bmxdad said:
Funny, how do you think it works close upPete
I think it's closer to 200mm ;-)
Panamon_Creel said:
Your voice was their command :)
It was easier to command after the announcement, I guess.
Pick ONE lens that Nikon should make or update
(168 posts) (73 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
-
Either one of the two.. less than 2K.
AFS 80-400/4.5 VR II
AFS 100-500/5.6 VR IIJust imagine, Two 12 MP bodies, one DX (300s) and one FX (D700), same MB-D10, 4 lens, 17-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 85/1.4 and one of above..., one Bag (TTK airport) You are set!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Welcome to the forum, migtex. I would love that kit. Maybe the 14-24 instead of the 17-35.
Posted 3 years ago # -
yup, welcome to the forum migtex - Your setup would be nice, especially the 100-500/5.6, although I doubt it will cost less than $2k, probably around $2.5
Posted 3 years ago # -
ShadeofBlue said:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/speciallenses/12001700mm.htmCould use autofocus I guess.
Panamon_Creel said:
looking for an AF-S version of the Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6~8.0s P ED IF?Finally someone who understands me!
EDIT: Although, seriously, why don't lens manufacturers make these ridiculous lenses anymore, except maybe Sigma with their 200-500 f/2.8? Seems like in the old days there was always some ridiculous tele-zoom, or mirror lens, or fisheye or wideangle that was stupidly expensive, and served mainly to show off how awesome their optics engineers were. Do Canon and Nikon just not have the money anymore to pull stunts like that?
Posted 3 years ago # -
how about 17 - 105 2.8 vr as your walk around lens @ $1000
Posted 2 years ago # -
ShadeofBlue writes:
>> Although, seriously, why don't lens manufacturers make these ridiculous lenses anymore, except maybe Sigma with their 200-500 f/2.8? Seems like in the old days there was always some ridiculous tele-zoom, or mirror lens, or fisheye or wideangle that was stupidly expensive, and served mainly to show off how awesome their optics engineers were. Do Canon and Nikon just not have the money anymore to pull stunts like that?
I'm sure they have the money, I think the problem may be profit return. Look at the sales figures of some of the old monsters like the 2000mm mirror or the 1200-1700... you have to wonder if they ever made back much more than their development cost. Granted, the company reaps benefits in other areas as well (like how many wide-eyed fans mob your booth at photo shows).
To answer the OP's question, here's how I see it... I really need longer lenses but as a poor, broke photographer whose wife watches his every move like a hawk, I'm already used to shooting with slow teles. Now that higher ISO are more viable with the newer bodies, I'd be happy to see Nikon give us some longer lenses with modest apertures that are optically good but actually affordable... in other words, make a serious effort to cover some of the ground that Sigma has staked out with their 50-500, 150-500 and 120-400. Nikon's 80-400 is positively geriatric. Currently the oldest zoom in their line, right? With all the people shooting sports and wildlife these days, why does this have to be the LAST lens they choose to update?
Looking at this in practical terms (or maybe it's just sour grapes), I'm not getting any younger so who wants to haul those fast long lenses around anyway? Even if I had $7k to blow on a lens, I'd still want to have a backup lens in the 400-500mm range that I could actually fit in my camera bag and wouldn't require a pack mule to haul up a hillside.
Speaking of long focal lengths and fast aperture, has anybody out there tried daylight shooting with astronomical telescopes, more specifically, Newtonians? I know there are some major problems (mobility, bokeh, manual focus, etc), but the specs are jaw-dropping... 1500mm f5 for $1500 or so.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I wish they would make any of the lenses they currently make, but for half the price....
Posted 2 years ago # -
spraynpray writes:
>> I wish they would make any of the lenses they currently make, but for half the price....
Great idea. Seriously, I know you probably presented this with tongue in cheek, but it brings to mind something I've been wondering about for years.
Nikon's reputation as a lens manufacturer has always been stellar, but their prices have traditionally been geared toward pros (though they've always had a selection of consumer lenses at reasonable prices and fairly respectable quality). I hear people complain all the time that you can get such-and-such a lens from Sigma with the same specs at half the price. When you handle the two side by side and shoot with both, you can see some of the compromises Sigma makes in build quality and so forth, but I think MOST of the price difference boils down to sheer numbers... when Sigma makes a lens, they make it for everybody. I wonder if Nikon has ever done an exhaustive cost/benefit analysis of their policy of keeping their lenses proprietary, or do they just do it because it's what all the other camera companies do?
