# What lenses are you lusting for right now?



## chuasam (Jul 11, 2016)

Realistically...not like 600mm f/4 or something nuts.
But right now, what lenses do you really wish you had?

I have a D810 and I just got to play with a Nikon 300mm f/4E PF
holy smokes! Love!
300mm and no bigger than the 24-70 f/2.8 (and no cheaper either)

The other lens I really want is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART
I love the 50mm length and the ART version is supposed to be amazing.


----------



## Overread (Jul 11, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Realistically...not like 600mm f/4 or something nuts.
> But right now, what lenses do you really wish you had?



Canon 300mm f2.8 MII
Canon 400mm f2.8 MII
Canon 500mm f4 MII
Canon 600mm fI forget what its f is but I think f4 

It's not madness its realistic madness - though honestly I'd settle for just two - the 300mm f2.8 and one other then I'd feel like I had most of the lenses I'd want.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 11, 2016)

None, really.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 11, 2016)

Really would like to add A Pentax Macro to the bag. Looking at the HD DA 35 mm F 2.8 limited, or possibly the D FA 100mm F 2.8. Like the closer focus with the 35 mm but not happy about the lack of weather sealing. Other than that I'm pretty happy with my mix.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 11, 2016)

On my wishlist.. hmm...

Well looking at possibly adding either a 50-500mm Sigma OS or alternatively a Sigma 100-300mm F4 to the bag for zoo shooting.  I think both would be great in that capacity, just haven't really decided which of the two would be the most useful yet.

For wildlife shots I'd like to get either a Sigma 150-600mm or a Tamron 150-600mm at some point as well, though that will be further down the road.


----------



## ronlane (Jul 11, 2016)

_Either a 300mm f/2.8 or a 400mm f/2.8. The 300mm is the most realistic to get but both are on hold for now.
_


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 11, 2016)

next lens I'm targeting is a 105mm macro Nikon lens.
I've got all the other bases covered except for a good 1:1 macro.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 11, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> next lens I'm targeting is a 105mm macro Nikon lens.
> I've got all the other bases covered except for a good 1:1 macro.



Macro lenses are a ton of fun. My GF has the 300/2.8 VR2 so I really can't justify the PF lens apart from sheer laziness


----------



## jaomul (Jul 11, 2016)

I went a bit mad two weeks ago and bought a sigma 150-600mm and tokina 11-16 f2.8, I would say impulsively, but I've been eyeing up a 150-600 since tamron released their version. So in theory I need nothing, but I'd really like a 45mm f1.8 olympus for my m43 system


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 11, 2016)

Canon 24-70 F2.8L

But after what I've spent in the last 6 months on camera gear Mrs. Zombiesniper would provide the zombie killing headshot if I bought anything else.

P.S. No gear is unrealistic given the proper timeline.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 11, 2016)

zombiesniper said:


> Canon 24-70 F2.8L
> 
> But after what I've spent in the last 6 months on camera gear Mrs. Zombiesniper would provide the zombie killing headshot if I bought anything else.



Aha.. so, get JR involved in photography...

Then convince Mrs. Zombie the lens is for him....

Great plan.  Won't work.. but, A for effort.. lol


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 11, 2016)

There's an amazing 300mm f2.8L for sale and I tried to convince her it would be better than the 400mm f5.6.

She wasn't having any of it.


----------



## sw_ (Jul 11, 2016)

jaomul said:


> I went a bit mad two weeks ago and bought a sigma 150-600mm and tokina 11-16 f2.8, I would say impulsively, but I've been eyeing up a 150-600 since tamron released their version. So in theory I need nothing, but I'd really like a 45mm f1.8 olympus for my m43 system


I'm eyeing the 11-16, how are you liking it so far?


----------



## jaomul (Jul 11, 2016)

sw_ said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > I went a bit mad two weeks ago and bought a sigma 150-600mm and tokina 11-16 f2.8, I would say impulsively, but I've been eyeing up a 150-600 since tamron released their version. So in theory I need nothing, but I'd really like a 45mm f1.8 olympus for my m43 system
> ...



So far so good, but I'd need longer to give a more detailed answer. Wide angle isn't massively my thing, but a few times I had wished I had one, and a wide was kind of the only gap in my kit


----------



## Peeb (Jul 11, 2016)

sw_ said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > I went a bit mad two weeks ago and bought a sigma 150-600mm and tokina 11-16 f2.8, I would say impulsively, but I've been eyeing up a 150-600 since tamron released their version. So in theory I need nothing, but I'd really like a 45mm f1.8 olympus for my m43 system
> ...


