P ED IF?

jonnyapple said:
I sure hope they update the 300mm f/2.8 that they released 5 years ago or so. I'd love to have that in VRII.

Your voice was their command :)

Posted 3 years ago #