Dream lens not made

snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 723Member
edited May 16 in Nikon Lenses
Do you have any dream lens that is currently not available but should be possible to make?

My dream lens is a 500/4 PF with built in 1.4 converter. Actually a whole line of long PF prime lenses with built in converters would be nice.
Post edited by snakebunk on
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 1,861Member
    Any wide DX prime for us DX shooters would be nice...

    We've been asking for it for years since the 35mm 1.8 came out.

    Holy crap, the press release for the lens came out in 2009. So almost 10 years ago now.

    Even if it were around $500 I'd get one probably.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • CaMeRaQuEsTCaMeRaQuEsT Posts: 265Member
    NSXTypeR said:

    Any wide DX prime for us DX shooters would be nice...

    We've been asking for it for years since the 35mm 1.8 came out.

    Holy crap, the press release for the lens came out in 2009. So almost 10 years ago now.

    Even if it were around $500 I'd get one probably.

    I stopped dreaming about wide DX primes and took action by buying a used D600 and opening myself to a whole world of dirt cheap used AF and AF-D primes. Still, a sharp and compact 24mm f1.8 DX for my D5500 would be very welcome.
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 202Member
    Slowly but surely, DX is stopped by all manufacturers, promising everything for DX, but only to sell their DX cameras. All FF lenses work fine on DX cameras.

    Nikon D600 with the f/1.8 series, relatively cheap and top quality.
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 1,409Member
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 723Member
    edited May 16

    15-300 FX

    Do you think it is possible to make a lens like that with good sharpness over the whole range? Or maybe sharpness is not so important for how you would use it?
    Post edited by snakebunk on
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 1,409Member
    edited May 16
    Well it says Dream lens or is a lense something different ?
    what does " maybe sharpness is not so important for how you would use it?" mean ?
    Post edited by Pistnbroke on
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 723Member
    edited May 16
    Ok.

    If I was to dream about a zoom lens I think it would be a 300-800/5.6 PF. But I would miss F4, so a long prime with built in converter is better for me. And with PF technique it would still be possible to carry on board a plane.
    Post edited by snakebunk on
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 723Member
    edited May 16

    Well it says Dream lens or is a lense something different ?
    what does " maybe sharpness is not so important for how you would use it?" mean ?

    Hm, I think I mean what it says. For example I mostly use my photographs in the format 1280x720, and if I don't need to crop much I can use images where the sharpness is not perfect. I can't say what is important for you in the way you would use a 15-300 lens, and that is why I asked.
    Post edited by snakebunk on
  • HankBHankB Posts: 113Member
    Ultra high ratio zoom is the right tool for the job in some situations, even if you must give up some performance. It is totally reasonable to expect upcoming technology to reduce the performance trade-off.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 723Member
    edited May 16
    HankB said:

    Ultra high ratio zoom is the right tool for the job in some situations, even if you must give up some performance. It is totally reasonable to expect upcoming technology to reduce the performance trade-off.

    I agree and I can see situations where it is the right tool.There are current compact cameras with similar range as pistnbroke mentions. Maybe harder though to achieve on a larger sensor.
    Post edited by snakebunk on
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 1,409Member
    what's a lense......I type it and it has a red line under it ...
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 723Member
    edited May 16

    what's a lense......I type it and it has a red line under it ...

    Sorry, I meant lens. Didn't you understand that?

    Edit: I have corrected this now.
    Post edited by snakebunk on
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 1,409Member
    Thought it might have been an American spelling
  • HankBHankB Posts: 113Member

    Thought it might have been an American spelling

    Our spelling usually delete letters

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,560Member
    400mm f/4.0 with 2x reproduction ratio is my dream lens not made. F/5.6 would also be fine and if it only focussed at 5 feet or less that would also be fine.

    Hmmm....my 200mm f/4.0 and Kenko extenders kinda does that.....
  • Capt_SpauldingCapt_Spaulding Posts: 336Member
    Lens, lense who cares. Colour it howsomever you like. Down home in Texas, we have our own version(s) of the Mother tounge.

  • sportsport Posts: 46Member
    8-300 f2.8 that weights less than the 70-300. If we are dreaming then go big.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 723Member
    @sport: But is there any lens design that you want Nikon to make and that you think they can make?
  • sportsport Posts: 46Member
    Honestly, I just want an updated 50 f1.4. In the future it would nice if they design the lens to be able to convert from f mount to the new mount like Sigma does. If you are spending serious money on a lens it would help justify buying if you know it could be converted in the future. And I am not talking about an add on converter.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,560Member
    Yes, a 50 that performed to the new 105 standard would be nice.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 723Member
    @sport: I agree completely about possibility to convert all future f mount lenses to new mount. And of course Nikon would also need to unveil their plans for the future.

    Btw, I read that Sigma does not support the f mount for their new 70 mm macro lense. They had an explanation that I did not fully understand, but I think uncertainty about the future of the f mount may be part of it.
  • sportsport Posts: 46Member
    edited May 17
    snakebunk said:

    Btw, I read that Sigma does not support the f mount for their new 70 mm macro lense. They had an explanation that I did not fully understand, but I think uncertainty about the future of the f mount may be part of it.

    I read that to mean: "Our marketing team has determined that there will not be enough Nikon sales for this lens to support Nikon F mount."

    Post edited by sport on
  • HankBHankB Posts: 113Member
    I wonder if marketeers and PR spokespeople in general can turn off the BS when they deal with people face to face?
  • SportsSports Posts: 353Member
    30-75mm f/1.8, please.
    Sigma makes those 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 zooms, but one covering the area between the two would be nice.
    D300, J1
    Sigma 70-200/2.8, 105/2.8
    Nikon 50/1.4G, 18-200, 80-400G
    1 10-30, 30-110
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 5,546Moderator

    Yes, a 50 that performed to the new 105 standard would be nice.

    Yes please.
    HankB said:

    I wonder if marketeers and PR spokespeople in general can turn off the BS when they deal with people face to face?

    HAHAHA! No.
    Always learning.
Sign In or Register to comment.