This news deserves a thread by itself! It comes to me from a Nikon insider I have known for ten years.
This is kind of hard to swallow, and I cannot claim to understand Nikon's priorities. But it seems that the next few Nikkors to be released (all FX of course, DX is dead except for a few token bits of glass crumbs that may be thrown to pre-D3 Nikon DSLR users) are
Nikkor AF-S VR-II 200mm f1.8D
Nikkor AF-S VR-II 300mm f2D
Nikkor AF-S VR-II 400mm f2.5D
Nikkor AF-S VR-II 70-200mm f2.5D
Each of the four sets new standards for speed in its focal range.
Since the D3 and D700 give unsurpassed high ISO performance, usable up to 3200 ISO for most applications (and passable at 6400 ISO), with D3X almost as good, why is there this obsession with speed?
I don't have the weights as yet but they are going to be phenomenal. Specially the 300mm f2 (158mm front filter size if you wanted to use it!) and the 400mm f2.5
f2.5 is not such a strange aperture, Nikon used it before on the 105mm approx. half a century ago. It is more than 1/3rd stop faster than an f2.8.
I suppose Nikon believe depth of field control will sell these monster lenses. But wasn't 200mm f2 fast enough?
Paul Furman wrote: > ASAAR wrote: [] >> (all FX of course, DX is dead except for a few token bits >> of glass crumbs that may be thrown to pre-D3 Nikon DSLR users)
> I don't think FX will ever be consumer priced at least until there > some whole new technology.
.. and DX still provides the lightest and most compact cameras and lenses.
> This news deserves a thread by itself! It comes to me from a > Nikon insider I have known for ten years.
> This is kind of hard to swallow, and I cannot claim to understand > Nikon's priorities. But it seems that the next few Nikkors to be > released (all FX of course, DX is dead except for a few token bits > of glass crumbs that may be thrown to pre-D3 Nikon DSLR users) are
> Nikkor AF-S VR-II 200mm f1.8D
> Nikkor AF-S VR-II 300mm f2D
> Nikkor AF-S VR-II 400mm f2.5D
> Nikkor AF-S VR-II 70-200mm f2.5D
> Each of the four sets new standards for speed in its focal range.
> Since the D3 and D700 give unsurpassed high ISO performance, usable > up to 3200 ISO for most applications (and passable at 6400 ISO), with > D3X almost as good, why is there this obsession with speed?
> I don't have the weights as yet but they are going to be phenomenal. > Specially the 300mm f2 (158mm front filter size if you wanted to use > it!) and the 400mm f2.5
> f2.5 is not such a strange aperture, Nikon used it before on the > 105mm approx. half a century ago. It is more than 1/3rd stop faster than > an f2.8.
> I suppose Nikon believe depth of field control will sell these monster > lenses. But wasn't 200mm f2 fast enough?
My Nikon knowledge is limited, but sounds a strange move if it were true. They need to sort out other lenses in their range before concentrating on highly specialised lenses like these. Are you sure they're FX, not DX?
> My Nikon knowledge is limited, but sounds a strange move if it were > true. They need to sort out other lenses in their range before > concentrating on highly specialised lenses like these. Are you sure > they're FX, not DX?
Once you get beyond a certain telephoto focal length - somewhere around 70mm - it may be no significantly greater cost to go for a full-frame (FX) image circle.
David J Taylor wrote: > Paul Furman wrote: >> ASAAR wrote: > [] >>> (all FX of course, DX is dead except for a few token bits >>> of glass crumbs that may be thrown to pre-D3 Nikon DSLR users)
>> I don't think FX will ever be consumer priced at least until there >> some whole new technology.
> .. and DX still provides the lightest and most compact cameras and lenses.
And put that 400 f/2.5 on DX for an even more spectacular view.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:17:32 -0800, Paul Furman wrote: > ASAAR wrote: >> This news deserves a thread by itself! It comes to me from a >> Nikon insider I have known for ten years.
>> This is kind of hard to swallow, and I cannot claim to understand >> Nikon's priorities. But it seems that the next few Nikkors to be >> released
> Well I won't be able to afford any of those!
