Lens wish list/prediction for the next year

At present I have D50 + 18-55DX + AF50/1.8 + Tokina12-24 + Tamron28-200
18-55DX: small, good value, but too slow and the FOV too boring

50/1.8: good value, but very often you have to stop down to F2.8 to get reasonable sharpness
Tokina12-24: very good. stays with D50 most of the time
Tamron28-200: the first time I know what is a "bad" lens

My D50 is 3 years old so I may get a D90 sometime next year, but I don't have any plan to upgrade to FX body in 3-4 years, so my wish list for Nikkor 2009:

DX 9mm F2.8 or F4: I like ultra-ultra wide FOV, accomplishing with 12-24 would be idea

AFS 50/1.4: well Nikon has it already

70-200 F4 VR: same optics as 70-200VR, but much lighter. I will get one for ~$1000

--
personal blog: http://solarinchina.spaces.live.com/

mesija said:

b) What could be released:

4) 35 f/1,8 or a bit slower FX -> normal range for DX users, also
usefully for full frame users
5) 80 (100)-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR-> not interesting to me, but I know many
would appreciate it
6) 24(28) - 105(135) f/4 VR -> walk around f/4 zoom for full frame users

Click to expand...

I second it completely, especially the last one, better if 24-135 !
35 and 135 should be on their own way... as well as 80-400
--
All the best
I'm on the NIK side of photography.

?

D5 said:

Markogts said:

What do you mean by "hint"? Is that an insider news? Or just your
speculation? Does this mean that there will be NO 300 f/4 VR for the
foreseeable future?
--
Overexposure happens.

Click to expand...

--
--------------------------------------
Nikon and Pro Nikkor Lenses.....

Click to expand...

--
http://www.rambohoho.com
http://www.pbase.com/rambohoho/

Wish list
16/17-55 F2 DX
16-70 F4 DX VR
55-200 F2.8 VR DX
28-200 F3.5-4.5/5.6 AF-S VR FX
24-85 F3.5-4.5 (or F4 ) AF-S VR FX

Not too wish to see list ( A full reproduction of FX lens of the DX 3.5-5.6 DX family , can we have F4 or F 3.5- F4.5 again ? )
e.g.
28-75 3.5-5.6 VR AF-S (FX version of 18-55 Af-S VR)
FX version of 18-70, 18-135 AF-S (no VR)

1. New 200 Micro with all the bells and whistles (VR, N, AFS). How much? $1800.

I've got the money earmarked already. That's it!
--
Rich Lanthier
Having fun with photos.

BatuKMan said:

My whish list:
[snip]
3) 70-200 f/4 VR - around €600

Click to expand...

YES!!! and keep it about 1.5lbs. If I could get a 60-250mm f/4 VR that weighted max 2 lbs that would be ideal. (especially if it autofocuses with the 1.7x TC)

BatuKMan said:

not a lens but:
SB-700 - same power than SB-900 but smaller - around €250

Click to expand...

Mostly I just want the switch for going into slave mode like the SB-900 has. That's briliant.

BatuKMan said:

I'll keep wishing probably.

Click to expand...

ditto. Especially cause I also want an AF-S VR 16-120mm f/2.8-4 N for USD$800.

-- NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

My wish is rather simple: a 2,8/135, lightweight, smalll and about $300 or less. This should not be a too difficult question, Nikon has its design probably on the shelf from several years ago. Just a little updating and I 'll be a happy camper!
--
Leen Koper
http://www.fotografieleenkoper.nl

The 200mm Micro-Nikkor is a dead certain, given Nikon has revamped all of the other macro lens in the lineup in the last two years (105mm, 60mm and 85mm PC). That, along with the VR super teles, and PC lenses, completes the "specialty" professional lenses that Nikon seem to have placed great emphasis on revamping to accompany the full frame professional bodies now in the marketplace.

The 80-400mm is a lens which is potentially very important in the advanced amateur FX market (especially given the recent Sony 70-400mm), so I suspect we will see an AF-S version in 2009.

The 24-120mm is another obvious candidate for a revamp, if Nikon want to keep a quality FX midrange standard zoom in the range.

Primes under 100mm is where the "methuselah" autofocus lenses hide. The 50mm is a good start, but an updated, large aperture 35mm or 28mm prime might be on the cards (and might just about satisfy the need for a DX standard prime).

