 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006Nikon future lenses?
Hi all, I'm getting an itch to buy a Nikon telephoto zoom, the 80-400 doesn't float my boat and whilst I love the performance of the 70-200 the focal length coverage isn't what I'm after, ideally I would want the equivalent of Canon's 100-300 USM (the Nikon 200-400 would be fantastic but is way too much money.) Anyone heard any rumours about Nikon's future plans? > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Anyone heard any rumours about Nikon's future plans? Yes, rumours, and reported initial specs for first example isn't likely to float your boat either, I suspect. But interesting nonetheless, if you have an 'F' mount full frame DSLR. The following appeared in the Kodak SLR forum of DPReview.com today, from a Bangkok based contributor: <Quote> Keep your slr/n at least till this April and by that time Nikon should release a new "N" Nano Crystal Coat lense. The first one will be 105 AF-S VR N Micro. This lense is designed for FF. Diameter of the lense is around 70% larger than a current 105 micro. I had a chance to try it today for 1 hr. I cannot pose any pics but I'm truely amazed by what I've seen..crystal clear and sharp from corner to corner. By the construction, this lense should be fairly expensive. Of course it will do 1:1. <Unquote> Link here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1026&message=16907213 Any pundit here care to illuminate further? ;-) Nigel > ...The following appeared in the Kodak SLR forum > of DPReview.com today, from a Bangkok based contributor: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and sharp from corner to corner. By the construction, this lense should be > fairly expensive. Of course it will do 1:1. It seems they only have one other lens with that coating & it's about 5 grand if I recall correctly: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091604nikkor300mmvr.asp >> ...The following appeared in the Kodak SLR forum >> of DPReview.com today, from a Bangkok based contributor: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > grand if I recall correctly: > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091604nikkor300mmvr.asp Interesting. However, my main interest in this lies with the implication that the announcement of a new full frame (Nikon or F-mount) body is just around the corner? We are in the process of applying the thumb screws to our hapless reporter! :-) Nigel If I may beg the List's indulgence, what does "full frame" mean? how is it related, perhaps antithetically, to the Olympus 3/4 or 4/3 system? Thanks for your patience. Not many of us, despite our age, is as knowledgable as so many of you learned folks. Thanks in advance for your eduactional response. Best, Sandy > >> ...The following appeared in the Kodak SLR forum > >> of DPReview.com today, from a Bangkok based contributor: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Nigel > If I may beg the List's indulgence, what does "full frame" mean? how is it > related, perhaps antithetically, to the Olympus 3/4 or 4/3 system? Thanks > for your patience. Not many of us, despite our age, is as knowledgable as so > many of you learned folks. Thanks in advance for your eduactional response. When you build a camera that takes lenses made for 35mm SLRs, as all the early DSLRs did, you either have to provide a sensor the same size as the 35mm frame, or else accept that the angle of view produced by a lens of a given focal length won't be the same as it would on a 35mm film body. Nearly every design opted for the second choice -- smaller sensors, so that you get a 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, even 2x crop factor. Only a very few models (the Kodak DCS14n or whatever the official designation is and the Canon 1Ds are the only two I remember) went the route of having a sensor the full size of the 35mm frame -- that's very expensive. A camera with a sensor the full size of the 35mm frame is referred to as a "full frame" DSLR.  SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> <snipped> > Only a > very few models (the Kodak DCS14n or whatever the official designation > is and the Canon 1Ds are the only two I remember) went the route of > having a sensor the full size of the 35mm frame -- that's very > expensive. How quickly you forget! ;-) (Canon 5D) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> If I may beg the List's indulgence, what does "full frame" mean? how is >> it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sensors, so that you get a 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, even 2x crop factor. Only a > very few models (the Kodak DCS14n or whatever the official designation and the Kodak Pro SLR/n and SLR/c and Contax had a FF digital, too. > is and the Canon 1Ds are the only two I remember) went the route of > having a sensor the full size of the 35mm frame -- that's very > expensive. > > A camera with a sensor the full size of the 35mm frame is referred to > as a "full frame" DSLR. >However, my main interest in this lies with the implication that the >announcement of a new full frame (Nikon or F-mount) body is just around the >corner? We are in the process of applying the thumb screws to our hapless >reporter! :-) My initial reaction was also joy as this lens announcement could be an unintentional "leak" about future DSLR plans. But on second thought, I have to throw some cold water on that reasoning. This Micro lens has to appeal to the installed base of Nikon users, including _film_ photographers. If this were a DX lens, you would lose that opportunity. So, yes, let's all put the screws on the poor schmoe who reported this news. See, no good deed goes unpunished! Father Kodak > My initial reaction was also joy as this lens announcement could be an > unintentional "leak" about future DSLR plans. But on second thought, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > including _film_ photographers. If this were a DX lens, you would > lose that opportunity. <snipped> hmmm.... maybe, but