>> (all FX of course, DX is dead except for a few token bits >> of glass crumbs that may be thrown to pre-D3 Nikon DSLR users)
> I don't think FX will ever be consumer priced at least until there some > whole new technology.
Your reply was to a forged message, and not even a carefully crafted one. One of many hints in the header was :
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:51:05 -0000, Alan Smithee wrote: >> I suppose Nikon believe depth of field control will sell these monster >> lenses. But wasn't 200mm f2 fast enough?
> My Nikon knowledge is limited, but sounds a strange move if it were true. > They need to sort out other lenses in their range before concentrating on > highly specialised lenses like these. Are you sure they're FX, not DX?
I didn't post that message. See my reply to PF. The part from the header that I quoted :
suggests the source of the forger (part of which you also quoted), but it could also be a ruffian's revenge, considering the content or from one of the ng's prolific spammers.
"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote: > Since the D3 and D700 give unsurpassed high ISO performance, usable > up to 3200 ISO for most applications (and passable at 6400 ISO), with > D3X almost as good, why is there this obsession with speed?
Because you need the speed to leverage the sensitivity into an interesting range: f/2.0 at ISO 3200 looks a lot better than f/4.0 at ISO 12,800, no matter how good your ISO 3200 is.
> I don't have the weights as yet but they are going to be phenomenal. > Specially the 300mm f2 (158mm front filter size if you wanted to use > it!) and the 400mm f2.5
Yep. Definitely only for the "my tripod is bigger than yours" crowd.
>> (all FX of course, DX is dead except for a few token bits >> of glass crumbs that may be thrown to pre-D3 Nikon DSLR users)
I don't think anyone has ever made a lens 100mm or over that's DX only, so that's not a meaningful comment for this batch of lenses. (The Nikon 70-200/2.8 is such complete crap outside the crop area that it's actually a crop-only lens, so that's a counterexample to this claim.)
But pretty much all the new glass over the last three years has been DX. Other than the Canon 24-105/4.0, Nikon tilt/shift, and Stigma 50/1.4, there has been an incredible amount of DX glass. (Or at least it seems that way if you can't use DX glass.)
> I don't think FX will ever be consumer priced at least until there some > whole new technology.
It depends what you mean by "consumer priced". Canon has stated that at some point, all but the entry level models will be FF in the not-so-distant future. US$1200 sure looks "consumer priced" compared to US$2700.
>> .. and DX still provides the lightest and most compact cameras and >> lenses.
> And put that 400 f/2.5 on DX for an even more spectacular view.
If you can afford the 400/2.5, you can afford an FX body and a 1.4x TC, which gives you exactly the same imaging performance as the 400/2.5 on a DX body with the option of FX performance when you need it. (The only time a TC is any different from switching to a DX body is if the TC brings you to an f stop at which AF no longer works. A lens' ability to resolve subject detail is not degraded by TCs, so TCs are functionally identical to moving to a finer pixel pitch over a smaller area.)
David J. Littleboy wrote: > Paul Furman wrote: >>> (all FX of course, DX is dead except for a few token bits >>> of glass crumbs that may be thrown to pre-D3 Nikon DSLR users)
That was ASAAR's quote btw (nbd).
> I don't think anyone has ever made a lens 100mm or over that's DX only, so > that's not a meaningful comment for this batch of lenses.
You mean a zoom lens. Off the top of my head I can't think of any DX F.F.L. lens other than the Sigma 30/1.4 (god bless their them for that one, though I haven't tried it).
> (The Nikon > 70-200/2.8 is such complete crap outside the crop area that it's actually a > crop-only lens, so that's a counterexample to this claim.)
It's not that bad, though I'm happy it's not obsolete with this release (if this is true). Most FX lenses have always been crap in the corners. That said, I haven't wanted to look too closely at the FX performance of that lens since it was recently reported to be crap because I payed full retail for the damn thing <g>.
> But pretty much all the new glass over the last three years has been DX. > Other than the Canon 24-105/4.0, Nikon tilt/shift, and Stigma 50/1.4, there > has been an incredible amount of DX glass. (Or at least it seems that way if > you can't use DX glass.)
Nikon has put out a bunch of new FX lenses in recent years:
105 VR macro, and isn't the 60 macro new too? all the new big honking pro VR super-tele's the super-wicked Canon-killing 14-24/2.8 AF-S honker the new tilt/shift primes (not sure how many promised are actually out)
And don't forget the 'new' Zeiss primes.
