The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The big hole in Nikons lens line up

DavidL

New member
Well for me anyway.
As long as I'm on 1.5 crop I'm happy with the 70-200. I really like 300mm focal length as there are times when it just works. In my canon days I loved the 300 f4 series of lenses as a lightweight option. I still use the 300 equivalent a lot. I'm that sort of guy I guess I even do portraits on it.
I've just done two jobs this week and an old pro, came in on one of the jobs job I was doing with his newly issued D3. He was in raptures about it and showed me stuff from his last shoot and then what he'd shot on the one he was with me on. Never had a pro do this to me in my long working life. This got me a thinking of Should I shouldn't I? That's when the lens issue appeared. Sometimes I need the 300 reach see attached shot. It would have been too far away on 200 (Full frame). What I would really like is 100-300 f4 with VR as in the 70-200 on the D300. Sigma's 120-300 f2.8 hasn't got stabilisation and I don't want the weight, as I'm shooting mainly press PR stuff these days.
I often have to pull a grab shot during a days shoot and have little time to set up as the client wants everything shooting, but the timetable can't be interfered with. You've got a few minutes to get a shot of the RAF chopper and the lifeboat then we need you back here to do this. So you lug your whole outfit around all day. I'm drifting to another point here, but hey I've just spent hours and hours getting files out. Shoots seem to be being controlled by "Event organisers" :toocool: who have a days schedule in which you must not interfere with what is going on, their schedule might slip by a minute and that will upset the whole day. I've heard this is also creeping into wedding photography. Of course they are the first to complain you didn't get shots and it's all your fault. "Why is there a wind turbine growing out of the lifeboat? "Because I couldn't swim out and move it would be my reply. So you could have moved the lifeboat, surely that would have been easier. Didn't see it on your ******* schedule, and if I shout at air sea rescue they ignore me, or do you think that can't hear me!!! I dare to answer back.:argue: I wouldn't dare mention I had to keep out of the video crews way as that would be such apoor excuse.
Sorry Rant over, where was I? Oh yes, Where's my ******* 100-300 f4 VR lens? :cry:
Anyway I feel a little better so thanks for the shoulder.
David
 
Last edited:

Lisa

New member
I hear you. The one and only lens I use these days is Nikon's 18-200mm VR, which gives me the equivalent of 27-300mm on a 1.5 crop sensor in a relatively small, lightweight package. I wouldn't replace my D200 with a D3 if you gave it to me for free, because that perfect-for-me lens would no longer be perfect without that 1.5 factor sensor. However, a 27-300 lens on a full-frame camera would have to be *much* bigger and heavier. For me, size and weight are important when I'm carrying the camera around hiking all day.

Lisa
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Well,
The 80-700 VR works pretty well for this type of stuff for me, but you are right, it is big and heavy, but somehow on a D3 it seems better balanced in the hand.
It could use an AF-S update though, which is something several folks are anticipating.
-bob
 

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
Fast 28mm prime. It wouldn't even have to be a reissue of the 28/1.4 -- a Nano-coated AF-S version of the 28/2 AI-S would be perfectly fine.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi David
I hope you're well
Well, I almost agree . . . almost.
Actually, the 70-300 AFS VR cheapo works wonders on the D3 - better (IMHO) than the 70-200 (less vignetting, sharper corners . . . . less sharp centre).
I'd like an F4 constant lens as well, but with the 6400 ISO of the D3, the slightly slower lens is useable, the fact that it's cheap and light is a real bonus.

I used one last night for a lot of candid shots at the end of a wedding party, and it did a grand job, focusing almost in the dark and producing excellent results.

I think you might be looking a gift horse in the mouth:)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
There's also the Sigma 100-300 f/4, which is a very good lens. No VR though. I wonder why not. Sigma is perfectly capable of adding that, and it would make that lens a no-brainer for lots of photographers.
 

otumay

New member
David,
I understand your frustration in using 70-200 with a full frame camera. Apart from its limited range, it did not get high marks in DPreview, when tested with D3. I think its performance at the edges and corners is not as good as you'd expect from a pro lens. Of course this does not come to light (pun intended) with a 1.5-crop camera, as those areas are cropped.
That's why I try to carry two cameras (one full frame, the other 1.5-crop) when on a trip, so that I get the best of two worlds (plus backbone pains).
I noticed I'm using Sigma's 24-135 mm more and more these days. It's light and usually sufficient with a 1.5-crop factor.
Best regards,
Osman
 

DavidL

New member
Hi David
I hope you're well
Well, I almost agree . . . almost.
Actually, the 70-300 AFS VR cheapo works wonders on the D3 - better (IMHO) than the 70-200 (less vignetting, sharper corners . . . . less sharp centre).
I'd like an F4 constant lens as well, but with the 6400 ISO of the D3, the slightly slower lens is useable, the fact that it's cheap and light is a real bonus.

