Reading mode: Light Dark

Lenses that Are SERIOUSLY missing!

Go to last post
Max Green said:
Max Green said:
Specialty portrait lenses are usually primes. Can zooms make a good portrait lens? Ofcourse. A lens like the 70-200 takes fine portraits but it's not as good as a prime made for this purpose.
--
Click to expand...
John, I sold my 85mm 1.4 when I switched to a D700. It was just too wide for my style. The 135 is great, but I will still give the nod to the 70-200 (old version!) for it's useful VR system, great bokeh and insane sharpness wide open at 200mm...a powerful portrait tool, if a bit on the heavy side.

The 24-70 and 70-200 will give most primes a run for their money, even if the zooms are not always as fast...they make up for it in versatility. But obviously I like owning and using both!

Max Green
Click to expand...
I don't have the 24-70 but I have recently purchased the 70-200 and I purchased the 17-55 about 5 years ago. I have owned a variety of fast primes, and other than offerings of f1.4, f1.8, and f2, I would definitely say from experience that "good zooms" will most definitely give good primes a run for their money. The differences at the same focal length and aperture will be so minimal that the most keen of eyes could hardly tell a difference. Zooms are certainly more versatile and as long as I can continue to afford them, (having experienced both types of lenses, zooms and primes) I will take a zoom over a prime any day unless I absolutely need something below f2.8 or a special purpose lens like a macro. I'm actually finding this 85 f3.5 quite interesting. The 85f1.8 is still quite a lens.

Jeff

--
Chief
 
Thanks for the response. If you have a chance to test outside, I be interested in knowing if you notice any problems with exposure consistency.

Best regards,
Adam
 
Missing: 16mm f/2.8 DX lens. Will crop to 24mm on DX bodies.
--
Kam
 
JC said:
I'm with Jeff. I want a 24-1xx f/4 with VR and for more than just portraits. I'm not as steady as I once was, and anything that helps eliminate camera shake when a tripod is not practical, for instance shooting from a boat, would be very welcome. As an f/4, it's also sure to be lighter than the 24-70.

I lean toward using my D300 over my D700 when high ISO is not required so that I can use the 16-85mm. I absolutely love that lens. The equivalent FX is a very big hole in Nikon's lineup IMHO. The 24-120 sure doesn't cut it with the new sensors.

As you said, the AFS update to the 80-400mm VR is long overdue. I'd bet it would sell out faster than anything else Nikon produces, except perhaps for a 24 f/1.4.
Click to expand...
I also see the 24-1xx VR f/4 or faster as a huge hole. I would definately jump on such a lens. It and a 70-200 or 300 f/4 are my main needs.
 
Max Green said:
100-400 AF-S VR

The replacement of the 80-400 has been wanted for 3-4 years at least. This is one of Nikon's biggest holes in their line-up, but strong rumors indicate that this 1600 dollar lens is coming.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I would be all over that one if it tests well and thank Nikon by buying a second body!
--
Phil_L
 
lawnmower said:
I don't have the 24-70 but I have recently purchased the 70-200 and I purchased the 17-55 about 5 years ago. I have owned a variety of fast primes, and other than offerings of f1.4, f1.8, and f2, I would definitely say from experience that "good zooms" will most definitely give good primes a run for their money. The differences at the same focal length and aperture will be so minimal that the most keen of eyes could hardly tell a difference. Zooms are certainly more versatile and as long as I can continue to afford them, (having experienced both types of lenses, zooms and primes) I will take a zoom over a prime any day unless I absolutely need something below f2.8 or a special purpose lens like a macro. I'm actually finding this 85 f3.5 quite interesting. The 85f1.8 is still quite a lens.

Jeff
Click to expand...
Jeff, saying such things is heresy to some folks, like saying Harley Davidson sucks in a biker bar. But the truth shall set ye free! I owned the 24-70 2.8 along with the 50mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8, 35mm F2 and Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM. Only the Sigma can best the zoom (and Nikon's new 50mm 1.4 for that matter). Owners of the 35-70, 20-35, 28-70, 17-35 or 17-55 can't imagine how high Nikon has flown with the 24-70 and 14-24...and now the new 70-200 looks to be another prime killer.

I still love primes. My Tamron 180 macro is ultra sharp and gave my 70-200 a run for it's money for portrait work. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 is the best 50mm I've used and I've used just about all of them, making it's performance "exotic" territory. I still like the Nikon 20mm 2.8 and let's always remember that the primes are generally small and practical compared to the massive zooming overachievers.

Oh...and Harley does suck, at least if superior ride quality, refinement, fit & finish and performance matter to you.....but that's for another forum!