I'm sure Sigma & the like have had some other new FX lenses recently like the 50/1.4 for example.
>> I don't think FX will ever be consumer priced at least until there >> is some whole new technology.
> It depends what you mean by "consumer priced". Canon has stated that at some > point, all but the entry level models will be FF in the not-so-distant > future. US$1200 sure looks "consumer priced" compared to US$2700.
Yeah, I suppose so. These lenses all look to be well above $1200. Well above the 70-200's $1700+ for that matter.
David J. Littleboy wrote: > "Paul Furman" <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote: >>> .. and DX still provides the lightest and most compact cameras and >>> lenses. >> And put that 400 f/2.5 on DX for an even more spectacular view.
> If you can afford the 400/2.5, you can afford an FX body and a 1.4x TC, > which gives you exactly the same imaging performance as the 400/2.5 on a DX
Are you sure? (I don't think so)
> body with the option of FX performance when you need it. (The only time a TC > is any different from switching to a DX body is if the TC brings you to an f > stop at which AF no longer works. A lens' ability to resolve subject detail > is not degraded by TCs,
Yes it is degraded: by more glass, more aberrations, and I think less aperture though I'm not entirely clear about that.
> so TCs are functionally identical to moving to a > finer pixel pitch over a smaller area.)
> "ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote: >> Since the D3 and D700 give unsurpassed high ISO performance, usable >> up to 3200 ISO for most applications (and passable at 6400 ISO), with >> D3X almost as good, why is there this obsession with speed?
> Because you need the speed to leverage the sensitivity into an interesting > range:
You need the speed to leverage the lack of crop into an interesting range.
> f/2.0 at ISO 3200 looks a lot better than f/4.0 at ISO 12,800, no > matter how good your ISO 3200 is.
f/2 at 300mm FX looks almost as interesting as 450mm (equivalent) at f/2.8 no matter what ISO.
>> I don't have the weights as yet but they are going to be phenomenal. >> Specially the 300mm f2 (158mm front filter size if you wanted to use >> it!) and the 400mm f2.5
> Yep. Definitely only for the "my tripod is bigger than yours" crowd.
> And they'll be phenomenally expensive as well.
Apparently this whole thing is a lie. Interesting for discussion though.
> This news deserves a thread by itself! It comes to me from a > Nikon insider I have known for ten years.
> This is kind of hard to swallow, and I cannot claim to understand > Nikon's priorities. But it seems that the next few Nikkors to be > released (all FX of course, DX is dead except for a few token bits > of glass crumbs that may be thrown to pre-D3 Nikon DSLR users) are
> Nikkor AF-S VR-II 200mm f1.8D
> Nikkor AF-S VR-II 300mm f2D
> Nikkor AF-S VR-II 400mm f2.5D
> Nikkor AF-S VR-II 70-200mm f2.5D
> Each of the four sets new standards for speed in its focal range.
> Since the D3 and D700 give unsurpassed high ISO performance, usable > up to 3200 ISO for most applications (and passable at 6400 ISO), with > D3X almost as good, why is there this obsession with speed?
> I don't have the weights as yet but they are going to be phenomenal. > Specially the 300mm f2 (158mm front filter size if you wanted to use > it!) and the 400mm f2.5
> f2.5 is not such a strange aperture, Nikon used it before on the > 105mm approx. half a century ago. It is more than 1/3rd stop faster than > an f2.8.
> I suppose Nikon believe depth of field control will sell these monster > lenses. But wasn't 200mm f2 fast enough?
Wow! The 300mm f2.0 is back! Last one I saw went on Ebay for $19,000. The original price was astronomic, but it was supposed to be better than the 300mm f2.8 wide open. The new 70-200mm II will be good news for the FX people.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:41:09 -0800, Paul Furman wrote: > That was ASAAR's quote btw (nbd).
