It is no secret that Nikon is starting to fall behind in the lens game, partly because competitors, such as Sigma and Tamron, have doubled down on quality and focused heavily on innovating, but also partly due to Nikon's seeming unwillingness to invest in new and updated, innovative designs. As the demands of modern sensors expand, so does the demand for sharp, high resolution glass. Nikon has several legendary lenses in their past, which with a modern facelift could become some of the most competitive lenses in today's market.
1. Nikon 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED
I want to want this lens, almost more than any other. It seems almost too good to be true at a glance. There is no other lens on the market that offers a similar view to a zoomed 70-200mm f/2.8 at a fraction of the size and price without sacrificing speed, but this little gem does it.
The first version of this lens was released in 1953 and continued to be updated every decade or so until 1993, when the latest version of the lens was released, making the design of this beast over two decades old. Age comes with some very unfortunate downsides that obliterate all the desire that I would naturally have had for this lens. Nikon, it's time to give this great lens a modern redesign; I'd be first in line to buy one if it had resolution comparable to today's most impressive lenses. I'd be even more impressed if you innovated on the design just a smidgen, perhaps enlarging it enough to reach f/2.4 and adding vibration reduction. Even if it doubled the price, I'd love a lens that gets a hint closer to the monstrous 200mm f/2.0 without forcing me to carry around that massive hunk of glass while shooting.
2. Nikon 135mm f/2.0 DC
Some consider this lens to be one of the best portrait lenses ever created; others consider it to be unusable and subpar. The truth is somewhere in the middle. It could be one of the most impressive lenses on the market today, however, if Nikon hadn't left the design to effectively rot away with time. If you agree that the 180mm above was certainly due for an update due to age alone, then the Nikon 135mm certainly is well past due. This lens was designed in 1990. 26 years ago, it was exceptional. It was an unquestionable master of its domain, but now, its time has past. The time has come to update the design of one of Nikon's most iconic portrait lenses to bring it up to modern standards. Most of all, it needs to be much sharper wide open, enjoy more accurate autofocus, and harness better control of chromatic aberration.
3. Nikon 20mm f2.8 AF-D
A fast, wide, full-frame 20mm prime at a sub-$700 price point? Sign me up! Except actually, don't. On paper, this lens is a gem. In reality, it leaves a lot to be desired. This lens has so much squandered potential that I can't believe Nikon hasn't updated it yet to revamp demand for it. Perhaps I shot with a lemon, but I had nothing but struggles with this lens ranging, from poor image quality to repeated trips to the shop despite a lack of harsh use. It could be great, but it isn't. Nikon, take "could," and transform it into "is."
4. Nikon 58mm f/1.4G
So far, this list has been largely dominated by old lenses long overdue for an update. The Nikon 58mm isn't old, however; it is one of Nikon's newer lenses that also represents an attempt at innovation that came temptingly close to the mark. I adore the 58mm focal length — that hint of having a bit more telephoto than a classic nifty-fifty, combined with it being almost perfectly in the middle between 35mm and 85mm makes 58mm quite appealing. Add in that this lens has some of the most impressive bokeh I've ever seen, and a potentially winning combination is born. There's only one problem: it's as soft as a baby's bottom when you shoot it wide open. A lens designed to create the best possible bokeh is unusable at f/1.4, where I'd most want to be using it to take advantage of that beautiful out-of-focus rendering. Nikon, you were close with this one — so close. Give it another whirl. It doesn't need Sigma ART-level resolution at f/1.4, but it needs to not be soft. Make this fix, and I'd be first in line for a 58mm f/1.4G II.
5. Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D
When Nikon released their great 70-200mm F2.8 VR, it seems they completely forgot about its predecessor, which does make sense to a degree. Why would someone want the old version of one of Nikon's most gorgeous lenses? By maintaining both lenses, Nikon would certainly self-compete, so they logically left the 80-200mm design in the past. The only problem is that the 70-200mm comes in at twice the price, which places it well beyond the reach of many buyers. Nikon tried to address this problem by releasing the cheaper 70-200mm f/4G, but the loss in speed really doesn't cut it when third parties are offering fantastic f/2.8 telephoto zooms in the thousand-dollar price range. Nikon, you have a lens that was once one of the shining pinnacles of this market; update it, and return it to its former glory. With a little polish, innovation, and creativity, a newer version of this lens could retake command of the budget fast telephoto zoom niche.
