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

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by shuncheung, Aug 3, 2015.

  1. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    • 24-70mm/f2.8 E AF-S VR: Nikon is updating the popular 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S to including VR, as apparently a lot of its users would like to have. The new lens looks pretty much the same, but the side effect is that it is bigger and heavier. The filter size on the new lens is 82mm and it weights 1070g (2.4 lb), up from 900g for the earlier, non-VR version. The suggested price also goes up to $2399.95.
    • 200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR: This is Nikon's "economy" super-tele zoom, with a constant f5.6 aperture. It uses huge 95mm front filters. This lens comes with a removable tripod collar. It can focus down to 7.2 feet/2.2 meters and weights 5 lb 1 oz/2300 grams. Therefore, it is possible to hand hold it, at least for a short while. Nikon USA prices it to $1399.95, apparently in order to compete against third-party 150-600mm zooms that are around $1000. There is a lock on the barrel to lock the zoom to 200mm to prevent zoom creep.
    • 24mm/f1.8 G AF-S: to complete the f1.8 AF-S lens series. Now Nikon has 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm f1.8 AF-S lenses. The price for the new 24mm/f1.8 is $749.95.
    Two of the three new lenses are E, which I expect to be the future. Only the 24mm/f1.8 is not an E lens.
    Nikon will introduce 82mm and 95mm NC (no color) and polarizers to match the two new zooms.
    The new 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is expected to be available in late August. The other two lenses will be available in mid September.

    new product images copyright Nikon USA
    [​IMG]
    24-70mm/f2.8 E AF-S VR
    [​IMG]
    200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR
    [​IMG]
    28mm/f1.8 G AF-S
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Nikon Japan new articles:
    On the CameraEgg web site, they have an image showing the new and old 24-70mm/f2.8 side by side. They look similar but the new version is clearly larger, using 82mm instead of 77mm filters: http://www.cameraegg.org/nikon-af-s-nikkor-24-70mm-f2-8e-ed-vr-lens-sample-images/
    image: http://www.cameraegg.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/nikon-24-70mm-f28-vr3.jpg
     
  3. Now Nikon has 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm f1.8 AF-S lenses.​
    Any guesses as to what might be next? Something even wider? Or a 105 or 135 at f/1.8? Or is this it?
    24-70 - big and heavy just got bigger and heavier. So glad it's not a lens I have any need for.
    200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR: Nikon USA prices it to $1399.95, apparently in order to compete against third-party 150-600mm zooms that are around $1000.​
    There's also the more expensive and heavier Sigma 150-600 S(port) - will be interesting to see how the new Nikon compares against the two Sigmas and the Tamron. Less range - similar MTF curves. Constant f/5.6 vs variable f/5-f/6.3. Only the Sigma 150-600 uses the same 95mm filter - both other lenses are 105mm.
    Also wondering how the 200-500 stacks up against the 80-400 - which is lighter, smaller, but substantially more expensive. Must admit I am quite surprised at this release - will certainly be on the lookout to learn more about that particular lens.

    Hope the tripod collar is optional - hate to pay twice for one ;-(
     
  4. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    One thing that puzzles me a bit is that Nikon still hasn't re-introduce the classic 105mm/f2.5 portrait lens in AF-S, perhaps with VR. Now that the wide end of those f1.8 AF-S lenses is more than complete (IMO there is a bit too much overlap among 20, 24, 28, and 35mm), the tele end seems to be somewhat lacking, beyond the 85mm.
    Just yesterday I was shooting alongside a photographer who had a new Sigma 150-600 sports on his D750. He seemed quite happy with it. I asked him about the difference between the sports and non-sports models and why the sports version costs approximately twice as much. The only difference he was aware of was that the sports version is 2 ounces heavier.
    In a way, I think Nikon is wise to set the maximum aperture to f5.6, thus avoiding AF issues from a very slow, f6.3 lens. However, the 200-500mm/f5.6 has no nano coating, just 3 ED elements without other exotic components. I would imagine that optical quality is somewhat compromised by the price. In a way it is like the 500mm version of the 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR, which is quite affordable but optically it is far from the best 300mm around. It would be very unfair to compare it against the far-more-expensive 500mm/f4 E AF-S VR.
    Incidentally, while the tripod collar on the 200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR is removable, it is included in the lens purchase, standard. I assume third-party collars will be available within a few months. If you don't want to buy another collar, you can always just purchase a quick-release plate for the supplied collar. However, I should point out that Nikon has a long history of producing removable collars that do not rotate very smoothly. We'll see how this new one works.
     
  5. The only difference he was aware of was that the sports version is 2 ounces heavier.​

    Make that 32oz, 2 lbs. Different optical formula too - 20 Elements in 14 Groups for the "C" and 24 Elements in 16 Groups for the "S". 95 vs 105mm filter. Slightly closer focusing distance on the "S". Better weather sealing on the "S". $900 difference in price.
    IMO there is a bit too much overlap among 20, 24, 28, and 35mm​
    Hardly any need to buy them all - but nice to have choices. At least now there is no need anymore to step down to the old AF lenses (20, 24, 28 f/2.8).
    However, if you don't want to buy another collar, you can always just purchase a quick-release plate for the supplied collar.​
    Which doesn't solve the issue of a weak or poorly designed collar. And the cantilevered design looks all too familiar from the 300/4 AF-S and AF 80-400. Just hoping that looks are deceiving.
     
