Well, I agree with this to a point. However, some things have changed:
1. Zooms today are approaching the quality of primes in many
situations. Not in all, but in many.
2. Todays 400 speed color films have near the same quality of
yesterdays 100 and 200 speed filme, so lenses faster than f/2 are
often unnecessary.
3. With autofocus, less light is needed in the viewfinder for
focusing.
4. And no one argues that lighter is better, so many photographers
(especially less knowledgable ones) are willing to pass up weight for
conveinance.
The market changes, so Nikon has to change with it.
So, if you are a real maven of available light work, buy the best
available low-light system, a Leica M6, with a 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux, or
their 35 or 75mm f/1.4 lenses.
Me, I love my newly purchased (used) 20-35mm f.2.8, as it replaces
three primes I used to carry (18mm, 24mm, 35mm) all at reasonable
speeds. The only thing I miss is close focusing, and the depth of
field often makes up for it.
What I would like to see is a 200-400 f/4, to complement the 80-200
f/2.8.
Colin
>Nikon, WAKE UP!! the 20-35 may be an outstanding
>lens, but 2.8 is by no means "fast". --Paul Walsen
Bravo! I agree! Back in 1979 when the race was for smaller bodies
and
bigger finders (Olympus OM-1 was the obvious winnner) the 50/1.8 was a
normal speed lens and the 1.4 was fast, the 1.2 was very fast. Even a
f/2
lens was not exciting. But then again those are also the days when
prime
leses were better than anything, and prime lenses with teleconverters
were
better than zooms, and no one likes varifocal lenses unless the price
was
very low. What happened? I guess the marketing group decided to push
the
"lighter is better" line along wiht the 80-200/4-5.6 lens, as small as
a
100/2.5. Smalle is better was the cry, they kept quiet about the
"slower"
part. And now that a whole new generation of photographers has come
about
due to AF, they know not the times when lenses in the f/1.x realm were
normal and accepted. No, 2.8 is not fast. In my opinion it is
acceptable
only for lenses suck as the 80-200, and 2.8 can only be considered
fast
when used on lenses 300mm or longer. Nikon even had a 300/2.0 in
1981!
The 35/1.4AF shouldhave been here by now, and the 35/1.2 or 35/1.0
should
have no trouble coming off the drawing board. Keep voicing your
opinions
to Nikon, they don't listen to us as much as they do their favored
sons,
but we can keep on keepin' on.