I've got one and it is FANTASTIC for astro-photos but you need to be really careful in direct sunlight as it flares really easily.  Overall, I really like it.


----------



## Dave Colangelo (Jul 11, 2016)

A nice working 40mm or 50mm for my Hasselblad V system 

Dave


----------



## PaulWog (Jul 11, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Realistically...not like 600mm f/4 or something nuts.
> But right now, what lenses do you really wish you had?
> 
> I have a D810 and I just got to play with a Nikon 300mm f/4E PF
> ...



Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC or Nikon 24-70 f2.8 non-VR. Not any time soon.

Nikon 600mm f4e. Unrealistic.
Nikon 500mm f4e. Unrealistic.
Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR-ii. Unrealistic given how sparingly I would use it.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 11, 2016)

PaulWog said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Realistically...not like 600mm f/4 or something nuts.
> ...



I use my 70-200 not as much as I used to
My GF buggered off to Germany with my 24-70 for an assignment. 
They're superb lenses. 
I've gotten lazy and now favour a more lively candid aesthetic so I use my 85mm more.


----------



## goodguy (Jul 11, 2016)

480sparky said:


> None, really.


Yeap, same here, I really got all the lenses I need.
I mean sure if I was insanely rich then I would get more lenses but honestly I doubt I would use them, what I have now is just perfect for my needs.
I am what you could call a happy man  (gear wise).


----------



## Netskimmer (Jul 11, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> On my wishlist.. hmm...
> 
> Well looking at possibly adding either a 50-500mm Sigma OS or alternatively a Sigma 100-300mm F4 to the bag for zoo shooting.  I think both would be great in that capacity, just haven't really decided which of the two would be the most useful yet.
> 
> For wildlife shots I'd like to get either a Sigma 150-600mm or a Tamron 150-600mm at some point as well, though that will be further down the road.



I really enjoy my Bigma. Though getting it AND one of those xxx-600 lenses might be overkill. I find the shorter end of the bigma to really only be useful in very specific situations. Parades and equine photography (in the ring) for me mostly. It is plenty sharp for me and I have gotten some good wildlife shots with it.

The 300mm f/4E PF is on my list as well. 300mm + TC-17II + 1.6 DX sensor on my D7000 would be amazing for wildlife/ sports, assuming the autofocus could keep up. Probably could if you used limiter. Maybe even grab one of those new D500's for the focusing system... Oh god, it just never ends!


----------



## ruifo (Jul 11, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Realistically...not like 600mm f/4 or something nuts.
> But right now, what lenses do you really wish you had?
> 
> I have a D810 and I just got to play with a Nikon 300mm f/4E PF
> ...




Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art
Samyang 24mm f/1.4 UMC
Nikkor AF 135mm f/2 DC
Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E ED PF VR


----------



## sw_ (Jul 11, 2016)

Peeb said:


> I've got one and it is FANTASTIC for astro-photos but you need to be really careful in direct sunlight as it flares really easily.  Overall, I really like it.



Perfect! It'll be mostly for astro with some b&w landscape mixed in


----------



## Peeb (Jul 11, 2016)

sw_ said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > I've got one and it is FANTASTIC for astro-photos but you need to be really careful in direct sunlight as it flares really easily.  Overall, I really like it.
> ...


Shot at 16mm
f/2.8
ISO 1600
(yes, it'll work on a FF camera at 16mm).


----------



## PaulWog (Jul 12, 2016)

Netskimmer said:


> I really enjoy my Bigma. Though getting it AND one of those xxx-600 lenses might be overkill. I find the shorter end of the bigma to really only be useful in very specific situations. Parades and equine photography (in the ring) for me mostly. It is plenty sharp for me and I have gotten some good wildlife shots with it.
> 
> The 300mm f/4E PF is on my list as well. 300mm + TC-17II + 1.6 DX sensor on my D7000 would be amazing for wildlife/ sports, assuming the autofocus could keep up. Probably could if you used limiter. Maybe even grab one of those new D500's for the focusing system... Oh god, it just never ends!



Don't even get me started on never ending. My Tamron 15-30 has given me a new taste for landscape photography (actually it's the 10-stop ND filter, which I've already scratched up a bit getting it in ocean action).





I want a Sony A7R-ii alongside a Nikon system. Almost identical lenses on both systems. Why? Because. Realistically not happening.



Peeb said:


> sw_ said:
> 
> 
> > Peeb said:
> ...



Nice!


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 12, 2016)

I really want to try a FishEye lens too sometime.  I had some neat ideas for it back when I got more into photography when I got my d7000 and would go on photog expeditions.

