The irony, at least in Nikon's case is that there are exactly 2 Nikon primes that old (the 50/1.4 and 24/2.8) and one (the 50) has a replacement due to ship in the next couple of weeks. The 20/2.8 is a early 80's design, the 50/1.8 a late 70's, the 28/2.8 a mid-90's, the 35/2 a late 80's, the 85/1.4 an early 90's, the current 105's are '99 and 2006 and the 135 is '99.
Bad as Nikon's prime lineup is, the oldest designs are mostly early 80's and many are much newer. The sad thing about it is the loss of the exotics (24 and 28 f2's, the 28/1.4, the 35/1.4, the 50 and 58 f1.2) and the classic 105/2.5 and 135/2.8 which never made it to AF form. -Adam On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 2:37 PM, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > and yet Canon is know for having fairly poor W/A offerings, and the major > knock against Nikon is that they haven't redesigned their prime lineup since > the late `1960's. Let's just face it wide and ultra wide solutions on > miniature formats are difficult. > > Boris Liberman wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the >> considerations that may prevent me from buying them. >> >> 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control >> issues still there >> 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish >> eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. >> 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, >> though the CAs could be a problem. >> 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good >> otherwise >> 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain >> people call Sigma really nasty names >> 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough >> 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature >> of field >> 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma >> 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to >> become quite rare these days. >> >> No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly >> good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens >> has some serious drawbacks. >> >> So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. >> >> Boris >> >> P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of >> completeness. >> >> P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as >> well. >> >> P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down >> considerably now... >> >> 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one >> for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having >> excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> >> > > > -- > You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. > --Al Capone. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