  6. The filter size on the new lens is 82mm and it weights 1070g (2.4 lb), up from 900g for the earlier, non-VR version. The suggested price also goes up to $2399.95.​
    i can see why Nikon updated the 24-70 but i dont completely understand the logic behind making an even heavier lens, when the size and weight of the current model is clearly a liability to other, less expensive, lighter, and more compact equivalents for other systems. adding VR doesnt really help event photographers and PJs, and unless they fixed the distortion at 24mm, which they have yet to do on any "professional standard zoom," landscape photographers would be better off with something else. 82mm filters also means 82mm lens caps, so you can't swap those out easily with the 70-200 you're probably also carrying. Nikon really wants us to do them a favor here, but that lens had better be damn good optically to justify its price. some will say this is overdue, but updating the 17-55 with VR would have been a better move for the long-suffering Nikon DX user. also, Nikon should have made this move like two years ago. one upside is used 24-70 prices may fall -- we'll probably see a flurry of photogs trying to unload the older version before the new one is commercially available. but for a 24-70 owner, not sure the addition of VR and a 20% weight increase is worth a $700 upgrade.

    i'm a little less skeptical of the 24/1.8, which completes the line of fast/semi-affordable FX primes. but at $750, it's a pricey budget lens compared to the sigma 24/1.4 ART, which is just $100 more. at least it has nano crystal-coat.
     
  7. What is a "E" lens?
     
  8. I also wonder why the medium tele primes get so little attention from Nikon. The f/1.8 series patents do include an 18mm f/1.8 and a 135/1.8 VR. There are also patents for a 105/2 and a 135/2. I'd like to think that they're just working on these designs until they're happy with the results. The 300/4 VR also was a long time coming and eventually they came out with a nice lens.
    The new 24-70's weight and size increase (to 1070g with dimensions 88.0 × 154.5 mm) and 82mm filter thread are a bit disappointing to me. I would have preferred a VR-free version with perhaps reduced weight and improved mechanical as well as optical quality. Canon's 24-70/2.8 II is just 805 grams (with dimensions 88.5 x 113mm) so it's 25% lighter and 27% shorter than the new Nikon lens.
    At least it is nice that the f/1.8 primes are all fairly lightweight, offering an alternative to those who prefer lighter weight but still get the OVF of a DSLR.
     
  9. The price of the 200-500 f/5.6 is pretty extraordinary for a Nikon lens. One has to wonder what corners were cut to
    produce a lens so much cheaper than 80-400 f/4.5-5.6, or whether it is really a rebadged third party lens.

    The size of that 24-70 VR is monsterous for the focal length and aperture.
     
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    What is a "E" lens?​
    Chuck, a Nikon E lens has a built-in electromagnetic motor to control the aperture diaphragm. Hence it has no traditional mechanical lever connection with the body to control the aperture. The advantage is more consistent aperture setting and it works faster for high-frame-rate photography. For example, one problem is with video shooting or time-elapse photography, where the mechanically controlled aperture opening may be inconsistent from frame to frame.
    With the exception of the D90 and D3000, all Nikon DSLRs introduced on and after August 23, 2007 (the day Nikon announced the D3 and D300) are compatible with E lenses. No Nikon SLR introduced prior to August 2007 is compatible with E lenses, although you may be able to use such combos if you don't mind having the aperture stuck at the wide-open position.
    In other words, all Nikon FX-format DSLRs are compatible with E.

    All Nikon film SLRs are not compatible with E. The following DX-format DSLRs are not compatible with E (since they were introduced prior to August 2007): D1 and D2 families, D40 family, D50, D60, D70 family, D80, D100, and D200, plus the two exception for after August 2007: D90 and D3000.
    Examples of E lenses include the three tilt/shift PC-E lenses, the latest 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, and 800mm super teles, the 300mm/f4 PF AF-S VR, the fairly new 16-80mm/f2.8-f4 DX AF-S VR and the two new ones introduced today. That list is growing pretty quickly.
     
  11. In other words, Nikon is admitting canon had been right about electromagnetic aperture for 30 years.
     
  12. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    In other words, Nikon is admitting canon had been right about electromagnetic aperture for 30 years.​
    Of course, Canon could do all the "right" things in the late 1980's since they decided (as far as I know rightfully for Canon) not to maintain backward compatibility at all with the past. Hence Canon had the luxury to redesign everything with the latest technology available in the late 1980's. Nikon is always hindered by maintaining backward compatibility with lenses from the 1960's and 1970's, and the Nikon F mount is constantly an evolution over the last half century.
    By the same token, as I mentioned yesterday, all Canon, Pentax, Sony, and Nikon APS-C format DSLRs are compromised since they need to maintain compatibility with their respective lenses designed decades earlier for 35mm film. Newly designed APS-C mirrorless cameras are not hindered by compatibility issues so that they likes of Olympus (micro 4/3), Nikon 1 (CX format) and Fuji mirrorless have more freedom to optimize for their formats.
     
  13. I think Nikon's backward compatibility has always been more about higher level cameras being able to use older Pre-AI,
    AI and AI-s lenses that might be in a established photographer's inventory, It was not seriously about older camera
    bodies being able to use newer AF lenses. So Nikon could always have introduced EM aperture, break older body -
    newer lens compatibility, without breaking the more important newer body - older lense compatibility.
     
  14. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Chuck, the debate about Canon's FD-to-EF mount change in the late 1980's and Nikon's F-mount constant evolution is an old topic. It used to generate a lot of heated debates in the 1990's. Fast forward a quarter century, even Canon's EF mount is now "old" in some ways and needs to evolve. I am not sure any further discussion will bring up any new insight, and that is way off-topic for this thread, which is about three new lenses.
     
  15. When Nikon introduced E in 2008 with the 24 PC-E, they included a button that could be used to open and close the aperture from the lens. Thus the PC-E lenses could be used on any camera that supported VR (so it could power the electronic aperture), albeit not as conveniently as when using a new camera at the time such as the D3. However if they had made all subsequent lenses E, it would have meant that users of e.g. D200 could not have used the new lenses except wide open. So they delayed introducing a lot of new E lenses long enough so that most people today are in fact using bodies that are fully E compatible. Since digital cameras have evolved so quickly, there are now few people who use e.g. D70 or D200 and who would be interested in buying new lenses; if those people exist and have the money to buy new lenses, they'd probably be better off buying a new camera body first. Of course existing lenses D, G and plain AF all work on those D70 and D200 bodies. But I really think that most people who are willing to spend money to buy new lenses today are using now E compatible modern cameras. Features and image quality have evolved greatly since those days.

