What lenses would you like to see updated by Nikon?

WestEndFoto

Next year is fine for me. I won't be in a position to buy it until then.

Grazzy

I personally would love them to update the Nikon AF-S 200-400mm F4 VR II - I know it's much more recent than others listed here, but it's design hasn't changed for the best part of 12 years - it's just had minor revisions such as a VR upgrade.

I feel it lacks on the higher end bodies like the D810, and the Canon version is definitely a step up in quality - although it costs a colossal amount of money!!

My guess is that if Nikon did release a new and improved version, it would cost a lot of money! But hopefully it would be worth it!

Photobug

They could add the PF to the lens and the price would jump 15 to 20%. I really expect the PF feature to expand across many lens over the next 5 years. This seams like a great lens to reduce the size and weight. It comes down to the $$$$$. At what number is a lens too expensive?

Pavvyben

I guess it's more about the improvements for me. If they improved the 200-400 F4 VR II enough that there was a substantial increase in IQ, along with size/weight reduction, then it would be worth it - almost regardless of the price!

Photobug

Question for MsMoto and other older photographers. Any one ever owned a Nikon 18mm F4 lens? It sure is a nice looking lens. See KR's comments at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18mm-f4.htm

WestEndFoto

They could add the PF to the lens and the price would jump 15 to 20%. I really expect the PF feature to expand across many lens over the next 5 years. This seams like a great lens to reduce the size and weight. It comes down to the $$$$$. At what number is a lens too expensive?

I think that they will use PF on the cheaper lenses to keep cost and weight down with some sacrifice in non-sharpness related IQ (the flaring). I think that they will use fluorite where this compromise is not acceptable. I wonder which category the 200-400 falls into.

scoobysmak

I see the 200-400 falling in the Pro quality lens area but I wouldn't be shocked if it wasn't either. I think the build quality of this lens is excellent. The only true complaint I have really seen is photographing subjects at long distances. Some, even Thom, do not like the lens for distant shots but up close love it. I think some of the distant shot problem is people not familiar with taking photographs with lenses over 200mm and some side effects like heat waves appearing in photos, although I am sure Thom knows how to use a long lens and when to use it.

I will counter my first comment by saying maybe there is some significant sample variation between lenses, so maybe Thom got a bad copy or two for his test. The other fact is now that other companies have put out lenses like 150-600 more people know how to shoot with longer lenses. The fact that this lens is almost $7k puts it in the professional category to me but I would have to agree that this lens needs a revamp maybe only because of a "bad rap" that it may or may not deserve.

I have personally used this lens, I will admit that long range shots did not appear as sharp. This was in the middle of the desert and I was shooting over a paved surface in the afternoon/late evening, temps probably a bit over 100 degrees F, not exactly long range friendly.

Photobug

They could add the PF to the lens and the price would jump 15 to 20%. I really expect the PF feature to expand across many lens over the next 5 years. This seams like a great lens to reduce the size and weight. It comes down to the $$$$$. At what number is a lens too expensive?

I think that they will use PF on the cheaper lenses to keep cost and weight down with some sacrifice in non-sharpness related IQ (the flaring). I think that they will use fluorite where this compromise is not acceptable. I wonder which category the 200-400 falls into.

Excellent question on the 200-400mm lens. It makes sense to use use Fluorite instead of PF where it does not make sense.

autofocus

I'm not sure it matters what Nikon updates at the rate Sigma is producing quality glass. That said, I would like to see an update to the 135mm if it's before Sigma does it.

jimmyboy

Nikon 200 f/4 macro

WestEndFoto

I bought mine last year to make sure I didn't get stuck with a new model. I love the manual focus ring, don't want VR, a thousand dollar premium, and I doubt it will get sharper.

jimmyboy

I bought mine last year to make sure I didn't get stuck with a new model. I love the manual focus ring, don't want VR, a thousand dollar premium, and I doubt it will get sharper.

Yes no VR, but f/2.8 be nice.

Msmoto

@Beso

And, so am I, the 200mm f/2 PF. If it looks as good as it sounds, this should perform with the new TC-14EIII, with Fluorine Coating, like a 300mm f/2.8. My predictions....

