Reading mode: Light Dark

You Nikon lens wish list ?

Go to last post
S

svx94

Senior Member
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
22
Location
Minneapolis, MN, US
Just got a D700 after using a Canon 20D for about 4 years. I always like the Nikon body better, but now I feel the pain of lens choice. After read some bad reviews about 24-120VR, I decide to get a 24-85/2.8-4 and a 18-35.

I really hope Nikon bring up some VR lens for FF. The DX VR lenses are quite impressive, especially the 16-85 VR. Being a non-Pro user, I'd like to see the following:
1. 24-85/2.8-4 VR; or
2. 24-120/4 VR
3. 70-200/4 VR

The 24-70/2.8 is too heavy; expensive and without VR; the 70-200/2.8 VR is too heavy and doesn't seems good for FF (when used for landscape)

Hope I am not the only one :)
 
Good choices there.

I think Nikon made a bad decision in not having a similar offering like the 24-105mm f/4 IS from Canon.

I mean, they released a $3000 camera and pacakage it with a mediocre (by most accounts) consumer grade lens.

I'd love to see a re-design on the 24-85mm 2.8-4. That'd be awesome.
svx94 said:
Just got a D700 after using a Canon 20D for about 4 years. I always
like the Nikon body better, but now I feel the pain of lens choice.
After read some bad reviews about 24-120VR, I decide to get a
24-85/2.8-4 and a 18-35.

I really hope Nikon bring up some VR lens for FF. The DX VR lenses
are quite impressive, especially the 16-85 VR. Being a non-Pro user,
I'd like to see the following:
1. 24-85/2.8-4 VR; or
2. 24-120/4 VR
3. 70-200/4 VR

The 24-70/2.8 is too heavy; expensive and without VR; the 70-200/2.8
VR is too heavy and doesn't seems good for FF (when used for
landscape)

Hope I am not the only one :)
Click to expand...
--
I've upped my ISO, now up yours.
 
135mm f2.0, wish I had one.
--
Chuck Currey
 
svx94:

Why not try a lens for yourself, to determine whether or not it's good in meeting your needs -- that's exactly what I do, and as a result, I have a number of excellent Nikkor lenses; and, each and everyone of them meets my needs, including the Nikkor 24-120 VR lens that others have "trashed", :-)

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


svx94 said:
Just got a D700 after using a Canon 20D for about 4 years. I always
like the Nikon body better, but now I feel the pain of lens choice.
After read some bad reviews about 24-120VR, I decide to get a
24-85/2.8-4 and a 18-35.

I really hope Nikon bring up some VR lens for FF. The DX VR lenses
are quite impressive, especially the 16-85 VR. Being a non-Pro user,
I'd like to see the following:
1. 24-85/2.8-4 VR; or
2. 24-120/4 VR
3. 70-200/4 VR

The 24-70/2.8 is too heavy; expensive and without VR; the 70-200/2.8
VR is too heavy and doesn't seems good for FF (when used for
landscape)

Hope I am not the only one :)
Click to expand...
 
BRJR said:
svx94:

Why not try a lens for yourself, to determine whether or not it's
good in meeting your needs -- that's exactly what I do, and as a
result, I have a number of excellent Nikkor lenses; and, each and
everyone of them meets my needs, including the Nikkor 24-120 VR lens
that others have "trashed", :-)

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

Click to expand...
Thanks for your advice! I might.

I use the Canon 17-85mm IS, which received very poor review, and I am OK with it. I am watching used market on the 24-120 VR. The range and VR is really want I need for travel.

Cheers!
 
svx94:

Here's the link, and you will see the 24-120 VR lens listed. I find it such a useful walk around lens on the D700, during the daytime, that mine has seldom come off my D700, where it tends to live most of the time. For low light shooting, all one has to do, is simply carry a small Nikkor prime such as 50 1.4D/50 1.8D, 35/2D, or some other small fast prime for such needs. But, to think that Nikon would intentionally designate this lens as good enough for general use (and a Kit Lens, at that) on the D700, were it not so, is what caused me to purchase the lens anyway (contrary to 3rd party trashing of it). And, I agree with Nikon, it's a perfect general lens for my general-use/needs on my D700, either individually or as part of a lens kit with one or more additional lenses, from my collection of lenses --- actually, they all complement each other, IMO, depending on my intended use of a lens/carry needs; and, in this regard, the Nikkor 24-120 VR lens has not failed me, whatsoever, :-)

http://www.adoramarentals.com/ItemsDisplay.aspx?CategoryID=29

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


svx94 said:
BRJR said:
svx94:

Why not try a lens for yourself, to determine whether or not it's
good in meeting your needs -- that's exactly what I do, and as a
result, I have a number of excellent Nikkor lenses; and, each and
everyone of them meets my needs, including the Nikkor 24-120 VR lens
that others have "trashed", :-)

--
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
svx94 said:
Thanks for your advice! I might.

I use the Canon 17-85mm IS, which received very poor review, and I am
OK with it. I am watching used market on the 24-120 VR. The range
and VR is really want I need for travel.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
 
14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. The wishing part is waiting for the 14-24 to arrive.

