WHY doesn't Nikon make the 55-200mm VR in a f/2.8 ????

[PatrickHMS]

Am sure they could if they wanted to, and to me that would be the ULTIMATE walk around lens...

 

[PhotoXopher]

We need a 12-300 f/1.4 for the ultimate walk around lens.

I think because they already have a sweet 70-200 f/2.8 ?

 

[JamesMason]

Because its awsomeness would split the space time continuum apart

 

[PhotoXopher]

Heck, I'd be happy if they could release an 18-200 equivelent in a constant f/3.5

 

[PatrickHMS]

18-200mm f/2.8 would be even better, but since they already make a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR adding 15mm to the bottom end should be EASY to do.

 

[KmH]

18-200mm f/2.8 would be even better, but since they already make a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR adding 15mm to the bottom end should be EASY to do.

That's just it. It's NOT easy to do and maintain image quality and make it affordable. It would be a lens designers worst nightmare.

Nikon's current 18-200 has the worst barrel distortion of any Nikon lens made today. The image quality of the the same lens is far less than stellar. It' a series of compromises that add up to mediocre performance through the entire focal range.

 

[Big Mike]

adding 15mm to the bottom end should be EASY to do.

You can make up for that 15mm by taking one step back.

 

[NateS]

adding 15mm to the bottom end should be EASY to do.

You can make up for that 15mm by taking one step back.

Exactly.....and anybody that thinks a 10lb foot and a half long lens that's as big around as your calf muscle is a good walk around lens has a different idea of a good walk around lens than I do.

55-200 f2.8 would be a mighty large lens.....bigger than the 70-200 and even it is too big to be a comfortable walkaround lens.

 

[schumionbike]

actually the 55-200 f2.8 in dx format shouldn't be that difficult to do. It'll be cheaper than 70-200 F2.8 in fx format.

 

[IgsEMT]

We need a 12-300 f/1.4 for the ultimate walk around lens.

I'll take 18-200 f/2.8 as a walk around :thumbup:

 

[KmH]

We need a 12-300 f/1.4 for the ultimate walk around lens.

I'll take 18-200 f/2.8 as a walk around :thumbup:

The filter size is a killer though.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon doesn't make a lot of lenses people would like to see made, simply because 80 percent or more of cameras sold are D40-D60-D3000 class bodies, and the vast majority of sales are to beginners, hobbyists, and advanced amateurs with modest needs and modest budgets, and a decided preference for smaller, lighter, and lower cost lenses. A 55-200mm f/2.8 would be a popular pro lens I think,and the difference between 50mm and 70mm on DX is significantly wider. I myself a few years ago, blogged about the need for a 50-250mm, fast lens for sports/news use, before Nikon had any full frame camera options.

Pentax makes a neat 60mm-250mm f/4 constant aperture zoom lens in its premium DA* line (pronounced D-A star) smc PENTAX DA Star 60-250mm F4 ED (IF) SDM - Official PENTAX Imaging Web Site

which for a 1.5x camera body makes a lot of sense.

The current 55-200 lenses are small, light, and very easy to carry. An f/2.8 model would probably cost $2,500 or so,and there probably really isn't as much demand for that lens as for other lenses that sell in big, big numbers.
it'd be possible to make a good 55-200. I wish Nikon would make a quality 35-135mm f/2.8 or a 35-150mm f/2.8. I own an older 50-135mm f/3.5 Nikon zoom which is wonderful lens on 1.5x, simply due to the wider field of view at 50mm as opposed to 70mm on my 70-200. With high-quality newer sensors and better and better high ISO capabilities, an f/3.5 max aperture would be somewhat equivalent to an f/2.8 lens from five years ago, when maximum ISO before severe loss of image quality was limited to the 1250 to 1600 range. And that's another reason slower aperture zooms are possible today; today's ISO 400 from a top camera is about as grainy as Kodachrome 64 used to be. Wider aperture lenses are not quite as imperative today as they were even five years ago; the newest Nikons can shoot good-to-usable images at ISO 3200 and 6400,and now there are 25,000-104,000 ISO settings hitting the market.

A 55-200 consumer lens at $250 versus a $2,500 model is a simple economic decision for Nikon. Just not enough demand for the big gun.

 

[itznfb]

We need a 12-300 f/1.4 for the ultimate walk around lens.

I'll take 18-200 f/2.8 as a walk around :thumbup:

A 18-200 f/2.8 would be the size of a small car and a 12-300 f/1.4 would be the size of a large boat.

 

[PatrickHMS]

What Derrell says makes sense, I understand what he is saying.

Wasn't asking for an 18-200mm f/2.8, I just felt that with Nikon already making a 55-200mm f/3.5, that the extra focal length from 55-70mm wouldn't be that much longer a lens. Granted, a 2.8 aperture would make it a larger diameter lens, but likely worth it, and the suggestion made above for a constant 3.5 would also be appealing to me and probably others.

I understand large lenses, in my younger film days I used to lug around a MF Nikkor 50-300mm f/4.5 lens around. It was so huge that it had a shoulder strap that was actually attached to the lens. Easily as big as your forearm.

I was just thinking out loud when I began this post as I was looking at the smallish f/2.8 lenses less than 70mm they make, some of which you can encircle your fingers around.

Even the 55-200mm AF-S is a really nice size lens for that kind of focal length.

I also have the older AF 35-105mm Macro and the AF 35-135mm Macro lenses. The push-pull takes some getting used to, but the focal length is nice, especially for portraits. Just wish they were a little wider than 35mm.

In this OP I was just thinking out loud...