    Basically the E compatibility breach mainly affects those who for some reason want to use 35mm film and buy some new lenses to use with film cameras. There are however a lot of lens options for purchase that would still work with those cameras as the transition to E is gradual. When everyone used film, the compatibility was required to work also in the manner that you could use an old camera with new lenses and this was in fact true, you could install a prong in an AF Nikkor aperture ring and use an F photomic with those lenses, if you wanted. In practice manually focusing autofocus lenses is not so easy or precise, so it was mainly a theoretical option IMO. Now, with digital, compatibility needs to work for a relatively short time (say 5-8 years) in the direction that old bodies should work with the newest lenses, but the use of old lenses on new bodies is much more popular and I know some people who use lenses from the 1970s and love them on their modern Nikon DSLRs.

    So I do not agree that Nikon could have "always" introduced E. They had to first introduce bodies that could work with E lenses (which happened in 2007), and only some years after that could there be widespread transition to E lenses (which is happening now, in 2014-15). So they allow some cushion between transitions also in the direction of using older cameras with new lenses.
     
  16. The 200-500 f/5.6 is a surprise, and possibly a quite nice one. Though I'm still totally happy with my 300 f/4 with TC14, this one could make a really nice "budget" alternative, if the performance is there. It does make the 80-400 look overly expensive, though, I wonder where the catch is. I guess Shun's notion of a "long 70-300VR" makes a lot of sense (which also makes my interest a lot less at the same time).
    The other two - well, the 24-70 without VR was already too large and heavy to my taste, but as nealry every poll Thom Hogan did said people wanted VR on this lens, let's see now if the "internet" will put the wallet where their mouth is. I wonder, it's a lot of money, and terribly expensive filters too. The 24mm f/1.8 - personally, I'd get the 20mm, so not of much interest to me - could they do a smaller, cheaper DX version too? So far, the f/1.8 primes haven't disappointed, hopefully Nikon can keep up that trend with this one too.
    One can only hope that they'd manage to revive the 105 f/2.5, but given there is already a 85mm that performs perfectly fine, first a 135mm or a refresh of the 180mm f/2.8 would make more sense. Probably also bigger, fatter lenses, though - one of the nice aspects of the 105 f/2.5 is also its small size, low weight, 52mm filters like the rest. If they manage to recreate the legend, those positives will very likely be lost.
     
  17. Its a shame the lenses are all getting bigger and heavier. I was hoping that there would be more like the 45P for travel and walking around. These are nice lenses but I think after a day of carrying them on holiday you would be reaching for the compact the next day.
    Small and light lenses can be superb - like the old 28mm f3.5 (I have a wonderful 36" print on my wall with that) so add modern coatings and polycarbonate construction and they could be lighter still.
     
  18. Some internet search turn up a joint Nikon Tamron Patent for a 200-500 f/3.5-5.6 zoom filed back in 2013. My wager is
    the 200-500f/5.6 is more or less a rebadged Tamron.

    I remember the first iteration of nikon's 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED lens back in early 2000s had essentially the same physical
    construction and identical optical design to Tamron's offering, at a price point not far above Tamron's lens. And the Tamron lens came out first. That Nikon zoom was also much cheaper than earlier Nikon ED lenses or other Nikon offering with similar range up to that time. So it wouldn't be the first time Nikon collaborated with Tamron to put out a discount telephoto zoom at much below hitherto typical
    Nikon prices.
     
  19. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Essentially all new 24-70mm/f2.8 (from Canon, Tamron, and now Nikon) use 82mm filters now. Since this is very much a professional work horse for wedding, news, and sports ..., it is expected that Nikon makes it a robust lens. I really don't think weight is going to be a major issue, as people can always put the rig down for a while during pauses of action. Few would buy a heavy 24-70mm/f2.8 with VR for landscape photography.
    Otherwise, if you don't need VR, there is always the old version. I use an even older 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S with aperture ring. That older lens still tests quite well on my D800E.
    All f1.8 AF-S lenses are fairly light. Of course that means plenty of plastic parts and not designed for a lot of professional abuse. Once I weighted my 28mm/f1.8 AF-S and Sigma Art 35mm/f1.4 side by side. The Sigma has a lot of metal in the barrow and weights more than twice as much. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways and there is always some trade off.
    Here is the weight of all f1.8 AF-S FX lenses:
    • 20mm 355g
    • 24mm 355g
    • 28mm 330g
    • 35mm 305g
    • 50mm 185g
    • 85mm 350g
    The new 24-70 AF-S VR weights about three of those together.
     
  20. A lot of landscape photographers also use the 24-70/2.8 as one of the most important lenses in their kit.
    I don't like superwide angles for landscape because they produce a result which often leave the viewer feeling uneasy from the exaggerated perspective (of course this depends on the scene and photograph but generally I don't like ultrawide for landscape). With a moderate focal length the view in the photograph feels natural and the viewer can see close to what they would see in person. The 24-70 also is easier to work with when conditions are adverse e.g. in a snowstorm - I don't want to change lenses often in such conditions and visibility limits the use of longer focal lengths.
    When traveling the zoom option is important for both architecture and landscape as there may not be enough time to switch lenses or play with movements. So 24-70 it is again often on my camera. The smaller aperture 24-xxx Nikkors don't produce images with the same kind of clarity and corner sharpness even stopped down. Also on the Canon side many landscape photographers start with the 24-105/4 but move to the 24-70/2.8 II as they get to be more demanding on image quality.
     
  21. I wonder if Nikon will discontinue the current 24-70/2.8, or keep it in the product line as an alternative to the new lens. Given the price difference is only about 15%, I suspect the new lens is meant to completely replace the current one. If that is the case, then there might be some fire sale opportunities coming up.
    I personally see no reason for getting the VR lens. It's 82mm filter ring would be inconvenient. I will wait for fire sale opportunities on the current lens.
     