Back into photgraphy after a 20 year lapse and looking forward to a lot of fun.
 
my wise list, in order:

70-200/2.8
24-70/2.8
300/2.8
400/2.8
200/2

Not that I really want anything too expensive;)
--
Sam
developer of Photo Parata the Event Photography Software
http://www.photoparata.com
 
I want to see the following, with nano-coating and AFS motors:
(in order of importance)
50/1.4
28/2
85/2
18/2.8 or 20/2.8
35/2

I know these are conservative apertures but they keep the size and price down, and I'm taking it for granted the lenses perform very well wide open.
 
There are 3 lenses that I want since I technically don't have them yet nor the D700, but soon to come.

1. 17-35 f/2.8
2. 70-200 f/2.8 vr
3. 50 f/1.4

and the wish list is...

1. 200 f/2 vr
2. 400 f/2.8 vr
3. 85 f/1.4
--
  • Anthony -
 
svx94 said:
Just got a D700 after using a Canon 20D for about 4 years. I always
like the Nikon body better, but now I feel the pain of lens choice.
After read some bad reviews about 24-120VR, I decide to get a
24-85/2.8-4 and a 18-35.

I really hope Nikon bring up some VR lens for FF.

Hope I am not the only one :)
Click to expand...
Since I rarely photograph still subjects at very low shutter speeds, VR isn't something I consider important - sorry!
What I would like to see from Nikon:
AF-S 24 f/1.4
AF-S 35 f/1.4
AF-S 50 f/1.4
AF-S 85 f/1.4
AF-S 105 f/2
AF-S 135 f/2
AF-S 35-105 f/2.8
New AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR optimized for FX
AF-S 120-300 f/2.8
 
BRJR said:
svx94:

Here's the link, and you will see the 24-120 VR lens listed. I find
it such a useful walk around lens on the D700, during the daytime,
that mine has seldom come off my D700, where it tends to live most of
the time. For low light shooting, all one has to do, is simply carry
a small Nikkor prime such as 50 1.4D/50 1.8D, 35/2D, or some other
small fast prime for such needs. But, to think that Nikon would
intentionally designate this lens as good enough for general use (and
a Kit Lens, at that) on the D700, were it not so, is what caused me
to purchase the lens anyway (contrary to 3rd party trashing of it).
And, I agree with Nikon, it's a perfect general lens for my
general-use/needs on my D700, either individually or as part of a
lens kit with one or more additional lenses, from my collection of
lenses --- actually, they all complement each other, IMO, depending
on my intended use of a lens/carry needs; and, in this regard, the
Nikkor 24-120 VR lens has not failed me, whatsoever, :-)

http://www.adoramarentals.com/ItemsDisplay.aspx?CategoryID=29

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

Click to expand...
Thanks for your "influnce" again :) I bought an used 24-120 VR and will compare it with the 24-85/2.8-4 and decide which one to keep. The VR is quite important to me and I am so used to it (Canon IS).

Cheers!
 
Either BRJR has been very lucky with his copy of the 24-120 VR, or it performs so much better with FX than with DX. Both the copies I tried (on DX bodies) had poor IQ, even compared to the humble 18-70. So if you're contemplating it, be sure to test it thoroughly.

About the 70-200 VR, I can understand if you think it's too big. It is a rather heavy chunk of glass to lug around, even if I personally never found it too heavy, or as intimidating as many people report - eye contact and a smile, before or after the fact, will take you a long way when doing e.g. street photography with it. But even if it's presently the "poorest" lens of "the holy trinity" (the others being the 14-24 and the 24-70), it's still a stellar performer. I'm pretty sure Nikon knew about its (minor) shortcomings on FX bodies long before the reviews commenting FF performance started to surface, and I'm equally sure that and updated version, fully FX compatible and with VR II and Nano Coating, is in the near future (just don't ask me to define "near future" in more specific terms).

In wish list terms, an AF-S 24 f/1.4 with Nano Coating would be on the top of mine. With the newest Nikon zooms being so amazingly good, and my rarely having the need for faster lenses than 2.8, I haven't really been into primes, except for macro. But 24 mm is exactly the outer FL limit, down or up, of several of the esteemed Nikon lenses (12-24 DX, 14-24, 24-70), and the present 24 mm prime doesn't seem to deserve a place in Nikon's Hall of Fame (even if I haven't personally tried it). I know from personal experience that 24 mm isn't where the otherwise exceptional 24-70 shines, so a fast 24 mm prime would get my vote, were I ever invited to the Nikon board room.

Best of luck with your choices.

Grelber
 
Thanks again for all the feedbacks. I got both the 24-85 and 24-120, and did a comparasion, I think I will keep the 24-120 VR because the IQ is close at F8 up, and for the F8 down, I don't like neither lens' performance. I didn't get the 24-70/2.8 because lack of VR. I hope Nikon will bring a prosummer grade standard VR lens just like the 16-85 on APS-C, or the Canon 24-105/4 IS. And I really hope Nikon can match the Canon 70-200/4 L IS.

BTW, the old 18-35 perform beautifully, I like it a lot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top