nikon's lens gap...

[Rooz]

a friend of mine needed a fast zoom so i lent him my cam and the 70-200VR which left me with his 30D, 17-40mm f4L and the 17-55IS. which led me to realise more acutely that nikon's "walkaround" lens options completely SUCK. the 2 fast lens they have are far too expensive for what they are. the 17-55 is a DX lens, very heavy and doesn;t have VR that goes for around $1200. and does everyone realise that the new 24-70mm f2.8 is $1700, weighs almost a kilo and has no VR ? thats absurd.

even if you're prepared to sacrifice the faster aperture for say an f4 lens, they don;t even have a lens as good as like the canon 17-40mmL f4 as an option. (btw the 17-40L was a joy to use.)

this is incredibly frustrating. while i love my sigma 18-50f2.8 it does frustrate the hell out of me sometimes cos it's AF is so slow compared to af-s lens which almost makes the f2.8 aperture irrelevant.

i figure we have nothing to complain about with bodies anymore so i'm gonna start whinging about this lens focal range. :p

[K1W1]

Didn't I read somewhere recently that Nikon are about to release a bunch of new lenses?
Or was that six months ago?
Or last year?
Or the year before?

[fionndruinne]

I sure hear you. None of those new Nikkors sound affordable. Why's there no Nikkor equivalent of those Sigma f/2.8's??? Something fast and affordable would be great, but while Nikon has nice consumer lenses in general, there are no fast apertures!

It's indeed bothersome.

[e_dawg]

Yep, I hear you. If Sigma can make an 18-50/2.8 macro HSM at a reasonable size and price, Nikon should be able to as well, but with the addition of VR. Yes, it would have to be a little bigger and heavier than the Sigma, but not by a significant amount.

Basically, for the 17-55's size, weight, and price, it really should have VR built-in. There is no reason why it shouldn't. And that would arguably be the best mid zoom walkaround lens, if a tiny bit too heavy.

I would also take a high quality AF-S VR 17-40/4 lens with reduced size and weight as well.

Here is my semi-pro walkaround lens wish list for Nikon:

1. AF-S VR 17-50/2.8 - What the 17-55/2.8 should have been

2. AF-S VR 17-40/4 - The Nikon equivalent to Canon's junior semi-pro mid zoom

3. AF-S VR 15-30/4 - Because sometimes, 17 or 18 mm just isn't wide enough for landscapes or in the city, and sometimes 24 mm on an ultrawide zoom isn't long enough

4. AF-S VR 24/2 - I use the 20 mm on my 10-20 the most out of any focal length on vacation. A few more mm, and I could use it as my all-purpose prime (just like a classic 35/2 lens that people used for street photography with 35 mm film cameras).

VR might be excessive for a short prime, but I want to be able to use this as a killer low-light lens as well. The Sigma 30/1.4 is just too long for me.

5. AF-S VR 28/1.8 - A lot of people would like to use this as their "normal" lens, but for me it's a bit too long as an all-purpose vacation lens. I didn't specify f/1.4, because I thought it would be more useful to include VR than have an extra 3/4 of a stop.

[e_dawg]

You know what other lens i would love to have? A tele zoom that extends to 300 mm and is at least f/4, and has AF-S and VR.

The 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR is just too slow and soft at the long end, but is the perfect size and weight.

The 70-200/2.8 VR and 80-200/2.8, OTOH, are a little short and are too big and heavy.

Something like a 140-280/4 VR with a sharp long end would be around 6 inches long and around 1.2 kg (2.6 lbs). That would be the perfect tele zoom, IMO.

EDIT: too optimistic about weight vs zoom range before

[VTEC_EATER]

Boy, you sure want VR on everything, don't you.

It would probably be easier for you to switch to Sony, e_dawg. You would have in-body IS, and get to use all the Minolta lenses form the past 50 years. I recommend Sony over Olympus or Pentax, or whoever else is out there making in body IS cameras becasue of their relationship with Nikon, and similarities between their camera bodies/sensors. Not to mention their inherited lens line-up.

Its something to think about if you really want VR in every lens.

Nikon is not going to put VR in every lens. They aren't going to throw AF-S motors in all their lenses, at least not any time soon. They aren't going to drop prices of the lenses just because you feel they are expensive. If they sell for $1700, then they will continue to sell for high prices. And they aren't going to produce constant F/4 lenses if they can produce F/3.5-F/4.5 lenses cheaper. Really, whats 1/3 of a stop?