Conclusion
This list is by no means complete, and Nikon isn't the only manufacturer who needs to reinvest in some of their more innovative lens designs that have started to grow a little long in the tooth (cough cough, Canon 85mm f/1.2L II, cough cough). What are some of your favorite lenses that need to find their way back to the front of the R&D queue?
I could make a fairly long list across a few brands. For those who are unaware, Sony bought a huge amount (all?) of Minolta's IP. For what I currently shoot:
Sony CZ135/1.8 andCZ85/1.4 - needs to have the SSM motor. Bit more CA control would be nice.
Minolta 200/2.8 - might be the best 200/2.8 today. Just a "wow" lens. Color is excellent, like most good Minolta lenses.
Sony 135 STF - add autofocus and it will be perfect. Just too many folks resist mf.
Sony 20/2.8 - design is from the original 1986! Plenty of issues. Was refreshed with rounded aperture blades, but the optical design needs a look.
Minolta 35/2 and 35/1.4 - The f/2 is a great lens. More useful than the 35/1.4 G, which is amazing from 6-10'. Outside of that it is boring.
Minolta 100/2 - there isn't a 100mm I woild take over it bar the Zeiss Makro-Planar. Amazing. Perfect for those faces that aren't quite round or square. Very flattering focal length for less-fit models.
Minolta 300/4 and 600/4 - decent offerings, but desperately need an update.
And bring back the Minolta/Sony 500/8 mirror lens!
The 135 f2, DC NEEDS to be remade.. what an awesome lens, as smooth as butter un a warm summer day :)
Don't change my 58/1.4! There is such a thing as too much sharpness. When I'm shooting a portrait at 1.4 with that lens I still resolve every eyelash, but not every pore. That's a good thing! If you want sharpness and no character, please do go ahead and get the Sigma Art, Otus, Zeiss 50/2 Macro, there are plenty of choices. The 58 as it is does exactly what I want it to do and never leaves one of by shooting bodies. Nobody has ever complained about sharpness. Pixel peepers, go home.
Personally, I tend to agree to a degree. Like I wrote, it doesn't need to resolve at Sigma ART levels but personally I find it to be a bit too soft to be usable at f/1.4. I think by f/2.0 its just fine but for a lens designed for ultimate bokeh I'd kinda wanna shoot it wide open. I want to love that lens, I really do. I haven't bought the Sigma ART yet because the 58mm keeps calling to me but the softness is what keeps me from buying it. I don't want to spend $1700 on a lens that I have to stop down to get sharp shots.
I own a Helios 85mm F1.5 with character galore and even it felt sharper than the 58 i tested wide open in the middle. (though I rarely shoot it wide open because i find its not sharp enough either)
For shooting people, I will take the 58mm over the 50mm Art any day. I have to agree with Matt that I've NEVER had anyone remotely come close to complaining that my 58mm images are soft.
I use this lens for paid shoots all the time. You have to become familiar with this lens to appreciate it. I didn't appreciate this lens until I had been shooting with it for about 3 months. You might be thinking to yourself, "why would I pay 1600 for a lens that I have to get used to". Well, I didnt pay 1600. I got it used for 1200 which is a steal to me. But the fact that this lens isn't so clinical like my 85mm or the 70-200mm is awesome. I honestly can say that I have so much fun every time I shoot with this lens because I am excited to see what my pictures are going to look like (for paid shoots and general shooting). Like any other lens, you really have to shoot with it in order to get to know it. This lens just requires more time (in my experience). I also have not had any paying customers tell me that the images were too soft. I agree with you Sean. While I enjoyed shooting with the 50mm ART (love to pixel peep), it doesn't come close to the 58mm.
