So what will come first Thom - the chicken or the egg? (Lenses or new bodies)

Mel · May 17, 2009

We all "want" the most we can get for the least we have to pay. If people are truly honest with themselves, this, in a nutshell, is the problem.

I just can't imagine that anyone would really believe (as was done early on) that Nikon would offer a D3X quality/level camera at the 5DII price point? These camera's are "not" equal. The same goes for the optics here. Do we really believe that Nikon or Canon, is going to offer us a 2.8 quality lens for 3.5 or 4.0 level pricing? And on top of that, have that lens be as good or better than the current 2.8 (same focal length) lens out there? I would love to see where the quality of these lens is equal or better than 2.8?

Complaining about the weight and bulk is one thing. Valid and a definite pain for some. But somehow matching these lens as equal for quality? Not happening. Not yet anyway.

You know, the funny thing is that, during this economic melt down where we expect "companies" to open the flood gates and bascially reduce everything in consideration of the times. We ourselves are still asking top dollar for our products we as photographers produce. Where is our reduction to help the economy?
--
Mel
http://www.mellockhartphotography.zenfolio.com
http://www.mellockhartphotography.net

joeyv · May 17, 2009

Thom Hogan said:
Thom Hogan said:

People who feel the need to buy a d700x are either professionals

Click to expand...

The professionals I think we can dismiss. They are small in overall
number and already have plenty of lenses.

The D700x is a pro level camera and will be priced as such. I would think that professionals will be its main target market.

Thom Hogan said:
This is where we run into some problems. First of all, some of those
serious amateurs are moving from DX and very well may not have a
24-70mm (it's not a particularly useful focal range on DX, IMHO).

C'mon Thom, while you could say this for the 28-70, the 24-70 (dx= 36-105mm.) is a very useful range for dx users. Very sharp lens with good bokeh, it's a good FL for people and event photographers. Even for indoor sports.

And

Thom Hogan said:
the 70-200mm f/2.8 has some clear issues on FX. Moreover, beyond the
committed amateurs (who've probably already bought a D700 or D3), you
want to encourage the not-yet-FX-committed ones to switch. More
options are good. No options are bad.

Options are always good. The contention is not about Nikon coming out w/ f4 zooms, it's about what lenses they should bring out with the d700x. A nikon ad. with a picture of the d700x with a 24-105/f4 lens attached to it would really look inappropriate. Would make the product look not made for professional usage to me.

Nikon should make good and affordable f4 zooms but they should announce that when they introduce a good and affordable body (like replacement to D90), not when they announce a pro level camera like the d700x. Like for like, apples to apples. Why pair a d700x, a pro camera w/c will be priced accordingly, with a semi-pro lens. Doesn't sound like good marketing to me.

joeyv

PhotoTraveler · May 17, 2009

A high quality F4 zoom is less likely to need to be stopped down as much as a F2.8 to get optimal sharpness.

If you had 2 zooms, one an F2.8 and one an F4, built to the same basic build and quality levels, they probably both hit their best around the same aperture.

Look at super fast primes, they are rarely better than their slower brothers and sisters when it comes to stopping them down a bit to sharpen them up.

Kerry Pierce · May 17, 2009

photonut2008 said:
Kerry Pierce said:

First of all, you need to decide whether or not the majority of
nikon's user base is DX or FX. From there, you can extrapolate which
group will make the most purchases of lenses.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

I don't see how it could be any other way. If 90% of nikon's installed base is comprised of DX users, they will most certainly comprise the majority of lens purchasers.

photonut2008 said:
gear. Then there's enticing DX users to upgrade to FX format, and
that is harder when you tell them it's not only more expensive and
heavier, but they will also have to give up something they had with
DX -- an affordable, quality mid-range zoom.

Well, nikon could do it the canon way, by simply ignoring the wants and needs of DX users. The affordable mid-range zoom is only 1 small piece of that puzzle.

photonut2008 said:
Anyway, we already have numerous DX lenses that FX users do not; for
instance, I just ordered a 10.5 fisheye today and that's a lens that
FX cannot match.