Max Green

--
Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM
 
Max Green said:
Jeff, saying such things is heresy to some folks, like saying Harley Davidson sucks in a biker bar. But the truth shall set ye free! I owned the 24-70 2.8 along with the 50mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8, 35mm F2 and Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM. Only the Sigma can best the zoom (and Nikon's new 50mm 1.4 for that matter). Owners of the 35-70, 20-35, 28-70, 17-35 or 17-55 can't imagine how high Nikon has flown with the 24-70 and 14-24...and now the new 70-200 looks to be another prime killer.

I still love primes. My Tamron 180 macro is ultra sharp and gave my 70-200 a run for it's money for portrait work. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 is the best 50mm I've used and I've used just about all of them, making it's performance "exotic" territory. I still like the Nikon 20mm 2.8 and let's always remember that the primes are generally small and practical compared to the massive zooming overachievers.

Oh...and Harley does suck, at least if superior ride quality, refinement, fit & finish and performance matter to you.....but that's for another forum!
Click to expand...
Jeff said...

I happen to like Harley bikes despite the fact that I've never had one. I have owned Suzuki, Kawasaki, Honda and Yamaha. Harley's hold their value better than any vehicle (car or bike) built. Harley bikes are also being made to be quite a bit more reliable to my understanding.

Having said all that I believe that the previous 70-200 and the 17-35 have given primes a run for their money. Of course I'm bias because I own the first 70-200 lens. What it comes down to is how happy are you with the images that your lens produces and just how far would you have to blow up the photo to tell even the slightest of differences? I don't like using my feet for zooming all the time but I don't like lenses that are soft and slow.

Well I'll guarantee that my 70-200 is neither soft or slow and I would take it over any combination of primes within it's zoom range. Yes the 200f2 is great but how often am I going to be shooting at just 200mm? The 85f1.4 is great but the same applies. I also don't like changing lenses all the time. That is just my preference and I understand folks liking primes. Give me a few D300 bodies and where I don't have to change lenses all the time and I suppose I would like primes a whole lot better. Once again that is just "MY" preference and I don't expect anyone else to feel the same way.

Jeff
--
Chief
 
a 14mm f1.8 - has there ever even been such a lens previously? If I remember right the 14 f2.8 was already a pretty large lens......

and a 35 f1.2 sounds quite exotic. Again wasn't the 35 f1.4 over $1000 and pretty hefty in it's own right. What price range do you expect this lens to go for?

Agree with you on the others mentioned.....but, these 2 above are total fantasy land in my humble opinion.
 
Thom Hogan just weighed in on this topic. Interesting read; DX is fairly well covered, but FX consumer or semi-pro (read, f4 zooms) is not. By his count, 29 lenses need updating, up from 21 two years ago.

Also, for all those thinking that the 80-400 replacement will be a 100-500, it would more likely be a 100-400. A 100-500 f5.6 would have a 90+ mm front element, destroying the biggest advantage of the 80-400: its relatively compact body. At a 77mm front element size, 400mm is as long as you can go for f5.6. Older thread on this subject.
 
lawnmower said:
I believe that the previous 70-200 and the 17-35 have given primes a run for their money.

Well I'll guarantee that my 70-200 is neither soft or slow and I would take it over any combination of primes within it's zoom range. Yes the 200f2 is great but how often am I going to be shooting at just 200mm? The 85f1.4 is great but the same applies. I also don't like changing lenses all the time. That is just my preference and I understand folks liking primes.
Click to expand...
I love zooms. I think my 24-70 and 14-24 are phenomenally good optically and I use my 70-200 every weekend for kids sports making it my most used lens by far.

However for portraits my 200/2, 85/1.4 or even my sigma 150 just have that extra bit of razor sharpness and blown out background.

Just my opinion.

--
John
 
although i agree with a lot of Thom's opinions (afterall, he's the expert and i'm the armchair CEO), i tend to disagre with this assessments of what needs to be updated.

Somehow he thinks every lens that's not VR or AFS or more than like 4 years old needs to be updated. My take is that if it's not broken, don't screw with a winning formula. Personally I think the people are not doing themselves anygood by holding out on the great 85/1.4D in hopes that the AFS update might arrive soon.

Of course, a lot of D lenses do need updating. They use older optical formulas that are really subject to CA - I know because my 50/1.4D fringes like h*ll.

And can someone explain why we really need a 70-200/4? The 70-300 is lighter, more reach, half the price (compared to the Canon equivalent), and only between 1/2-stop to 1-stop slower at any FL. Are we buying f/4 for the pure sake of constant aperture?