  22. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Chuck, of course Nikon is going to discontinue the older, non-VR version of the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, but if they play it right, Nikon should have already discontinued production a while ago. There maybe a bit of stock left, but no fire sale should be necessary. Take a look at the 300mm/f4 AF-S; since the announcement of the PF version with VR, the new price for the Nikon USA old version hasn't dropped, but gray-market ones have. The 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S non-VR is among the 8 lenses that are currently discounted (until August 29), only by $140: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dQCR
    I agree that not everybody will need VR on a 24-70, and the high $2400 price is going to discourage some. However, there will still be a significant number of photographers who will upgrade. I think the used market would be a better place to look if you want the old 24-70mm/f2.8 non-VR at a low price.
    P.S. Before the Japanese yen went way up in 2008, I could have bought the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S for around $1400. In fact, I got one for a friend from Europe. I kind of wish I had bought one back then, but I already had the 28-70mm/f2.8 and also thought $1400 was high. Oh well.
     
  23. Canon's 24-70/2.8 II is just 805 grams (with dimensions 88.5 x 113mm) so it's 25% lighter and 27% shorter than the new Nikon lens.​
    I would agree the new 24-70mm looks huge. I suppose an extra 250 g or so for VR over the Canon is not too bad, but it does look overly bulky. Of course now Canonites will want their own IS 24-70mm.
     
  24. I am guessing Nikon has a few standard size VR and AFS units, and don't tailor the size of VR and AF-S unit to the size of the lenses as much as they might, so they end up with some lenses that are bulkier than they need to be to accommodate standard sized VR and AFS units.
     
  25. One thing that puzzles me a bit is that Nikon still hasn't re-introduce the classic 105mm/f2.5 portrait lens​
    Amen, Shun
     
  26. How about the 58mm f/1.2 noct?
     
  27. 82mm filter size seems to become the new "standard" for high-performance zooms. So far, I have managed to avoid them - but for how much longer?
    The smaller aperture 24-xxx Nikkors don't produce images with the same kind of clarity and corner sharpness even stopped down.​
    Usually explained by way of these lenses having more range and hence entail other optical compromises. But even Canon, who offers a 24-70/2.8 and an f/4 version of the same range doesn't manage to make the f/4 version as good as the f/2.8. The cynic in me can't help but wonder whether that is intentional and designed to drive people to buy the more expensive lens (which I assume has a somewhat higher profit margin too).
    Now that we finally have a quite complete set of modern f/1.8 primes, a reasonably stacked set can be a good alternative to a zoom. Of course, there are now other compromises to be made - more lens changes, no zoom-convenience, no VR. But a set consisting of, for example, 24/35/85 doesn't cost and weigh as much as the new 24-70 - but will take up more space. Personally, I might even chose 20/35/85(or 105) - something no single zoom covers.
    One thing that puzzles me a bit is that Nikon still hasn't re-introduce the classic 105mm/f2.5 portrait lens in AF-S, perhaps with VR.
    The f/1.8 series patents do include an 18mm f/1.8 and a 135/1.8 VR. There are also patents for a 105/2 and a 135/2.​
    And let's not forget that Nikon also had a quite good 105/1.8 AiS lens - which probably lived a bit in the shadow of the 105/2.5 (more likely because of price than performance differences).
     
  28. How about the 58mm f/1.2 noct?​
    Chuck I think that ship has sailed: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-58mm-f%252F1.4G.html
     
  29. Dieter, I don't belive in a conspiracy with regards to image quality of f/4 vs. f/2.8, but simply that the f/2.8 is made to be as good as it can be and the f/4 is made to be notably more compact (with close-up capability as an additional feature) but still high quality. Different user populations have different requirements and preferences and the manufacturers study these no doubt and try to make each product as good as it can be (according to what they perceive to be the targeted user's criteria).
    I think without VR the now 20-element 24-70/2.8E VR could have been a more compact lens with fewer elements and I would have preferred this. But the reason for this is that when I am photographing people, I almost invariably use fast shutter speeds (so VR wouldn't really help much) and when I'm photographing static subjects I use a tripod, quite simply. Interestingly Nikon USA categorizes the 24-70 E as a "Travel and Landscape" lens which would certainly explain why it has VR. I think their categorization is rather silly in general though, but it's interesting that they don't regard it as a primarily PJ or event lens. This may not be a great surprise considering that photojournalism is in decline. Perhaps PJs aren't buying gear like they used to, since they're not being paid as they used to, either. Free photos are flooding into editorial offices and publishers lay off staffers and employ freelancers with poor contract terms. Nikon's sample images were distinctly travel oriented in my opinion, but they did include some wedding portraiture.
     
  30. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    But even Canon, who offers a 24-70/2.8 and an f/4 version of the same range doesn't manage to make the f/4 version as good as the f/2.8. The cynic in me can't help but wonder whether that is intentional and designed to drive people to buy the more expensive lens (which I assume has a somewhat higher profit margin too).​
    If driving people to buy the 24-70mm/f2.8 is the goal, wouldn't it be much easier if Canon simply doesn't sell the f4 version at all? :)
    I don't view the 24-70mm/f2.8, any version, as some "landscape" lens. It is too bulky and heavy. I would much rather use the light 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 or just the 24mm/f1.8.
     
  31. Regarding the 58mm f/1.4 AFS, That is pathetic. With all the optical development in the last 40 years Nikon couldn't match its own aperture from 40 years ago.
     
  32. Of course they could have made it f/1.2 but it would have had tons of vignetting, uneven performance across the frame and a large and heavy front element. One of the reasons the 58/1.2 Noct got elevated to sky high second hand prices was that it was used as a portrait lens on DX cameras and it was quite rare. However, today DX cameras are lighter and more compact than in the D2X era, and so it makes sense to make the lens lighter (the AF-S 58/1.4 balances perfectly on the D7100 by the way) if this is one of the application goals (few people care about night lights photography which was what the original Noct was designed for, whereas the new AF-S 58/1.4 is in my opinion primarily a short portrait lens with secondary application in urban night scenes). It's not that they don't put any thought to the lens design. It's not about specifications or lens tests but about how the product works in the actual use it was designed for.
     
