What dSLR lenses would you like to see?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Westside guy, Mar 31, 2007.

  1. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #1
    I know some people have a whole slew of lenses; but for walking around I only like to carry two or maybe three total. For our dSLRs it seems like some lenses are either due for an upgrade, or just don't (yet) exist.

    Here's a very brief wish list on my part, on the Nikon side. They fall in what's usually called the "prosumer" category (so usually variable aperture, if it's a zoom). In this case these are just updates to existing lenses

    Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D AF-S VR -- in an ideal world I'd like this to just be f/4 for the whole range; but frankly I can't afford a $5000 lens :D

    85mm f/1.8 AF-S VR

    Maybe see their 12-24mm get pushed down a bit, to 10-20 (matching the Sigma)
     
  2. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #2
    500/2.8
    12-24/2.8

    FWIW, the Sigma 50-500 is better than the 80-400 Nikon if you don't need VR. It's cheaper too.
     
  3. bmat macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Location:
    East Coast, USA
    #3
    Well, I'd love an EF 35-85 f2.0L or 50-135 f2.0L (Canon obviously), and about the size of the current 24-70, but maybe just a little fatter....

    EF 200 f1.8 or 2.0 L IS....

    EF 100-400 F4.0 IS....

    With the IS being the 4th generation IS.
     
  4. Fuzzy Orange macrumors 6502

    Fuzzy Orange

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    #4
    Something for Canon akin to the 18-200 VR lens for Nikon. It really is the only lens that I would kill for (not really, but hopefully you know what I mean);)
     
  5. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    I'd like to see Canon make a stab at something like Nikon's (and Sigma's) 18-200 VR (OS) lens.

    I'd also like to see Canon update its wide primes, like the 20mm f/2.8. I'd love to see a range of L-level wide primes and prosumer level wide primes (which I might be able to afford), something like a 20mm f/1.4 L and 20mm f/2.0.

    Maybe something like and EF-S 15-45 f/2.8-4.5 would be cool too.

    edit: Damn you Fuzzy Orange!
     
  6. Powermax macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Location:
    independent
    #6
    EF 16-135 f1/2,8 L IS USM DO, and make it affordable, please :)
     
  7. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #7
    A Nikon 10-200mm f/1.4 with VR-II.

    I'll settle for an 18-80 or 18-100 f/2.8 with VR. :) It'll be like the 18-200 mm VR lens, but hopefully with less distortion. I know there's no chance of that being true, though.
     
  8. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #8
    Zuiko 25mm ƒ1.4 would be very nice (I guess an ƒ1.0 or even an ƒ1.2 would be better but way out of my price range).
     
  9. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #9
    anything that fits the 400D i'm getting, but won't break the bank :D

    i'm a bit of a newbie when it comes to dSLRs, but it hurts my wallet to see a 65mm f/2.8 macro lens going for $1,750...
     
  10. Lovesong macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #10
    Something by Canon like the Nikkor 200-400 f/4 VR.... /drools/
    And hopefully under 2K :rolleyes:

    I agree with miloblithe that Canon really need to step up their wide angle primes- there is a large community out there that have resorted to using Zeiss, Leica, and Olympus WA primes (not that those are bad, but involves an occasional shaved mirror, stopped-down metering, etc)
     
  11. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
  12. filmamigo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #12
    I have some thoughts on Nikon lenses I'd like to see.

    I know it's difficult (i.e. expensive) to build fast zooms. So my wish list is for a set of reasonably priced primes that emphasize image quality and speed over build quality and zooming. Some lenses to match the already fantastic 50mm f/1.8, especially considering the 50mm is no longer a "normal" perspective when attached to a DSLR with 1.5x crop.

    So how about these:
    14mm f/2.8
    20mm f/2.0
    35mm f/2.0
    50mm f/1.8 (got this one already)
    85mm f/2.0 (to make it cheaper than the f/1.8 we have)

    These *could* be AF-D to keep the price down, but making them AF-S would also give these lenses access to the D40 market -- which might be a perfect fit. I would love to have a D40 with a small, cheap 20mm prime. It would be the perfect street camera.

    Target prices of all of these lenses should be $200 or cheaper. With the emphasis on image quality over gimmicry, these should be popular choices for the "serious amateur" market that Nikon has always cultivated. The lenses would be good enough quality for professional use -- and cheap enough that you could actually consider building a collection.
     
  13. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #13
    Nikon already makes one, but it's a LOT more expensive than $200 and it's said to not be as great on digital as it was on film.
     
  14. sjl macrumors 6502

    sjl

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #14
    Number one, and the only reason I might seriously consider stepping up to a full frame body (like the 5D): I'd love to see an EF-S fisheye.

    Number two, and arguably more likely: EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS (or maybe even an EF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS, although I have my doubts about the latter.)

    An update to the IS in the 100-400mm would also be very welcome, if only for the tripod sensing.
     
