What would be your dream lens

[116520]

LOL... I am not asking Nikon for too much also.... just sell me the new 18-200 f/2.8 the same price as the DX version... =X

"18-200 f/2.8" and you are say you're not greedy!
LOL

 

[r0n1n]

i wish there was 16-105 f2

 

[brapodam]

I want:

-AF-S DX 12-24 f4 VRII (the DX 16-35 - well, sort of)
-AF-S Micro-Nikkor 70-200 f4 VRII

 

[Belano]

1) AF-S 18-55 F/1.4
2) AF-S 60-200 F/4 Macro

Practical?

 

[NoiNoi]

practical to have AFS 28-500mm f4-5.6 VRIII for FX ?

 

[Nostalgraphy]

i wish there was 16-105 f2

Better than my choice but will be one hell of an expensive lens! But likely worth the price cos can shoot whole day long!

 

[Nostalgraphy]

I want:

-AF-S DX 12-24 f4 VRII (the DX 16-35 - well, sort of)
-AF-S Micro-Nikkor 70-200 f4 VRII

12-24 f/4 its available but without VR.... and usually no one would use VR at this range. 16-35 you can also consider the current 17-55 or Sigma 17-50 with image stabalizer).
For Micro lens, I strongly recommend 2.8

 

[Nostalgraphy]

1) AF-S 18-55 F/1.4
2) AF-S 60-200 F/4 Macro

Practical?

Choice one would be good choice. I would buy if it is better than prime lens or as close to the quality of a 50mm f/1.4
Micro lens, my comments is the same, ideal to have 2.8 because of the challenge to take a decent pic.

 

[Nostalgraphy]

practical to have AFS 28-500mm f4-5.6 VRIII for FX ?

Practical, everthing also practical as long as we can balance between $$$ and weight hahaha.
28-500 is already available in point and shoot camera so I really dont see why not achievable. But of course for a DSLR, you probably compromise on performance.

 

[kcchew]

I'd take the AF-S 24-120mm f/4G VR, correct the distortion and increase max aperture to f2. That's all I'm asking for. Then I'll finally have the perfect walkaround lens for my film and DX bodies.

 

[Nostalgraphy]

I'd take the AF-S 24-120mm f/4G VR, correct the distortion and increase max aperture to f2. That's all I'm asking for. Then I'll finally have the perfect walkaround lens for my film and DX bodies.

DX body? Then you will want at least 17-120 f/2!!! ;-) 24mm for landscape can be too tight at times.

 

[brapodam]

12-24 f/4 its available but without VR.... and usually no one would use VR at this range. 16-35 you can also consider the current 17-55 or Sigma 17-50 with image stabalizer).
For Micro lens, I strongly recommend 2.8

Wide angle zooms with VR are very useful for video, even though I don't use it. VR can be useful for certain shots, usually handheld shots with motion blur (motion blur caused by subject movement, not camera shake, and this is where VR comes in)

The 17-55/17-50 is not quite as wide as I would like.

Also, care to explain why you'd like your macro lenses to be at f2.8? So far I don't see macro shots being shot at f2.8, but most (all?) macro lenses are f2.8 so they can double up as a semi-fast prime. Why I want it to be f4 is so that it can be the poor man's 70-200, which Canon has had for many years already. The macro capability (I don't expect 1:1 reproduction ratios here) would be useful at times for semi-macro shots of larger flowers/insects, or for shooting abstract macro

 

[tehzeh]

I try to be as realistic as possible... so a 12/3-35mm f/2.8 for FF would be good enough for me.

 

[george671]

I would like an 8 or 9mm f2.8 non fish eye for the DX cams... hopefully its got an Aperature ring, but if its cheap than a "G" lens is OK....

Cheers

 

[brapodam]

I would like an 8 or 9mm f2.8 non fish eye for the DX cams... hopefully its got an Aperature ring, but if its cheap than a "G" lens is OK....

Cheers

Why would you want the aperture ring if you want it to be for DX cameras? Do you want to use it on your film camera to get heavy vignetting for some weird reason?

 

[tehzeh]

Why would you want the aperture ring if you want it to be for DX cameras? Do you want to use it on your film camera to get heavy vignetting for some weird reason?

I am guessing that he wants to mount it on other brands of cameras... so an aperture ring would be useful.

 

[Nostalgraphy]

Wide angle zooms with VR are very useful for video, even though I don't use it. VR can be useful for certain shots, usually handheld shots with motion blur (motion blur caused by subject movement, not camera shake, and this is where VR comes in)

The 17-55/17-50 is not quite as wide as I would like.