  33. If driving people to buy the 24-70mm/f2.8 is the goal, wouldn't it be much easier if Canon simply doesn't sell the f4 version at all? :).​


    Then Canon would not be able to make the most out of the segment that wants a more prestigious lens than the average kit lens, but don't want to pay the premium for the 24-70f/2.8. The balancing act is how to get all the money it can from that segment, without at the same time giving a viable alternative to too many people who could be made to pay for 24-70f/2.8, but who would also settle for a slightly lesser viable alternative if such an alternative existed
     
  34. Of course they could have made it f/1.2 but it would have had tons of vignetting, uneven performance across the frame and a large and heavy front element. One of the reasons the 58/1.2 Noct got elevated to sky high second hand prices was that it was used as a portrait lens on DX cameras and it was quite rare. However, today DX cameras are lighter and more compact than in the D2X era, and so it makes sense to make the lens lighter (the AF-S 58/1.4 balances perfectly on the D7100 by the way) if this is one of the application goals (few people care about night lights photography which was what the original Noct was designed for, whereas the new AF-S 58/1.4 is in my opinion primarily a short portrait lens with secondary application in urban night scenes). It's not that they don't put any thought to the lens design. It's not about specifications or lens tests but about how the product works in the actual use it was designed for.​
    Fair enough. However, I think Nikon is currently missing a real prestige lens outside its stratospheric telephoto lenses. I think every now and then a lens maker needs to release a lens that is designed to be impressive for its own sake, not because user group survey said it would sell, in order to enhance its own prestige.
     
  35. I think it's too little (or too much) too late WRT the 24-70 VR lens. Anyone that really needs image stabilisation will have already bought the Tamron VC or Sigma OS offering, and anyone thinking of upgrading will think very hard about whether it justifies the price. Especially if they were a victim of Nikon's under-lubricated zoom mechanism on the previous 24-70 lens.
    The price hike is pretty ridiculous just for the addition of VR. In the UK that dollar price will translate to something over £2000 (>$3000 US) no doubt. That's way, way, way too much for all but hardcore Nikon fanboys to shell out for a standard zoom. Nikon UK better be ready with hefty cashback offers if they want to shift any stock.
     
  36. With all the optical development in the last 40 years Nikon couldn't match its own aperture from 40 years ago.​
    I have read very positive comments about the new 58mm. I don't mean to suggest the new 58mm is superior to the Noct. I just think it is unlikely Nikon will make another, faster 58mm.
     
  37. If driving people to buy the 24-70mm/f2.8 is the goal, wouldn't it be much easier if Canon simply doesn't sell the f4 version at all? :)
    Of course not - the goal is to maximize profit by selling you the f/4 version first and have you upgrade to the f/2.8 version next. Naturally, the reverse route is open too - sell you the f/2.8 first - have you get fed up with its bulk and weight and be at the ready with the f/4 version for you if you are willing to give up just that little bit of optical quality. And then there is of course those you can afford to buy both - the f/2.8 for what it's good for and the f/4 for what it does best (and if that's only being lighter and more compact). And lastly, there is of course what Chuck said above. As always choice is good - for all. Even if it means that you buy the "wrong" lens first ;-)
    Different user populations have different requirements and preferences and the manufacturers study these no doubt and try to make each product as good as it can be​
    I want to believe that - the cynic in me doesn't let me though ;-) And I don't want to let him list all the instances where there is at least some doubt as to the validity of that last statement. And as to different requirements - in almost all requests, "sharpness" seems to be quite high on the list and quite often appears to be the priority concern that trumps all others. How many are there who purchased the $6K "holy trinity" (I hate that expression but almost everyone seems to know what lens trio is being referred to) because it's the "best" - but would have been served equally well (if not better) for what they are shooting by something much less pricey, less heavy, and less bulky?
    I don't view the 24-70mm/f2.8, any version, as some "landscape" lens.​
    I don't either - but I know some that do - and have seen that lens on trails quite often. After all, it's the "best" ;-) And there are of course those who need the f/2.8 for other applications but can't afford a second lens that duplicates the focal length range but is "sufficient" for landscape.
     
  38. a lens maker needs to release a lens that is designed to be impressive for its own sake​
    I like your sentiment, but those kinds of products are usually ridiculed for being "out of touch." Look at the response to the Sigma 24-35. It is impressive in some ways (first of its kind), but most people on this forum were unimpressed.
     
  39. Interesting mix.

    24mm f1.8 - fairly priced so that even DX users will consider it if they like that range.
    24-70 - pro price for pro lens. VR finally. A winner, imho.
    200-500 - very nicely priced. If I were still a Nikon shooter I'd be scraping up for that lens. Real bargain.

    Usually I think these announcements are hit and miss. Not this one. Jealous of you nikon shooters again...
     
  40. I like your sentiment, but those kinds of products are usually ridiculed for being "out of touch." Look at the response to the Sigma 24-35. It is impressive in some ways (first of its kind), but most people on this forum were unimpressed.​
    I am guessing Sigma 24-35 is ridiculed because it has such a small, and common, zoom range, that a 24 or 28 mm prime can surpass it aperture and image quality without losing much in terms of flexibility compared to the zoom. It doesn't do anything much better than readily accessible alternatives. If they made a 10-18mm full frame zoom then that would be another story.
    A prestige lens should have some capability that could not easily be duplicated via readily accessible alternatives.
     