If Nikon could sell five or six times their current numbers by manufacturing lenses in multiple mounts like Sigma does, would it result in enough profit for the company to make it worth giving up the perceived allure of exclusivity? Granted, it might eat into body sales as well if someone could buy a Canon or Pentax body and mount Nikon glass, but personally I feel that this wouldn't be something to worry about, Nikon's always had a strong bang for the buck in bodies... the best, IMO.
Posted 2 years ago # -
spraynpray said:
I wish they would make any of the lenses they currently make, but for half the price....bhoveyga said:When you handle the two side by side and shoot with both, you can see some of the compromises Sigma makes in build quality and so forth, but I think MOST of the price difference boils down to sheer numbers...
Quality glass has a fixed cost. Economies of scale don't apply if you're selling gold bricks. Likewise Nikon has shown time and time again they have not the ability to keep up with glass demand. What is their incentive to produce even lower margin products? Loss leaders?
I'm actually assuming they DO dedicate a large part of their production capability to extremely low margin glass products. These are called Coolpixs and kit lenses.
Posted 2 years ago # -
>> Quality glass has a fixed cost.
All due respect, that can't be true. Are you seriously suggesting that if Nikon places an order for refined quartz or fluorite, the mine is not going to give them a better price if they order six times as much? Or a larger glass lehr with greater internal volume to external area is not going to use less fuel per unit produced?
>> Likewise Nikon has shown time and time again they have not the ability to keep up with glass demand. What is their incentive to produce even lower margin products? Loss leaders?
How are these two (ability to keep up and ability to make a profit) related? I'm not sure I can see how producing low numbers of an item for a profit turns into a loss if they produce higher numbers. OK, at first, if producing higher numbers means building larger manufacturing facilities, that sets you back... but if demand rises to justify the expansion, profit stabilizes again. Overall, prices go down not because you are selling them at a loss but because they do cost less to make, that's an axiom that is true in nearly any industry.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Drab: I thought we were talking wishes here? That being the case, I thought half the price was being generous.....
Posted 2 years ago # -
Nikon should update the 14-24mm lens to take filters so we don't need to rely on a third party (Lee Filters. Still waiting since late Spring of last year for these to actually get to market) to produce a filter holder and filters to fit this lens. This is one of the reasons I'm considering selling my D700, lenses, etc. and buying a 4x5 field camera.
Having said that, from the trouble Lee Filters seems to be having, I can understand why Nikon engineers stayed well away from including filter use with this lens.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
Definitely AF 24mm f/2.8D. Similarly priced AF-S 24mm f/2.0G (or 1.8G) would be sweet on my D7000 :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Id like to see Nikon mimic what Hasselblad did with their HTS 1.5 tilt/shift adapter. Not so much a lens suggestion, but a way to make all my lenses have new functions. :]
Posted 2 years ago # -
My vote is still for that 28-200mm f2.8 they patented and with less elements than the current 70-200mm the Bokeh should be fantastic...
Posted 2 years ago # -
NVM.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hm, I'd like a 20mm f/.1.8. I love my 35 1.8, but I'd like it a bit wider and faster. Of course it needs to be around $400 too. =D
Posted 2 years ago # -
I want an AFS DX portrait fast prime with a reasonably wide aperture, low price, metal mount and great bokeh.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Some pancake lens for travel.
Posted 2 years ago # -
What would you say for a 50mm or 85mm f/1.2 (1.0 anyone?) lens? A dream come true, but the price..:(
Posted 2 years ago # -
I bet if Nikon updated all their current prime lenses under $500 to AF-S and G, they will see a huge return. Look at how well the 35mm f/1.8G has been. In fact make 20mm, 24mm, 28mm f/2.8G DX lenses, and update the 85mm f/1.8 to G as well. The FX lenses don't need to be updated (yet) as the full framers that can afford a D3S or whatever already have the new 1.4G primes.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
