File :-(, x, )
New Lens Rumors: 24/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, D3X... Anonymous
24mm 1.4 AF-S
35mm 1.4 AF-S
50mm 1.4 AF-S
85mm 1.4 AF-S

all "G" but not DXs not as sure about the 35mm as the others

No meaty info on D90 yet stay tuned. Should be D300 chip in more prosumer body with live view

D3x very evolutionary not as much revolutionary and will be same as D3 with the exception of the cmos size which you are correct about. Noise reduction and usability of high isos will take another radical jump from present gear

I think we will see the D3x and primes announced at Photokina. The 70-200 should be there too. There is also an 80-400 replacement (AF-S) on the blocks but my guess would be that it will be introduced along with D90. I think the D90 is a PMA (feb) deal but it seems like D80 are out of stock all over. This isn't unusual though as occasionally Nikon will miss the mark with how long supply will last
>> Anonymous
if the 4 AF-S primes really come true

this might mean the D80 replacement would be castrated of the AF motor ala D40
>> Anonymous
>>226017
I'm all for AF-S primes, but motorless D90 = DO NOT WANT. Fuck you Nikon if you really intend to do this.
>> Anonymous
ugh, what 24/1.4 and 35/1.4?

they're going to be HUEG like fucking XBOX
>> Anonymous
I could definitely see this happening; Nikon has seriously let their professional prime line-up slip compared to Canon.

But a 24/1.4 is a pretty bad idea, though, even though Canon has one. Just make a better-corrected, smaller, lighter, 24/2. With ISO 25,600 it should be fine. No one seems to care about gear not being obtrusive these days, with their big f/2.8 pro zooms, so they probably don't care and are just going to wave their engineering-peen around and make a 24/1.4. We seriously need some company to go and make the equivalent of a digital OM-1, a professional SLR that's ridiculously well-designed and also more compact than the competition to force other companies to pay attention to what they're making and not just the spec sheets. And make a few compact lenses for it, pancakes if possible. I'm sick of seeing camera bodies bigger than people's heads.

What makes me convinced that this could very well be true is that I noticed Nikon no longer lists the AF 50/1.4 on their website.

>all "G"

However, if this is true (no surprise if it is) I'll have to resist the urge to kick every person who made or approved the decision in their balls. There's just no reason to make a lens G at all.
>> Anonymous
Stupidest rumor I've yet to see. This thread is also against /p/ rules, read them.
>> Anonymous
A new d80 will be a very nice upgrade for me and many others if it has a focus motor built in. If not i will rage and buy a 40d becouse I hate not having focus motor
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>226026
The old 28/1.4 and 35/1.4 were big, but not XBOX HUGE by modern standards if you put them alongside something like 14-24/2.8. And now they can be probably made smaller using aspherical and high-refraction glass.
>> Anonymous
>>226028

the AF 50/1.4 is still on the nikon.com website

but anyway

what's wrong with G lenses?
>> Anonymous
>>226028
>There's just no reason to make a lens G at all.

Price. The aperture ring requires putting a few more cams and rings inside and a few more weather seals if it's a pro-grade lens. Since FM/FE owners and weirdos who put Nikon lenses on Canon/Olympus/whatever aren't a significant target audience, why not ditch it?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>226030
BUT 40D DOESN'T HAVE A FOCUSING MOTOR TOO!
>> Anonymous
>>226036

yeah, really.. the aperture ring is like.. archaic

might as well go all out and make them fully electronic
>> Anonymous
>>226030

Nikon wants you to buy the AF-S lenses.

Or upgrade to a D200 and up if you want to use your older lenses.

Depending on how bad they want to "screw" their customers, it's in their profit to do it.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I would love a revamped prime lineup from Nikon.
>> Anonymous
The D90 better have a fucking autofocus motor.

I'm also disappointed at the fact that all of those are G lenses.

Also, since they're AF-S, are they going to cost a lot more?
>> Anonymous
>>226049
Seconded.
>> Anonymous
why can't Nikon keep on doing what they've been doing?

keep a simple lens (with aperture ring i guess if you want it that bad) with the motor inside the body

then everyone is happy, no?

keep on making new lenses with modern designs or whatever, and just have the body autofocus

why can't they do that?
>> Anonymous
>>226057

I don't know.
I'm a Nikonfag, and I'm really starting to get annoyed with this stuff. I wish they would just release that lens line as G lenses, and not AF-S, because that way, they would be nice and cheap and the body could focus them like it's supposed to.
>> Anonymous
>>226032

The 28/1.4 is one of the few Nikkor lenses that actually uses hand-ground aspherics. One of the reasons why it's so expensive.

>>226034

Oh, nevermind, you're right. I'm on a weird browser that screwed up the display.

>>226036

>Price

Which is stupid. Someone who can pay for one of these crazy lenses can afford the cost of an aperture ring.

> Since FM/FE owners and weirdos who put Nikon lenses on Canon/Olympus/whatever aren't a significant target audience, why not ditch it?

