Nikon lenses poll

It's a poll week, but first a quick update on the Nikon AF DC Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D lens rumor from Germany - a major German electronics store currently has two lenses listed as Nikon 135/2.0 in their inventory system. The only noticeable difference is the price: one is listed for 1459 €, the other for 1539 € (same lens was reported as discontinued in Canada).

And now the poll - which 3 lenses would you like Nikon to release/update next (and you are willing to buy) all lenses are FX except the last two choices:

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Nikonuser

    Could a price difference of 100 currency units simply be indicative of a domestic versus a gray market lens?

    • Do they have gray market products in Germany? Can anyone confirm?

      • zeeGerman

        We do have, but usually not at the big retailers. At least I never heard of it.
        Nonetheless, they are available at several onlineshops.

        Sometimes those big retailers don’t get their stock directly from Nikon, maybe the second price is from a supplier they recently switched to?

      • Lawliet

        I’m aware of one dealer who offers white and grey market items parallel, but they state the difference in the item descriptions. Not declaring grey market items could lead to expensive side effects due to customer protection laws, I doubt that a shop that intends to stay in business would do that.

        • zeeGerman

          Interesting, I only know of dealers that have either the one or the other. If I may ask, which dealer is it?

          • I did not want to mention online the dealer name because they may change their system and then we will not have any more rumors 🙂
            email me and I will tell you the name – you can then check and report back if you got any more info

          • zeeGerman

            Ha, thanks, but I meant the guy who said that there’s a dealer who offers both, gray and white market lenses.

            I don’t like the big retailers, and I don’t set a foot in there, unless I’m forced to. The service is terrible, and those self-appointed specialists that try to sell you stuff, can’t do much more than reading the little sign beside the product to you.
            But next week I can check one out and report back.

  • Anonymous

    AFS prime lens for my D40

    • anon

      It already exists, 35mm and 50mm

      • zeeGerman

        There really is need for a ultra wide prime. And I’m still really surprised that there wasn’t an alternative from day one. Or at least whenever the D70 was introduced. The 12-24mm and the 10-24mm are both great, but also really expensive.

        • donde?

          And you think Nikon will ever release an inexpensive lens? Despite the two standard primes 35 1.8 and 50 1.8?

          • zeeGerman

            Nikon always had the biggest range of very decently priced consumer standard zooms lenses, for example. Also the 55-200mm isn’t expensive. Also the 35mm f/2 is still affordable. In the film days we had a nice choice between 24mm and 28mm both f/2 as well as f/2.8, which included a budget version.
            So, yes. I do believe that there is a fair chance for some more affordable glass coming form Nikon. Especially now, after almost all professionals having switched to FX, the road is clear for some affordable DX primes.

  • Segura

    Nah, prices go up way more than $100 when the new model comes out. Look at the 70-200mm VR or the 105mm Micro price difference . . .

  • JR

    35 1.4 please

  • Should I go to bed or wait for an announcement tonight?

    • Oh, you do enough as it is. maybe we can all be surprised in the morning. maybe they will announce a 9mm f2.8 or something.

    • johnny

      It’s OK admin, we can wait until tomorrow.
      Nikon won’t be having my moniez for this lens any time soon anyway 🙂

  • SBGrad

    100-500 or 300 f4 af-s vr, please.

  • Would like to see more fixed F.stop zooms with “macro’ built in.

    • WoutK89

      YEAH, bring back the 70-180 macro Nikon, you know we want it

  • longtimenikonshooter

    Nikon, please give us more FX primes. My money is ready to jump onto 85mm f/1.4VR, 35mm f/1.4, 24mm f/1.4, and 135mm f/2 VR all at the same time.

  • Not that I want it, I’m surprised you left the 80-400mm off the poll.

    • the rumor was that the 80-400 will be replaced by the 100-500 lens

      • PatMann

        I suspect the 80-400 will be updated. A 500mm f/5.6 lens is in another category of size and price, and I for one would like to have the budget option of a fast-focusing 80-400 or 100-400 f/5.6, or even just a 400 f/5.6 VR for $2000 or $2500 rather than an exotic 500mm f/5.6 for $3500 to $4000.