Personally I see the f/4s as downselling the pro-line instead of upselling from the consumer line. Just because Canon offers it doesn't mean it's the right thing to offer.
mosswings said:
Thom Hogan just weighed in on this topic. Interesting read; DX is fairly well covered, but FX consumer or semi-pro (read, f4 zooms) is not. By his count, 29 lenses need updating, up from 21 two years ago.

Also, for all those thinking that the 80-400 replacement will be a 100-500, it would more likely be a 100-400. A 100-500 f5.6 would have a 90+ mm front element, destroying the biggest advantage of the 80-400: its relatively compact body. At a 77mm front element size, 400mm is as long as you can go for f5.6. Older thread on this subject.
Click to expand...
 
mogandoC said:
And can someone explain why we really need a 70-200/4? The 70-300 is lighter, more reach, half the price (compared to the Canon equivalent), and only between 1/2-stop to 1-stop slower at any FL. Are we buying f/4 for the pure sake of constant aperture?
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people are either unaware of just how good the 70-300 is, or assuming that a constant F4 will be hugely superior...which it won't be. I'd be interested in the 16-35 F4, mainly because I rarely shoot wide, but would like a semi-pro wide lens for FX to go with my 24-70 that is small, light and doesn't cost 1800 bucks.

Max Green

--
Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM
 
Probably will never see it because that fine lens would certainly compete with the 2.8 for outdoor sports, especially when you consider adding the 1.4 only costs you one f stop.

Bring it on for us cheapskates.
 
I own a 70-300VR and I love it on the D700. It is probably the biggest bang for the buck one can find for FX.

The pain it is , argh, the slow aperture. A bit above 100mm it is already f/5 and by 200mm it is already f/5.6. A f/4 at 200mm versus f/5.6 at 200mm is 1-full stop.

Bokeh for portraits aside, even for shooting moving subjects (birds, kids) it is one hell of a difference between ISO1600 and ISO3200 even on the D700 from that 1-stop difference. While ISO1600 is good, ISO3200 image under minimal available light at 1/500 or so lost a lot of contrast and DR compared to ISO1600 ones.
Max Green said:
Max Green said:
And can someone explain why we really need a 70-200/4? The 70-300 is lighter, more reach, half the price (compared to the Canon equivalent), and only between 1/2-stop to 1-stop slower at any FL. Are we buying f/4 for the pure sake of constant aperture?
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people are either unaware of just how good the 70-300 is, or assuming that a constant F4 will be hugely superior...which it won't be. I'd be interested in the 16-35 F4, mainly because I rarely shoot wide, but would like a semi-pro wide lens for FX to go with my 24-70 that is small, light and doesn't cost 1800 bucks.

Max Green

--
Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM
Click to expand...
 
trickortreat said:
I love zooms. I think my 24-70 and 14-24 are phenomenally good optically and I use my 70-200 every weekend for kids sports making it my most used lens by far.

However for portraits my 200/2, 85/1.4 or even my sigma 150 just have that extra bit of razor sharpness and blown out background.

John
Click to expand...
Jeff wrote...

Well I'll tell you what John. You have a much larger budget for photo equipment than I do. It's not that I wouldn't want those lenses; it's that I simply can't afford them. You have an absolutely great selection of lenses. The only lens that I didn't see you mention that I would have expected to be a part of your great collection was the 200-400. You have a phenomenal lens collection. Enjoy as I'm sure you do.

Sincerely,
Jeff
--
Chief
 
mogandoC said:
And can someone explain why we really need a 70-200/4? The 70-300 is lighter, more reach, half the price (compared to the Canon equivalent), and only between 1/2-stop to 1-stop slower at any FL. Are we buying f/4 for the pure sake of constant aperture?

Personally I see the f/4s as downselling the pro-line instead of upselling from the consumer line. Just because Canon offers it doesn't mean it's the right thing to offer.
Click to expand...
.

I think we certainly do need a set of f/4 'semi-pro' zooms - I agree with Thom and many others here.

The 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is $2400+. A 70-200 f/4 would conceivably be 2/3 the size and 1/2 the cost, and razor-sharp wide-open - these are the specs and performance we're talking about when we build this wish list.

Canon sells a lot of these f4 zooms, and folks have left Nikon for Canon just because of that. I think it's a hole that should be filled.
 
Man, I'd love a 16-35 f4. Yesterday I was in Edinburgh looking to buy a 17-35 f2.8. I didn't realise it had been discontinued last year. However, I know a shop with a couple in used so I phoned them. They were asking £1140 for the cosmetically poor one and £1340 for the mint- one. Outrageous!! They still have a boxed new example for nearly £1700. I decided I'll get the 14-24 but I'd prefre something with a little more reach so I don't have to swap to the 50f1.4G or the 24-70 so frequently. If a 16-35 is one the cards I'll hold off on the 14-24.

Pete
 
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