Reading mode: Light Dark

Weirdo lens you wish existed? (Realistic)

Go to last post
Very light compact 17mm 3.5 or F4 would be fine as would anything from 16-20. Happy with plastic mount etc. I have a 10mm F2 M43 and it often comes in handy. If we are going to be out there then a 35-70 T1.8 cinema lens in Z mount.
 
BasilG said:
michaeladawson said:
shuncheung said:
michaeladawson said:
kbrkr said:
Maybe not so weird, but a 800 F/5.6 PF the same weight as the 200-500 or 500 pf and same price.
Click to expand...
Same as 200-500 and 500 PF.... those are two completely different priced and weighted lenses

I'd love an 800 f/5.6 PF. I'm not sure what I'd be willing to pay.
Click to expand...
The conventional, i.e. non-PF, 800mm/f5.6 AF-S VR is $16k. PF will only significantly added to the cost. A 800mm will have a much larger front element than 500mm. Physically it is impossible to keep the size and weight down, unless it is 800mm f8 or even f11, ALA the Canon version.
Click to expand...
Yes, I don't expect to see a 800mm f/5.6 PF. My comment was more about kbrkr wanting a lens that was similar in price and weight to the 200-500 or 500 PF, two lenses that differ widely in price and weight.
Click to expand...
The roadmapped 800 (PF) is probably f/6.3 (?). Wouldn't that do - though admittedly at increased weight and cost?
Click to expand...
Sure, anything that isn't one of the $10,000+ lenses will do nicely.
 
michaeladawson said:
BasilG said:
michaeladawson said:
shuncheung said:
michaeladawson said:
kbrkr said:
Maybe not so weird, but a 800 F/5.6 PF the same weight as the 200-500 or 500 pf and same price.
Click to expand...
Same as 200-500 and 500 PF.... those are two completely different priced and weighted lenses

I'd love an 800 f/5.6 PF. I'm not sure what I'd be willing to pay.
Click to expand...
The conventional, i.e. non-PF, 800mm/f5.6 AF-S VR is $16k. PF will only significantly added to the cost. A 800mm will have a much larger front element than 500mm. Physically it is impossible to keep the size and weight down, unless it is 800mm f8 or even f11, ALA the Canon version.
Click to expand...
Yes, I don't expect to see a 800mm f/5.6 PF. My comment was more about kbrkr wanting a lens that was similar in price and weight to the 200-500 or 500 PF, two lenses that differ widely in price and weight.
Click to expand...
The roadmapped 800 (PF) is probably f/6.3 (?). Wouldn't that do - though admittedly at increased weight and cost?
Click to expand...
Sure, anything that isn't one of the $10,000+ lenses will do nicely.
Click to expand...
Alright. Got it. ;)
 
michaeladawson said:
shuncheung said:
michaeladawson said:
kbrkr said:
Maybe not so weird, but a 800 F/5.6 PF the same weight as the 200-500 or 500 pf and same price.
Click to expand...
Same as 200-500 and 500 PF.... those are two completely different priced and weighted lenses

I'd love an 800 f/5.6 PF. I'm not sure what I'd be willing to pay.
Click to expand...
The conventional, i.e. non-PF, 800mm/f5.6 AF-S VR is $16k. PF will only significantly added to the cost. A 800mm will have a much larger front element than 500mm. Physically it is impossible to keep the size and weight down, unless it is 800mm f8 or even f11, ALA the Canon version.
Click to expand...
Yes, I don't expect to see a 800mm f/5.6 PF. My comment was more about kbrkr wanting a lens that was similar in price and weight to the 200-500 or 500 PF, two lenses that differ widely in price and weight.
Click to expand...
kbrkr did specify 800/5.6 PF with smaller size and weight like a 500/5.6. There is physically impossible, I.e. not realist.

A 800 with PF is likely going to be over $10k unless it is really slow like the Canon RF.
 
An "ultimate" travel lens for me would be a 24-300mm f4 with the S on it weather sealed with all the good coatings and top dual STM motors. No doubt it would probably run close to that $2000 mark but worth it for those just running around and not wanting to take additional lenses.
 
A full-frame 16-50 f/3.5 would be a nice walkaround lens. Could be f/2.8, but I feel like keeping the size and weight down a little.

Though I might buy a 12-36 instead if that was on offer.
 
I am very happy with my cheap 10-20mm F4.5-5.6 VR AF-P DX lens, and I never used FX 18-35mm F3.5-4.5, but I kinda think they are somewhat similar. So, I would like to see Z version of that. Cheap, ultra wide, variable aperture, but good for outdoor shooting :)
 
Like the one Tamron makes for the Sony FE mount.
 
First, I'd like a 100-500 f/3.5-5.6 PFII zoom so I can replace both 70-200S and 500PF for travel.

Second, I'd like to see a MC 105 with LED ring light built-in like the Canon:

3255a992fbb143b9a12fb96ffee25b42.jpg
 
I would like a FX 5X zoom starting at UWA, let's say 16-80mm. F/4 would be nice, but variable aperture would be acceptable.

This would be better than the 24-120 for me because I am biased towards UWA more than telephoto.
 
Last edited:
Modern versions of two classic Nikkors:

105/1.8
180/2.8
 
Some people have already mentioned UWA with longer end. Here are my 2 cents:

14-40 mm

15-50 mm

16-60 mm

17-70 mm

18-80 mm

Full frame. Ideally F4.

If all of these were available, I would end up buying all of them, because I couldn't decide which is the best option :-)
 
I'd happily fork over a large fistful of cash for a 16-80mm f/2.8 or f/2.8-4, especially if it made excellent sunstars when stopped down. I couldn't care less if it was FX or DX; just cover that range for me and we're good.

Bonus: I absolutely adore my 50-250mm DX, but I'd gladly put up with a slight increase in size to make it a constant f/4. Keep everything else EXACTLY the same.
 
16-35mm f/2.8 S

35mm f/1.2 S

60mm f/2 compact

135mm f/1.8 S

180mm f/2.2 S

800mm f/8 S PF (sharper than the 700mm combo of the 500 5.6 PF + 1.4x TC)

and of course a 200mm f/4 S Micro :)
 
I want more reach in a smaller size.

I'm not going to FF so why have bigger, heavier more expensive lenses.
 
I would also get the 10-20 Dx Z mount.
 
philblair said:
I want more reach in a smaller size.

I'm not going to FF so why have bigger, heavier more expensive lenses.
Click to expand...
It doesn't make much difference for long lenses especially if they share the same mount. Even with the much smaller F mount Nikon didn't really bother with over 300mm and that (55-300) lens shaved weight more with materials rather than being much smaller.

The Micro 4/3rds lenses have a much smaller sensor and much smaller mount but there is nowhere near the difference with longer lenses.
 
Last edited:
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