I'm not talking about DX specific lenses. I'm talking about the vast majority of nikon's installed base, which is DX "users" who will buy both DX and FX lenses.

photonut2008 said:
Here's the point of the discussion which you dismiss. Someone is
looking at a 5DII and a walkaround lens and comparing it to a "D700x"
and a walkaround lens -- if they give it serious consideration they
choose the Canon, especially when they start thinking about two
walkaround lenses (70-200/4).

Yes, I dismiss that out of hand. The number of people that are choosing between brands based on that simple criteria is statistically irrelevant, too small to worry about in the overall scheme of things. There are a few million others that are already nikon users and their wants/needs should come first. To suggest that the d700x is now all important to nikon and that it, and by extension nikon, will fail without an updated 24-120, is illogical and absurd.

photonut2008 said:
You keep proposing DX instead of FX.

I keep talking about DX users, not DX lenses. I don't recall having proposed a DX lens in this thread, or any thread, for that matter. The only lens I've ever proposed that could be DX specific, would be a ~~40-120 f/2, but I don't see any reason for that lens to be DX specific.~~

photonut2008 said:
Words are important, and I think you are the one playing "silly word
games".

No, I am not. I think that my words have been very clear and direct, without hidden meaning. That you don't like what I've said, doesn't alter that fact.

photonut2008 said:
When you say "cheap" you clearly imply something is not very
good

My intent was to convey the meaning of something not as good as something else. In spite of Thom's assertions, I see no reason to believe that a 5x zoom would be as good or better than the 24-70, especially at a significantly cheaper price. I believe that if it could be made as good as or better than the 24-70, the price difference would be insignificant. The bottom line is that I believe that a top dollar camera should be used with top lenses, support systems and technique. To do otherwise is foolish. That is what I believe. Now, you are free to derive any "implication" you desire from that.

photonut2008 said:
(you even went so far as to describe such a lens as a
"necklace"),

I did not. I described the d700x with a "cheap" lens on it, as being a necklace, meaning that the owner is more concerned about owning a status symbol (the d700x) than getting the most out of the camera.

photonut2008 said:
all knew what you meant when you chose to write "cheap" instead of
less expensive.

PC think and speak isn't important to me. What "you all" knew when I wrote cheap, is an assumption, rather than knowledge.

photonut2008 said:
Not only is the lack of such a lens detrimental to "D700x" sales, it
is also detrimental to D700 sales -- and that has been my point from
the beginning of my participation in this thread.

I got that from you, from the beginning. We disagree, strongly. That's nothing new.

photonut2008 said:
Funny, you can't name a single lens that would sell more copies (you
replied "dunno" above to that very question)

Nonsense. That isn't the question you asked me. You asked this question " 1. What DX lens is going to sell more copies and encourage more DSLR sales by virtue of its availability?"

I have no idea as to what new or updated DX lens would sell more copies and encourage more dslr sales, because of it's availability. I haven't talked about DX specific lenses and I don't believe that any single lens is responsible for the significant sales of any dslr. I do believe that the prominent lenses I've mentioned, several times now, such as an updated 80-400 or 300 f/4, would sell more copies by themselves, than an updated 24-120.

photonut2008 said:
and then you claim you
represent the majority and that there is a more pressing need that
has not been met for them.

Since you seem to deny that claim, show your evidence. I've already pointed at the lens forum and the numerous requests for lots of lenses there. I don't recall that an updated 24-120 is a priority (indeed it is rarely even mentioned for updating) among the usual suspects that are listed. I am quite confident that the updated/new lenses that I've mentioned several times in this thread, are a much higher priority to more those complaining users in the lens forum, than the 24-120.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

Bill Fagan · May 17, 2009

How do we rationalize the fact that almost all of the better Nikon lenses are significantly more expensive than Canon equivalents? I do not dispute your theory about the "D700x" and requisite lenses. Nikon is just more expensive anyway.

jeremypayne · May 17, 2009

Member said:
Member said:

Member said:

a 2.8 quality lens for 3.5 or 4.0 level pricing?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Huh? I think you are missing something here.