I wouldn't mind something bigger than my 150-600 Tamron too, but not in size.  I have my 2500/5000mm scope and wouldn't mind a pocketable, super high IQ 10,000mm lens that sells for a couple hundred dollars.

Maybe I'll spring for that 105mm Nikon macro now ...


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 12, 2016)

Netskimmer said:


> I really enjoy my Bigma. Though getting it AND one of those xxx-600 lenses might be overkill. I find the shorter end of the bigma to really only be useful in very specific situations. Parades and equine photography (in the ring) for me mostly. It is plenty sharp for me and I have gotten some good wildlife shots with it.



If I go with the 50-500 I doubt I'll still get the 150-600.  The low end of the 50-500 would actually be pretty useful to me for shooting at the zoo - even on the 70-200mm 70 can be a bit to long on occasion since in many situations your shooting through glass and the closer you can get to it the better to minimize reflection.  The 50-500 would be nice because I could mount just one lens and it would cover probably 80% of what I shoot at the zoo.  I'd only have to switch occasionally when I really needed something faster, so I could always do the majority of my shooting with the one lens, take a break and swap them out at the car, then head back with the 70-200mm 2.8 for those places that the 5.6/6.3 just really couldn't do the job that well.

I'm also looking at the 100-300mm F4 = with a 1.4x TC that would give me out to 420 at 5.6 for the outdoor stuff, and still be fast enough that I could shoot the indoor stuff so again most of my shooting condensed into one lens.  I could carry the 28-75 with me for those spots where the 100mm was just too long I guess, so I'd probably have to swap lenses a bit more but I think that would be workable.



> The 300mm f/4E PF is on my list as well. 300mm + TC-17II + 1.6 DX sensor on my D7000 would be amazing for wildlife/ sports, assuming the autofocus could keep up. Probably could if you used limiter. Maybe even grab one of those new D500's for the focusing system... Oh god, it just never ends!



Lol.. true, it never does.  Fortunately I'm getting by pretty well with whats in the bag so this all falls into the "would be nice to have at some point" category, not the .. wow, I really need category.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 12, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Netskimmer said:
> 
> 
> > I really enjoy my Bigma. Though getting it AND one of those xxx-600 lenses might be overkill. I find the shorter end of the bigma to really only be useful in very specific situations. Parades and equine photography (in the ring) for me mostly. It is plenty sharp for me and I have gotten some good wildlife shots with it.
> ...


Close focus distance of that 50-500 I think is around 20 inches plus the length of the lens.
I looked really closely at that lens once but got the 150-500 but soon replaced it with the tamron 150-600.

If you use the Sigma strap, you strap the lens so you can have it by your side if you swap on a small lens.   I also didn't like the focus and zoom mechanisms as I thought they were hard and not really smooth compared to Tamron/Nikon.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 12, 2016)

I borrowed a Nikon AF-S 80-400 VR II on Sunday.
It wasn't too bad but the slow slow slow f/5.6 got to me.


----------



## sw_ (Jul 12, 2016)

Peeb said:


> sw_ said:
> 
> 
> > Peeb said:
> ...


Ah. I didn't put 2 and 2 together earlier! Totally missed that it was your photo that got me curious about that lens. 

Like my photos, sometimes I'm sharp, sometimes I'm a butter knife.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 12, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Close focus distance of that 50-500 I think is around 20 inches plus the length of the lens.



I don't think the close focusing distance would be a huge issue at least not in most of the situations I plan on using the lens.   I usually have a fairly decent distance between myself and the subject, but often when I close the distance to get as close to the glass as possible I wind up not having quite enough FOV - this happens most often with the bigger critters I shoot, like the gorillas.  I'd like to be able to get a bit more background in but if I backup I start picking up reflections from the glass which are a pain to deal with in post.  



> I looked really closely at that lens once but got the 150-500 but soon replaced it with the tamron 150-600.



I'm also looking at the 150-500, I think the 150 would probably be a bit long though in some of the places I shoot at the zoo.  A lot of course will depend on what sort of deal I can get when I'm ready to buy of course.. lol



> If you use the Sigma strap, you strap the lens so you can have it by your side if you swap on a small lens.   I also didn't like the focus and zoom mechanisms as I thought they were hard and not really smooth compared to Tamron/Nikon.



The Nikon 80-400 was on my list, but the older version that doesn't have a built in motor gets trashed pretty hard in reviews for being too slow to autofocus, so I started looking at alternatives.  The newer version is just a bit more than I want to pay at least at this stage.

