Nikon Introduces 24-70mm/f2.8 E AF-S with VR, 200-500mm/f5.6 E and 24mm/f1.8 AF-S

<p>photo.net wont allow me to post my response.<br>

so much bs in this thread..</p>

<p>why did i read it..<br>

laters girls.<br>

go buy a pony</p>

<p>the thing i hate about photography the most and it seems not to change is that everyone knows everything but no one does.</p>

<p>talk is cheap</p>

<p>Norbert - sounds like you need to blow off some steam (and I sympathize). Maybe take a walk around the block with your 24-70 for a good workout :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why does the aperture have to stop down and then open back up with each frame?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because you want to adjust exposure and auto focus, if not after every single frame, at least fairly frequently as both will change over time. In particular, if you shoot sports or wildlife action, you definitely need to AF continuously. Both metering and AF work much better with more light entering the camera, i.e. with the aperture wide open.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Any mirrorless F mount camera will still have the aperture control arm and for cameras that have a different mount, native lenses will use electronic control and F mount lenses will be supported through an adapter like the FT-1 that has the mechanical control mechanism for aperture built in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that means your historical baggage will hinder your new cameras. Take Nikon 1 mirrorless as an example, there is no mechanical aperture control lever at all. And since the Nikon 1 cameras are so small, there is no room for it anyway. If you want to adapt an F mount lens on it, it is up to the FT-1 adapter's built-in motor to control the aperture lever. Needless to say, that is very cumbersome. However, with E lenses, any such adapter can be much simpler.</p>

<p>As I said earlier, the Nikon F mount is in a constant evolution. We have:</p>

<ul>

<li>SLRs on which you cannot mount unmodified pre-AI lenses</li>

<li>SLRs that cannot meter with AI/AI-S lenses</li>

<li>AF SLRs that cannot drive AF-S/AF-S lenses</li>

<li>AF SLR/DSLrs that cannot drive AF/AF-D lenses to auto focus</li>

</ul>

<p>Why should we be surprised that some future Nikon cameras with interchangeable lenses do not have the mechanical control (designed back in 1959) to open the aperture diaphragm? In fact, all Nikon 1 cameras already don't have that feature.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>joint patent between Tamron and Nikon is for a 200-500mm/f4.5-5.6 lens that has a different optical design from the newly announced constant f5.6 lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, the second group from the front seems different - the rest appears to be quite remarkably close. And the source is actually a patent application - which is linked from the Nikon Rumors site. Obviously, Nikon had filed two patents for variable-aperture 200-500 zooms before - neither optical formula is close to what we have now in the constant aperture one. <br>

A joint patent application indicates at least some kind of collaboration between the two companies - nothing more, nothing less. Unless either puts out an official statement about the nature of the collaboration, no speculation or rumor about it will ever have any verifiable confirmation. </p>

<p>Re Nikon 200-500mm lens: Very strange. This lens is listed at $2,450 for pre-order from Japan. And there is no offer for a lower price to be found. This is $1K more than the Nikon official price, right?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the thing i hate about photography the most and it seems not to change is that everyone knows everything but no one does. talk is cheap.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Talk is cheap for sure. But, from my observation, some people do know what they are talking about, and they are helpful, accurate, and concise. Think you are exaggerating to make a point? :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Re Nikon 200-500mm lens: Very strange. This lens is listed at $2,450 for pre-order from Japan</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mary, where did you get that price?</p>

<p>According to this Japanese web site, which had leaked the announcement a few days earlier, the price in Japan is 175,000 yen: http://digicame-info.com/2015/08/af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f56-ed-v.html<br>

At 124.75 yen per US dollar today, that is very close to $1400.</p>

<p>i had my workout today<br /> shot 3 hours ago</p>

<p>nikon d3, iso 6400, -0.7ev, sb 910 @ -3ev + 24-70 @24mm and f2.8<br /> the band is called bloodshed remains, hardcore punk band from austria<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18064796-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

