File :-(, x, )
Nikon 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 VR? Anonymous
In Thom Hogan's announcement about the upcoming D90 he mentions that it will be available in a kit with a new 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR lens.

Let see, that means we have the

18-70
18-55 VR
18-200 VR
16-85 VR
and the 18-105 VR
plus the 17-55, but that's a little different.

I get that Nikon needed a cheap VR lens to pair with the camera, but seriously, I'm a little surprised that Nikon keeps putting out DX lenses in this range when there are so many holes in there lens lineup and people waiting to shell out money something they don't already have - like AF-S primes (not tele) and constant f/4 lenses like Canon.

I get that it will sell anyways, but how long are they going to make us wait here?
>> Anonymous
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=28863905
>> Anonymous
Nikon are insane.
>> Anonymous
>>236111like AF-S primes (not tele) and constant f/4 lenses like Canon.

Um Canons primes arent too digital friendly (except for anything below 28mm) and all their constant f/4 lenses are expensive L glass.
Also Canon lacks any decent lenses between their 17-85 (which goes for 400-500 bucks) and 17-55 IS 2.8 (which cost 1k). Looks what Nikon has:
18-70
18-85 VR
17-55 2.8
18-105 VR
The only thing Canon has over Nikon is a good wide angle lens for crop cameras, the 10-22
>> Anonymous
>>236347
congratulations, idiot. you've turned it into yet another pissing contest between nikon and canon for no reason.

1/10
>> Anonymous
>Um Canons primes arent too digital friendly (except for anything below 28mm)

I've never heard anyone bitching about any current production lens dropping in quality on digital.

>all their constant f/4 lenses are expensive L glass.

Compare the cost of the 17-40L and the 16-35L. If you're saying, "let's have lots of lenses and lots of different price points," then there's a perfect model of your approach. B&H reads $669.95 for the 17-40, $1,359.95 for the original 16-35, and $1,424.95 for the II version.

>Looks what Nikon has:

Yeah, which is fucking redundant. At most a system needs three standard zooms: a kit, a midgrade, and a professional one. And you really can drop the midgrade, kit lenses aren't unusable and it's possible for most people who can save up for a DSLR to save up $1,000 over time.
>> Anonymous
>>236353
Oh, and for the record, I don't shoot Canon or Nikon and would pick Nikon between them.

Having a bunch of overlapping lenses is stupid, no matter who does it.
>> Anonymous
Why no prime love?
>> Anonymous
The primes are no doubt coming, but it makes perfect business sense to release ooomph factor cameras first, just look at what effect the D3 and D300 had on the market.

The use of constant f/4 lenses that is more interesting, since it's only really useful on the FX cameras and they've only been around for less than a year.

No business would rush out all it's products in one go.
>> Anonymous
>>236426The use of constant f/4 lenses that is more interesting, since it's only really useful on the FX cameras and they've only been around for less than a year.

LOLWUT
>> Anonymous
nikon also has the 18-135

wtf