Tamron really doesn't make much in the 400mm range, they have a 200-500 but it doesn't seem to be too well regarded, and it lacks VC.  That and of course 200 just seems too long for what I want on the low end.  They have a 200-400mm as well, push pull as I recall again with no VC.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jul 12, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Close focus distance of that 50-500 I think is around 20 inches plus the length of the lens.
> I looked really closely at that lens once but got the 150-500 but soon replaced it with the tamron 150-600.



I have read that as well. Not sure what they are referring to, but in manual focus I can focus on objects as close as 6 inches, possibly a little less, when at 50mm.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jul 12, 2016)

Looking into:
M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 macro (most likely, as this is a current gap in my coverage)
M.Zuiko 40-150 f/2.8 PRO with 1.4x tele. (Not likely soon, but definitely want)
M.Zuiko 7-14 f/2.8 PRO (possibly soon).
M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 (I want, someday).
M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 (a dream).


----------



## cherylynne1 (Jul 12, 2016)

Well, unrealistically I'd love to try out the new Sony 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. But it's not going to happen. 

I think my next lens will be the Zeiss 16-70 as an everyday lens. Right now I'm using the 35 1.8 prime, which is great indoors, but a little tricky when doing things like chasing kids around the park. A zoom would be nice. 

I also might like the 70-300 zoom. I'm hearing good things, and I've found that on the occasions that I need a long focal length I usually want more than 210. 

And if I had unlimited funds, the Zeiss 24 1.8, Sony 90 macro, and 85 1.4 would all come home with me too.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 13, 2016)

Zeiss Distagon T* 2.0/28mm ZF (my favorite focal length, in its most perfect incarnation), commonly called "Hollywood" for its dramatic rendering

Also Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2.0/100mm ZF, but I already own that one and luv it to bits.


----------



## john.margetts (Jul 13, 2016)

Can't say I  ever exactly lust after lenses but I intend to buy a x-500 mm zoom in the very near future. Finances mean that it is likely to be second hand so which lens depends on what is available at the time.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 13, 2016)

Wish my wife would hurry up and buy me the 105mm micro.


----------



## gckless (Jul 14, 2016)

Long, expensive telephotos are what I want. 200-400mm f/4, 300mm PF, etc. Nothing I'll have in my bag anytime soon. Recently got the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII and 200-500mm f/5.6, so I'm somewhat content for now. Will probably move to a D500 before a new lens. Unless I decide to go FF, in which case I'll need a 24-70mm at the least, probably Nikon's.



astroNikon said:


> I really want to try a FishEye lens too sometime.  I had some neat ideas for it back when I got more into photography when I got my d7000 and would go on photog expeditions.
> 
> I wouldn't mind something bigger than my 150-600 Tamron too, but not in size.  I have my 2500/5000mm scope and wouldn't mind a pocketable, super high IQ 10,000mm lens that sells for a couple hundred dollars.
> 
> Maybe I'll spring for that 105mm Nikon macro now ...



Here ya go: Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 HD Fisheye Lens with Removable Hood HD8M-N B&H

Not very good wide open, but it's cheap to pick up and play around with and actually pretty sharp up around f/8. I have the older version without the removable hood, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Well, it's also APS-C-only, not sure exactly what you're shooting now. Here's an example:




Triple Barrel by Gilbert Kless, on Flickr


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 14, 2016)

gckless said:


> Long, expensive telephotos are what I want. 200-400mm f/4, 300mm PF, etc. Nothing I'll have in my bag anytime soon. Recently got the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII and 200-500mm f/5.6, so I'm somewhat content for now. Will probably move to a D500 before a new lens. Unless I decide to go FF, in which case I'll need a 24-70mm at the least, probably Nikon's.
> 
> Here ya go: Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 HD Fisheye Lens with Removable Hood HD8M-N B&H
> 
> Not very good wide open, but it's cheap to pick up and play around with and actually pretty sharp up around f/8. I have the older version without the removable hood, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Well, it's also APS-C-only, not sure exactly what you're shooting now. Here's an example:


I need a better aperture for astrophotography work/testing too.
Plus my two camera bodies are FF/FX (d750 & d600).  So DX specific lenses don't work for me.  I know my options .. just the $$$ that I don't want to spend.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Jul 15, 2016)

Canon 28-70 2.8 L
Canon 70-200. 2.8 L is v2
Canon 100 2.8 L Macro
Canon 85 1.2 L


----------



## table1349 (Jul 15, 2016)

Leica 1600mm f/5.6 Telephoto Lens


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 15, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> next lens I'm targeting is a 105mm macro Nikon lens.
> I've got all the other bases covered except for a good 1:1 macro.