  41. A prestige lens should have some capability that could not easily be duplicated via readily accessible alternatives.​
    Problem is: they're a business, targetting a mass market. What you describe would be an extremely small niche-market item, that cost serious money to develop, with very little return on investment. It would be tje kind of lens that all forums would mock as they are released, because it would be extremely expensive, and most don't understand what is special. And then, when the "DxO Mark" for the lens comes out, it's not the best ever, and all have a laugh. Marketing value of the poster child: near zero, because it's a speciality product understood by few.
    See the current 58mm f/1.4G. Judge that by photos, rather than dull graphs and test charts, and you may find it does something that most other lenses around that length don't do half as well. Yes, it's charts and test results look mediocre. But the images it can draw absolutely do not. Whether you want to pay for that or not is another matter obviously. I think Nikon tried with that lens to bring something special, and the internet laughed because the MTF chart wasn't as great as the 3 times more expensive Otus, and it all backfired.
    All f/1.8 primes so far have shown to be quite excellent performers, at very reasonable prices. Primes in theirselves are already a relatively niche market, and yet Nikon refreshes the whole line-up (sure, it was necessary!), and doesn't do a half job there. Those lenses are infinite more useful than a hyper-costly posterchild that shows what can technically be done, but which makes no sense, which nobody buys and as a result only costs valuable R&D money that could have spent better elsewhere.
    In other words, be careful what you wish for.
     
  42. Sigma 24-35/2: I guess everyone who considers purchasing both the Nikon 24/1.8 and the 35/1.8 ought to have a look at the Sigma as well. It's an almost classical trade-off of sorts - zoom flexibility but bulky and heavy with a 82mm filter vs two light-weight primes that together take up more space than the zoom and cost some 50% more (and, if I recall correctly, don't have a common filter size). And, naturally, any differences in optical quality need to be considered and weighed too. Might even be an alternative for someone considering a 28mm as the only wide-angle - opting for the 24-35 (28 with wiggle room) instead - although bulk and weigh aren't in favor of the zoom. 20-35/2 would be a lot more convincing though ;-)
    The DX 18-35/1.8 has it a little easier - not competing against fast primes for some time. To me it would have been more attractive as a 16-35 or even 16-28 (and an almost certain purchase at 14-24/1.8 - provided the price would have stayed reasonable (below $1K)).
    Prestige lens: a lot easier to make for a third party that doesn't have to deliver an entire range of lenses - and could thus rightfully be criticized for wasting resources on a "show-off" when there are so many gaps to fill. Quite a bit of difference between Zeiss producing an Otus 55/1.4 and Nikon a 58/1.4. Whether Sigma can really afford to step in with a 50/1.4 at some $900 is open for debate - but they sure produced an excellent lens in the process.
     
  43. i want to add something to this discussion
    i want a 14-600 for 2000 euros with vr. f1.4 all the way and it should not be too heavy.
    lets be realistic and say...2 kilos sounds about right.
    i can then attach it to my sony camera
    yes, in my spare time i collect unicorns and ferraris
    then i woke up
    get over it girls
     
  44. Since this is very much a professional work horse for wedding, news, and sports ..., it is expected that Nikon makes it a robust lens. I really don't think weight is going to be a major issue, as people can always put the rig down for a while during pauses of action.​

    speaking as someone who shoots events, news, dance, and sometimes sports with the 24-70, i can tell you the weight IS a major issue. adding 20% more bulk is not a welcome move to PJs with back problems who have to carry gear in shoulder bags for easy access. if you are covering a developing story, you may not have a pause in the action for hours at a time. ive started using primes for my concert photography sometimes due to weight and sheer physical size of pro zooms. they're ok if you're in a photo pit, but most regular nightclubs dont have photo pits so you're constantly wading through a crowd.

    we also have to look at the target market for the 24-70: pro event shooters are getting fewer and fewer as news orgs and other media cut staff and/or reduce their budget for photo-pooled equipment. that means that freelancers have to buy their own gear. additionally, this lens is intended to be used with D750, D4, and D800 series-- all of which are substantial bodies, although the D750 is less so. So it is problematic somewhat to put out a pro lens for a declining target market while ignoring what would be a much more higher-volume market, i.e. a VR-enabled 17-55 replacement. the lens will appeal to video shooters, but the problem there is that Nikon is way behind the curve on that one; they dont even have any digital bodies with 4k video yet, at a time when Sony and Panasonic is putting out consumer cameras with 4k. and as RJ pointed out, anyone who needs a stabilized pro zoom will have already leaked to tamron, sigma, panasonic, sony, or olympus.

    When you add those factors together, this lens is not going to stem leakage, though that may have been the case had it come out in 2013 or earlier. sure, there will be some upgraders from the current 24-70, but this makes even less sense for DX users than the current lens. The most compelling reason to upgrade IMO isn't VR, but the possibility that the E version of the 24-70 will have more resolving power on high-MP bodies. In other words, if you own a D6XX, D7XX or D8XX series camera and you shoot events, you're locked in to Nikon's upgrade path.

    if we compare weight specs, we see:
    • Panasonic 12-35: 305g
    • Fuji 18-55 OIS: 309g
    • Olympus 12-40: 382g
    • Sony 24-70 OSS: 430g
    • Tamron 17-50 Di II: 430g
    • Tamron 28-75: 510g
    • Sigma 17-50 OS: 565g
    • Canon 17-55 IS: 645g
    • Fuji 16-55: 655g
    • Canon 24-105 L : 670g
    • Nikon 24-120/4: 670g
    • Nikon 17-55: 755g
    • Tamron 24-70 VC: 845g
    • Sigma 24-105: 885g
    • Nikon 24-70 AF-S: 900g
    • Canon 24-70: 950g
    • Nikon 24-70 E: 1070g
    As you can see, Nikon has the heaviest lenses in both APS-C/DX/Mirrorless and Full Frame segments. However, the trend in digital bodies for almost a decade has been smaller/lighter, so this goes in the opposite direction. As Shun says, this lens isnt particularly appealing for landscape shooters, even if you can afford it. (I hiked down a trailhead last weekend with the 24-70 and a pro body and would be loathe to undertake a longer journey than that with that combo; it's just so much easier to grab the Fuji XE1 and 18-55 if im going to be doing a lot of walking and/or carrying other gear besides photo equipment -- and that combo weighs less than the 24-70E alone!) And even if you "applaud" this release by Nikon, are you ponying up $2400 for it? It's possible Nikon's intention was to drive up sales of the 24-120--which looks quite svelte in comparison--but more likely that price and weight of the 24-70 E is going to result in more leakage to other systems or lensmakers. That's what happens when your overall market strategy is to resist innovation -- you end up being behind the curve.
     