A f2.8 isn't necessarily "better quality" than an f4 because it opens up to f2.8 ... it might be better at auto-focusing in low light and obviously opens up wider ... but there is no reason to expect a "2.8" to outperform an "4" just because it is "faster".

90% of what I shoot is from f5.6 to f16 ... with most of that at f8-f10. Why do I need a 2.8?

A "2.8" is big and heavy (and expensive) because it is fast.

An "equivalent" f4 would be lighter and smaller ... and could certainly perform as well or better than the current lineup of "2.8s".

So ... "YES" ... I expect and want Nikon to eventually meet the desire many, many Nikon landscape shooters have for quality lenses that are smaller and lighter.

coudet · May 17, 2009

If they announced

28/1.4
50/1.2
85/1.4
135/2

all with AFS, I know one Nikon user who would welcome that kind of prioritization.

In fact, that would give me almost everything I could possibly want from Nikon.

But, yeah, I'll agree with you that it's a smaller group that wants this announced, which doesnt mean Nikon should completely ignore the need for those lenses. Canon sure isnt.

Thom Hogan said:
How many of those did Nikon ever sell? You really have to need the
f/1.4 and the high ISO capabilities of the DSLRs have lessened that
need from what it was in film. A replacement for this would be warmly
received by the small group that wants it, no doubt. But if that was
the next lens out and all the other greater needs weren't met, there
would be howls from Nikon users. Imagine that Nikon announced the
following lenses with the D700x in August and said "that's it for
this year":

28mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.2
105mm f/2 DC AF-S
180mm f/2.8 AF-S VR

A nice set of lenses, right? Think that would keep the howls from
occurring? I don't. I think there might be demonstrations at Nikon
headquarters over that kind of prioritization.

Waldo_O · May 17, 2009

Kerry Pierce said:
Thom Hogan said:

Kerry Pierce said:

Then I don't understand your point of contention. The 24mp cam needs
better technique and support to significantly distinguish itself from
12mp. Correct?

Click to expand...

If you're trying to extract every ounce of available quality, sure.

Click to expand...

What is the point of buying such an expensive camera, if you're not
trying to significantly distinguish the shots from it and shots that
you could get from a considerably cheaper 12mp cam?

Kerry Pierce said:

Kerry Pierce said:

So, even if this mythical 24-120 could outperform the
24-70, the difference in weight and size is meaningless to most
users, when you're lugging all that other stuff around.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's a non sequitur, which we'll get to in a moment...

Click to expand...

Hey Kerry, have you tried the 18-105 VR kit lens? And if so (on a DX body of course), do you think the 24-120 VR is a better lens? I used a 18-105 today on a D90 at an amusement park today, colors, contrast, sharpness, all exceeded what I would have expected from a lens in this price range.

Yet maybe the point I'm really trying to make is that I was able to carry one lens, and one lens only. It was generally both wide & long enough on the D90 for anything I needed it for, so bringing along a DSLR for the day was a pleasurable, trouble free experience.

I deleted text here to keep under 6000 characters btw.

Kerry Pierce said:
Kerry Pierce said:

repeating "it all adds up." If I do not need f/2.8, I don't care to
carry an extra half pound for that lens, an extra half pound for this
lens, an extra half pound for the other lens. Indeed, one of the
reasons why I want a D700x is to stop carrying the extra half pound
of the D3x!

Click to expand...

For you and the small number of people like you, that makes sense.
It doesn't make sense for the majority. Photographers with
disabilities are more sensitive to weight/size issues than most
people, and that is on a daily basis. Yet I know of disabled,
serious photogs that use f/2.8 glass and heavy tripods and don't
worry about trying to save a few ounces.