Well I am unlusting for the 105mm.  I wanted it for so long and finally  had some extra cash and found a used one that ended up having to be returned so I then ordered a refurb from Nikon and have not been impressed at all with my results.  I'm sure it's just me because so many of the great nature shots I see on Flickr that I love are shot with the 105mm...  



jaomul said:


> sw_ said:
> 
> 
> > jaomul said:
> ...



I enjoy the Tokina 11-16 but I also don't have a lot of uses for it lately - I've been drifting away from wanting to shoot landscapes and into a more macro/abstract/nature mode.  

What I'm really lusting after is a Helios 40-2 85mm f/1.5.  I just love that totally funky swirly bokeh and the price is not too bad...  but I really need to get my act together on the 105mm and decide if I'm keeping it or selling it before I consider buying anything else.


----------



## Streets (Jul 16, 2016)

I'm currently looking for a 500mm f1.2 G APO for under $100.00.  Am I being too optimistic?


----------



## ruifo (Jul 16, 2016)

How about the _Fujinon 25-300mm T3.5_?
About That 25-300mm f/2.8 You Wanted

Here it is next to a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens (only weights 8.4kg/18.5lb):


----------



## chuasam (Jul 25, 2016)

Holy Scheisse!
Nikon is coming out with a new 105mm f/1.4 lens.
*drool*
I need.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 25, 2016)

Leica Noctilux 50mm f0.95

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## chuasam (Jul 29, 2016)

Here it is
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 105mm f/1.4E ED | Interchangeable lens for Nikon DSLR cameras
fapfapfap


----------



## Overread (Jul 29, 2016)

I could see that lens being a strong competitor to the more traditional 135mm f2 options.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 30, 2016)

Overread said:


> I could see that lens being a strong competitor to the more traditional 135mm f2 options.


They don't make the 135mm f/2 anymore
I see it as a replacement.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 30, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > I could see that lens being a strong competitor to the more traditional 135mm f2 options.
> ...


 Nikon  AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D Lens 1935 B&H Photo Video


----------



## Overread (Jul 30, 2016)

And even if Nikon didn't Canon also still makes one that gets good (rave) reviews. So a strong 105mm might well make for a choice option. Although the difference in focal length and aperture are slight - thus I wonder what the optical differences are in depth of field rendering between the two are in practical terms of use (excluding things like sharpness and distortion etc.... which i would expect improved as part of a newer lens using newer technologies)


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jul 30, 2016)

The one that comes with a playboy model


----------



## chuasam (Jul 30, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...





BananaRepublic said:


> The one that comes with a playboy model


There are Playboy models younger than that lens.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jul 31, 2016)

chuasam said:


> There are Playboy models younger than that lens



When I said "the" I meant whatever lens come with her.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 31, 2016)

BananaRepublic said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > There are Playboy models younger than that lens
> ...


Haha lens. That's a new nickname for your Johnson.


----------



## nakednature (Aug 6, 2016)

Opteka 650-1300 f8-16 manual with a 2x teleconverter


----------



## chuasam (Aug 6, 2016)

nakednature said:


> Opteka 650-1300 f8-16 manual with a 2x teleconverter


They're really affordable. Just go get one.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 22, 2016)

Overread said:


> I could see that lens being a strong competitor to the more traditional 135mm f2 options.



I just tried out the 105mm f1.4 today. 
I'm trying to figure what I can sell to afford it. 
OMFG that lens is gonna be my baby. It's not a strong competitor. 
It's Phelps vs David Hasselhoff.


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 22, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > I could see that lens being a strong competitor to the more traditional 135mm f2 options.
> ...


Do I slap you now or when you get it?


----------



## chuasam (Sep 22, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



Hahahha slap me for what? I need that lens.


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 22, 2016)

chuasam said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...


Just jealous and like slapping people that get things I covet...lol


----------



## kalgra (Sep 22, 2016)

For me its the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon T*


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 22, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > I could see that lens being a strong competitor to the more traditional 135mm f2 options.
> ...





holy cow .. $2200 retail


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 22, 2016)

Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VR II.  Also something in the 600mm range but undecided about that one yet


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 22, 2016)

I would like to have the AF-S 10-24 f3.5 DX. Get up close to tractors and cars.


----------



## SquarePeg (Sep 22, 2016)

chuasam said:


> I just tried out the 105mm f1.4 today.
> I'm trying to figure what I can sell to afford it.
> OMFG that lens is gonna be my baby. It's not a strong competitor.
> It's Phelps vs David Hasselhoff.



Could not agree more and I haven't even tried it out myself!  I've been drooling over shots taken with it in a thread on another photo site.  Just wow!


