My vote is for a nikon pancake for DX format, 35 mm 2.0
Pick ONE lens that Nikon should make or update
(168 posts) (73 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Make a 16mm pancake f/4 will do.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Why not shoot for f/2.8?
Posted 2 years ago # -
16mm f/2 DX
Olympus can make a 12mm f/2 and Panasonic can make a 14mm f/2.5 both for m4/3, and Sony has a 16mm f/2.8 for E mount, but Nikon doesn't yet have a DX wide-angle prime fast or slow (well except the 10.5mm fisheye, but that's not really the same thing at all).Posted 1 year ago # -
A 14 f1.8 like the 35 and 50 f1.8's that have been released. And please update the 300 F4 :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think the 80-400VR should be updated. The 70-300VR is affordable, one of the best Nikkor lens for field use and fast. Prime lens are not what many users rely on now. I have prime lens and give me a zoom every time except in critical low lighting.
Posted 1 year ago # -
PC-E 17mm F4
That one would spell the end for my 14-24 and require its sale to fund about half of its cost. :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
85mm 1.8 upgrade to AF-S. I know this lens has been discussed before, but I'm interested in a long-ish fast prime.
Also, it's pretty much the last major Nikon lens not to have an AF-S update.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not a lens but Im posting anyway. A d3100 with a ff sensor and 2 command dials or a f3 with a ff sensor and small screen in the back, but no other changes. Plausible... YES! Possibility of making one... none.
Why an F4 squeamish?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I believe that the engineering involved in making it anything but an F4 would be excessively cost prohibitive, not to mention that it would end up being incredibly large and ridiculously expensive.
Posted 1 year ago # -
kyoshinikon said:
Not a lens but Im posting anyway. A d3100 with a ff sensor and 2 command dials or a f3 with a ff sensor and small screen in the back, but no other changes. Plausible... YES! Possibility of making one... none.Why an F4 squeamish?
Basically you want a digital FM2?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Affordable and small 35mm FX lens, similar to the 50mm f/1.4. I use my 35 f/1.8 DX on FX all the time but the sharpness and (lack of) vignetting aren't as good as on DX. The 35mm f/1.4 AF-S is way too expensive and large for me, no way I could use that for street.
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
-
-
80-400mm update that is smooth to operate. Been learning how to use the lens since I made the mistake of buying it. Takes great photos when you set the f-stop where it needs to be and can manage to get the zoom in the right place without taking it away from your eye 4-5 times while forcing the barrel to turn. Speedier VR would be nice, seems like it takes forever to spin up when that Goldfinch is taking it's 100ms to decide to fly away fussing all the while.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If I had to choose one, I'd say a fast VR zoom to take the spot below my VR 70-200. The 24-120/f4 is interesting but I'm holding out hope for a 24-70/f2.8 VR lens since I'd love a bit more speed...
Posted 1 year ago # -
pbull221 said:
80-400mm update that is smooth to operate. Been learning how to use the lens since I made the mistake of buying it. Takes great photos when you set the f-stop where it needs to be and can manage to get the zoom in the right place without taking it away from your eye 4-5 times while forcing the barrel to turn. Speedier VR would be nice, seems like it takes forever to spin up when that Goldfinch is taking it's 100ms to decide to fly away fussing all the while.That lens wasn't really meant to be as a fast birding lens.
Also, VR would not help you with the bird leaving the frame.
However, I do agree that would be a lens for Nikon to update soon.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Didn't mean leaving the frame. meant bird does not sit still long enough for the camera to make it to my eye, focus, steady, stabilize, and release before he has blasted off to parts unknown. Just don't have the $$ for a 500mm or better and as I said, made the mistake of wanting that 'modern; 50-300mm that I fell in love with when I was 10(much earlier post elsewhere), got sucked in by the "ED" portion of the lenses full name, and of course the price was all I was willing to do for my first digital camera (at age 50.) Have actually made some bird shots that I am happy with, just have to learn the Tao of Nikkor prosumer lenses to get the best of it. but would it not be sweet if the zoom barrel didn't require that you go into weight training to operate smoothly. At this point a 'G' version would be fine, thing makes me crazy when I try and use it on my F3.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Would like to see the 55mm f1.2 Noct re-done, sure it won't happen but it would be cool. Like a previous poster, I had hoped for a redone version of my thorium glass 35mm f1.4 and I was disappointed that the one they came up with was so much larger.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I use the 70-300VR almost everyday. I use it on the D300 most but the D90 is a close second and once in awhile the D700. That lens never fails to impress me. Yet the 80-400 is simply way too slow......it takes that lens forever to get with it. Nikon needs to revamp that lens. Many who use the 80-200 are surprised how well the 70-300VR compares but with longer reach. If you think the 70-300VR lens is not sharp enough I'm guessing you don't have that much experience with the lens. I'm not saying the present 80-400 Nikkor is a total loss, but it is one lens Nikon could rebuild and improve very much and SELL it. Another factor in the 70-300VR is despite the lens ability the price is amazingly affordable. It is also so good I would NOT buy a revamped version of the 70-300VR. If the revamped 80-400 was anymore than the present one it would be most foolish from a sales standpoint. One problem is that many photographers think they need 2.8 glass and from my ownership of those Nikkor telephotos I can say I will NEVER buy another. Sharp is one thing but to heavy is crippling. I have some awesome wildlife shots and there isn't a lot of time before even a hummingbird becomes wary. Zoo shots are quite another thing. Even a hummingbird at a feeder is another. So my vote is the 80-400 in a VR and very fast focus version with optics that lend itself to affordable and therefor marketable pricing. Another thought I have is that prime lens (fast and one focal length) might be necessary in Macro but other than that give me a zoom. Too many times I put a prime lens on and can't even get ANY shot as it was the wrong lens at the right time.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It varies for every photog. I took merely a 14-24 f2.8 and a 300mm f2.8 to the us open and got better shots than many of the people using a 70-300mm or 80-400mm... I will agree although I would perfet the replacement to be at the quality of canon's 100-400mm "gasp!"...
Posted 1 year ago # -
kyoshinikon said:
It varies for every photog. I took merely a 14-24 f2.8 and a 300mm f2.8 to the us open and got better shots than many of the people using a 70-300mm or 80-400mm... I will agree although I would perfet the replacement to be at the quality of canon's 100-400mm "gasp!"...Kyoshinikon, you're so funny...at a combined cost of over $7,740 USD your "mere" 2 lenses had better blow the 70-300mm and 80-400mm out of the water!
I do too like my 70-300mm VR but if Nikon introduced an updated 80-400mm VR I'm likely to trade up. In fact, my wife was hinting around about getting me the current 80-400mm lens as a gift and I told her not to. We'll just see if Nikon changes my mind with a new model this Fall.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
