Nikon's next lens release

[DCBass]

Hey Everyone,

Given Nikon's recent release of 5 pro-level lenses, what lenses do you think they will come out with next and when?

Personally, I'm looking forward to an AF-S 50mm prime, hopefully in time for xmas, but I'm not sure how realistic that is.

-DCBass

 

[jaduffy108]

Guessing game

Many seem to be guessing that Nikon will release new AFS primes with the D3X (or whatever they call it)...the 24mp FX cam. A very badly kept secret

Might be announced in Feb 08... and delivered later.

Makes sense to *me*....and I hope it's true! I'm waiting for AFS primes.

 

[Daeve]

I imagine AFS primes - the D40 range won't work in auto focus with the current (non-AFS) range. I can't see Nikon leaving out a large group of users for long, that in buying a cheaper level camera (D40/D40x) would be quite likely to buy a cheap lens (50mm great value lens).

 

[epicwelshman]

I imagine AFS primes - the D40 range won't work in auto focus with the current (non-AFS) range. I can't see Nikon leaving out a large group of users for long, that in buying a cheaper level camera (D40/D40x) would be quite likely to buy a cheap lens (50mm great value lens).

I couldn't agree more. However, the current non-AFS 50mm is quite an old lens. A new version would be all new and fancy, and I imagine Nikon may jack the price up, especially as they know the demand for a new 50mm 1.8 / 1.4.

 

[freebooter]

There are several specialist lenses, discontinued by Nikon, that I'd like to see redesigned for the modern DSLR.

Micro Nikkor 200mm and Micro N. 70-180mm.
28mm 1.4 designed for night use.

All three are classics.

 

[epicwelshman]

There are several specialist lenses, discontinued by Nikon, that I'd like to see redesigned for the modern DSLR.

Micro Nikkor 200mm and Micro N. 70-180mm.
28mm 1.4 designed for night use.

All three are classics.

Ah, I thought you may desire more than a 105mm Micro lens That 70-180 could be quite versatile for your kind of work too.

 

[Westside guy]

I'm thinking maybe the 80-400mm VR might be the next lens to go AF-S.

While it'd be nice to see some AF-S primes, I really wonder if we will. Nikon may figure people who buy the entry dSLRs (like the D40/x) are unlikely to become significant purchasers of prime lenses.

Putting in the "good" AF-S (which would be the only version that'd even make sense in a prime) would also push the price up somewhat, especially on a lens like the 50mm f/1.8.

 

[Abstract]

The one thing I like about Canon, and even Pentax at times, is their 24, 28, 30, 35 mm, or any other wide-ish, fast prime lenses in their lineup.

I don't care if Nikon only made 9000 copies of the 28 mm f/1.4.....make more. People are obviously willing to pay for such a lens.

Um...anyway, the 50 mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 need to be updated to an AF-S version. It's inevitable, and I think it would also come with VR, much like the 85 mm lenses. I think those 4 lenses, and a 28 or 24 mm f1.4/f1.8 lens, would be fantastic.

 

[compuwar]

I don't care if Nikon only made 9000 copies of the 28 mm f/1.4.....make more. People are obviously willing to pay for such a lens.

Nikon cares about sales numbers though.

Um...anyway, the 50 mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 need to be updated to an AF-S version. It's inevitable, and I think it would also come with VR, much like the 85 mm lenses. I think those 4 lenses, and a 28 or 24 mm f1.4/f1.8 lens, would be fantastic.

VR on a 50mm lens? With good high ISO performance? I wouldn't hold my breath... If ISO3200 is usable on the new body then I expect they'd do better to update the 12-24mm and 35-70mm zooms.

 

[Abstract]

Why update the 12-24 mm f/4 if they just released the 14-24 mm f/2.8?

And sales numbers for that 28 mm f/1.4 would be huge. No more paying $2000 USD for such a prime. It's only that expensive because Nikon had to stop making them.

Also, I didn't say the 50 mm should come with VR. I just think that if they update it and make it an AF-S lens, they may also offer a VR version, since that's the rage these days with Nikon and Canon lens releases. The 50 mm doesn't need VR, but the 85 mm could use it.

 

[Westside guy]

Why update the 12-24 mm f/4 if they just released the 14-24 mm f/2.8?

Agreed. I can't really see what exactly they'd do to update the 12-24, since it's already AF-S. There's no real reason to put VR on this lens. I suppose if they made it a 9-24mm that'd be cool...

 

[cube]

They have to make a full frame 12-24 that is better than the Sigma.

 

[DCBass]

Timeline

We've had a few guesses as to what lenses will come out next, but...

when do you guys think the next lenses will come out? How often does Nikon release lenses, or is there not enough of a pattern to discern one way or the other?

