What is the lifecycle of a Nikon pro lens?

Wesley

I started photography three years ago (2011) and don't recall ever seeing any of the Nikon pro lenses come out with a new version yet. So I checked the buying guide and it seems they were all released in 2010 or earlier.

I'd want a 135mm f2 AF-S and maybe the 24-70 VR2.

Pistnbroke

Interesting and yes I have a 25 year old Nikon lens but I do find that FX lenses dont work so well on DX and the older Nikon lenses recognised by having an aperture ring dont give the best image quality as they date from the film era. Over 16mp you need the latest glass.IMHO

sevencrossing

The nearest Nikon make to a 24-70 VR2. is the 24 -120 f4 VR
is there anything that need updating with the Nikon 135mm f2 D AF DC ?
if you need VR there is the 70 -200 f 2.8 VR

Wesley

Well for me I don't need VR. I just said VR2 to say the next iteration.
Not a fan of long lenses like the 70-200mm personally.

I'd just like AF-S for the 105/135mm. D lenses sound like battery screwdrivers. Not a dealbreaker and I'd buy it if no updated version is coming.

TaoTeJared

The pro lens cycle for the "Trinity" is 10 years give or take a couple at times (i.e. 70-200 to update Nano coatings.) Exotics like the 135 DC, 105 DC , macros, etc are generally 15-20 years. We are on the long side of many lenses and Nikon is pumping out quite a few each year so it is hard to tell.

I'd want a 135mm f2 AF-S and maybe the 24-70 VR2.

I would doubt seeing either of those for a few years at least. Both will be in the $2k+ range as well if you are thinking price will be less than what's out there.

The DC (105/135) lenses are really on the long side, and so are the rest of the primes and older macros. To know which will come next is a crap-shoot.

VR in the 24-70 - I'm not sure if we will ever see that. Canon has been working on a version for years. I first heard of people testing one 5 years ago and they have yet to release one. Nikon is one of those companies who just doesn't believe VR is needed on 2.8 or faster lenses - or at least the people in charge have said that in interviews. If you need VR I would just go for the Tamron. If it is the next version, it will be 2-3 years yet before we see one.

TomB

Just give me an 300 f4 AFS with VR and a better tripod foot. Hand Held BIF heaven.

Not that I would sell my 300 f2.8 AFS.

Ade

@Wesley

I actually would like to see a VR version of the 24-70mm. I think it's overdue.

Nikon is one of those companies who just doesn't believe VR is needed on 2.8 or faster lenses - or at least the people in charge have said that in interviews.

Nikon currently has five professional lenses 2.8 or faster with VR. The 105 macro, 200/2, 70-200/2.8, 300/2,8 and 400/2.8.

PB_PM

I don't see the hurry for Nikon to add VR to the 24-70mm, at least as a consumer. Why? You could expect a major price hike, into the $2k range. The lens is already expensive enough for what it is now. Even if there is an update, I'll keep the current version, since even without the added VR motor it's heavy enough already.

Fritz

Well, considering some of the recent new offerings from Sigma and Tamron, Nikon may need to refresh some of its glass.

WestEndBoy

I am not sure which lens I like better. My 85 or 135. The 85 is 4 years old and the 135 is 24 years old. Both have been accused of being the world's best portrait lens. I am not sure which one is sharper wide open. They are both pretty sharp and produce some amazing images.

I have also recently acquired my 200 macro. This lens is 21 years into its production cycle. I was in a hurry to get this lens because I was worried that Nikon might replace it. The replacement will be another $1,000, have VR (how useless is that with a macro?) and not be any sharper. If the auto-focus is faster, who cares, as I will likely use manual focus most of the time. If I want to shoot fast action or portraits, I will get the f2.

My recently acquired manual focus lenses have been in production for 30 plus years. While they are getting dated (they are a little soft wide open, but I use them for landscapes and shoot them at 5.6-11 where they are competitive with my 14-24 2.8 regarding image quality), they were still the best solution for my shooting requirement.

I like nice gear, perhaps the best. However, I do not always feel that the best is the latest and greatest.

Pistnbroke

If you buy Sigma or Tamron make sure you go to the shop and test it on your or the very latest nikon camera . It may seem to work fine but check things like is the LCD doing the right 4 sec preview or its it stuck at 60 seconds ? I had to sell all my modern Sigmas as the problems with the LCD caused the battery life to be about 1/3 normal.( sigma said it was "a feature" ) Then consider in 5 years time will nikon have put very heavy 3rd party blocks in the firmware and your lens will be valueless. I have experienced problems with .sigma lenses/flash guns/grips/batteries all 3rd party on D800/7100..which did not exist when useing the same on the D7000 ....be carefull.

sevencrossing

Is the topic on those


May I am dick head too but

The 135mm f2 AF-S came out in 1990

If you something more up-to-date the Nikon 70-200mm VR11 (2009) might be Nikon's idea of an update

The Op said

Well for me I don't need VR. I just said VR2 to say the next iteration. Not a fan of long lenses like the 70-200mm personally. -


which I find confusing

I would consider the 135 mm a long lens and why does someone who does not want VR want VR2?