  45. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    speaking as someone who shoots events, news, dance, and sometimes sports with the 24-70, i can tell you the weight IS a major issue. adding 20% more bulk is not a welcome move to PJs with back problems who have to carry gear in shoulder bags for easy access.​
    Eric, PJ's and news photographers carry cameras such as the Nikon D4XD4S, Canon 1DX, etc. as well as much bigger lenses such as the 200mm/f2, 70-200mm/f2.8, etc. The bit of weight gain from the 24-70 is a non issue. Yeah, if you have serious back problems, it can be a major issue. But unfortunately, you probably need to find another line of work anyway, regardless of the weight of a relatively small 24-70mm/f2.8 lens.
    I don't understand why you are still taking about the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX and "D400." High-end DX has been dead for Nikon for quite a few years.
     
  46. Eric, PJ's and news photographers carry cameras such as the Nikon D4X, Canon 1DX, etc. as well as much bigger lenses such as the 200mm/f2, 70-200mm/f2.8, etc. The bit of weight gain from the 24-70 is a non issue.​
    wait, there's a D4x? maybe you meant D4s. i have a D3s. it's heavy. the 24-70 is heavy. the 70-200 is also heavy. not a non-issue at all if you are not a sedentary photographer. and ive never seen a PJ or news stringer with a 200/2 at any event ive ever covered over the past, i dont know, 10 years or so. i did see a 300 at a concert once, but you are surely mistaken if you think any non-sports PJ regularly carries anything bigger than a 70-200. What i am seeing more and more are Sonys and Fujis, as well as a lot of APS-C bodies. i also see a lot of videographers- some even use Panasonic m4/3 cameras. i just covered a music festival in Humboldt County and there were many more APS-C bodies in the photo pit than full frame bodies. and a lot of nightclub photographers shoot with flash so no need for full frame. i guess people who arent actually in the field with PJs and event photographers regularly sometimes have a romanticized or distorted view of things.
    I don't understand why you are still taking about the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX and "D400." High-end DX has been dead for Nikon for quite a few years.​
    did my post mention a d400? if so, that's news to me. as for the 17-55, as i said, quite a few people shoot DX or APS-C. Some of those people want a 2.8 standard zoom. The 17-55 dates from 2003, so it's long overdue for an update. but since Nikon never bothered to update it, some Nikon shooters have bought 3rd party lenses or leaked to Fuji or Olympus/Panasonic, sometimes for weight reasons, or just because of Nikon's disinterest in high-end DX. if you dont understand why a DX shooter would want a 2.8 lens, i dont know what else to say. but Canon did just update the 7D, so obviously someone thinks there's a market.
     
  47. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Eric, I meant D4S. Next time you watch the news, e.g. congressional hearings, etc., news photographers use something like a 200mm/f2 frequently. For sports, a set of 400mm/f2.8, 70-200mm/f2.8 and 24-70mm/f2.8 is quite standard. For football, sometimes it goes up to 600mm/f4. One way or another, a 24-70 that weights a few more ounces makes a negligible difference.
    We already talked about Canon's 7D Mark II before. It took Canon a full 5 years to upgrade the 7D, but after merely 9 months, the price for the 7DII has already dropped from $1800 to $1500. In comparison, something like the D7100 merely drops $100 from $1200 to $1100 after a year. 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.
    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. I am no wedding photographer and already have the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, so I didn't even bother to buy the original 24-70mm/f2.8. Most likely I'll skip the 24-70mm/f2.8 VR as well. However, I think adding the 24-70 with VR is a great move for Nikon. For those who don't need VR or prefer something lighter, the old version is still available. Nikon also has an array of f1.8 AF-S lenses that are both light and affordable plus smaller 24-120mm/f4 and 24-85mm AF-S VR alternatives. I am glad that Fuji, Sony, Olympus and of course Canon are also making some great products. Having competition is key to improvements. While Nikon is a great camera company, they can't be making everything for everybody, and they have made their share of mistakes. I happen to think that when mirrorless technology becomes more mature, Nikon will have more serious entries than merely the Nikon 1, which I can only assume to be a not-very-successful product line. The gradual move to E lenses is a preparation to future new cameras that will no longer have the mechanical aperture control.
    Meanwhile, I pre-ordered a 200-500mm/f5.6 first thing this morning, as soon as my local camera store opened its door at 9am. Note that is an E lens, which is going to be my preference when buying F-mount lenses in the future.
     
  48. i know its a weird concept.
    to cope with weight i go work out.
    try it
     
  49. A bit of information about the new 24-70 in this video: http://nikkor.com/philosophy/03.html
    Quite interesting to read that they considered VR even for the current version:
    ...we abandoned the idea because the technology available at that time would have made the diameter of the lens too large. Therefore, we consider this new AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR a sort of revenge for which we have waited roughly ten years.​
    Making room for the inclusion of VR required the development of a new SWM motor - smaller but also more powerful
    As a result, though the speed of autofocusing was well received with the existing 24-70mm f/2.8G lens, revision of the control system along with adoption of the new SWM has made autofocusing with the new lens approximately 1.5× faster and more accurate than before.​
     
  50. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Dieter, thanks for the link. I should point out that the info Dieter quoted is actually in the text. I made the mistake watching the accompanied video first, as that appears near the top of the web page. The video is mostly Nikon public relations/advertising stuff without much real information.
    The SWM is constructed of relatively few components. Therefore, in order to make it more powerful, you need to optimize all of the components to the utmost limit. In our case, we repeated simulations using at least more than 100 possible designs for each component. From these, we chose the best forms depending on engineers’ instinct. In this way, every component of the SWM was optimized to the extreme.​
    So it looks like Nikon's lens design team went through a lot of work to custom make the best design for the new 24-70mm/f2.8 E VR. I am afraid the R&D is very costly with so many designs that they discarded.
    It'll be interesting to compare the Nikkor against the Tamron 24-70mm/f2.8 VC which is around $1000 cheaper.
     
