A kick in Nikon's proverbial nutsack:

[VTEC_EATER]

Maybe now Nikon will get a clue about updating their primes:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0803/08031801sigma50mm.asp

[erichlund]

I don't think you are going to see this make Nikon do anything at all. Nikon recognizes that the money is in zooms. They also recognize that there is an expectation that primes are cheap, and adding AF-S is only going to cut into the margin on those lenses.

Putting out a new lens design, even if you don't change the optics, is a big deal, especially when they already have limited manufacturing capacity. So expect them to put out new designs only on lenses that you can expect a decent return on.

So what is Sigma going to charge for that lens? The Nikkor 1.4 is about $260 (US).

[Tony_V]

It will also be interesting to see how the optics compare to the Nikkor 50mm f1.4. HSM is nice but optics would be my first concern. We'll have to wait and see...

Tony

[fionndruinne]

Sweet! I'm surprised I'm the first D40 club guy to comment on this. Sounds like a great portrait lens, especially for those who're sold on the 50mm primes. Now to see whether it's affordably priced.

An updated 30mm f/1.4 would be nice too, though. Seems like its optics could stand improving, and I'll bet they have the advancements available. I wonder if a 30mm II version will follow after this lens.

[Screenclutter]

I don't think you are going to see this make Nikon do anything at all.

I'm a D40 owner, and I'd think that the D80 update has to be a higher priority than an AF-S prime update of their older lenses right now.

The new Sigma lens has a broad market (Sony, Pentax, Canon included), but the AF-S prime market would be the much narrower market of Nikon D40/D40x/D60 owners. The "kick in Nikon's proverbial nutsack" is probably being felt a bit in Nikon's marketing/business decision makers right now though.

If the new Sigma is too good and too cheap, Nikon might just drop their 50mm prime production altogether.

[XaiLo]

I don't think you are going to see this make Nikon do anything at all. Nikon recognizes that the money is in zooms. They also recognize that there is an expectation that primes are cheap, and adding AF-S is only going to cut into the margin on those lenses.

Putting out a new lens design, even if you don't change the optics, is a big deal, especially when they already have limited manufacturing capacity. So expect them to put out new designs only on lenses that you can expect a decent return on.

So what is Sigma going to charge for that lens? The Nikkor 1.4 is about $260 (US).

Not sure I follow you here Eric most of the Nikon primes are not cheap.

[tim11]

---
So what is Sigma going to charge for that lens? The Nikkor 1.4 is about $260 (US).
That's also what I am wondering. In Sydney, I can get Nikkor F/1.4D from $390 to around $500.

[LR Max]

I've been playing around with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM (on loan, I shot the ACC Tournament and wanted a backup since my 80-200 acted weird once and I didn't want to risk not having a fast telephoto). Overall the HSM is nowhere near as good as the Nikon AF-S. It can be jerky and can "hunt" for the correct focus. By "hunt" I mean it goes back and forth right around the correct focal point, eventually getting there. AF-D lenses, while being slower (at least on my D70 body), are much smoother. And yes, I am comparing it to a 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S that is sitting right next to it.

In the past I haven't been too impressed with Sigma glass. I think for the price difference you could upgrade to a D80 and have a much more capable camera body. The 50mm f/1.8 is a great piece of glass. On the flipside, Sigma does have it down pat with a f/1.4, because 1.4 glass is generally the more popular portrait lens (both for 50 and 85mm).

[Rooz]

the performance of the 24-70 and particualrly the 12-24 2.8's was a dagger in the heart to most of us looking for updated primes in the very near future cos they pretty much outperform the best primes in any format within that focal range and with the d3 shooting 6400 comfortabley it takes some of the necessity away for "low light" performance.

with the d3 and their re-entry into the pro market we all hopes that nikon would update their primes. but "word on the street" is that the pro's LOVE these new lens' so the demand for primes is not quite as strong as it once was.

pack away the 14-24/ 24-70/ 70-200 and say the 85mm f1.4 and there's your kit. nevertheless, imo they do need to update their 1.4's and i think it will happen within the next couple of years.

[T06]

the performance of the 24-70 and particualrly the 12-24 2.8's was a dagger in the heart to most of us looking for updated primes in the very near future cos they pretty much outperform the best primes in any format within that focal range and with the d3 shooting 6400 comfortabley it takes some of the necessity away for "low light" performance.

with the d3 and their re-entry into the pro market we all hopes that nikon would update their primes. but "word on the street" is that the pro's LOVE these new lens' so the demand for primes is not quite as strong as it once was.

pack away the 14-24/ 24-70/ 70-200 and say the 85mm f1.4 and there's your kit. nevertheless, imo they do need to update their 1.4's and i think it will happen within the next couple of years.
You been lookin in my bag again?????;):eek::D

[Rooz]

yeah, you're 300/2.8 musta been mounted to your D3 at the time. :D

[K1W1]

You been lookin in my bag again?????;):eek::D

yeah, you're 300/2.8 musta been mounted to your D3 at the time. :D

When you two love birds finish can we please get back to photography. :p:p

[VTEC_EATER]

As awesome as the new zoom lenses are, shallow depth of field is still something many people want in their shots. Its a huge proponent of SLR cameras. F/2.8 and ISO 6400 may be enough to get shutter speeds high, but they will certainly lack in artistic vision when compared to an F/1.4 lens.

[erichlund]

Not sure I follow you here Eric most of the Nikon primes are not cheap.

The wide to normals are all pretty inexpensive. The super wides and long telephotos get expensive because they either have lots of glass or are difficult to make. Even the 85mm f1.8 is just $400 US. Considering the increased performance you get over most zooms, that's a real bargain.

Of course, the top level pro zooms are making the primes irrelevant...if you can afford top level pro zooms. OTOH, there's something to be said for the light weight of a prime. The 24-70 is showing all the signs of carrying on for the beast.

[Rooz]

what this lens does do, if it performs well, is open up the d40 as a great back up camera for people like me. i can now have a d40 with the 50/1.4 as my chuckaround cam. its very appealing to me anyway.

[XaiLo]

Woohoo, Rooz has seen the light ;) j/k

[fionndruinne]

I'm likin' that thinkin', Rooz.;)