<p>if i can use this setup in the moshpit and at alot more dangerous places you can use it too.<br /> quit your bitchin about a weight increase that is a nonissue.</p>

<p>let me rephrase that</p>

<p>can you afford an assistant?</p>

<p>Oh brother, My 70-200 2.8 weighs a pound more than the new 24-70, does not mean I want to lug the 24-70 around. I also haul 20-30 pounds packs of medium and large format equipment for miles upon miles and gain thousands of feet of elevation. <br /> Still have no interest in the 24-70, prefer lighter primes in those focal lengths.<br>

<br /> For some people the increase in size and weight of the new 24-70 is an issue, your world of photography is not everyone else's...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry to be personal, Eric, but your "everything Fuji does is right, everything Sigma does is right, everything Nikon does is wrong" style is getting tiring. If Nikon is indeed so bad, by all means move on to something better for you. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, personal attacks are quite inappropriate for a forum moderator. You would be wise to critique my comments on merit alone. If you want to be a brand apologist, i suppose that's ok, but unless you work for Nikon, you should have an objective viewpoint about what the company is and isn't doing right. We can sit here and laud Nikon for doing something its competitors did years ago--put stabilization into a standard 2.8 zoom--or we can realistically state that this move is a little late and behind the market curve. Arguing that the $200 price drop for the 7DII somehow justifies the lack of a pro-spec followup to the D300s seems odd, as this is clearly a market segment which does, in fact, exist.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> It is hard to blame Nikon for not producing this so called "D400" that is not selling well or upgrade the 17-55 that go with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>maybe you should have written, it is hard for <em>you</em> to blame Nikon. It's impossible to state with any certainty that a D400 wouldnt have sold well, had it followed the d300s; that is pure speculation. And, arguing that a pro-spec lens made in an era of 6mp DSLRs is somehow not worthy of an update 12 years later, in an era of 24mp DSLRs, is strange logic indeed. </p>

<p>Eric, I have the same issues with Nikon and while I have traded up to a D810 with 24-105 and D7200, instead of moving to Canon, I added a couple Sony A77 II bodies ($800 each) with Sony 70-400 and Tamron 150-600 lenses (for Sony). I also added a Sigma 150-600 S for my D7200. These are all purchases that are not from Nikon. I also now have absolutely no need for a 200-500 or 80-400. I am now resigned to the fact that Nikon won't produce a D400 but that's OK because my A77IIs rip off 12 FPS, 24 MP files, with a buffer of 52 high quality JPGs. Even the new Canon 7DII can't do that and DXO reports that the sensor in the Sony is better although I do worry about the future of the A-mount. I just got back from Iceland and Fuji is certainly making inroads into the Nikon user base but I don't think it is quite there yet although I'm a fan of professional cropped frame cameras. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>if i can use this setup in the moshpit and at alot more dangerous places you can use it too.<br />quit your bitchin about a weight increase that is a nonissue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>norbert, the issue isn't whether i'm capable of shooting in a mosh pit, although that's not something i would really recommend to anyone carrying expensive equipment. in fact, i do shoot in similar situations all the time, with a similar setup. that being the case, i would prefer a lighter rig. a 20% increase in weight actually increases the main disadvantage of the current 24-70, and VR is irrelevant at the shutter speeds needed to freeze motion in live-action situations. Nikon is claiming better bokeh and corner performance in the updated 24-70, which are two features which maybe matter more to landscape photographers than PJs/event shooters, although a heavy zoom isn't optimal for anything involving hiking, as we've already established. Normally, when i carry the 24-70, i also carry the 70-200 and D3s, and sometimes extra batteries, extra lenses, flash, cables, filters, etc. So, ANY weight increase is significant. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, personal attacks are quite inappropriate for a forum moderator. You would be wise to critique my comments on merit alone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, in which way I have "attacked" you? Did I describe you in nasty words? You have been making highly biased comments that only favor Fuji and Sigma, and that is precisely I am pointing out: the merit of your comments.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We can sit here and laud Nikon for doing something its competitors did years ago--put stabilization into a standard 2.8 zoom--or we can realistically state that this move is a little late and behind the market curve.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon has been putting image stabilization into f2.8 zooms for over a decade, since the first 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR way back in 2003. Concerning the 24-70mm/f2.8, Nikon is actually ahead of the other market leader, namely Canon, which still has no IS on their 24-70mm/f2.8 zoom. Sigma also has no 24-70mm/f2.8 with stabilization. The only brand that is ahead of Nikon and Canon is Tamron, which is a rather minor player.<br /> <br />And if you read the link Dieter provided above, Nikon has always been considering putting VR on the 24-70mm/f2.8, but the appropriate technology hasn't been available until now to meet Nikon's standards.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And, arguing that a pro-spec lens made in an era of 6mp DSLRs is somehow not worthy of an update 12 years later, in an era of 24mp DSLRs, is strange logic indeed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why is that strange at all? We have been stating over and over, on this very thread as well as previous threads, that Canon and Nikon's emphasis have shifted to FX, since 2008 or so. The last true pro-spec DX body Nikon introduced was the D2XS in 2006, followed by the semi-pro D300 in 2007. The 2009 D300S was merely a very minor update to the D300 with no electronic improvements. What is the point to update a pro-spec DX-format 17-55mm/f2.8 lens when there is no updated pro-spec body to mount it on?</p>