----------



## zombiesniper (Sep 22, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Also something in the 600mm range but undecided about that one yet



Sigma just updated their 500mm F4. If it's any good at around 5-6K that'd be hard to beat.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 22, 2016)

SquarePeg said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > I just tried out the 105mm f1.4 today.
> ...



I'll sell off my 85 f1.8 and my 24-70/2.8 (to my GF so I can still borrow it). Tempted to sell off my old 105 macro.

I'm a headshot photographer so this isn't idle gear lust. I live and die by my headshots. I usually shoot with my 70-200/2.8 but this new lens is sooooo nice.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 22, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > jcdeboever said:
> ...



My GF has a 300mm f/2.8.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 23, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VR II.  Also something in the 600mm range but undecided about that one yet


It's on sale too
Nikon 600mm F/4


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 23, 2016)

zombiesniper said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Also something in the 600mm range but undecided about that one yet
> ...



Lol.. well thinking of something more in the 150-600 range for about a grand.  Most of what I do is handheld.  Sure, I'd love a 500 F4... but not really in the cards anytime soon.  Way more than what I can justify spending on a lens.


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 23, 2016)

Well instead of a 28mm I actually saw a really great offer for a used Distagon 35mm f2. So I have that now. And now I'm wondering if I still should get the Distagon 28mm f2 Hollywood or move on because the 35mm is, well, just wonderful.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 23, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...




there's a 150-600 in the FS section right now. 


/shameless.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 23, 2016)

Braineack said:


> there's a 150-600 in the FS section right now.
> 
> 
> /shameless.



Lol.  Well the 70-200mm 2.8 VRII is the next on my purchase list, will most likely be getting one in the next week or so, if I have enough left over in the camera budget I'll give it a look.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 23, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > there's a 150-600 in the FS section right now.
> ...


I have that lens. It's my go to lens on my muscle days...when I'm weaksauce I use my 85mm 1.8 
Crazy that the 105mm f/1.4 costs as much as the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII
speaking of crazy...has anyone seen the price for the A99 II SLT
holy scheiße! How does Sony come up with prices? Look at Pentax and multiple the price by 2.5x


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 23, 2016)

chuasam said:


> I have that lens. It's my go to lens on my muscle days...when I'm weaksauce I use my 85mm 1.8



I use the 70-200 2.8 I have now for the vast majority of what I do, so upgrading it first made the most sense.  I looked at the Nikkor VRI, but for the price difference I'm looking to see if I can get a good used VRII instead.


----------



## kalgra (Sep 23, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> Well instead of a 28mm I actually saw a really great offer for a used Distagon 35mm f2. So I have that now. And now I'm wondering if I still should get the Distagon 28mm f2 Hollywood or move on because the 35mm is, well, just wonderful.



I was just about to pull the trigger a used 35mm f2 distagon but when I met up with the guy the hood was bent on the lens in a way that appears it had been dropped. The guy said he hadnt dropped it and the hood just got bent in the bag but I got cold feet and passed it up. I have the 21mm distagon, 50mm Planar, and 100mm Makro f2 already. I'm hoping to add the 15mm and 35mm f2 in the next few months to really round out my Landscape kit. I too was contemplating the 28mm wondering if I will really need it. between the 15mm, 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm I'm thinking I just won't need the 25mm 0r 28mm distagon. I have a nice 16-35mm as well so if I really need those focal lengths ill still have something but while its a nice lens it is not as sharp or contrasty as the Zeiss lenses and would be out resolved on a 5Dsr.

Thoughts on those other 25 and 28mm focal lengths?


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 23, 2016)

In case you are indeed asking me: sorry, I'm neither a Canon user nor am I much into landscapes.

I want the distagon 28mm aside of the 35mm f2 because its a dramatic, emotional lens. Maybe the most dramatic lens of all. Thats why its nicknamed "Hollywood". If I had to give a nickname to the 35mm it would be honeypot. Its just delicious.


----------



## jamiebonline (Sep 25, 2016)

I suppose a lot of people said this but yeah Nikon 70-200 2.8 and the VR 1 version is totally fine with me. I have seen them used for prices I can afford. Not much else that I can think of right now.


----------



## Peeb (Sep 25, 2016)

FF wide zoom or prime (the DX tokina 11-16 is getting me along at 16mm but it's effectively a prime since you can't zoom wider than 16 on a full frame body.)  Thinking maybe a rokinon or samyang MF prime.
50 mm f/1.8 AF prime
85mm f/1.8 AF prime
FF walk-around zoom that opens to f/2.8
Longer telephoto (maybe 150-600).
Wow- I could spend a ton of cash in a hurry if let loose!