<cough>
> the new tilt/shift primes (not sure how many promised are actually out)
There have been several DPR forum threads discussing the three new PC-E Nikkors, some by owners, others by those testing them in local stores. B&H has the 45mm and 85mm versions in stock (USA) and the 24mm version is back ordered, but the imported 24mm version is also in stock. A big concern was the compatibility of the lenses with bodies other than the D3, as reported by KR. After much scrutiny it appears that there's little need for concern, although the built-in flash overhang is more likely to interfere with one of the knobs on the 24mm PC-E in some of its more extreme contortions.
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:10:14 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote: > "ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote: > > Since the D3 and D700 give unsurpassed high ISO performance, usable > > up to 3200 ISO for most applications (and passable at 6400 ISO), with > > D3X almost as good, why is there this obsession with speed?
> Because you need the speed to leverage the sensitivity into an interesting > range: f/2.0 at ISO 3200 looks a lot better than f/4.0 at ISO 12,800, no > matter how good your ISO 3200 is.
> > I don't have the weights as yet but they are going to be phenomenal. > > Specially the 300mm f2 (158mm front filter size if you wanted to use > > it!) and the 400mm f2.5
> Yep. Definitely only for the "my tripod is bigger than yours" crowd.
> And they'll be phenomenally expensive as well.
You're probably aware by now that I didn't post that bit of "insider info". It's interesting that it was forged to appear as if it was a post from me, since I recently indicated in several replies that I have little interest in the phenomenally large, heavy and expensive lenses. You want to show me yours? I'll bet that they're bigger than mine. :)
The biggest, baddest lens I have interest in waiting for is an improved 80-400mm VR which should be modest in size, weight and price, if the current version is any indication, and I have no huge tripods. Not even a Wimberly. I might qualify for the "my monopod is bigger than yours" crowd though.
> You're probably aware by now that I didn't post that bit of > "insider info".
Yes. As Paul pointed out though, it served as a start of discussion.
>It's interesting that it was forged to appear as if > it was a post from me, since I recently indicated in several replies > that I have little interest in the phenomenally large, heavy and > expensive lenses. You want to show me yours? I'll bet that they're > bigger than mine. :)
I just jumped into the big lens fast lane with the 70-200/4.0 IS. It's under 2/3 the size, weight, and price of the Nikkor you mention below. Prior to that, my 100/2.0 was my "big lens".
> The biggest, baddest lens I have interest in waiting for is an > improved 80-400mm VR which should be modest in size, weight and > price, if the current version is any indication, and I have no huge > tripods. Not even a Wimberly. I might qualify for the "my monopod > is bigger than yours" crowd though.
I have a 2.3 kg CF tripod + 1.0 kg or so head; it's the small end of the "mine is bigger than yours" range, but it's in that range. It's really nice to be able to shoot at any shutter speed and be assured of sharp images. It mostly gets used with shorter focal lengths, though.
"Paul Furman" <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote: > David J. Littleboy wrote: >> "Paul Furman" <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote: >>>> .. and DX still provides the lightest and most compact cameras and >>>> lenses. >>> And put that 400 f/2.5 on DX for an even more spectacular view.
>> If you can afford the 400/2.5, you can afford an FX body and a 1.4x TC, >> which gives you exactly the same imaging performance as the 400/2.5 on a >> DX
> Are you sure? (I don't think so)
Yes, I'm sure. Roger Clark has a page on this with careful tests.
>> body with the option of FX performance when you need it. (The only time a >> TC is any different from switching to a DX body is if the TC brings you >> to an f stop at which AF no longer works. A lens' ability to resolve >> subject detail is not degraded by TCs,
> Yes it is degraded: by more glass, more aberrations, and I think less > aperture though I'm not entirely clear about that.
The degradation is insignificant. And the larger pixels combined with the aperture reduction mean that you collect the same number of photons per pixel, thus in principle the same image noise performance (assuming the same number of pixels).
>> so TCs are functionally identical to moving to a finer pixel pitch over a >> smaller area.)
"Paul Furman" <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote: > David J. Littleboy wrote: >> I don't think anyone has ever made a lens 100mm or over that's DX only, >> so that's not a meaningful comment for this batch of lenses.
> You mean a zoom lens.
No, I mean any lens.
> Off the top of my head I can't think of any DX F.F.L. lens other than the > Sigma 30/1.4 (god bless their them for that one, though I haven't tried > it).