  • glphoto

    I would like to see a new 17-35mm f/2.8G ED VR II and a 24-85mm f/2.8G ED VR II

  • Dave

    It’s the DC105 f2 not the 135’s page that’s down for mtce in CDN

  • David

    Would have voted for the 24-85 and/or 24-105 f/4 if they were VR or VRII. Instead I voted for other lenses. IMHO anything that has a range that extends above 50mm should have VR….

  • Nikonuser

    Very strange…



    We’ve had convincing rumors on a lot of lenses lately. All of them can’t possily be coming within the next year. It will be interesting to see over the next 6 months which are really coming soon and which aren’t.

    • WoutK89

      2010, the year of the lens boom?

  • Chuck O

    I like wide prime lenses. I’m looking for improvements in image quality. Not f 1.4 max aperture.

  • Gerry

    I would buy the 100-500 right now… My 80-400 just isnt cutting it anymore with the focus…. I think the image quality is quite good though.

  • johnny

    And the new 2x teleconverter is named TC-20E III

  • Bob

    More DX f2.8. Now that Canon’s 7D has established DX is here to stay as a serious format, Nikon will need a good D400 and proper lenses.

    • zeeGerman

      Well, which 2.8 would you like? 2.8 should be telelenses, where I’d be happy to use FX on a DX sensor. But I agree that there needs to be an ultra wide prime, and a decent standard zoom, apart from the 17-55mm.
      basically something like the 16-85mm, but as with a constant f/4 aperture and decent weather sealing.

  • zeeGerman

    I’d throw a 28mm f/1.8 or 2, as an affordable alternative to yet imaginary 24mm f/1.4, as I believe that this lens will have price tag between 1700 and 2000 Dollars.

  • Zorro

    I’ll probably get put in the stocks for this, but …

    I’d like a quality but affordable AF-S DX 24mm f2.8 lens for my D40. (I’m very happy with the 16-85 on my D90).

  • As an architectural photographet I miss a 17 mm FX PC-lens in this row.

  • zen-tao

    Really, I can’t see any point in a f.1,4 wide-angle lens. It’s impossible to get nor noticeable or usefull “bukeh” (what a dumb word…) It’s meaningless an only increases the price of the lense at the expense of the optical quality. The lenses designers should focus their efforts to tweak the sharpness and aberrations of the actual pool of wide-angles. That’s the challenge not putting bigger lenses in order to increase the price.
    I think that wide angles philosophy is to reach very large deep of field, angle of coberture and the suggestive or expresionist look. But looking for out-focus I dont know… perhaps with a 50 mm. f:1,4 affordable and sharpness we can get more.

    • Pat Mann

      F/1.4 is two stops faster – two shutter speeds faster – than f.2.8 typical zooms and Nikon’s current wide primes. That’s the difference between 1/8 second and 1/30 second for a dimly lit shot of people at work or having fun – very significant for interiors, night shots, etc. It’s the difference between 1/500 and 1/125 in a gymnasium or stadium for someone shooting action with moderate levels of interior lighting. For the person who shoots available light in these conditions, the extra speed is worth every penny.

      The image quality doesn’t have to suffer with higher speed. The Leica f/1.4 Summicrons are every bit as sharp as the slower lenses at the same apertures, and quite respectably sharp at f/1.4.

      Autofocus mechanisms can also be faster and more precise at the limits of performance with more light coming through the optics as well.

      These may not be reasons for you, but they are reasons for me and many others to seek faster lenses.

  • taurui

    I’d love nikon to release a 24-70/2.8 VR (I or II, doesn’t matter)

    • WoutK89

      VR-I is probably dead

  • donde?

    They will all be expensive anyway and I wouldn’t buy them. A 24 1.4, wow, that would be nice to have… unless you have to pay for it. I don’t see any point in Nikon releasing new lenses given their extremely high price tag.