If I had taken along my D700 for the day, I really don't see how it could have helped with my outdoor pictures as one example. I was stopping the lens down in the f/8 to f/9 range mostly anyways so a f/2.8 lens would have given me no big advantages, also, I do not have a single FX lens with near the flexibility of the 18-105 on a DX body, nor do I have plans on buying the current 24-120 VR.

Kerry Pierce said:
Your issues are primarily when you travel to exotic places or hike 20
miles into never-never-land. Most normal people can't afford to
constantly travel to exotic places and/or buy expensive gear to take
photos when they arrive in never-never-land. You should be happy that
you have the ability to do those things, even with heavy lenses.

Kerry Pierce said:

Kerry Pierce said:

If not, they need a priority list.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Where I suspect we'll disagree is on the priorities
; ).

Click to expand...

Yes, apparently and surprisingly so.

Kerry Pierce said:

Kerry Pierce said:

So, if nikon's lenses are not the absolute best available on FX,
compared to any maker, at any price, they're just garbage that needs
replaced immediately?

Click to expand...

Actually, sort of.

Click to expand...

I don't see the point in that. Perfection is very, very costly. If
nikon only made perfect lenses, who would buy them? There is the
point of diminishing returns. For sake of argument, let's say that
nikon's 24-70 is the top of the heap, a truly stellar lens, but costs
$3.5k. Canon's 24-70 is "merely" 85% of nikon's offering, simply a
very, very good lens, but only costs $1.5k. Who is going to win the
market share battle in that scenario? But, that's a pointless
argument.

The main concern is, or should be, first keeping your installed base
happy and then trying to expand upon your installed base. To do that,
you have to keep prices reasonable, within the grasp of your target
market. That means imperfect lenses and bodies, with reasonable price
tags, for the majority of the dslr market.

Kerry Pierce said:

Kerry Pierce said:

Forget about the lenses that DX users want?

Click to expand...

I never said it would be easy ; ). Canon's APS line shows neglect, so
it's not like Nikon is doing far worse.

Click to expand...

LOL, that's not very encouraging at all, but is exactly the point I
made about why I chose nikon over canon. Until recently, I had no
reason to doubt that choice. Now, the line between the 2 companies
seems to be less clear, and not because canon has improved things for
the majority of their users.......

Kerry Pierce said:

But three of Nikon's six last
cameras have been FX, after all. That indicates body-wise they intend
to have a two-size lineup. The last six lenses are more interesting
in this regard:

Click to expand...

Lots of FX and/or exotic lenses have been introduced in recent times.
Lots of cheap consumer zooms in the same time period. We're talking
about the same problem, basically. Where are the lenses for the
masses? Where we disagree is that the d700x has a need for the
24-120 f/4 that is paramount.

I think we have disagreed on this before, but I happen to think that it is paramount to release a newer, better lens of this type and ASAP. I don't know much about the Canon 24-105/4 other than a local photog who does school photos in the town I live in uses one. On two seperate occasions I've noticed that lens was the only one he used, so I'm assuming it's capable enough if used properly.

Everything else you mentioned is between you and Thom, but I happen to agree with him in that if the 24-120 VR is the best compact FX zoom in this range they have to offer, then what's the big hurry on releasing a D700x, or any other new 'affordable' FX cameras for that matter?

Keith

M Lammerse · May 17, 2009

Sure no problem,

It was probable a DX camera (no visible FX logo) it has a round viewfinder eyepiece and they (at least 2 Japanese photographers) were trying out it's movie functionality on a tripod.

Michel

AlexanderVC said:
Well, that is a bit of a tease. Can you give us a few more hints?
Say, the color of the feathers? Or the size of the eggs?

~ Disclaimer: Posts written by me are my views, ideas and opinions only, and should not be taken as facts, unless stated otherwise.

~
~ Light is eveything ~

http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda

photonut2008 · May 17, 2009

Kerry Pierce said:
I don't see how it could be any other way. If 90% of nikon's installed base is comprised of DX users, they will most certainly comprise the majority of lens purchasers.