1) Commitment to quality. If I hadn't gotten so used to it in the contemporary world, it would make me raaage that companies pulling in billions of dollars a year and paying their executives millions don't care enough about goodness and quality, or even just plain pride in what they make, to add little nice and useful touches to their products and cut corners.

2) Some people just plain prefer that operation.

3)

>>226049
>>226053

Thirded. Despite all my reservations about size on the 24/1.4 and to a lesser extent the 35/1.4, the greed and stupidity of G lenses, more lenses, especially if they're primes and especially if they're awesome as these probably will be, are never a bad thing.
>> Anonymous
>>226065
I accidentally pressed submit. Forget the three.

>>226057

In-lens autofocusing is faster, and this is important to some groups of people, usually less important than they make it out to be. Just set it to the hyperfocal unless you're shooting at really large apertures, and most people do the focus-and-recompose thing anyway that more than covers up any speed advantage.
>> Anonymous
>>226040
40d has a focus motor
>> Anonymous
It doesn't... All EF/EF-S lenses have a built-in motor. One of the advantages of adopting a new lens mount instead of having to design lenses/bodies to ensure full compatibility.
>> Anonymous
what are the chances the new 50mm with AF-S will be the same price as the old? ($300)

because that would be amazing, considering the Sigma version is $500
>> Anonymous
>>226450
I'm going to call a price of ~$400 based on these things:

1) They won't miss a chance to raise their price, especially since they're adding something and the price of everything is going up, which increases their production costs.

2) Canon's 50/1.4 is $300, Nikon almost always costs slightly more.

3) If they changed the optical formula, they need to pay off the R&D costs on that. They have to pay off the costs of designing a motor for it anyway.

4) There's no way they're going to let Sigma's lens with all the attention it's been getting be the same or less price. Also the Sigma is absurdly overpriced, it's a Sigma and a fifty and it's $500, WTF?
>> Anonymous
>>226451Also the Sigma is absurdly overpriced, it's a Sigma and a fifty and it's $500, WTF?

lens snob much?

it's a 50mm

it's 1.4

it's the first, if not the only, 50mm 1.4 with ultrasonic motor

it's brilliant wide open compared to other classic 50mms, subjectivity (bokeh) aside
>> Anonymous
>>226453
Um canons 50mm 1.4 has usm....
>> Anonymous
>>226455

nope

it has micro USM, which isn't ring USM

big difference
>> Anonymous
Are the 35mm and 24mm going to fucking $1,000 like Canon's?

I would love a fast 24mm but can't see myself paying 4 digits for one. :/
>> Anonymous
>>226453
No, I've got nothing against Sigma. It's just they're the generic brand, one wouldn't expect them to cost more than the name brands. That's not a quality judgment, it's just how they all market themselves.

The other 50/1.4s are $300.

Focusing motor worries are ridiculous, see 226070. If you're not servo/continuous focusing or composing according to the AF points, anything's fast enough.

And lastly, subjectivity is what matters and I'm not too hot on any aspect of that particular Sigma subjectively. Others' taste may be different, but it's ridiculous any 50/1.4 is $500, and it's ridiculous that the brand that's usually positioned as the cheap ones is the one doing it.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>226478
Gotta say that after using the kit 18-55 lens and 50mm 1.8 and upgrading to the 17-40 and 50mm 1.4, I will never buy a lens without USM or an equivalent. I don't care of the lens costs 20% more, to me it's worth every extra penny.
>> Anonymous
>> The other 50/1.4s are $300.

if they can make something remarkable that no one else has, they can price it however they fucking want and people would still buy it

see the 30mm 1.4 for crop

no one wants to update their old 50/1.4 with modern coatings and design, Sigma is more than happy to do it

>> Focusing motor worries are ridiculous, see 226070. If you're not servo/continuous focusing or composing according to the AF points, anything's fast enough.

just because you don't need it or use it doesn't mean you can magically make it disappear and you can get it cheaper

Sigma chose to put HSM in it and that cost is reflected at the end of the chain

is it worth the extra money? that's everyone's decision but you can't simply dismiss it

>> And lastly, subjectivity is what matters and I'm not too hot on any aspect of that particular Sigma subjectively.

which is exactly why i said after taking out the subjectivity, ie the way it renders bokeh, it still comes out on top on the one thing you can measure with numbers: resolution

it outresolves everything you want to compare it to and it does it at f/1.4

which reminds me of that "zeissfag" in the original Sigma 50/1.4 thread where he kept insisting he preferred the way the Zeiss is all hazy and soft at 1.4

that's fine to prefer that but the Sigma 50/1.4 has been incredible thus far by the way it resolves pictures and that's why Sigma can price it at $500 and people still buy it
>> Anonymous
Sigma should call up Zeiss and ask them if they would like to produce a rebranded version of their 50mm.

They could sell it for $1000 to some folks here.
>> Anonymous
>>226479

i think people who keep going "lol who needs fast focus motors lol" are probably people who never used a lens with real USM

inb4jealouspoorfags
>> Anonymous
>>226484

damn bro, you must be a straight up baller.
>> Anonymous
>>226044

Fuck Off AC you fat cunt.
>> Anonymous
>>226616
Fuck off Jens you Scandinavian asshole.