I'm not trying to push anyone away from Nikon. I think they have a nice line of products. But if you feel that Canon has a line-up that you would prefer more, then no one is going to stop you from buying a Canon system. Canon makes a quality product too.

[e_dawg]

;) Yeah, I thought it was a bit excessive when I wrote it. I certainly don't need VR on everything, but it is nice those times when you need an extra couple stops and you actually need some DOF as well.

f/3.5-4.5 lenses are okay. It's always having f/5.6 at the long end that's annoying.

Interesting suggestion VTEC. I have thought about CCD-shift IS bodies before, and admittedly the Sony A100 originally when they slashed the prices because they weren't selling. However, ever since then, I would have thought about Pentax (K10D, awesome camera) and Olympus (E510), but not really a Sony. Maybe the new A700 is worth a look.

For now, I like my Nikons too much to get rid of them (maybe it's a sentimental thing), and I have invested enough in F-mount lenses to make it hurt if I wanted to switch. Besides the handling and interface of the Nikons, the flash and Auto ISO systems are particularly endearing. So is Capture NX. And I don't think any other camera will give me the images I get from the S5 Pro.

[Stoller]

and does everyone realise that the new 24-70mm f2.8 is $1700, weighs almost a kilo and has no VR ? thats absurd.

You spent that or close to it for your 70-200mm f2.8 and you are worried about price? Yes it does not have VR, but with a f2.8 lens in that focal range do you really need VR?:rolleyes: Weight is no issue for me, the heavier the lens the better balanced my D200 feels. I'm on a waiting list for 24-70mm f2.8 and if it performs as well as the 28-70 f2.8 it replaces it will be worth every penny.

Just my opinion, I'll shut up now. :D

[r3g]

Good thing we have Sigma to help fill some gaps with lenses like the 18-50 f/2.8. Hell id be screwed if it wasnt for them because theres no way Id be able to afford a 70-200mm VR anytime soon..

[K1W1]

Good thing we have Sigma to help fill some gaps with lenses like the 18-50 f/2.8. Hell id be screwed if it wasnt for them because theres no way Id be able to afford a 70-200mm VR anytime soon..

I got the impression from US TV Shows that all you young west coast types were flush with excess wealth and had trouble deciding whether to drive the Porsche or the Ferrari or the Hummer today. Are you saying that TV does not present a realistic view of California? :confused: :)

[r3g]

I got the impression from US TV Shows that all you young west coast types were flush with excess wealth and had trouble deciding whether to drive the Porsche or the Ferrari or the Hummer today. Are you saying that TV does not present a realistic view of California? :confused: :)




Oh sure rub it in.. :(:rolleyes:

[Rooz]

You spent that or close to it for your 70-200mm f2.8 and you are worried about price? Yes it does not have VR, but with a f2.8 lens in that focal range do you really need VR?:rolleyes: Weight is no issue for me, the heavier the lens the better balanced my D200 feels. I'm on a waiting list for 24-70mm f2.8 and if it performs as well as the 28-70 f2.8 it replaces it will be worth every penny.

Just my opinion, I'll shut up now. :D

i'm worried about value for money and getting something for what i pay for. my point is that both the 17-55 and new 24-70 lens' are VERY expensive for what they are, (epecially the 24-70), and they don't have VR but are selling for prices that warrant them to be loaded with everything under the sun.

if you ever use a canon 17-55IS you will know what i mean, not the best handling lens around i grant you, but at least for the money you get IS and a fast aperture and very good optics and excellent build. thats reasonable. do you NEED IS or VR in that focal range ? maybe not...no problem...make them CHEAPER then.

the 17-40f4 is a reasonabley priced lens aswell for its quality. thats really my whole point. the focal range has options but they are too expensive for what they are.

the 70-200 is a different animal. it is loaded with every technology under the sun and has the performance to befit the pricetag. not so in the lower focal ranges.

i don't think it's an unreasonable gripe.

[Stoller]

point taken, I just hate to see you use that "C" word in this Nikon forum. ;)

[VTEC_EATER]

if you ever use a canon 17-55IS you will know what i mean, not the best handling lens around i grant you, but at least for the money you get IS and a fast aperture and very good optics and excellent build. thats reasonable.