is not the risk of either the product becoming a dodo or even oneself (Nikon), too great? Why develop a new range of very expensive lenses for a (fast) dying breed of photog's (viz. analogue), all the while giving a great deal of ground to your competitors in the Full Frame stakes? Since May last year, there has not been a current F-mount full frame DSLR on the market. Hardly bodes well for the future of new lenses specially designed to pair with such cameras, if they no longer exist. <soundfx /thumbscrews creaking> >:-> Nigel > > My initial reaction was also joy as this lens announcement could be an > > unintentional "leak" about future DSLR plans. But on second thought, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > <soundfx /thumbscrews creaking> >:-> Having invested in the Kodak system for FF coverage, I would be glad to hear that nikon would finally enter the field. But, failing that, I can see why they would choose a FF system for this lens to appeal to film users, micro/macro photographers are among those demanding extreme quality and many remain with film for whatever edge they get in absolute quality. >> My initial reaction was also joy as this lens announcement could be an >> unintentional "leak" about future DSLR plans. But on second thought, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Nigel Nigel, Despite what I just wrote, I hope that you're right. Still, I can't afford to get my hopes up, and my wallet out of my pocket. That Nikon FF DSLR is not going to be cheap! Nor should it be. But once I get in a "buying mood," who knows? I might just go out and buy the first camera I meet. :) Father Kodak >>However, my main interest in this lies with the implication that the >>announcement of a new full frame (Nikon or F-mount) body is just around [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unintentional "leak" about future DSLR plans. But on second thought, > I have to throw some cold water on that reasoning. Sounds more like someone trying to sound important and just sucking a story out of their big thumb when asked if they know anything secret. >Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Canon's 100-300 USM (the Nikon 200-400 would be fantastic but is way too >much money.) Have you considered the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor combined with any of the AFS TCs? I use a TC-20EII with mine all the time. SignatureEd Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > I'm getting an itch to buy a Nikon telephoto zoom, the 80-400 doesn't float > my boat and whilst I love the performance of the 70-200 the focal length > coverage isn't what I'm after, ideally I would want the equivalent of > Canon's 100-300 USM (the Nikon 200-400 would be fantastic but is way too > much money.) Consider the 70-200 with the 1.4x teleconverter. It retains autofocus and VR. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> I'm getting an itch to buy a Nikon telephoto zoom, the 80-400 doesn't >> float [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Consider the 70-200 with the 1.4x teleconverter. It retains autofocus and > VR. At present that seems to be the best option, from what I've read using the 2.0x teleconverter leads to significantly slower AF at least on my prosumer D200 and venerable F100. Anyone have hands on experience with the 1.7x ? > At present that seems to be the best option, from what I've read using the > 2.0x teleconverter leads to significantly slower AF at least on my > prosumer D200 and venerable F100. Anyone have hands on experience with the > 1.7x ? I have tested the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor lens in camera store, with the 1.7 and 2.0 converters. The AF was as fast as if the converters were not there, in my opinion. I am not an expert by any means. This was using a D70s body. I also tried it on a N80 body with out the converters and could not tell a lot of difference, but there was some a little. The AF seemed to work the same, just the feel of the whole thing was different, and so it was not what I was used to. BTW, the above lens would be my choice for my D70s, and my firend might purchase my 80-400 from me for their camera, so then it would work out. Old Man >> At present that seems to be the best option, from what I've read using the >> 2.0x teleconverter leads to significantly slower AF at least on my [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >little. The AF seemed to work the same, just the feel of the whole thing >was different, and so it was not what I was used to. I use the combo with the 2x all the time. AF is noticeably slower with the 2x, but sill quite fast and usable. It's just the lens by itself is blazingly fast. SignatureEd Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html >>>I'm getting an itch to buy a Nikon telephoto zoom, the 80-400 doesn't >>>float [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 2.0x teleconverter leads to significantly slower AF at least on my prosumer > D200 and venerable F100. Anyone have hands on experience with the 1.7x ? FYI - KEH has this lens in Ex+ condition for $1299 Link - http://www.keh.com/shop/product.cfm?bid=NA&cid=07&sid=newused&crid=13375197 They are a good dealer and are very conservative in their ratings. I have done business with them in the past. Hope this helps, Dave > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Anyone heard any rumours about Nikon's future plans? http://www.bythom.com/2006predictions.htm >> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >http://www.bythom.com/2006predictions.htm If you are willing to buy a third-party lens for a Nikon DSLR at a reasonable price, Sigma makes a good Apo 100-300 f/4 (as well as a cheaper non-DX version of the same lens which you may still find in stores). I use the Apo 100-300 as my main wildlife lens, mostly handheld. It costs roughly the same as the Nikkor 300 f/4, which is somewhat sharper but not as versatile because of the fixed f.l. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.