I used one last night for a lot of candid shots at the end of a wedding party, and it did a grand job, focusing almost in the dark and producing excellent results.

I think you might be looking a gift horse in the mouth:)
Hi Jono
Must have drifted pass you on my way from Skegness to Harwich but as I had an early start at Harwich the next day, plus I was hot and sticky, thought better of phoning you. I did feel a tremor in the force though.
I am interested in the 70-300 and also an inkling for the new sigma 120-400 OS lens. Great on a D300 as I might be doing some animal snapping again. I have reunited with an old zoologist friend and have a lot of access to wild animals, if I want it.
Nikon may be releasing some new stuff soon and I'm flat out at the minute.
Here's an interesting little competition if you haven't come across it.
http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2008/0605_npci_01.htm
Great prizes.

David
 

fotografz

Well-known member
The big hole you could fly a Air Bus through is the lack of a nano coated AFS 35/1.4.

And update the AF on the 135/2 DC for God's sake.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I am in complete agreement with Marc. The lack of a 35/1.4 or even a top notch 35/2 is pretty glaring. Nikon primes really need updating, especially when you contrast them to Canon...they have their 24/1.4L USM, 35/1.4L USM, 50/1.4 USM, 50/1.2L USM and 85/1.2L USM...all their primes are up to date in focusing, if not always optically. Nikon does not have an AFS prime until the 200mm f/2, other than the 60mm and 105mm micro lenses. I see that as a BIG hole.
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
they probably just don't want to hurt Zeiss ZF sales
a very considerate and admirable attitude :lecture:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
they probably just don't want to hurt Zeiss ZF sales
a very considerate and admirable attitude :lecture:
All they are doing is selling Canon cameras with that attitude. ;)

Frankly, it's one reason I moved from Nikon to Canon (along with the lack of full frame.) Nikon has solved the FF issue, but the fast Canon primes are still seductive.

I want to sell off all my Canon gear ... but I am having a hard time parting with all these super fast aperture primes.

Wouldn't kill Nikon to update the 85/1.4 with AFS and VR either. But a 35/1.4 for FF would be more important IMHO. I say FF because FF is where it's at even though I also have a D300. The D300 is just a stop-gap back-up to the D3 for now until Nikon delivers a Canon 5D killer. The 5D was a camera I loved to hate. Good sensor in a toy camera IMO.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Wouldn't kill Nikon to update the 85/1.4 with AFS and VR either. But a 35/1.4 for FF would be more important IMHO. I say FF because FF is where it's at even though I also have a D300. The D300 is just a stop-gap back-up to the D3 for now until Nikon delivers a Canon 5D killer. The 5D was a camera I loved to hate. Good sensor in a toy camera IMO.
HI There Marc
Quite agree about the 85/1.4, and the 35.

as for your 5D killer - it's due to be announced today as far as I can see: D700; D3 sensor in D300 body.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
HI There Marc
Quite agree about the 85/1.4, and the 35.

as for your 5D killer - it's due to be announced today as far as I can see: D700; D3 sensor in D300 body.
D-700 ... Perfect. Hope they allow easy swapping of focusing screens. I want this for the ZF manual focus optics I've been collecting.:clap:
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
Exactly, the easy swapping of focusing screens is a crucial point !
By the way I think Nikon meets the press tomorrow, not today, at least here in Denmark.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Exactly, the easy swapping of focusing screens is a crucial point !
By the way I think Nikon meets the press tomorrow, not today, at least here in Denmark.
I don't mind about focusing screens - I always found focusing aids distracted horribly from composition, and I really don't find it any issue manual focusing on the D3 . . . quite the contrary).

I think you may be right about July 1st . . Digital Depot, the UK dealer who were talking about the 30th June now just say 'coming soon'
 

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
These 95% viewfinder coverage rumors are depressing. I went to sleep last night (June 30th in Australia) thinking that all would have been revealed when I woke up. Now it's the morning of July 1st and still no news! To while away the time over the past few days I've been reading through old posts on the Medium Format forum. I rather wish I hadn't started that...