Don't take things out of context to bolster your argument, that just makes you look weak. You deliberately cut out:

Kerry Pierce said:
Kerry Pierce said:

Take consumer models for instance, they buy one or two lenses, and half of that number is the kit lens that came with the camera. Also, volume is only one part of the equation, profit margin is the other and there's more profit selling more expensive gear.

Click to expand...

Kerry Pierce said:
I'm not talking about DX specific lenses. I'm talking about the vast majority of nikon's installed base, which is DX "users" who will buy both DX and FX lenses.

I'm tired of your dissembling replies. You wrote (and I will quote it again for you), "Putting out a fancy, expensive, new lens for the relatively small number of d700x users, without addressing the lens needs of the DX user base is a much bigger mistake, IMO." You also wrote (and I will also quote that for you, AGAIN), "The d700x market is going to be a lot smaller than the d700 market. This looks like the tail wagging the dog, to me." I asked you a simple question, "Why wouldn't smaller mid-range zooms be useful on a D700?" Ever since then you have been arguing the the 24-120 or the 18-200 are all that is needed and your arguments don't withstand any serious scrutiny.

Kerry Pierce said:
I've already pointed at the lens forum and the numerous requests for lots of lenses there. I don't recall that an updated 24-120 is a priority (indeed it is rarely even mentioned for updating) among the usual suspects that are listed. I am quite confident that the updated/new lenses that I've mentioned several times in this thread, are a much higher priority to more those complaining users in the lens forum, than the 24-120.

I've seen lots of posts about f/4 zooms, it's a common reason users choose Canon and a common request from Nikon users. Check the profiles of Canon users and you'll see a lot of f/4 zooms; I wouldn't be surprised if you saw more f/4 zooms than f/2.8 zooms. Here for example: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=31869407 is a recent thread at the Canon Lens Forum, and the current count is seven recommendations (one with reservations) for the 24-105 against two recommendations (one slightly ambiguous) for the 24-70, and two recommended neither.

What does Art Wolfe shoot with? He says here: http://blog.artwolfe.com/category/equipment/ "More than half of my images are shot with either the 16-35f 2.8 Mk2 or the 70-200 f4, which is just as sharp as the much heavier and more expensive 2.8 version."

Kerry Pierce said:
I do believe that the prominent lenses I've mentioned, several times now, such as an updated 80-400 or 300 f/4, would sell more copies by themselves, than an updated 24-120.

It isn't just about updating the 24-120 (although it is glaring by virtue of its weakness), it's about Nikon coming out with a full line of f/4 zooms. It isn't just about how many copies of any one of those lenses sells, it is about the synergy having them provides to sales of FX DSLRs like the D700. A full line of f/4 zooms would probably stimulate even more D700 sales than "D700x" sales, and the profits from the increased sales of both those lenses and those cameras is not statistically insignificant.
--
Anthony Beach

PhotoTraveler · May 17, 2009

No, a D700X ad with a 4/24-105G AFS VR would get a ton of people jumping up and down for joy.

The D700 line is a Semi-Pro body. Used by advanced amatures and pro's alike. A 4/24-105 can very much be a pro lens.

Most canon 5Ds sold probably get sold with 24-105s with them, doesn't hurt sales.

Why is it so hard for people to accept a 4/24-105 lens can and very likely would be a very pro lens. Fast aperture is not a pre-requisit for being a pro lens.

joeyv said:
Options are always good. The contention is not about Nikon coming out
w/ f4 zooms, it's about what lenses they should bring out with the
d700x. A nikon ad. with a picture of the d700x with a 24-105/f4 lens
attached to it would really look inappropriate. Would make the
product look not made for professional usage to me.

lanef · May 17, 2009

PhotoTraveler said:
A high quality F4 zoom is less likely to need to be stopped down as
much as a F2.8 to get optimal sharpness.

