How many people have bought the sigma 30mm 1.4 DX ?
The Sigma 30/1.4 is a $400 lens. The Nikon 28/1.4 is a
$1,800 lens. The proposed Nikon 24/1.4 is going to check
in at a minimum of that price. That isn't apples and oranges.
That is bananas and BMWs. I have no trouble agreeing that
the Sigma 30/1.4 is selling like hotcakes. I just don't think
that indicates demand for a much more expensive lens.
I've always been so happy with my 17-35, I've never
really paid any attention to all the f2.8 primes. And I
still won't unless it's the 14mm .... they're too slow.
I agree. I, too, have the 17-35 and see no need for any
primes in that range. I'd love the 14/2.8 but can't come up
with a legitimate reason to spend the money.
Trying to distinguish need from want is futile at best.
Exactly, which is why I think pre-sales would be such
a good idea.
Down here in South Florida, we have people putting
down hard money on condos before permits are even
issued by the city. Half the units are sold before ground
is even broken. Those pre-sales fund construction.
If Nikon really wanted to see where wants and needs
are located, they'd allow people to put money down on
these exotic lens. Once there are enough deposits to
make building the lens cost effective, they'd let the
production line run.
Maybe Nikon is just production constrained?
If I'm reading Thom Hogan correctly, I think that is
absolutely an issue.
maybe they worry that selling an expensive DX wide angle
and then eventually releasing a FF body is a bad idea?
That would be at the top of my concerns list. I certainly
wouldn't want to produce a DX format lens if I knew a
full-frame camera was on the horizon. The same folks who
are going to drop $7,000 (or whatever) on a D3FF are the
folks who will want a full-frame 24/1.4.
But still, 4 primes under 200mm in 10 years?? .....
I think part of the problem is the misconception that if
a lens isn't updated every couple of years, it is hopelessly
useless. I'm not putting those words in your mouth, by the
way, but that is often the undercurrent of discussions.
I have a Nikon 16/3.5, 24/2.8 (two), 35/2, 50/1.8
(series E), 55/3.5, 105/2.5, 135/2, 180/2.8, 300/4.5 and
500/8. Each of them works just as well today (optically,
they are all manual focus) as when I got them. That's
the beauty of Nikon. If I didn't have Nikon's 17-35 and
70-200, I'd still be using these fixed-length manual lenses.
I do still use the 300mm.
Just because Nikon isn't currently selling the lenses new
doesn't mean you can't get them. Just because they are
30 years old (my 24 is from 1968) doesn't mean they
should be thrown out and replaced.
The bulk of the auto focus lenses Nikon has produced
since the 1990s are just fine for use on DX format cameras.
That's 15 or so years worth of glass. If you're fine with
manual focus lenses, you have over 35 years worth of
glass. There is plenty of choice out there for Nikon bodies.
It may not be at the right price point but that has always
been the case when it comes to Nikon.
you'll never convince me nikon shouldn't be cranking
out something down here ...
Personally, I'd love to see Nikon produce some fast
fixed-length lenses just to end the complaining and
because they are works of art and I like to touch them.
That said, I'm not sure people would be willing to pay
the high price.
Surprised me really. I've always been so happy with my 17-35, I've never really paid any attention to all the f2.8 primes. And I still won't unless it's the 14mm .... they're too slow.