Msmoto

Old lenses, pro versions…. from 1967, a 300mm f/4.5 Nikkor:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8698489119/sizes/o/

PB_PM

The 135mm f2 AF-S came out in 1990

Really? That would make it the first "AF-S" lens ever made. :P

Wesley

There seems to be some confusion.
I should have said 24-70mm version 2.0 instead of VR2, sorry about that.

Isn't AF-S suppose to mean the silent focus which the 135 f2 doesn't have?

Everyone has a different threshold on what's considered a long lens. For me, I consider lenses like the 70-200 2.8 to be long and the 135 f2 to be average. Something like 50/85 would be short.

Ade

Commonly, full-frame lenses of around 50mm (say 40mm to 60mm) are considered "normal". Anything above would be "long" and anything less will be "short". So both the 85 and 135 would commonly be considered "long".

The AF-S 135mm has been rumored but alas it is not yet available in real life.

Wesley

Commonly, full-frame lenses of around 50mm (say 40mm to 60mm) are considered "normal". Anything above would be "long" and anything less will be "short". So both the 85 and 135 would commonly be considered "long".

The AF-S 135mm has been rumored but alas it is not yet available in real life.

Seems like I'm on a different page as everyone else )
I meant the physical length of the lens. Not the focal length.

Ade

A haha! That was funny.

snakebunk

"Then consider in 5 years time will nikon have put very heavy 3rd party blocks in the firmware and your lens will be valueless.

I don't know if they can do it without making their own lenses useless and I don't think they want to do it. It would make people with Sigma lenses buy other cameras and in general make Nikon less attractive. What I think may happen is that Sigma gives you the option to buy their cameras with an F mount.

I wonder if the great reviews of some third party lenses makes Nikon hesitate to put out new versions. Maybe they want to make sure that they are at least as good.

PB_PM

@snakebunk Nikon has already done that to third party lenses/grips/batteries several times, whether it is intentional or not. Some Sigma/Tamron users have had to send lenses back to to the respective manufactures to be re-chiped in the past. More recently some older Sigma lenses needed to be sent back for firmware updates. Some of the newer Sigma lenses with a support for the USB dock have already had firmware updates to compensate for changes to Nikon firmware.

These changes have no affect on Nikon lenses, because Nikon has the CPU codes for all their lenses/batteries/grips. Third party equipment is reverse engineered (Nikon does not license the code to third party manufactures), so they try to duplicate the appearance of a similar Nikkor, but cannot copy them exactly otherwise the lenses would not focus or operate correctly, due to different optical formulas, and chipsets (not to mention the legal implications). Sigma already lost a court battle, because the OS used in some lenses was operationally too similar to Nikon's VR patents.

Since Nikon is not currently licensing the F-mount to third parties, if Sigma did make an F-mount camera Nikon would simply sue them.

snakebunk

@PB_PM: Why would Nikon sue Sigma if they make an F mount camera but not for making F mount lenses?

sevencrossing

The patent on the F mount has expired
I think sigma could make an F mount camera but Nikon will hold a lot of other patents, that would stop them making say a D400

sevencrossing

One thing about the Nikon vs third partly lenses is VR; not important and shorter focal lengths but the VR3 on the new 80- 400 is amazing

sevencrossing

Wesley I meant the physical length of the lens. Not the focal length.
LOL As an Fx user, I am firm believer, bigger is always better

snakebunk

The patent on the F mount has expired
I think sigma could make an F mount camera but Nikon will hold a lot of other patents, that would stop them making say a D400

That makes sense.
Sigma will of course never make Nikon cameras, but if they make the next generation DSLRs with an F mount it could be a D300 replacement for some of us.

Vipmediastar_JZ

@snakebunk Nikon has already done that to third party lenses/grips/batteries several times, whether it is intentional or not. Some Sigma/Tamron users have had to send lenses back to to the respective manufactures to be re-chiped in the past. More recently some older Sigma lenses needed to be sent back for firmware updates. Some of the newer Sigma lenses with a support for the USB dock have already had firmware updates to compensate for changes to Nikon firmware.
.

The DF and Sigma 35 have issues. I am waiting for my usb dock to arrive.
Advisory Here