Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Polls
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
 Sponsors
 Special Offers
 Our Store
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Student Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Subscribe
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Nikon lens wish list
Matt Cashore, Photographer
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 11:38 AM on 01.01.13
->> The 70-200 f4 was a wish-list lens for me. I guess I would put that on my 'best purchases' on the other thread.

For 2013, I would love a VR, N-coated, AF update of the old 400 f3.5.

What about y'all?
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 6:05 PM on 01.01.13
->> The AF-S version of the 85/f1.8 was on my wish list; but it's turned out to be a bit of a disappointment. Maybe I'm jinxed.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Holleman, Photographer
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 6:46 PM on 01.01.13
->> I second the 400mm f3.5. I'd even settle for a 400mm 5.6, or 4.5 or something in that range.

An in-between fast zoom that's longer than a 24-70, but shorter than a 70-200, that's fairly light and easy to carry. Something like a 35-105 or 50-135.

Faster small primes that aren't that expensive, 24/2, 28/1.8, that kind of thing. How about more updated primes, period? 105/f2.5, 135mm, 180mm af-s, VR versions. I used to wear out lenses in that range.

Chuck, I haven't been wowed by the 85/f1.8, either. Maybe I just need to use it more.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Kauzlarich, Photographer
Washington | DC | | Posted: 7:00 PM on 01.01.13
->> I'd really enjoy a Nikon 400 f/5.6.

I need to try the 300 f/4 though. I don't own any super telephotos but need one soon. Don't have the money for the 200-400 that I love.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 7:30 PM on 01.01.13
->> Doug-have you checked out the 24-120 f4? It's one of my favorites
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Nic Coury, Photographer
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 9:12 PM on 01.01.13
->> A 135 f/2 and 180/2.8 or 2.5 wou;d be cool.

and a 300 f/4 AF-s VR
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Greg Francis, Photographer
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 9:23 PM on 01.01.13
->> I used a 400/3.5 in 1994 at my first internship, great lens, no larger than a 300/2.8! Bring it back Nikon!
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steve Ueckert, Photographer
Houston | TX | | Posted: 10:56 PM on 01.01.13
->> Another vote for an AF-S VR 400/3.5!

I've also never understood why there has never been an AF version of the legendary 105/2.5.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Gabe Souza, Photographer
Portland | ME | USA | Posted: 10:13 AM on 01.02.13
->> Second Nic's vote for an updated 135 f/2
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Fischer, Photographer
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 2:31 PM on 01.02.13
->> Let's look at this from a manufacturer's perspective for just a moment.

It used to be they made not so much on the camera bodies but made it back on the sale of lenses. So, if you're going to make a ton on a 400mm f2.8 AF-S VR, why would you build a F3.5 version of it that will have to sell for less? All you're doing as a manufacturer is reducing your profit if the consumer buys a f3.5 when he or she would have bought a f2.8.

So far, so good?

None of these decisions happen in a vacuum. Going to build a 70-200mm f4? What does it cost us in lost revenue on the f2.8 version versus the addition of new sales on the f4 that we wouldn't have otherwise made?

That's what they look it.

Do they make money on the bodies they sell today? Not so much on consumer targeted product, but I'm sure they do quite ok on D4 type bodies. At least, that's my guess.

M
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jack Kurtz, Photographer
Bangkok | Bangkok | Thailand | Posted: 8:10 PM on 01.02.13
->> Amazon still lists the Nikon AF 135 f2 in stock. Same with the legendary 180 f2.8. Granted their older designs and don't IS (or VR or whatever that other camera company calls it) but they were crazy sharp back in the day so I'm sure they're still crazy sharp.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Holleman, Photographer
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 10:20 PM on 01.02.13
->> Debra: "Doug-have you checked out the 24-120 f4? It's one of my favorites"

Not yet, but it might be in my future as a carry-around lens. I just blew up my budget for a D800 and 24-70mm.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Eric Francis, Photographer
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 1:10 AM on 01.03.13
->> Michael, there is one big difference. F3's and F4's were completely useful for a decade. I don't know about you guys, but I've bought a lot of camera bodies in the last decade.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 9:09 AM on 01.03.13
->> It's pretty clear that Nikon has made a strategic decision to produce a line of FX f4 lenses...16-35, 24-120, and now 70-200. Would not be surprised to see a 100-300 and a 400 to fill out the line. Their 2.8 glass is so astronomically priced that they've created a niche for f4 glass priced at what the old f2.8 glass used to cost (the 70-200/f4 costs about what an 80-200/f2.8 AF-S used to cost).
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matt Cashore, Photographer
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 3:36 PM on 01.03.13
->> Yeah, I own the 16-35 f4 and the 70-200 f4. Big fan of 'em both. At first I thought the 16-35 was too bulky compared to its Canon equivalent. But the sharpness of the Nikon 16-35 f4 is orders of magnitude better than the Canon 17-40 f4, so if shaper corners means a bulkier lens...that's a reasonable tradeoff.

To respond to my own initial post, I suppose Nikon would say the 200-400 VR is the update of the 400 3.5, in terms of weight, features and price point--I mean, what's a third of a stop with today's DSLRS?--But I'd still buy an updated 400 3.5 if it were an option.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brad Barr, Photographer
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 5:03 PM on 01.03.13
->> 135 1.8 VR if I was really wishing....