----------



## dxqcanada (Oct 5, 2016)

Minolta AF 400mm F4.5 HS APO G and a Sony 1.4x APO teleconverter.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 5, 2016)

None really, but more stuff for frame building and print making is always nice.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Oct 5, 2016)

Mac.
Row.


----------



## Wayben (Oct 8, 2016)

105/1.4 and 300/4 would be welcome additions.  May have to find a few things to sell.


----------



## chuasam (Oct 11, 2016)

Wayben said:


> 105/1.4 and 300/4 would be welcome additions.  May have to find a few things to sell.


the 300mm f/4 PF is droolsome. it costs as much as the 105/1.4.
My GF has the 300mm f/2.8 VRII so it's pointless to buy the f/4 just to save weight.


----------



## DarkShadow (Oct 11, 2016)

I was drooling for the Nikon 300mm f/4 PF but went with the Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D IS ED Non-VR Droll over its outstanding.


----------



## weepete (Oct 12, 2016)

Canon 24mm TSE at the moment. I'm torn between buying it and a Canon 70-200mm F4 L next....


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 16, 2016)

Well if its about 300mm I already have a wonderful one - AI-S 300mm f4.5 - but I wouldnt complain about getting my hands on an AI 300mm f2.8 IF-ED.

Not something I actually lust for like "I WANT IT NEXT SECOND PRONTO" but definitely something I would snatch instantly if I see a good offer !


----------



## chuasam (Oct 17, 2016)

OMG I want the new Olympus 12-100 f/4... only problem is that I don't have an Olympus system.


----------



## DriedStrawbery (Aug 13, 2017)

A good wide angle for milky way and landscapes 


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## katsrevenge (Aug 14, 2017)

Either a Trio 28 or a nice wide angle..


----------



## Pedro_lopez (Aug 14, 2017)

Sony 90mm 2.8 g macro


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## SquarePeg (Aug 14, 2017)

I'm waiting on the Fuji 85mm macro to be released.


----------



## fmw (Aug 16, 2017)

Not lusting but I think my next purchase may be a Fuji 10-24 wide angle zoom.


----------



## Destin (Aug 16, 2017)

Currently lusting over the sigma 135 1.8 ART

But I also just upgraded to full frame and need to get a 24-70 and a wide angle. 

Needless to say, I'm probably spending 5k on glass upgrades in the semi-near future. Not cool.


----------



## BrentC (Aug 16, 2017)

chuasam said:


> OMG I want the new Olympus 12-100 f/4... only problem is that I don't have an Olympus system.



I can say it is an absolutely fantastic lens.  I should use it more often but its hard to keep my 300mm and 60mm off my camera.


----------



## BrentC (Aug 16, 2017)

If I had the money I would love to get the Olympus 150 f/2 and the 300 f/2.8 also known as Little Tuna and Big Tuna.


----------



## benhasajeep (Aug 16, 2017)

I just picked up some really big glass.  Now I think it's time to update one of my standard zooms.  Time for a 24-70 f/2.8 VR.  Just sold my 28-70 f/2.8 AF-s.  Kept my 35-70 f/2.8 AF-d.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 16, 2017)

Kind of going back and forth between the 70-200mm f/4 AF-S VR-G and the new 300mm f/4 AF-S VR PF, or "Phase Fresnel"...


----------



## Destin (Aug 16, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Kind of going back and forth between the 70-200mm f/4 AF-S VR-G and the new 300mm f/4 AF-S VR PF, or "Phase Fresnel"...



That is a REALLY tough call. That new 300mm prime is a beauty of a lens in a compact package. But so is the 70-200 f/4. I guess it depends on how you shoot but I'd gladly add both to my kit.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 16, 2017)

Destin said:


> Currently lusting over the sigma 135 1.8 ART
> 
> But I also just upgraded to full frame and need to get a 24-70 and a wide angle.
> 
> Needless to say, I'm probably spending 5k on glass upgrades in the semi-near future. Not cool.



Errrmaghhhherd....SAW some location cityscape men's fashion last week,shot here locally  and posted to my Facebook ISO photo group, all shot with the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART lens on Canon 5D-III...*Yowza!* Super-nice defocus on the backdrops...close to the 200/2 level of defocus...but with a lighter, smaller,more-nimble,much more-carryable lens...


----------



## Destin (Aug 16, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > Currently lusting over the sigma 135 1.8 ART
> ...



Now you're just being a tease.


----------



## petrochemist (Aug 17, 2017)

Having at long last filled the UWA gap between my 10-17 fisheye & my 18-55 kit, I've now got all practical focal lengths covered for my DSLR. After a lottery win I'd like to replace many of them with faster, weather sealed options with better IQ but that's not realistic for me. The most likely improvements would be swapping my 55-300 for the newer sealed version, and changing my Cosina 100mm macro for the DA 100 macro (though this would add noticeably to the weight of my already excessive bag).