And, Fluorine Coating, ....oh golly another thread....

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/3944/fluorine-coating-all-comments-#Item_1

WestEndFoto

I bought mine last year to make sure I didn't get stuck with a new model. I love the manual focus ring, don't want VR, a thousand dollar premium, and I doubt it will get sharper.

Yes no VR, but f/2.8 be nice.

On a macro? My biggest challenge is getting enough light on the subject so I can stop down to f/16.

Beso

@Msmoto

I like the concept of PF but from what I have read there are some flare issues. I will take the extra weight of a non-PF version if it means the highest quality. It will still be an easy hold compared with a 400mm f/2.8.
I do like the concept of turning the 200mm f/2 into a 280mm if the TC does not provide noticeable degradation. My experience with the TC-20Eiii has soured me on TCs though.

brownie314

anybody interested in updating 17-55 f/2.8 for aps-c? How about a 16-85 f/4?

Photobug

I bought mine last year to make sure I didn't get stuck with a new model. I love the manual focus ring, don't want VR, a thousand dollar premium, and I doubt it will get sharper.

Yes no VR, but f/2.8 be nice.

On a macro? My biggest challenge is getting enough light on the subject so I can stop down to f/16.

I got a ring light and some time use a reflector and that solved the issue getting enough light on the subject. I did not spend big $$$ either, less than $100 for both.

Photobug

anybody interested in updating 17-55 f/2.8 for aps-c? How about a 16-85 f/4?

The 17-55 F2.8 lens was my work horse for several cameras. I sold it a few months ago when I switched to FX for wide angle and short telephoto work. Still use the D7100 for long telephoto work. I forgot the freedom you get with two DSLR's. This lens really needs an update.

jimmyboy

I bought mine last year to make sure I didn't get stuck with a new model. I love the manual focus ring, don't want VR, a thousand dollar premium, and I doubt it will get sharper.

Yes no VR, but f/2.8 be nice.

200 f/4 macro Just because the plate on the lens says macro don't mean that you have to use it for macro.
Minimum Focus Distance: 1.6' never had a problem with lighting.
This lens hunts alot just like there 105 macro.
This lens is built like a tank. I believe this lens came out 1993 it needs a update. shorter, lighter, faster!

mwajidali

Well from the above list I will be waiting for 135mm f2 G version to add one more feather in my crown for my portraits.
Currently I have primes all f1.8 G version of 28mm for group shots, 50mm for full body shot , 85mm for half body shot & 105mm for shoulder to head shot.
135mm G will definitely help me cover some what missing gap as I heard 101% positive feedback of this lens for D version.

electron

- 135 f/2 or a lighter 70-200 f/2.8.
- 400mm f/4 or a 300-600 mm: anything allowing to reach 600mm at a reasonnable price with a reasonnable weight with a good IQ.

squoop

I would love to see a 400mm f/4 PF.
EDIT: Make that 400mm f/5.6 PF, now that I've checked the price & weight of the Canon 400mm f/4 DO! ($6469 and still heavier than the 80-400 G.) Although based on the 300mm PF, maybe Nikon can do a lot better than the Canon with both weight & price?

I've found 400mm to be the ideal FL for birding. The ability to add a TC-14E iii to get to 560mm without being a beast would be awesome. Not concerned with flare as I rarely shoot directly towards the sun.

Hammie

I know that the 35mm 1.8G was released last year, but, I would like to see the following lenses updated with the newer faster AF-S and Nano coating:

35mm f/1.8G
50mm f/1.4G
50mm f/1.8G
85mm f/1.8G

Nikon has alreadt release the 20mm and 28mm f/1.8 with Nano and fast AF-S motors. I'd like to see them round off their prime catalog with similar features.

carlnjpn

For me:
NIKON 17-35mm f/2.8 (The constant 2.8 needs to stay! the 16-35mm f/4 just not enough PRO Quality/IC in it)
Would like to see an updated Nikon 58mm f/1.2 Noct-NIKKOR like others have mentioned.
More FX lenses please.... Hate to lose the MP due to "Crop Factor" on D750 & D610 cameras.
Thanks for asking.