Also, care to explain why you'd like your macro lenses to be at f2.8? So far I don't see macro shots being shot at f2.8, but most (all?) macro lenses are f2.8 so they can double up as a semi-fast prime. Why I want it to be f4 is so that it can be the poor man's 70-200, which Canon has had for many years already. The macro capability (I don't expect 1:1 reproduction ratios here) would be useful at times for semi-macro shots of larger flowers/insects, or for shooting abstract macro

Hmm..... you brought some interesting points here:

I have no experience with videography so what I pen it here may not make sense. Just thinking out loud - would VR help in videography as it is a different animal all together. And I have one friend who does that alot and seems like he is always using tripod with joystick kind of head to control his shots. But again, I have no experience in this so would assume, if Nikon, Canon or any lens Co. wants to go into the field of serious videography, perhaps a study group with some experts would be necessary.

For Macro/Micro, I am sharing strictly from personal experience only. With 105mm VR, it works great on still subjects and most of the time, if DOF is not key, F/4 does the trick. But F2.8 comes in handy when shooting fast flying insects like bees and houseflies. Bees not so bad cos they are in bright day light. Insects that works in the dark, the subject are unforgiving. I usually lower the resolution, set to 2.8 and use continuous shuttle. VR is off too. Make sense. Share with me your experience. I can use some tips too.

Hey I didnt realize Canon has a 70-200 F/4!!! but we have 24-230 f/4 and they don't!!!

 

[Nostalgraphy]

Hmm..... you brought some interesting points here:

I have no experience with videography so what I pen it here may not make sense. Just thinking out loud - would VR help in videography as it is a different animal all together. And I have one friend who does that alot and seems like he is always using tripod with joystick kind of head to control his shots. But again, I have no experience in this so would assume, if Nikon, Canon or any lens Co. wants to go into the field of serious videography, perhaps a study group with some experts would be necessary.

For Macro/Micro, I am sharing strictly from personal experience only. With 105mm VR, it works great on still subjects and most of the time, if DOF is not key, F/4 does the trick. But F2.8 comes in handy when shooting fast flying insects like bees and houseflies. Bees not so bad cos they are in bright day light. Insects that works in the dark, the subject are unforgiving. I usually lower the resolution, set to 2.8 and use continuous shuttle. VR is off too. Make sense. Share with me your experience. I can use some tips too.

Hey I didnt realize Canon has a 70-200 F/4!!! but we have 24-120 f/4 and they don't!!!

<-- I stand corrected. 120 not 230

 

[brapodam]

Hmm..... you brought some interesting points here:

I have no experience with videography so what I pen it here may not make sense. Just thinking out loud - would VR help in videography as it is a different animal all together. And I have one friend who does that alot and seems like he is always using tripod with joystick kind of head to control his shots. But again, I have no experience in this so would assume, if Nikon, Canon or any lens Co. wants to go into the field of serious videography, perhaps a study group with some experts would be necessary.

For Macro/Micro, I am sharing strictly from personal experience only. With 105mm VR, it works great on still subjects and most of the time, if DOF is not key, F/4 does the trick. But F2.8 comes in handy when shooting fast flying insects like bees and houseflies. Bees not so bad cos they are in bright day light. Insects that works in the dark, the subject are unforgiving. I usually lower the resolution, set to 2.8 and use continuous shuttle. VR is off too. Make sense. Share with me your experience. I can use some tips too.

Hey I didnt realize Canon has a 70-200 F/4!!! but we have 24-230 f/4 and they don't!!!

If you're shooting at F2.8, it means you're not shooting at the maximum reproduction ratio, which isn't the optimal way of using a macro lens (when shooting macro). I'm not a macro shooter, but I do know that shooting macro at f2.8 at maximum reproduction ratio (1:1) is suicide.

Anyway Canon has a 24-105L IS, so yeah we actually came late with the 24-120 f4 VR

 

[Nostalgraphy]

If you're shooting at F2.8, it means you're not shooting at the maximum reproduction ratio, which isn't the optimal way of using a macro lens (when shooting macro). I'm not a macro shooter, but I do know that shooting macro at f2.8 at maximum reproduction ratio (1:1) is suicide.

Anyway Canon has a 24-105L IS, so yeah we actually came late with the 24-120 f4 VR

My Canon friends will be happily pointing out "I TOLD YOU SO" if he hear this "we actually late" hahaha...... and thanks for sharing, I will try different setting based on what you have shared and see how it works differently. All my experience have been based on reading and trial and error anyways.