If both are of high quality, the f4 on the 2.8 will be better than the f4 of the f4

PhotoTraveler said:
If you had 2 zooms, one an F2.8 and one an F4, built to the same
basic build and quality levels, they probably both hit their best
around the same aperture.

Not at f4. read more about optics and how when you stop down you use the sweet spot of the lens, saying the opposite is just saying that the sweet spot of a lens is a myth.

http://www.pbase.com/lanef/galleries

jeremypayne · May 18, 2009

photonut2008 said:
photonut2008 said:

photonut2008 said:

A full line of f/4 zooms would probably stimulate even more D700 sales than "D700x" sales, and the profits from the increased sales of both those lenses and those cameras is not statistically insignificant.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Amen ... I'm not buying any more new lenses until Nikon releases some f/4 zooms.

I'm a serious non-pro who owns a D700. I MIGHT buy a D700x, but I really have no need.

I have a much bigger need for a 70-200 f/4 that's lighter and smaller than the 70-200 f/2.8 and sharp corner to corner on an FX body.

I'll understand if they update the 70-200 2.8 for FX, but I won't buy it.

Gweeds · May 18, 2009

PhotoTraveler said:
No, a D700X ad with a 4/24-105G AFS VR would get a ton of people
jumping up and down for joy.

Absolutely. I can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

Unless they're confusing their personal wants with those of the rest of the world....

--

'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' - Elliott

Erwitt | 'It's no good saying 'hold it' to a moment in real life.' - Lord Snowdon

Thom Hogan · May 18, 2009

Kerry Pierce said:
What is the point of buying such an expensive camera, if you're not
trying to significantly distinguish the shots from it and shots that
you could get from a considerably cheaper 12mp cam?

You make no allowance for achieving something better than the 12mp camera can, but less than the 24mp camera can achieve. I actually suspect that most of the photos taken by a D3x fall into that category ; ).

Kerry Pierce said:
AFAIK, most users have no issue with a few ounce
difference in the total weight of their gear, which can easily total
many pounds. Do you dispute that?

Yes. One of the most common complaints I see in my periodic surveys is that high-end camera equipment has gotten too big and too heavy.

Kerry Pierce said:
OTOH, what is the weight, size, cost and performance difference
between the 200-400vr or the 400 f/2.8 and the 80-400?

Are you trying to argue my point now? I've said for a long time that Nikon needs an 80-400mm update. But to be specific, the three lenses you note there would present three different quality levels, with each increase in quality coming at the expense of size, weight, and price. This is EXACTLY the reason why the 24-70mm as the only reasonable mid-range zoom solution for FX right now doesn't work.

What I see emerging from your arguments is that you want some telephoto love, and you want it before anything else. That's why I asked what your lens priorities were and in what order. I don't deny that Nikon needs those lenses, too. The question is whether or not long telephoto options are the "core" market. Core first, specialty later.

Kerry Pierce said:
Kerry Pierce said:

But implicit in your comment is that you
can't handhold a 24mp camera and get better pictures than a 12mp
camera.

Click to expand...

Correct. I don't believe that there are many people that could do
that and demonstrate a significant difference.

You would be wrong. But it takes the right lens, and a 24-120mm isn't it. Indeed, I'm not sure the 24-70mm is it, either. But I can certainly demonstrate just that with the 14-24mm.

Kerry Pierce said:
And by extension, you are saying that everyone or even most people
are like you and can do the same? I predict the answer to that
question will be no. More importantly, can most people hand hold any
camera and get better photos than they can with a good support
system? Again, I predict the answer to that question will be no.

What people "can do" and what they should "be able to do" are two different things. You can't do it if it isn't possible. You might not be able to do it if it is possible, but at least you have the option of trying and/or learning. This is actually why I say that a D700x without something replacing the 24-120mm is a big problem for Nikon: they would be setting up a group of people who buy the camera for complete failure. Why would you do that to a customer?

Kerry Pierce said:
Your issues are primarily when you travel to exotic places or hike 20
miles into never-never-land.