  15. jlcharles macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wenonah, NJ
    #15
    You guys really get screwed then since by my conversion, it should be only $1025AU. And that's a specialty lens anyway. It does 5x lifesize, manual focus only.

    There's a 60mm EF-s mount macro that's less than half the price. $385US.
     
  16. wheezy macrumors 65816

    wheezy

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Alpine, UT
    #16
    I haven't double checked but... only primes are coming in at f2.0 or faster methinks. So, a zoom of that speed would be reaaaallly pricey. That's why I just go with Primes, my legs do a great job zooming in or out. I have an EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II and I hate it, the picture quality is nothing compared to the 50 1.8 and 135 f2.0L that I use. I know the 28-70 F2.8L is a great lens but... with what I'm used to, it's not fast enough. My next big lens purchase will be the 24 or 35 f1.4 L Prime. Then I'll save FOREVER and upgrade my 50 1.8 to the 50 1.2 L.
     
  17. sjl macrumors 6502

    sjl

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #17
    RRP of the MP-E 65mm is $AU1749. Street price is probably closer to $AU1500 (I haven't looked; I'm not in the market for it). If you want it cheap, it can be had on the grey market for a mere $AU1325 (send me a private message if you want a link to a couple of grey market dealers, or just search eBay).

    Australia in general gets screwed over on pricing of electronics and other "specialised" gear. Small market, big land mass, makes for higher overheads than in the US.

    For general purpose macro photography, the EF 100mm macro (the one I'd recommend; I wouldn't touch the EF-S 60mm macro, simply because it's EF-S, not EF) is $AU1000 (RRP, or $725 on the grey market.) The 180mm macro is nice, but waaaay too expensive for most people.
     
  18. crazydreaming macrumors 6502a

    crazydreaming

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT -Westminster College
    #18
    well, here's my lens wish list. Nikon just needs to make their pro-level 2.8 glass cheaper, is that too much to ask? :p

    -the 17-55 2.8 is great, just make it cheaper, ok, if not, then how about adding VR?

    -the 70-200 VR 2.8 is also awesome, but frankly I don't have $1,700 yet. So I guess I'll settle for the 80-200 2.8

    I see the point others are making about just using all primes. I have thought about that myself, because primes are awesome because they are fast, have great quality, and usually aren't as expensive as a comparable zoom would cost. However, I just don't see how you could use only primes if you were on a fast paced assignment. There are many times where you just don't have the time to be contantly switching lenses, or "zooming" with your feet a great deal.

    This past weekend I shot a state gymnastics meet. I borrowed a 80-200 AF ED 2.8 and actually ended up using my 50mm 1.8 much more. Even 2.8 wasn't enough to allow a fast enough shutter to catch the motion in the dimly lit gym. My little $100 50mm gem saved the day giving me quite a few more stops.
     
  19. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #19
    True enough, but on the other hand there have been a lot of zooms released recently, so there are a lot of options there.

    On the Canon side, I'd like to see the 24-70 f/2.8L get and IS version (and the non-IS version come down in price). Maybe even make it a 22-85 f/2.8L IS.

    An IS version of the 17-40 f/4 would be neat as well.
     
  20. bmat macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Location:
    East Coast, USA
    #20
    Actually, that is not true. No full frame coverage zooms are faster than f2.8, but there is one reduced sensor one at least (and maybe only). Olympus has a 35-100 f2.0, which comes out under the crop factor as a 70-200 f2.0. Of course it's big and over $2k.

    That said, if they could put DO elements, or something, I would pay a pretty penny for a f2 full frame zoom that wasn't huge. I have primes that cover 35, 50, 85, 135 (for f1.4, 1.2, 1.2, 2.0), but still zooms convenient, particularly in tight spaces. Sometimes you just can't move with your feet fast enough.
     
  21. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #21
    Um, isn't that just 1 1/3rd stops difference?
     
  22. -hh macrumors 68020

    -hh

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    #22
    Funny, that range doesn't cut it for me; I think it has mostly to do with my interests...I'd rather be either wider or longer.

    As such, while I'd settle for the 400mm DO IS f/4 to simply have a 50% cut in its price, what might be as interesting would be an L class 250-500 f/4 IS that could be handheld.

    And something equivalent to a 20mm on a crop body...I haven't checked into the 10-22mm yet to see if its up to snuff. Worth it?


    -hh
     
  23. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #23
    The reviews of the 10-22 that I've seen tend to be pretty good, albeit not spectacular. For example:

    http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1022_3545/index.htm

    I wonder if making EF-S primes makes any sense. They should be able to be cheap.
     
  24. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #24
    I would like to see more Carl Zeiss Nikon mount lenses as well as the Leica/Panasonic lenses for the 4/3 mount.
     
  25. Karpfish macrumors 6502a

    Karpfish

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    #25
    Nikon AF-S 35 1.4

    And to the OP, an 80-400 f/4 with AF-S and VR would be well over 5,000,considering that the AF-S 200-400 f/4 VR costs 5,100.
     

Share This Page