Gotta second the kudo's for the 24-120mm f4 vr. I sold my 24-70 about a month after getting mine :-)

a 100-300 2.8 or 4 that actually worked (the sigma 120-300 2.8 was a fail) would be nice...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ian Halperin, Photographer
Plano(Dallas) | TX | USA | Posted: 3:52 PM on 01.07.13
->> Doug--I have the 24-120 F4. Love it. Used it at almost every Cotton Bowl event, sometimes exclusively.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 9:25 AM on 01.14.13
->> How's the 24-120 f4 at action? Decent AF speed? Would love something with more range than my 28-70/f2.8.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ian Halperin, Photographer
Plano(Dallas) | TX | USA | Posted: 5:16 PM on 01.14.13
->> Chuck--yes. I'm seeing more of them in use on the sidelines.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jon Cunningham, Photographer
Lisle | IL | USA | Posted: 11:23 PM on 01.16.13
->> Add me to the 135/2 AFS Nikkor wishers. I have the 135/2 "defocus" Nikkor, and defocus is pretty much what it does under action conditions. Problem is, it is so incredibly sharp when it is lucky enough to focus on time, that it becomes like one of those video poker games. When you score, it's a big payoff, but more often than not, it's a bust. Still, you are too addicted by the occasional good hits to put it down. My rule is not to mount it until the assignment is safely covered. Then put it on and hope for the big bonus that it sometimes provides.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 7:23 PM on 01.17.13
->> Matt,

Thanks for the mini review of the 16-35 f4. I have been going back and forth on that one or the 14-24. The 14-24 can't take a filter and that scares me-having an unprotected $2k lens. I think the 16-35 will be it. Is it smaller than the 17-35? I recently sold mine after having no need for it for several years and once it was sold, the need for a wide lens has been popping up in my work a lot.
A 100-300 f4...hmm...I think I'd like to see that too. My 200-400 is pretty heavy
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matt Cashore, Photographer
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 7:30 PM on 01.17.13
->> I had the 17-35 for a while, I'd say the 16-35 is quite similar in size, maybe a smidge lighter, but definitely sharper and with VR.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Cooper Neill, Photographer, Assistant
Dallas | Tx | USA | Posted: 12:57 AM on 01.18.13
->> What do you guys think about the 28mm 1.8 lens? I've heard great things about the 35mm 2.0 and am in the market for a wide prime. If you've used one or both I'd love to hear what you think!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Daniel Berman, Photographer, Assistant
Seattle | WA | US | Posted: 11:55 PM on 01.19.13
->> Cooper,

I have owned both the 28mm 1.8 and 35 f/2, and both are really super sharp, contrasty and handy lenses for full-frame cameras. I can shoot the 28 wide open and enjoy good results. Of course, the 35 is cheaper and older, so used copies abound.

Daniel
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kevin Pataky, Photographer
North Haven | CT | USA | Posted: 9:24 AM on 01.25.13
->> ->>100-300 2.8 or 4 that actually worked (the sigma 120-300 2.8 was a fail)

Brad, I second your thoughts on adding a 100-300 f/2.8 lens to the Nikon arsenal. Did you have a bad experience with Sigma's 120-300? How was it a failure for you?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Holleman, Photographer
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 7:08 PM on 01.29.13
->> So, how does Nikon answer our please? THey come out with a new 800mm f/5.6 that costs $18,000.

And an 18-35mm 3.5-5.6. Sorry, I already have one of those that works as well as I will likely ever need. Great little lens. I don't think I'll be spending another $800 for a newer version.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 7:18 PM on 01.29.13
->> You guys can make all the jokes you want about the 800mm....all I'm saying is there are a LOT of "photographers" on this site who will go out and buy one. Just to have it. Period.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 7:25 PM on 01.29.13
->> I got two, so I could put a winter and a summer camo lens coat on them.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (2) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 8:14 AM on 01.31.13
->> @Kevin - Been using the original Sigma 120-300/f2.8 for going on eight years now. It's been in to Sigma once for ~$650 to repair the AF system and a "hitch" in the zoom mechanism. I've also self-replaced the lens mount once, where I wore out the aperture-indexing notch on the mount.

No, it's not the equal of Nikon's 300/f2.8, but for what it is I've found it to be a great lens. Pairs well with a 1.4x TC (I've used both Sigma's dedicated TC and the Kenko Teleplus 300). But it seems to be one of those love/hate lenses.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brad Barr, Photographer
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 10:44 AM on 01.31.13
->> Kevin, the old version was sort of iffy...if you got a sharp one it was pretty decent, if not it was awful. So not wanting to play roulette, I ordered the new version earlier in the spring. I did all sorts of testing, and used it on a couple assignments, and the sad part is, while a joy to work with, the resulting images just were not sharp too often. Particular when tracking. When I took it back to the dealer i got it from, he called the Sigma rep...after 10 minutes of going back and forth, he told me point blank, that I was lucky to have gotten "any sharp images" when tracking because I was using a nikon.....Said it simply would not work well and blamed nikons af system. I chuckled and said ok, then I guess that explains why the Nikon 300 works so well then??
Picked up a used 300 2.8 AFSII and the difference in IQ is simply amazing. Too bad, cause it really is a great range.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: Nikon lens wish list
Thread Started By: Matt Cashore
Message:
Member Login:
Password:


|| Sponsor Special Deals

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens
Available from: Samy's Camera | Price: $2299.00
Notes: The all-new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM increases the speed, performance and optical quality while maintaining all of the characteristics that have made it a legend for professionals and advanced amateurs alike.
-- More Info --



Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Hi there. How are you? ::..