While that's what I do, my issues would be the same if I were using and carrying a camera for eight hours a day, unless, I suppose, I was such a well known and expensive photographer that I had five assistants carrying my gear for me and setting it up everywhere. Moreover, I'm going to say this again: you're better off with more weight and mass in your support system than in the things that you put on top of it, no matter what. So if you're going to carry X pounds, you want to allocate as much of X to the support system, not the lens.

Kerry Pierce said:
I don't see the point in that. Perfection is very, very costly. If
nikon only made perfect lenses, who would buy them?

Everyone ; ). I will point out that in virtually every lens that Nikon has put out recently, it outperforms the competition, and often by very visible levels. That's true even of the inexpensive 35mm f/1.8G, which I think is a slightly better lens optically than the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The interesting place where Nikon doesn't achieve that is, you guessed it, mid-range FX zooms.

Kerry Pierce said:
There is the
point of diminishing returns. For sake of argument, let's say that
nikon's 24-70 is the top of the heap, a truly stellar lens, but costs
$3.5k. Canon's 24-70 is "merely" 85% of nikon's offering, simply a
very, very good lens, but only costs $1.5k. Who is going to win the
market share battle in that scenario? But, that's a pointless
argument.

Yes, it's quite pointless, because it isn't a 100% versus 85% kind of game (and I have no idea what you'd be measuring to come up with that). Moreover, you're inventing fictional lenses when we actually have real ones to compare. Buy a 24-105mm Canon with a 5DII and you effectively pay half price to the 24-70mm Nikkor. You might be a little surprised at the optical comparison between those two, even at f/4. And as has been pointed out repeatedly, the difference between a 24-120mm and a 24-105mm is visible even on the 12mp DSLRs. Nikon simply doesn't have anything really usable in that range that you can buy new other than the very expensive 24-70mm.

Kerry Pierce said:
The main concern is, or should be, first keeping your installed base
happy and then trying to expand upon your installed base.

Imagine if Nikon and/or Canon took that approach. Most of their growth has been from new users (and yes, it comes at the DX end). It's a delicate balance you run in product development with a system: you must please both current users AND attract new ones. If you please just current users, you don't grow and a competitor that is still doing that eventually dominates you. If you only attract new users, you get a poor word-of-mouth out of your installed base, which impacts how many new users you can attract. It's all about balance, and that's why priorities come into play. We can debate the priorities, but I don't think we can say Nikon should only cater to existing users before doing anything new.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (19 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

Thom Hogan · May 18, 2009

jeremypayne said:
jeremypayne said:

jeremypayne said:

jeremypayne said:

The 70-200mm has clear issues. ... the 24-120mm doesn't cut it, and yes, the 17-35mm is showing its age, too, and is weak in the corners at 35mm.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DANG ... next you are gonna tell me my 50mm 1.4 AF-D is soft wide
open and subject to serious falloff ...

When you get to use and test virtually every Nikkor that comes down the pike, you notice small things. There's been a couple of very big shifts in optical quality by Nikon over the years. Virtually everything they've put out since the 14-24, 24-70, exotic telephoto refresh seems to be at some higher level than before. This makes lenses that aren't up to that new standard really stand out. The 24-120mm, in particular, didn't quite make it to the old standard, and just really looks poor against the kinds of lenses that Nikon is putting out today. As someone else wrote, compare the 24-120mm on any FX body against the 18-105mm (better still, the 16-85mm) on any DX body. That's a pretty clear example of what I'm talking about.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (19 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

Thom Hogan · May 18, 2009

mayonaka said:
I still say you'll be hard pressed to find Nikon killing its flagship
D3X model by releasing a D700X at half the price. Look at the pricing
of the D3 to D700 as a comparison. Sure, the D700 has a few lesser
qualities, but it's not half the price of the D3 as you expect the
D700X to be in comparison to the D3X. I would suspect that if they
use the exact same sensor, as they did with the D700, the price will
be at least $5000 with no lens.