There are a few DX-only primes in addition to the 30/1.4: a Canon 60mm macro lens, a Tokina 35mm macro, a Pentax 35mm macro, and two Sigma fisheyes. All DX only. And that's ignoring the 4/3 game. But those can seem rather sparse in the context of the near infinite number of DX-only zooms that have been released.
>> (The Nikon 70-200/2.8 is such complete crap outside the crop area that >> it's actually a crop-only lens, so that's a counterexample to this >> claim.)
> It's not that bad, though I'm happy it's not obsolete with this release > (if this is true). Most FX lenses have always been crap in the corners. > That said, I haven't wanted to look too closely at the FX performance of > that lens since it was recently reported to be crap because I payed full > retail for the damn thing <g>.
I'm enjoying the Canon 70-200/4.0 IS on FF. It is a bit larger and heavier than I'd like, though. My dream zoom would be a 55-110/2.0 that takes 67mm filters, is 15mm shorter and 150 gm lighter than the 70-200/4.0, and has the wide-open sharpness of the 70-200, but that's a "dream on, idiot" lens).
>> But pretty much all the new glass over the last three years has been DX. >> Other than the Canon 24-105/4.0, Nikon tilt/shift, and Stigma 50/1.4, >> there has been an incredible amount of DX glass. (Or at least it seems >> that way if you can't use DX glass.)
> Nikon has put out a bunch of new FX lenses in recent years:
> 105 VR macro, and isn't the 60 macro new too? > all the new big honking pro VR super-tele's > the super-wicked Canon-killing 14-24/2.8 AF-S honker > the new tilt/shift primes (not sure how many promised are actually out)
The 14-24 is really the only one that does something interesting/new.
Nikon is being smart, though. By waiting 15 years to play catch-up with Canon, and by being seriously aggressive in the designs, they are doing very well. I hope Canon figures it out and comes out with a 17-40/4.0 II that performs as well as the 14-24. Between the unprotected (and unprotectable) front element, inability to use filters, weight, and bulk, it wouldn't be on my buy list. (Also, it's best performance is at the 14mm end, and 14mm is on the gimmicky side. My Stigma 12-24 does best at 14 and 15mm, so I have that covered.) If Canon doesn't come out with a 17-40/4.0 II, my kit in late 2009 will probably be Zeiss 21/2.8, Zeiss 35/2.0, and 70-200/4.0.
> And don't forget the 'new' Zeiss primes.
We'll see. Some of them are getting panned (28/2.0), some are no better than the competition (50/1.4, 85/1.4), and the most interesting one (21/2.8) isn't out in any mount. The 100/2.0 macro is supposed to be amazing, though.
> I'm sure Sigma & the like have had some other new FX lenses recently like > the 50/1.4 for example.
They just released a 24-70/2.8 which they claim competes with the Canon in optical performance, but at 2/3 the price. Which makes it a horrendously expensive Sigma.
>> It depends what you mean by "consumer priced". Canon has stated that at >> some point, all but the entry level models will be FF in the >> not-so-distant future. US$1200 sure looks "consumer priced" compared to >> US$2700.
> Yeah, I suppose so. These lenses all look to be well above $1200. > Well above the 70-200's $1700+ for that matter.
Big lenses aren't for people with "consumer camera" pockets.
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:26:09 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote: >> You want to show me yours? I'll bet that they're >> bigger than mine. :)
> I just jumped into the big lens fast lane with the 70-200/4.0 IS. It's under > 2/3 the size, weight, and price of the Nikkor you mention below. Prior to > that, my 100/2.0 was my "big lens".
Sounds nice. Somewhere along the line I mentioned that in addition to a new 80-400mm VR I'd also consider waiting for an improved 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. An f/4.0 version would be even more desirable* but the odds of seeing anything like that soon is pretty low. I guess that I mistakenly assumed, based on some old threads with Roger Clarke that you were no stranger to big glass and gimbals, etc. and probably used or owned some of them.
* but not really . . . It would be desirable only if I wanted it for the 70-200mm range. Since I want something better than my 70-300mm VR it would also need a 1.7 or 2.0 extender, and on an f/4.0 Nikkor AF performance would probably suffer. I'd rather not make *too* many compromises.
|