 

[miloblithe]

18-55 f/3.5-5.6 VR

 

[compuwar]

Why update the 12-24 mm f/4 if they just released the 14-24 mm f/2.8?

Because they're missing an ultra-wide DX lens that has a constant f/2.8 aperture. Sigma's probably still selling about as many 10-20mm lenses as they can make and the 12-24mm isn't that stellar.

And sales numbers for that 28 mm f/1.4 would be huge. No more paying $2000 USD for such a prime. It's only that expensive because Nikon had to stop making them.

A 28mm lens is only slightly wide on FX, and we have yet to see how well those are going to sell. It makes more sense to either update the 50mm and 24mm lenses. It probably also makes more sense to do a 30mm, since that'd compete with the fast Sigma if they decide to get back into the speed game now they've reportedly gotten high-ISO sorted out, but they may decide that's good enough.

I'd rather see an update of the venerable 20-30mm f/2.8, but I suspect that range will lose out to something longer.

Also, I didn't say the 50 mm should come with VR. I just think that if they update it and make it an AF-S lens, they may also offer a VR version, since that's the rage these days with Nikon and Canon lens releases. The 50 mm doesn't need VR, but the 85 mm could use it.

I'd rather see them license AF-S to Zeiss at a good price.

Overall though, I'm not sure it makes too much sense for Nikon to update all the old primes- they're not likely to be huge sellers and they've been overwhelmed by production issues on the consumer superzooms- better pro zooms are more likely- the 200-400 was a big hit, despite its slow speed- trying to recreate that success at the wide and medium portions of the line makes more sense IMO.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Because they're missing an ultra-wide DX lens that has a constant f/2.8 aperture. Sigma's probably still selling about as many 10-20mm lenses as they can make and the 12-24mm isn't that stellar.



A 28mm lens is only slightly wide on FX, and we have yet to see how well those are going to sell. It makes more sense to either update the 50mm and 24mm lenses. It probably also makes more sense to do a 30mm, since that'd compete with the fast Sigma if they decide to get back into the speed game now they've reportedly gotten high-ISO sorted out, but they may decide that's good enough.

I'd rather see an update of the venerable 20-30mm f/2.8, but I suspect that range will lose out to something longer.



I'd rather see them license AF-S to Zeiss at a good price.

Overall though, I'm not sure it makes too much sense for Nikon to update all the old primes- they're not likely to be huge sellers and they've been overwhelmed by production issues on the consumer superzooms- better pro zooms are more likely- the 200-400 was a big hit, despite its slow speed- trying to recreate that success at the wide and medium portions of the line makes more sense IMO.

I wasn't going to jump in but you make such a great point... and I just love a good conversation. I think Nikon is loosing ground on the Pro level lenses and the Pro-sumer stuff as well. Nikon should have made the 14-24 and 24-70 VR, that is a big disappointment to me, I will still get my bodies and the 14-24 though. Since Nikon has filled the gaps in FX and in some ways DX with the new glass, I see them putting out a 50mm AF-S at 1.4 and hopefully 1.2, leaving the 50mm 1.8 non AF-S and at just under $100. I like the idea of a 24 and 30 and 35 and 28mm AF-S lenses, but who needs them. Give the DX shooters the 10-20 or 10-30mm f/2.8 AF-S to handle the wide end, and ditch the 24mm 28mm, and 35mm primes. The FX shooters can use the current primes in my opinion... or just step back whiile using the 50mm or 85mm AF-S lenses.

As for the consumers, they just need VR across the board, especially in the kit lenses.

p.s. The 80-400mm is an okay lens for some shooters. It could get the AF-S treatment too.

 

[Abstract]

They don't need to put VR in every single lens. Having VR can only degrade quality in a lens, with all other things like build quality and design being equal. If the decentering element of a particular VR lens broke and shattered, and the light didn't need to pass through it, the quality would likely be better. Now, you can argue that we have VR lenses that also have excellent image quality. That is true. However, what I'm saying is that taking away the VR ability from the same lens would further improve optical quality.

To see this, you can't just pick a super-sharp lens. You need to pick the sharpest of sharp lenses, and quite often, these tend to be macro prime lenses (because macros NEED to be sharp). Look at the Nikon 105 mm VR macro. Nobody thinks it's as sharp as the lens it replaces, and this is because it isn't! At this point, Nikon wouldn't replace a popular, mid-priced macro lens with a crappier version......unless it offered VR. However, even with VR, only certain people are going to want it because the image quality isn't as good as the previous non-VR model.

PS: I own the 105 mm VR macro and love it. I can use it for macros, but also use it for other things, and I get the benefit of VR.