Ive heard the 17-55/2.8 IS isn't built that well. I guess it is a plastic body and lots of people complain of dust getting behind the front element. From what I can recall I think Canon just lowered the price of the lens to $799 or something like that. Despite the dust issues, at that price, it would be really tough to get a third party 18-50/2.8 lens.

For the Nikon, its a pretty simple choice. 17-55/2.8 for $1200 or 18-50/2.8 for $400. Pretty easy choice. Yes there are compromises, but $800 is a lot of money to buy other things, like flashes, or another lens, or even another body.


the 17-40f4 is a reasonabley priced lens aswell for its quality. thats really my whole point. the focal range has options but they are too expensive for what they are.

Yeah, but its a crappy focal range. And its F/4. If it is a full frame lens, then thats not that bad, but if its built for a crop sensor, it sounds like a pointless lens. I would get the third party 18-50/2.8. Better aperture, and better focal range. Yeah, no IS, but for that focal range its not all that necessary.


the 70-200 is a different animal. it is loaded with every technology under the sun and has the performance to befit the pricetag. not so in the lower focal ranges.

Amazing lens, worth every penny.

[e_dawg]

Well I would tend to agree with Rooz in that Canon's lens lineup has a bit more flexibility in the mid-price/mid-speed/mid-size prosumer segment with the 17-55/2.8 IS, 17-40/4L (which I think is an excellent range btw), and 70-200/4L IS. The 100/2 is also a good value for what you get, and the 24/1.4L is something that I would Nikon to produce.

Sony has a couple interesting zooms that start at 16 mm, with the Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5 being the one I would want.

Pentax has some interesting diminuitive primes with their trio of 21/3.2, 31/1.8, and 40/2.8, and 16-45/4 zoom.

Hey, I love Nikon (and Fujifilm) too overall, but I think we could all benefit with a little more selection in the segment between the mainstream consumer zooms and the more professional zooms, and could use a couple more wide to normal primes.

[fionndruinne]

I got the impression from US TV Shows that all you young west coast types were flush with excess wealth and had trouble deciding whether to drive the Porsche or the Ferrari or the Hummer today. Are you saying that TV does not present a realistic view of California?

Not necessarily the wrong impression concerning many SoCal types - it's just for this one detail: they don't own anything they possess. They'll be paying off their fancy Ferrari (okay, maybe more like Camaro or Mustang, but still...) long after it goes to the junkyard.

Crazy life down there. I for one am glad to be out of it.

[fionndruinne]

Back to the subject at hand... man, I wish Nikon had a selection of wide-angle primes like Pentax does. I'd just love an 18mm f/2 AF-S. If it were a compact lens, and I don't see why it wouldn't need to be, I'd take it backpacking with the D40 and be happy as anyone's ever been.

[rawpaw18]

Nikon glass being expensive is not really a news flash.

I was hoping that the newly released 24-70 would of had vr at
$1700. At that price it should, that same price gets you the 70-200
with vr so why not the short range zoom? Very disappointing to me,
you may not need it but it should be included for that amount of money.
I will wait longer to replace my short range zoom, I thought now was the
time for new camera and a new lens but it looks like just a new camera body for now.

Nikon is missing the serious amateur type lens lineup, a gap is definitely there.
Big jump from the 55-200vr to the 70-200vr, maybe a 70-200 f/4,

[Jason25]

maybe a 70-200 f/4,

That's what I'd like to see, with at least AF-S. Something to match Canon's version. That lens sells like wildfire, and I'm surprised Nikon hasn't updated the 70-210/4 to counter.

Something else they could do is add VR to the 300/4 AF-S.

[rawpaw18]

That's what I'd like to see, with at least AF-S. Something to match Canon's version. That lens sells like wildfire, and I'm surprised Nikon hasn't updated the 70-210/4 to counter.

Something else they could do is add VR to the 300/4 AF-S.

You have to wonder what their R&D is telling them. The non pro market that is leaving P&S cams for DSLR has got to be dealt with. Untapped market share, you have to have products ready to go or Canon is going to just gain market share and once you start with a brand you tend to stick with it.

Updated 70-210 is definitely in order.