(Later) My first thought, as soon as I posted this, was that it should have been in the Rumor season thread. But, looking at the last couple of posts, I see the reason for my error: this thread has turned into another rumor thread!
 
Last edited:

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
In his in-depth discussion of the new D700, Thom Hogan devotes a significant amount of space to discussing the big holes in the Nikon lens line up and his prognosis isn't good. The following small excerpt gives a sense of his argument and I think it's well worth reading all he has to say. (If you want to skip the stuff about the D700, scroll down towards the bottom of the page.) Regarding "the type of lenses that the FX crowd is still waiting for," he writes:

Let me list just a few: any wide fast prime, 50mm f/1.4G AF-S, 85mm f/1.4G AF-S, 70-200mm VR enhancement, 200mm f/4G Micro-Nikkor, 80-400mm VR AF-S, 300mm f/4 VR AF-S, any lower-specified normal or telephoto zoom (e.g. 24-105mm f/4G and 80-200mm f/4G AF-S VR).

It does seem strange to me that Nikon introduces a D700 and doesn't have the current lens set to go with it (either renewed primes or lower-specified normal/telephoto zooms or both). Until Nikon fixes that, the D700 isn't fully realized IMHO...

Unfortunately, I don't see the lens situation improving very rapidly.​
 

LJL

New member
All they are doing is selling Canon cameras with that attitude. ;)

Frankly, it's one reason I moved from Nikon to Canon (along with the lack of full frame.) Nikon has solved the FF issue, but the fast Canon primes are still seductive.

I want to sell off all my Canon gear ... but I am having a hard time parting with all these super fast aperture primes.

Wouldn't kill Nikon to update the 85/1.4 with AFS and VR either. But a 35/1.4 for FF would be more important IMHO. I say FF because FF is where it's at even though I also have a D300. The D300 is just a stop-gap back-up to the D3 for now until Nikon delivers a Canon 5D killer. The 5D was a camera I loved to hate. Good sensor in a toy camera IMO.
Marc,
You have hit the same speed-bump I keep running into at this point. While the new Nikon camera(s) are finally hitting stride for good high ISO, FF, fps speed, etc., I keep running into the same hole.....lack of lenses to match this new FF offering. I too look to dump the Canon gear, maybe part with my Leica stuff, and pick up something like the D700 to handle the sports stuff while building the MF kit. Went to look at what lenses to swap and into the hole I fell. No 35/1.4, no 24/1.4, no decent 50/1.2 or 1.4, no 85/1.2 nothing comfortable in the 300 range, etc. Pretty much what folks are mentioning in this thread. That, coupled with a poor 70-200 on the FF (based on the D3), and more expensive 400/2.8, plus an iffy 24-70/2.8 and it is not looking quite as utopic as I was hoping for.

Not raining on the parade, as the D700 looks quite nice, but there is a disturbing lack of good glass to mate to it for the needs now being met by my Canon and Leica stuff. Hmmmm.....have to start rethinking the swap concept again.

LJ
 

harmsr

Workshop Member
Marc,
You have hit the same speed-bump I keep running into at this point. While the new Nikon camera(s) are finally hitting stride for good high ISO, FF, fps speed, etc., I keep running into the same hole.....lack of lenses to match this new FF offering. I too look to dump the Canon gear, maybe part with my Leica stuff, and pick up something like the D700 to handle the sports stuff while building the MF kit. Went to look at what lenses to swap and into the hole I fell. No 35/1.4, no 24/1.4, no decent 50/1.2 or 1.4, no 85/1.2 nothing comfortable in the 300 range, etc. Pretty much what folks are mentioning in this thread. That, coupled with a poor 70-200 on the FF (based on the D3), and more expensive 400/2.8, plus an iffy 24-70/2.8 and it is not looking quite as utopic as I was hoping for.

Not raining on the parade, as the D700 looks quite nice, but there is a disturbing lack of good glass to mate to it for the needs now being met by my Canon and Leica stuff. Hmmmm.....have to start rethinking the swap concept again.

LJ
Ditto.

I want new primes for this camera. In the smaller camera body, I just can't deal with the 24-70/2.8 size. Plus it doesn't compete with the ZF primes. I really want a new 35, 50, & 85 that can compete with the ZF primes or come very close.

Ray
 
Last edited:
Top