Steve'sDigicams

omac104 · Jun 10, 2009, 4:20 PM

I have do research for a while. Some of lenes from www.nikonusa.com are pretty not been updated so long. 17-35mm 2.8 about 10 years, 70-300mm 2.8 vr is the same.

actullay, i am waiting for new f2.8 wide zoom from nikon. Do you think that is possible?? Mostly, i see just f3.5.

Any comments??

JohnG · Jun 16, 2009, 10:36 AM

ahhhh - lenses. It's a tough thing for a major company to make decisions on new or updated lenses. Canon and NIkon in particular have a difficult time of it for 2 reasons:
1) They have the largest spectrum of users. THey have to keep professionals happy but also entice entry level photographers and thus keep up with new lens offerings from competition.

2) They have to worry about both full-frame and APS-C sensor cameras. This part is critical too. For those entry level folks, creating lenses specifically designed for APS-C sensors allows for less expensive optics and generally plastic build. That doesn't cut it for full-frame though.

A lot depends on what Nikon's marketing research tells them about the demand for AF-S lenses for the D-40/60/5000 - especially in prime lenses which are the biggest gap right now. So that is one avenue - if they perceive a high demand then they'll put the money into putting focus motors in their smaller primes. If, however, the 'hook' worked as Nikon probably expected, the d40/60/5000 buyers will upgrade bodies to get those lenses. Anyone's guess outside of Nikon whether that's the case.

I would fully expect that since Nikon just launched into full frame in the last couple years you'll see them address the lenses most often used by professionals to keep them happy. I wouldn't expect the 70-200 2.8 VR to get redone anytime soon - it's a great lens. I'm not familiar enough with the 17-35 to see how it's sharpness compares to the competition - especially now that we're in full-frame digital.

omac104 · Jun 18, 2009, 10:59 AM

thank!! Shooter JohnG.

Why? 17-35 and 17-55 F2.8, they don't make a VR Version.

tjsnaps · Jun 18, 2009, 4:45 PM

Well as a man on a budget I would like to see them put out more DX primes. Sorry omac but for me I see VR as an unnecessary frill. If I had it I might use it but I would never pat extra for it.

KDKarlson · Jul 23, 2009, 8:03 PM

I'm in a bit of a strange position, as I have an N50 and a D40, so lenses are not really interchangeable, and at some point I would like to upgrade to an FX sensor, when the price comes down a bit. AF-S and VR doesn't work on the N50, and my four non-AF-S lenses don't AF on my D40 - shoulda spent the money for a D90.

That being said, I would love to have Nikon build the equivilent of the Sigma 50-150 f 2.8, in AF-S and VR. A new version of the DC lenses (105 and 135) in FX would be cool, but hardly profitable for Nikon. Maybe an AF-S VR 200 f 4 micro.

Jun 10, 2009, 4:20 PM	#1
omac104 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 11	What is the range of new lenes that you want nikon to build? I have do research for a while. Some of lenes from www.nikonusa.com are pretty not been updated so long. 17-35mm 2.8 about 10 years, 70-300mm 2.8 vr is the same. actullay, i am waiting for new f2.8 wide zoom from nikon. Do you think that is possible?? Mostly, i see just f3.5. Any comments??

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jun 16, 2009, 10:36 AM	#2
JohnG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 8,529	ahhhh - lenses. It's a tough thing for a major company to make decisions on new or updated lenses. Canon and NIkon in particular have a difficult time of it for 2 reasons: 1) They have the largest spectrum of users. THey have to keep professionals happy but also entice entry level photographers and thus keep up with new lens offerings from competition. 2) They have to worry about both full-frame and APS-C sensor cameras. This part is critical too. For those entry level folks, creating lenses specifically designed for APS-C sensors allows for less expensive optics and generally plastic build. That doesn't cut it for full-frame though. A lot depends on what Nikon's marketing research tells them about the demand for AF-S lenses for the D-40/60/5000 - especially in prime lenses which are the biggest gap right now. So that is one avenue - if they perceive a high demand then they'll put the money into putting focus motors in their smaller primes. If, however, the 'hook' worked as Nikon probably expected, the d40/60/5000 buyers will upgrade bodies to get those lenses. Anyone's guess outside of Nikon whether that's the case. I would fully expect that since Nikon just launched into full frame in the last couple years you'll see them address the lenses most often used by professionals to keep them happy. I wouldn't expect the 70-200 2.8 VR to get redone anytime soon - it's a great lens. I'm not familiar enough with the 17-35 to see how it's sharpness compares to the competition - especially now that we're in full-frame digital.

Jun 18, 2009, 10:59 AM	#3
omac104 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 11	thank!! Shooter JohnG. Why? 17-35 and 17-55 F2.8, they don't make a VR Version.

Jun 18, 2009, 4:45 PM	#4
tjsnaps Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sacramento, Ca Posts: 652	Well as a man on a budget I would like to see them put out more DX primes. Sorry omac but for me I see VR as an unnecessary frill. If I had it I might use it but I would never pat extra for it.

Jul 23, 2009, 8:03 PM	#5
KDKarlson Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Portland/San Diego Posts: 51	I'm in a bit of a strange position, as I have an N50 and a D40, so lenses are not really interchangeable, and at some point I would like to upgrade to an FX sensor, when the price comes down a bit. AF-S and VR doesn't work on the N50, and my four non-AF-S lenses don't AF on my D40 - shoulda spent the money for a D90. That being said, I would love to have Nikon build the equivilent of the Sigma 50-150 f 2.8, in AF-S and VR. A new version of the DC lenses (105 and 135) in FX would be cool, but hardly profitable for Nikon. Maybe an AF-S VR 200 f 4 micro.