[e_dawg]

So I see I'm not the only one who would love a 70-200/4 VR...

What do you guys think about a 140-280/4 VR? It would be like a Sigma 100-300/4, but with VR and a bit smaller (the 150-300/4 and 70-200/2.8 are both ~1.45 kg or 3.1 lbs; I think they could make the 140-280/4 under 1.2 kg or 2.6 lbs). I'd really like to keep my lenses below 1.1 kg or 2.5 lbs.

To me, if you need reach, 200 mm just ain't enough. 200 mm is great if you shoot indoors, in a gym or are right on the sidelines of a soccer field, but if you're in a professional sports venue, concert, etc. or you sit back in the stands, you pretty much need 300 mm.

[Rooz]

Ive heard the 17-55/2.8 IS isn't built that well. I guess it is a plastic body and lots of people complain of dust getting behind the front element.

well, it's certainly not built like the nikkor 17-55 gold ring lens but its 40% cheaper with IS. i haven't heard of a complaint about it from people who have it in all honesty.

For the Nikon, its a pretty simple choice. 17-55/2.8 for $1200 or 18-50/2.8 for $400. Pretty easy choice. Yes there are compromises, but $800 is a lot of money to buy other things, like flashes, or another lens, or even another body.

thats the problem, its TOO simple. another couple of choices would be nice. especially considering canon have now also announced their kit lens will have IS. thats another formidable option. the standard nikon kit 18-55mm lens actually has very good optics for what it is, adding VR would be a nice touch for consumers.

Yeah, but its a crappy focal range. And its F/4. If it is a full frame lens, then thats not that bad, but if its built for a crop sensor, it sounds like a pointless lens. I would get the third party 18-50/2.8. Better aperture, and better focal range. Yeah, no IS, but for that focal range its not all that necessary.

not ideal focal range i grant you, but its a superb lens that i found a pleasure to use. i only used it for a day and a bit and i never found myself saying, "i wish i had another 10mm range". just crop in PP or step a tad closer. the f4 aperture wouldn;t bother me too much cos i use flash in low light and the bokeh of the 17-40L at f4 is excellent making portraits very good despite the smaller aperture. again, for someone like me who prefers to use flash instead of iso, it's a great option. if the d300 doesn;t satisfy and i end up going to canon in a year or so, this is the very first lens that i'll buy for sure.

with regard to IS on smaller focal ranges, while i agree in principal thats its not necessary, as i said before, it comes down to price, if your not gonna put VR onto a lens then make it cheaper. if your gonna ask consumers to pay a premium price, give them VR.

imo, this is a pretty big gap that nikon should fill next year with its potential new lens announcements. in the meantime, if anyone has bought or heard about the sigma 18-50HSM i'd love to know if the HSM makes it a faster focussing lens. then i may stop whining. :p

[Jason25]

The biggest problem I've heard about with the 17-55 IS that some samples are basically dust pumps when zooming. But hell, Nikon's version has sample variations with sharpness issues.

With that said, I bought the Tamron 17-50 as a lightweight, cheap stop-gap until either:
a) I decide to buy the 17-55 DX
b) I buy a Nikon FX body that doesn't cost $5,000

We'll see.

[VTEC_EATER]

in the meantime, if anyone has bought or heard about the sigma 18-50HSM i'd love to know if the HSM makes it a faster focussing lens. then i may stop whining. :p

I found a guy on pbase that has tried the HSM version:

Today I tested in the store the latest HSM version of the lens, fully intending to buy it for my D40 camera. Autofocus was very quiet (more quiet than the non-HSM version). Not very fast though - comparable to 18-200VR lens (which is not slow but not the fastest to focus either). This is not "true" HSM in the sense that, while it is quiet, the focus cannot be overriden without first engaging the manual focus mode on the camera body. The focusing *ring* also rotates during focusing (but the front threads do not) - just like it does on the non-HSM version.

Unfortunately, that particular sample was terrible wide open at 50mm: lots of glow that was almost one by F4 and was gone completely by F5.6. Compared to my 18-200 VR at 50mm (also wide open) this Sigma was *bad*. My first sample (non-HSM had none of this softness and glow!).

See this image:
"http://www.pbase.com/kocho/image/86648391/original"

[fionndruinne]

Hmm, but how accurate is an in-store test going to be, really?