I'd agree with most paying customers not caring. It actually surprises me how often I se professional images that are out of focus and the client is oblivious. It drives "me" nuts though, if I open an image to edit and it is soft I lose all my enthusiasm for working on it which is a major inspiration killer. ;)
I can definitely see where you are coming from and for that reason, I also like to shoot with my 85mm to get the eyes really sharp with nice bokeh as well.
The 135 certainly has gotten long in the tooth. Samyang released a 135mm a while back and, while it's a manual focus lens, it completely blows away the Nikon and Canon 135s, so it shows what kind of progress is need in this range. Samyang was smart enough not to use any aspheric glass in it, giving the formula not only great sharpness but excellent bokeh. Nikon and Canon both need to take note.
the 20mm have been redone already http://en.nikon.ca/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-20mm...
Don't feel bad, Nikon, the Canon 20mm prime is a piece of crap too as well as the EF16-35 f2.8L II.
14mm f/2.8 I like the smaller form factor and would love the sharpness of the 14-24.
I agree with almost everything on here. From what you listed, as a predominantly portrait photographer I think I would be most excited by a newer 135 2.0 DC. I like the idea of the same lens being sharper and focusing faster. I also agree that the 20 2.8 needs a remake. I really wanted to love mine when I bought it as a lens for when I was playing around with landscape, but I was never impressed. Slow AF and soft all around.
More than anything, I also agree with the others who have mentioned the 50 1.2 AI-s, and Im surprised its not on here. I absolutely love mine, and though it is soft and has some CA issues wide open, the sharpness as wide as 2.0 and the general character of the lens still make it one of my favorites, but the addition of something as simple as fast accurate AF on this lens would be incredible. As much as I love it, shooting it on my D800 with lack of split screen or microprism finder makes the manual focus fairly difficult.
The 2 I'm jealous of Canon shooters for: 50 1.2 and the 24mm t/s. Or bring out that long rumored 17mm t/s.
Nikon's 24mm t/s is great. That 17 is truly envy-inducing, though.
I'd love to fill a bag with modern, dinky little f/2.8 primes like the 20 2.8, but I don't think it's going to happen with how popular the 1.8 G primes are. The 20 1.8 G is only a bit more expensive and marginally larger / heavier than a modern 20 2.8 would be.
If you shoot at f/11, get the 20 2.8 D and be happy. If you shoot at 2.8, get the 20 1.8 G and be happy.
Same with the 80-200 2.8. There's just no way Nikon is going to make an un-stabilized 70-200 2.8, or simply re-badge the 80-200 2.8. The 70-200 f/4 VR comes with truly insane stabilization, IMO making up for the loss of 1 stop especially when you consider that bokeh is not about aperture alone, it's about glass quality and design, plus the added stops of high ISO performance that we have to work with on all the latest full-frame bodies.
If you don't have $2K but "need" 2.8, get the Tamron or wait for a Sigma Sport, or just get the existing 80-200 AFS and be happy. It's still a solid performer!
I don't know what Nikon was thinking with the 58 1.4, but it's clear to me that optically, you can't have your bokeh cake and eat sharpness too. The Nikon 58 1.4 G and Sigma 50 1.4 Art prove this. Unless you want to go to Zeiss Otus territory, you're gonna hafta compromise between one or the other. Personally, if 50mm was my favorite focal length, I'd just get the Sigma and be happy. Or if I was obsessed with bokeh, I'd just get the Nikon 58 and be happy. With 36 megapixel cameras to add more and more detail to a final image, clients won't ever complain that the shot is soft.
I'm totally down for a new135 f/2, as well as a new 105 f/2 or f/1.8. Both would be killer lenses to have for a two-sensor kit such as a D750 + D500 for wedding photojournalism and portraits.
I'd love to see an update to the legendary Nikon 200mm f/4 Micro; even moreso than I'd like to see a 180 2.8 prime. But, both would be nice.
I could also go for some new innnovation in the wide category, maybe a new wider fisheye to compete with the Rokinon 12mm, or a new 14mm 2.8 to compete with Rokinon, or something in betweeen 14 2.8 and 24 1.4, like a 17mm f/2 that accepts 77mm or 82mm filters.
Then of course there's the whole f/2 zoom craze that is hitting the market from both Tokina and Sigma now.