<p>If anything, still not understanding such simple logic seems very strange to me.</p>

<p>P.S. I should point out that Nikon did introduce a semi-high end, over $1000 16-80mm/f2.8-4 E DX lens just last month. Therefore, I think Nikon still has prosumer DX in mind. Most likely it will not be some DSLR such as the so called D400 or D9300 a lot of people expect (or used to expect), though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Re 200-500mm lens:] Mary, where did you get that price?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Shun, I forgot to mention that the surprising high price ($2,450) was from that auction site. Very strange - as one can pre-order from B&H or Adorama for almost $1K less.</p>

<p>Edited: Think the $1,396.95 price (B&H/Adorama) is a great bargain if autofocus is instant, the VR works, and the 500mm end is tact sharp. These properties are critical for wildlife and where Nikon usually excel over 3rd party lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the surprising high price ($2,450) was from that auction site</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So some scalper is greatly inflating the price for a potentially hot new lens? Since it is eBay, I suppose anything can happen.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>So some scalper is greatly inflating the price for a potentially hot new lens? Since it is eBay, I suppose anything can happen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I must say that usually one finds better prices on eBay. I am thinking there's a chance it's a typographical error because the price gap is too unrealistic, especially for a pre-order.</p>

 

 

 

 

<p>I would imagine that they would figure out such typographical error pretty quickly, since nobody orders it at such a crazy price. :-)</p>

<p>Eric, I had some back problems (and neck and knee) when I was first using the 70-200/2.8 a lot (basically over the weekends I was using it all the time for over a year) and I didn't want to hang it from the body so I always supported its weight which probably was what lead to the problems. I also think the back issue was due to an unsuitable mattress that I had at first when I moved into the US, until I bought a different one. The back issues disappeared when I stopped using the 70-200. Later on I have bought heavier lenses such as the 200/2 and although that again caused some strain initially, over the years it has become a non issue. I started to practice tai chi actually and that builds static muscle strength evenly across the body and I believe that really helped. I think finding some exercise method which you can do regularly and which concentrates on static muscle strength can really be helpful. Although I normally prefer to carry lighter weight lenses such as my recent favorite the 70-200/4 (which would not be suitable for indoor concerts in clubs), when I use the 200/2 or 70-200/2.8 I no longer experience pain of any kind. My muscles, back, and knee are fine have been symptom free for nine years now. I did twist my neck a bit when I was working very close to the surface of sea ice to capture some ice picks with a macro lens and I made the mistake of pushing myself to see the optical viewfinder image. A tilting screen would have been perfect for that. Anyway for a while after that I had difficulty turning my neck to see behind me when driving the car at parking lots etc. I recovered from that too but I do have a bit of hesitation still against twisting my neck too far. So anyway I recommend the right kind of exercise for the weight and back problems. I would not do it too aggressively though, slowly and with patience is better.</p>