That's a very difficult position for Nikon to adopt, even more so when you consider the lens situation. That essentially leaves them with the D700 to compete with the 5DII FWIW, I think Canon made a tactical mistake by not keeping the 5D in the lineup and lowering its price. Even if didn't sell in large volume, it would have put bracketed pressure on Nikon. It's possible that Nikon can try to bracket the 5DII with the D700 and D700x. But with a D700x at US$4999, that becomes weak.

You may be right that Nikon wants to put a D700x at that price. It certainly would be consistent. However, doing so risks being perceived as the high-priced provider, and risks another round of "what was Nikon thinking" commentary taking the shine off what should be a well-received product. Canon is being an aggressor (as is Sony). At US$4999 Nikon would be saying "we don't want to play that game" and they'll lose customers because of that.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (19 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

Mel · May 18, 2009

"So ... "YES" ... I expect and want Nikon to eventually meet the desire many, many Nikon landscape shooters have for quality lenses that are smaller and lighter."

And here in exists the problem Jerome. There are far more non landscape professional shooters who will take advantage of the 2.8 faster lens capability. I do understand that 2.8 may not be needed by landscape shooters. What it "seems" that you want is for Nikon to adjust it's professional system to cater to the obvious larger crowd of high end amateur shooters? And I think that I see now what Thom is specifically speaking about in having Nikon provide a definite offering to you folks that can also apply and be adapted to the pro cams as well as the high end amateur models. Specifically then a good quality zoom such as the 24-120 at F4 and at much less weight and cost of a high end pro glass offering.
--
Mel
http://www.mellockhartphotography.zenfolio.com
http://www.mellockhartphotography.net

Thom Hogan · May 18, 2009

coudet said:
If they announced

28/1.4
50/1.2
85/1.4
135/2

all with AFS, I know one Nikon user who would welcome that kind of
prioritization. In fact, that would give me almost everything I
could possibly want from Nikon.

But, yeah, I'll agree with you that it's a smaller group that wants
this announced, which doesnt mean Nikon should completely ignore the
need for those lenses. Canon sure isnt.

I'm sure Nikon officials would love to be able to snap their fingers and put out several dozen lenses, fill all the holes and needs, and make everyone happy. On average, we get six lenses a year and have for a long time now. I'm told by little birdies that Nikon made an effort to try to change that for this year and has more releases planned than usual. Whether than means seven, eight, ten, or sixteen lenses I don't know. But no matter what the number, it won't be enough to please everyone, so the onus is on Nikon getting their prioritization right to satisfy the most rumblings. The big FX rumblings are 85mm AF-S, 80-400mm AF-S VR, and an f/4 VR pair ( 24-85, 80-200, or any other variation that covers that range). In the second tier are a lot of wide primes, a new long macro (200mm f/4, but preferably a 70-180mm resurrection), better long, slow telephotos (300mm f/4 VR AF-S, 400mm f/5.6, etc.). That some of all these lenses also appear on DX users' lists should increase prioritization.

The DX list is now relatively small for high demands: wide, fast prime, PC-E with a DX focal length, 50-150mm.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (19 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

jeremypayne · May 18, 2009

Thom: "When you get to use and test virtually every Nikkor that comes down the pike, you notice small things."

I hear ya, Thom. And I REALLY appreciate your efforts. I don't have time to do that ... but I'm glad you do. I've read every word you've ever written on Nikon lenses ... and still bought the 70-200VR ...

If I could afford it, I'd have a 80-200 AF-S for the tripod and save the 70-200VR for handheld shots ... or better yet, a 70-200 VR f/4 that performs like the 80-200 and weighs a heck of a lot less ...

I accept the limitations - but am glad to understand them in detail.

Keep up the good work and thank you for participating so actively in the forum.

So what will come first Thom - the chicken or the egg? (Lenses or new bodies)

Mel

Guest

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Mel

Guest

Forum Pro

Active member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts