Reading mode: Light Dark

Lenses you wish Nikon made ! List yours !

Go to last post
Sign me up!

Ron
Thomas Sapiano said:
One of the lenses that I'd really like to see on the Nikon side of
things - the large apperature makes it a great lens for low-light
sports environments and allows it to be extremely flexible when
coupled with good teleconverters (280mm f2.6 and 400mm f3.6). Add
VR, and release a new D2 with a fancy new AF system and this would
be an extremely useful little lens (sports, wildlife, etc.)!

Hey - Nikon had an F-mount 300mm f2.0, so I don't see why this
would be impossible ;) While they're at it, I'd love them to bring
back the old 300f2.0 and 1200-1600f5.6-8 uber lenses and stick AFS
and VR in just for bragging rights (build to order of course).

The one old set of lenses that I'd love to see updated and brought
to market would be the moderate speed "two-part" supertelephotos.
Slide the AFS and VR mechanisms in the Focusing Unit component, and
then allow users to buy innexpensive heads at various focal lengths
without having to pay twice for those components. Plus, a new AF
motor comes out and all you have to buy is the focusing unit to
upgrade a whole host of optics ;)
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
Yes, I agree with Tony. Still I'd like to add I'd enjoy seeing more lenses that have the quality build of the 28mm 1.4 and the 17-35 as well as the 105mm DF lense. I also see allot of sense in making digital lenses with 2.0 or 2.8 apeture's as one can really make use of the available light factor (correcting color casts with the use of WB or Post production NEF software. I wouldn't mind if they'd give us a broader line of Pro lenses with Silent wave lenses. Just like they are expanding their line of G lenses.
Anthony Medici said:
Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
Only moves a small rear group of elements through a fairly small
distance to focus, so focusing with a good powerful camera body
motor (like D1x, D1h, F100, or F5) should be every bit as fast as
AF-S. And the cameras with slower motors (like D100, N80, etc) have
slow AF modules and can't hit really good AF speeds, even with AF-S
lenses.
Click to expand...
Then why make the 17-35, 24-85 and 28-70 AFS? Is there that much
more glass than a prime? Also, the AFS isn't just faster, it
quieter. Then all you need to do is make my D1H quieter. (Rat a tat
tat! :))
Anthony Medici said:
Anthony Medici said:
and the 28 AFS F1.4D. And if they can add VR to
these, so much the better.
Click to expand...
28 f1.4 is another that really doen't move much, and doesn't need
AF-S.
Click to expand...
Again, there's the quiet factor but a VR would make this quite a
nice museum lens. Not that it isn't already.
Anthony Medici said:
Anthony Medici said:
Of new prime lens offerings:
35 AF F1.4D, 200 AFS F2.0D VR, 300 AFS F4.0 VR and 400 AFS F4.0 VR.

Oh, and add VR to their large lenses and let it work on a tripod!
Click to expand...
Too much VR. Considering that most of the Nikon bodies in the field
can't use it.

Making VR work on a tripod isn't easy. The vibration signals are
much smaller and harder to read. Not impossible, but it doesn meed
better accelerometers and lower noise circuitry.
Click to expand...
That's why Canon does it. True, it more difficult but who said the
new VR won't work on a tripod, nobody's gotten the instruction
manual yet, have they? As for the older bodies, they can use the
older lenses. Designing a new lens so that it works on a 20 year
old body doesn't seem like the direction Nikon is moving in. Hence
the DX, G and VR lens announcements.

We were asking for things I'd like to see. I'd also like to see
quieter shutters, faster sync speeds and faster frame rates. But
this was a topic about lenses. I was trying to think of my most
useful middle zoom range and then have it the aperture I'd like and
with VR.
I think a 24-105 F2.0 AFS VR ED would be about what the doctor
ordered. :)

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m
Click to expand...
--
Erika Lemberger
 
8-800mm F2.8, 15cm long, 400gr., before 2008.
Bill Grove said:
I would really like to see Nikon expand the new DX lens line beyond
wide angle. ( I am sure I will buy at least one of the wide angles
but I would really like a F2.8 not 4.0 lens though)

I want the following

50-140mm F2.0G AFS DX (75-210)

would be smaller than the current 80-200 AFS 2.8 and the upcomming
VR verion. Faster with F2.0 instead of F2.8 and cost len money to
build.
It doesn't need to be VR (to keep the price down.

I also want a really fast short telephoto with AFS

60mm F1.4G AFS DX

90mm F1.8G AFS DX

Just curious to see what others are dreaming about.................
Click to expand...
 
does that mean, that a 50/1.4 DX would be the same as the FF 50/1.4?

and if i understand it right, every lens up from 50mm would be the same size (50mm because it is the smalles lens to built). thus a 19-135mm DX or even a 40-xxx DX would be smaller than FF but a 50-xxx DX wouldn't. is this correct? can s.b. comment please?

thanks
thomas
James Riley said:
Once again, that is because a DX telephoto will be the same size as
a FF telephoto. If Nikon does not make it for FF, it most
definitely not make it just for DX, because it makes no sense since
both are the same size (and presume price), they would make it for
both if they ever want to.

See explanation in

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=4065901

--
JR
Click to expand...
 
Bill Grove said:
Not certain if that is true, I see the size of a 28-200 zoom on a
Minolta 7i and although this is a exreme comparison I think the
same logic can be used for the DX lenses. Maybe someone like Thom
can help with a more informed/educated answer.
Click to expand...
The Minolta has a 7-50 mm zoom, not a 28-200. That's why it is so small.
 
Jeff-C said:
Saw an used one still commanding US$2000.
Click to expand...
They usually go for about 10 times that.

I'd take one for $2000

Ciao!

Joe
 
My wish list, which I think is realistic, given Canon has had them for a few years:

1. 500mm f/4 VR (I refuse to make a huge investment in Nikon's non-stabilized version when every pro shooter of Canon's equivalent sings the praises of IS for long lenses -- which works on a tripod to counter wind and even mirror vibration!)

2. 300mm f/2.8 VR and f/4 VR (same reasoning as above... for me, either of these would be a wildlife stalking lens. I simply don't want one that's not stabilized. The 80-400 VR is useful but has limitations, namely, speed and focus-hunting. I know, I have one).

I'm a film shooter, but even with the higher shutter speeds you DSLR folks can shoot at compared to me using E100VS, VR would increase the percentage of sharp shots...

Maybe we'll be surprised by PMA with another "development announcement"!

Regards, Eric
Bill Grove said:
I would really like to see Nikon expand the new DX lens line beyond
wide angle. ( I am sure I will buy at least one of the wide angles
but I would really like a F2.8 not 4.0 lens though)

I want the following

50-140mm F2.0G AFS DX (75-210)

would be smaller than the current 80-200 AFS 2.8 and the upcomming
VR verion. Faster with F2.0 instead of F2.8 and cost len money to
build.
It doesn't need to be VR (to keep the price down.

I also want a really fast short telephoto with AFS

60mm F1.4G AFS DX

90mm F1.8G AFS DX

Just curious to see what others are dreaming about.................
Click to expand...
 
Why can't Nikon makes a lense that uses ED glasses for all its elements?
Bill Grove said:
I would really like to see Nikon expand the new DX lens line beyond
wide angle. ( I am sure I will buy at least one of the wide angles
but I would really like a F2.8 not 4.0 lens though)

I want the following

50-140mm F2.0G AFS DX (75-210)

would be smaller than the current 80-200 AFS 2.8 and the upcomming
VR verion. Faster with F2.0 instead of F2.8 and cost len money to
build.
It doesn't need to be VR (to keep the price down.

I also want a really fast short telephoto with AFS

60mm F1.4G AFS DX

90mm F1.8G AFS DX

Just curious to see what others are dreaming about.................
Click to expand...
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/nikonslr
Only take your pictures with a SLR please.... !
 
Some of the posters have been marking their wishes as "DX," and others haven't. That doesn't help the confusion as to what they mean--an actual XX mm lens, or a lense that is equivalent to XX mm (in 35mm terms) for digital bodies.

300 mm is always 300 mm. Doesn't matter what lens designation any company puts on it. However, a 300 on a d-slr and a 300 on a 35 mm body and 300 on a 2 1/4 and a 300 on a 4x5 all give very different results. In 35mm terms, they act like everthing from 450mm to 105mm.

It would seem that people mean "a lense that is equivalent to 300 mm (in 35mm terms)." This would be a 200 mm lens for the D-SLR's and their 1.5x factor. A 200 mm would indeed be smaller than a 300, wouldn't need to be as big around for the same f-stop, etc. This would make the lens smaller, lighter, cheaper, etc. if you comparing the ability to get the same angle-of-view. Again, the only point here was to simulate a [35mm] 300 mm. If nikon were to make a DX lens that was 300 mm, you're right--it wouldn't be any different than most any other 300 mm. But if they made a lens to be the "equivalent" of [35mm] 300 mm, it would be a 200 mm for D-SLR's.

A this point, one has to ask why Nikon would bother with the "DX" label. Just make a 200 f2.8 for 35mm, and let it be a 300 f2.8 for D-SLR's. In this sense, DX lenses are likely to only be wide angles. Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible :-).

-TyKo
James Riley said:
Once again, that is because a DX telephoto will be the same size as
a FF telephoto. If Nikon does not make it for FF, it most
definitely not make it just for DX, because it makes no sense since
both are the same size (and presume price), they would make it for
both if they ever want to.

See explanation in

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=4065901

--
JR
Click to expand...
 
Just thinking outloud but why does IS / VR have to be in the lens ? Couldn't it be in the camera at the sensor ?

Just a thought.
Eric Freibrun said:
1. 500mm f/4 VR (I refuse to make a huge investment in Nikon's
non-stabilized version when every pro shooter of Canon's equivalent
sings the praises of IS for long lenses -- which works on a tripod
to counter wind and even mirror vibration!)

2. 300mm f/2.8 VR and f/4 VR (same reasoning as above... for me,
either of these would be a wildlife stalking lens. I simply don't
want one that's not stabilized. The 80-400 VR is useful but has
limitations, namely, speed and focus-hunting. I know, I have one).

I'm a film shooter, but even with the higher shutter speeds you
DSLR folks can shoot at compared to me using E100VS, VR would
increase the percentage of sharp shots...

Maybe we'll be surprised by PMA with another "development
announcement"!

Regards, Eric
Bill Grove said:
I would really like to see Nikon expand the new DX lens line beyond
wide angle. ( I am sure I will buy at least one of the wide angles
but I would really like a F2.8 not 4.0 lens though)

I want the following

50-140mm F2.0G AFS DX (75-210)

would be smaller than the current 80-200 AFS 2.8 and the upcomming
VR verion. Faster with F2.0 instead of F2.8 and cost len money to
build.
It doesn't need to be VR (to keep the price down.

I also want a really fast short telephoto with AFS

60mm F1.4G AFS DX

90mm F1.8G AFS DX

Just curious to see what others are dreaming about.................
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I would like to see some small,light,ultra-high resolution DX series re-works of some of my favorite Nikkor primes from the past--ones with few elements and great resistance to flare and ghosting.

I am excited about the "miniaturization" possibilities these smaller image circle lenses will offer,and while I think Nikon will concentrate on zooms probably exclusively, I would still like to see the 105 f/2.5 AIS formula shrunken down to the size of roughly a 50mm lens. I'd also like to see the Nikkor 200mm f/2 AIS internal focus lens (with greater flare-resistance) in a DX version,with AF-S focusing in a lens no larger than the 105mm f/2 AF-D D.C. That would be one sweet lens for indoor sports. It would of course, come with its own matched 1.4x converter,with a matched 2x converter also available.

And how about a mini 85mm 1.4 with AF-S focusing and 72mm filter thread,or 62mm if it's physically possible, in a package that weighs half the current offering and is physically as small as possible.

Heck, I'd like to see some re-works of a load of older designs Nikon has made over the years....imagine the weight savings we could get....how about some fast telephotos, like a mini-300 f/2.8,and a mini 400mm f/3.5 or 400 f/2.8. How small could the 600 f/4 be made? If Nikon expands the DX line to long,fast teles of 300,400,500,600 lengths,I think they could make serious inroads against Canon for sports/nature photography--particularly if they could make VR as wide-spread and common as Canon has done with IS.If Nikon wants to hold back the "white lens tide" they need look no farther than fast,high-speed telephotos from 300 to 600mm. With,or without VR, the weight savings and physicallly smaller dimensions would squarely put the advantage back into Nikon's court.

Just dreaming I guess....the DX line will probably be all zooms.

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
 
I'd be happy (thrilled actually) with an 85mm 1.4 AFS (or a 1.2!) and that aforementioned 200mm 1.8 (only in AFS).

I'd pay up to $1500 US for the 85mm and up to about $3500 for the 200.

---
Micheal
Peter Stelman said:
Well, with a wide-angle zoom already announced, I'd like an 18-60G
2.8 AFS.

Then a 50-150G 2.8 AFS VR.

--
Peter

http://www.minkhollow.com
Click to expand...
--
---
Micheal
 
The DX is a warning to those with shooting film that the lens will vignette on their camera. In fact, it should be a very pretty rectilinear circle.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m
TyKo said:
A this point, one has to ask why Nikon would bother with the "DX"
label. Just make a 200 f2.8 for 35mm, and let it be a 300 f2.8 for
D-SLR's. In this sense, DX lenses are likely to only be wide
angles. Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible
:-).

-TyKo
Click to expand...
 
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