<p>Nowadays my backpack often weights about 8kg and it doesn't cause a problem but I had to find the right kind of backpack to get the weight distributed in a way that it is comfortable to carry for long periods of time. Also I have acquired some light weight alternative lenses which I use for much of my outdoor daylight summertime photography, these include the 300/4 PF and 70-200/4 VR (so I may get away with a much lighter 3-4kg bag including body and all lenses). These won't help in an indoor concert where I would use fast primes preferentially instead of f/2.8 zooms. But there is always an element of risk (of losing shots) when working with primes, which is what the prime lens user must accept in return for the advantages. I just prefer motion stopping shutter speeds at concerts and f/1.4 and f/2 lenses are the best way for me to get there without excessive noise. So the 24-70 would not come into my mind for indoor concerts. I mainly see the 24-70 as a lens for studio and outdoor portraiture in situations where I have enough hassle to work with the lighting so I avoid complicating things by switching prime lenses during the shoot (making the subject wait, which I would find annoying), additionally for events such as weddings, funerals, christenings, some academic events and for travel and landscape. A lot of applications in other words, but I avoid the lowest light situations with the f/2.8 zooms. By the way I think the D3s is not really necessary for night club shooting; I believe today the D750 would work better with its more low-light sensitive AF and it is a much lighter camera than the D3s is. Also the f/1.8 primes would be much lighter weight on your hands while shooting than the f/2.8 zooms and yet give almost as much light as the f/1.4 primes do (at much greater weight). In order words there are a lot of highly competent lighter weight options for your concert situations which would help you solve any back issues that might arise. The 24-70 VR and D3s are hardly the only game in town for low light.</p>

<p>If you don't like it, don't buy.<br>

If you want something not available, articulate what you want. If enough people share your desires, someone at Nikon, or some other company, will undoubtedly put pen to paper to determine if your numbers meet some critical threshold, if you are all insane, out of touch with applied physics and economics, or have the money which Nikon could pocket with some reasonable amount of effort.<br>

<br /> What else can you do?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would imagine that they would figure out such typographical error pretty quickly, since nobody orders it at such a crazy price. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, they still haven't figured it out - someone needs to get new glasses. ;) Figure I am not going to wait for that, so I finally pre-ordered from B&H. Hope to get it before October - any chance?</p>

<p>Mary - B&H <em>estimates</em> availability 9/17/15. I hope when you get yours you will share some feedback :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mary - B&H <em>estimates</em> availability 9/17/15. I hope when you get yours you will share some feedback :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Chip. I will definitely provide feedback, though I hope Shun would beat me to it, as he is definitely a better (much better! :) equipment tester than me.</p>

<p>If there is one thing I have learned regarding these new gear announcements it is that web speculating, picking apart gear based on specs and not actual use and **especially** testing can be a big time suck. <br>

Basically, I don't care about the reviews by all the usual suspects because they are not really photographers but day after day, hour after hour arm chair gear test web heroes. They are not pushing the gear to the limits with stellar imagery that comes from really knowing light, texture and tone. <br>

The lens I am interested in is the 200-500. I have read the specs, price, that looks good. When one of my usual sources for a rental house gets it in, I will rent it for no less than 4 days, check it to see if it is working according to spec then get out there in the real world and put a couple hundred frames through it. <br>

Then if it checks all my boxes, I will simply put the order in and buy it, done deal. I sometimes think that people like to talk about gear than actually get out and use it...to me that is not photography.</p>