My MFT mirrorless kit also has an UWA gap, but with that it's the longer focal length I'd be more interested in sorting. I have plenty of lenses that can be used with it in manual focus & often with restricted aperture control, but a native long telezoom would be great. My current maximum is a 45-200 (reaching 400mm equivalent) . The Panasonic 100-400 would be ideal but it's typically >£1000 so will have to wait for quite some time. The older Panasonic 100-300 or Olympus 75-300 are now much cheaper (~£500 & ~£250 used respectively) so may end up as a suitable compromise.


----------



## Peeb (Aug 17, 2017)

Either a useed nikkor 105mm f/4 macro (amazing bang-for-buck used lens) OR
a used nikkor manual focus 50mm f/1.8 (attached to a nikon FE )

Of course, the 105, the 50 AND the FE could all be picked up on ebay for less than $300, so maybe strike the "or" and insert "and"


----------



## Braineack (Aug 17, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Errrmaghhhherd....SAW some location cityscape men's fashion last week,shot here locally and posted to my Facebook ISO photo group, all shot with the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART lens on Canon 5D-III...*Yowza!* Super-nice defocus on the backdrops...close to the 200/2 level of defocus...but with a lighter, smaller,more-nimble,much more-carryable lens...



Yeah but the 105mm 1.4E...


----------



## Destin (Aug 17, 2017)

Braineack said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Errrmaghhhherd....SAW some location cityscape men's fashion last week,shot here locally and posted to my Facebook ISO photo group, all shot with the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART lens on Canon 5D-III...*Yowza!* Super-nice defocus on the backdrops...close to the 200/2 level of defocus...but with a lighter, smaller,more-nimble,much more-carryable lens...
> ...



I'm actually more impressed with the Sigma if I'm being honest. And its almost $1000 cheaper.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 17, 2017)

I still prefer the Nikon rendering over the ultra sharpness of the Sigma.


----------



## Frank F. (Aug 17, 2017)

I bought everything I wanted, so currently only thinking of selling some stuff.

The 1.8/20 is so good that I do not use the 1.4/24 anymore which is a pity. It was as expensive as my 4/300PF!

Also the 1.8/50 does not see much use since I bought the 1.4/58, but selling it does not make much sense.

The 1.8/85 and 1.4/105 I still use both all the time, no doubling here.

I am not sure if I will keep the Fish 8-15 Nikkor. I will give it another 6 month. A great lens for group shots indoors.

The 300PF is highly recommended. What a lens! Superb on FX and DX. Same for the 1.4/105E and the 1.8/20G and the 1.8/85G. The 1.4/24G is superb but it is also very heavy and a lot of money sitting on the shelf if you do not use it.

The 2.8/60G Micro is phantastic, even for portraits, that was not true for the 60D Micro but since I have that I prefer the 1.4/58G and for Macro shots the 300PF on full contact extension. I cannibalized a 1.4E tele converter for the purpose. Stunning. Best macro for the field I ever used. In static studio setup the Sinar p2 with Schneider APO Digitar is better or with the Large Format Nikkor APO Marcro...

Everyone should lust for the 1.4/105E. Probably the best lens I ever had. Wow wow and wow. Every single time!


----------



## Frank F. (Aug 17, 2017)

ruifo said:


> How about the _Fujinon 25-300mm T3.5_?
> About That 25-300mm f/2.8 You Wanted
> 
> Here it is next to a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens (only weights 8.4kg/18.5lb):




Sigma makes a 200-500 f/2.8

It is 25.000€ but the most expensive part is the servant you need to carry it for you. I took a picture of the lens. It is on display in a local shop, although in Canon mount only. Available for Nikon and Sigma mount too:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B001...0&amp;keywords=sigma+2.8/200-500mm&th=1&psc=1


----------



## petrochemist (Aug 18, 2017)

Frank F. said:


> Sigma makes a 200-500 f/2.8
> 
> It is 25.000€ but the most expensive part is the servant you need to carry it for you. I took a picture of the lens. It is on display in a local shop, although in Canon mount only. Available for Nikon and Sigma mount too:


I've not really considered it as it's not available in any of my mounts. 
I think you're forgetting it's not just one servant, you need another to carry the tripod you'll need, and if you're covering any real distance at least a couple of others to take over once the initial servant's are in need of a rest (every 100 yards?) .
100lb puts it well outside the working range of even my heaviest duty tripod, which is certainly a significant burden already.


----------