DX is a lot harder to read. The range of standard zooms is pretty well fleshed out, with VR across the range, so I doubt we will see anything other than a cosmetic upgrade. The two obvious missing lenses are a DX quality constant aperture telephoto in the 50-135mm range and a standard or wide angle prime.

2007 and 2008 were record breaking years. Nikon haven't rolled out that many lenses over a 2 year period since the Autofocus and AIS introductions. Whether they can maintain that pace of development (and more importantly production), remains to be seen.

Markogts said:

... well, if it doesn't arrive, well, I'll just... keep on waiting :'-(

Click to expand...

VR is a big deal with telephotos and a film body. Now that we've got clean ISOs up to 3200 or more it seems like less of a priority, IMO. I've got an Auto-ISO setup for telephoto that keeps me out of ISOs that would require shooting at something like 1/350th or slower. Works like a charm. I know lots of people want it, but I see the current 300/4 as a pretty close to perfect lens right down to the old-school hood.

The perfect walking-around lens. Not too wide, but wider than a 50.

My wish list?

The 70-200AFS VR gets a price reduction to $50.
The 80-400 gets an update and a price reduction to $50.

avidday said:

The two obvious missing
lenses are a DX quality constant aperture telephoto in the 50-135mm
range

Click to expand...

There is little benefit it making telephoto lenses DX-only, zooms benefit somewhat more. But notice that their is no DX lens above 55 mm from any manufacturer (Four-thirds has some but nobody can really check whether they would cover a larger image circle).

There are a few I would like to see, right now the only one that I might buy in the near future is a 135mm. I might of course just get an old one if I don't like the new one and people start changing.
----
http://www.dazedproductions.co.uk

noirdesir said:

There is little benefit it making telephoto lenses DX-only, zooms
benefit somewhat more. But notice that their is no DX lens above 55
mm from any manufacturer

Click to expand...

Other than the ubiquitous 55-200 APS-C lenses that Canon, Sony, Nikon and Pentax all make (as well as Sigma). And the constant aperture f/2.8 50-135/150 telephotos that Sigma, Tokina and Pentax make. And probably others I can't recall right now.

There is an advantage in the short tele range for reduced image circle lens. The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 I use is about half the size and weight of an equivalent 70-200 f/2.8 full frame lens. And it doesn't cover the full 24x36 frame either.....

avidday said:

The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 I use is about half the size
and weight of an equivalent 70-200 f/2.8 full frame lens. And it
doesn't cover the full 24x36 frame either.....

Click to expand...

That's a really nice lens, IMO. Before I bought my D700 I looked at that lens and a D300 pretty seriously. At the end of the day I wanted to finally be able to trade lenses back and forth with my F5 and have them behave the same, but that 70-200mm is like a thermos.

That would be a 35/f2, a standard for focal lengths.

My holy trinity...
14-24/f4
24-100/f4 VR
70-200/f4 VR

Jim de Kort said:

That would be a 35/f2, a standard for focal lengths.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and I like the 35/2, but once you shoot with a 40mm lens for a while it really grows on you. Or at least it did on me. For years I had a 35/2 for my old OM-1n, but the 40/2...well, aside from being so compact...it was just "right" somehow. A while back I saw this essay about shooting at 40mm and really agreed with a lot of what was said.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/why-40mm.html

Nikon has a history of making way-out-there lenses like the 13mm full frame prime.

So I'd like to see something which addresses the lack of f/4 and is exotic:

22 - 95mm f/4 VR

avidday said:

noirdesir said:

There is little benefit it making telephoto lenses DX-only, zooms
benefit somewhat more. But notice that their is no DX lens above 55
mm from any manufacturer

Click to expand...

Other than the ubiquitous 55-200 APS-C lenses that Canon, Sony, Nikon
and Pentax all make (as well as Sigma). And the constant aperture
f/2.8 50-135/150 telephotos that Sigma, Tokina and Pentax make. And
probably others I can't recall right now.

Click to expand...

I did say above 55 mm, the starting focal length of all these lenses is not above 55 mm. It probably would have been clearer if I had said, no zoom lens with a starting focal length above 55 mm, but it should have been obvious that my use of the number 55 was targeted at specifically excluding these lenses.

avidday said:

There is an advantage in the short tele range for reduced image
circle lens. The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 I use is about half the size
and weight of an equivalent 70-200 f/2.8 full frame lens.

Click to expand...

And is it also half the size and weight of [full-frame] Nikon 75-150 mm f/3.5 (length 117 mm)



or a 50-135 mm f/3.5 (length 125 mm)