    I voted 100-500 VR because a telezoom is the only thing that I’m interested right now. But anyway it will be at least as expensive as the 80-400 which is already a very very hard decision.

    • WoutK89

      if only they had a lens longer than the 70-300, and up to date, I would have bought it 2 years ago, but it took far too long, so I spend it somewhere else 😀

  • Roland

    My dreamlens for my D700 would be à 28-200mm f3,5-5.6 AF-S ED VRII to replace my trusty 28-200 3,5-5,6 AF-D

  • Sea

    I want a 18-70 (28-105) f2.8 ! Who needs f4 ???? no depth of field, you can’t use it to shoot portrait at 105 !

    • zeeGerman

      if you take a portrait, with 70mm @ 2.8 and 105mm @4, and the head takes both times the same space in your frame, the 105mm will separate your object just as good, even a ted better.
      For me the question is rather, why 2.8? Not fast enough for low light, not open enough to separate the subject. A 2.8 zoom just doesn’t replace a 1.4 prime. So, why not a more versatile f/4 zoom?

      • Jack

        I’m with zeeGerman… I owned both the 70-200’s in Canon (f4 and f2.8)… I liked the f4 FAR better… it was as sharp as the other at 2.8, smaller, built as well, and a hell of a lot cheaper. F2.8 really just isnt THAT fast, especially considering the high iso capabilities of FF cameras today (I shoot d700). I have F2 and F1.4 for low light… I’d like something to carry around that doesn’t weigh a ton or doesn’t suck.

  • Am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that “prime” and “zoom” are opposites? I always thought “prime” was short for “primary”, and that the 18-55mm was at least as good a prime as the 35mm. (And also my prime has more primes than your prime: 19, 23, 27, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53).

    Want an alternative? How about “fixie”, like the bicycle world uses for bikes that can’t change ratios?

    Just a rant. I’ve gradually come to accept other changes in our language (although I still can’t come to grips with “its/it’s”). But still, *sigh*

  • VoreEroto

    Seems like you are a real expert. Did ya study about the subject? haha..

  • Daf

    Agreed – wide/ultra wide prime please.

    For me the 50mm 1.4 (lovely lens) is just a little too long on a DX.

    I’d guess that other than the cheap 50 1.8 (which is not so cheap any more!) most primes are bought by intermediate to advanced users and as such we try to avoid DX lenses just in case we upgrade soon.

    • Daf

      I meant to say – *FX* wide primes

  • Prakash

    100-500mm Long overdue.

  • Brandon

    Other then price, why does everyone complain about a f2.8 zoom instead of a f4 zoom. I thought no lens was its greatest at the far ends. Why not get a f2.8 and bump it up to f4. Just asking. All the glass I have is just fine for me maybe your needs are different, Im sure they are

    • zeeGerman

      f2.8 is also heavier, or if they have the same weight, the f4 zoom gives you a better range. Like canons 24-70mm f2.8 vs the 24-105mm f4 IS.
      My point is, that a zoom lens should be versatile and I feel like constant f4 gives you a fantastic trade off here.
      The 2.8 standard zooms aren’t versatile enough, for my taste, and they are not fast enough to replace any fast prime. Well the 14-24mm is sharp enough, and one can argue that it is fast enough for a wideangle lens. But I would much rather pair my 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 with a 24-105mm f/4 VR instead of the 24-70mm f/2.8.

  • PatMann

    DX wide primes, fast ones, please. How about a 28-mm equivalent prime for DX – that would be 18mm, f/2, f/1.8 or f/1.4. Much cheaper than an 18mm that has to cover FX, much more compact. And a 16mm or 18mm PC for DX. I’m serious about my DX camera, pleased with image quality and the potential smaller size of the whole kit, as long as I don’t have to pay for lenses that have to cover FX. Is that too much to ask? And how about a 9mm f/4?

  • Erik Lund

    Next could be a new 200mm 2.0 shorter MFD Nano coating carbon hood VRIII and tripodmount with integrated plate type RRS
    Noct-Nikkor with bokeh as the original and Nano coating 😉

  • Back to top