  51. Given the current trend of airlines all over the world to limit weight and size of carryon luggage, I certainly hope the new 200-500mm lens is sharp enough for me to leave my 500mm f 4.0 at home when traveling by air. 24mm was my favorite focal length when I shot with film. I just hope the new 24mm prime is superb. Nikon needs a top notch lens around 24-70mm that does not weigh a ton. I have the current 24-70mm f2.8 from Nikon, but it is too big and too heavy for me to take with me while traveling. I would love to buy a very sharp 24-70mm that is f 4 or f5.6. Just look at the stats for the smaller/ lighter camera systems people are buying. There is another market out there for lenses that are sharp, but not super fast and very heavy and bulky.
    Joe Smith
     
  52. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Nikon needs a top notch lens around 24-70mm that does not weigh a ton.​
    Joe, as far as I am concerned, that lens already exists: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/review/24-85mm-f3.5-4.5-af-s-vr/
    But it is more a consumer-grade lens such that some may dismiss it. While I don't own one myself, I have used two different samples and am quite happy with it.
    In any case, the fact of the matter is that Nikon is providing plenty of choices in that zoom range, as now there is the new 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S VR in additional to the four shown below (plus an older 35-70mm/f2.8 AF-D). Is it really that difficult to pick one that works for you?
    [​IMG]
     
  53. I think this new 24mm will be a hit, because it has good appeal for both FX and DX. I am interested to see one in person to judge the size. 72mm filter is not real small but not huge either. I think Nikon deserves credit for getting this f/1.8 line fleshed out pretty quickly. The new lens set provides lots of options for new FX shooters. I hope to get an FX camera within a few years, as the prices are really coming down. My interest will be in the 1.8 primes.
     
  54. My experience is that most photojournalists don't work with huge lenses; I think the long lenses are used mainly by specialists who cover typical long lens subjects such as sports and large public events. 24-70 + 70-200 is very common (with Canon users the 16-35 also). I go to a lot of events including figure skating, some other sports events, large music festivals, carnivals, and a few royal weddings as well. I've also periodically attended lectures by well known photojournalists. My guess (from what I've seen) is that 90% of photojournalists don't use anything bigger than a 70-200/2.8, and some don't even use that. A lot of photojournalism is working with a reporter on stories which involve interviewing people, making a portrait or an image of the interviewee at work, and the story is written on that. There is no long lens work involved in those types of stories and a light shoulder bag carries all the equipment needed. Even at sports events on a national scale in my country I see only a few specialists who use 300/2.8, 200/2, 200-400/4 or 600/4 type lenses while there are several dozen 70-200/2.8 shooters. At large outdoor festivals with huge stages (10000+ in audience), again most accredited PJs use small lenses with 24-70, 70-200, 100-400 type dominant with 2-3 big lens users thrown in, and what is interesting is that many of the big lens shooters are often the same people from event to event, suggesting that most photojournalists don't own those huge lenses and specialists are called by photo agencies or large papers to do those shots while the majority cover the events using shorter lenses. I think most photographers find that the photographs are more dramatic and immerse the viewer if they are taken from a relatively short distance of the subject and the photographer using smaller lenses can be more mobile than someone using a 600/4.
    I suppose traveling photo reportage is not a common thing to do now that the magazines are on decline and have to curtail their budgets but again when I've spoken to those photographers, lenses like 24-70/2.8, 16-35/2.8, 24/1.4, and 50mm and 85mm primes come up, not large superteles. It may be my subjective view but I regard the photography of large events (festivals, royal weddings etc.) and sports really a part of the entertainment industry and since entertainment is what people are willing to pay for, that's where the money is and big lenses can be justified. But there is also a more serious side of journalism that concerns real lives and documenting them and discussing society, work, living conditions and issues that people have with their lives. For example, Pep Bonet's documentary images of underprivileged children in difficult conditions, prisoners of war etc.; you can find his work at

    http://noorimages.com/photographer/bonet/.
    Another photographer Katja Lösönen

    http://www.katjalosonen.com/#/reportage/

    said in a lecture she gave that she uses 16-35, 50, and 85. Steve McCurry? 24-70/2.8 (and 50/1.4). I think lugging around a huge set of lenses as a matter of course may be reality for a few specialists but the majority of PJ work of serious nature is carried out with shorter focal lengths.
    In my experience the majority of photojournalists that I've seen give lectures or at large events (or even interviews of my research group's work) use full frame DSLRs for their work, the most common are the 5D Mk III, D4s/D4/D3s, D8x0, 1Dx, and 1D III and 1D IV). I rarely see APS-C cameras in use by photojournalists these days. But this may be regionally dependent. As for mirrorless, I sometimes see e.g. Panasonic GH series cameras being used to record video professionally but for still photography, I think the PJs mainly work with full frame DSLRs.
    As for whether the increase in weight of the 24-70 matters, probably it is not decisive for most professional photographers but it may matter for some and the 24-70 is not made for only the professionals but the advanced amateurs obviously contribute to its commercial success. I think for many of the latter, the size and weight increase (not to mention cost) may put it out of the picture. I suspect that many of the same people who wanted VR in this lens are the ones who will not buy it because of the subsequent increase in size, weight and cost. For me, the main thing is if Nikon has managed to improve the autofocus in a similar way as the 300/4, i.e. less jitter in continuous focusing, then I will likely consider it worthwhile for my own use. I also appreciate the fluorine coating as in the winter I'm very likely to use it in very cold conditions where I need to work quickly and there can also be some water spray, snow etc. involved so if the fluorine coating helps keep the front and rear elements clean (even when switching lenses) then it is a clear advantage over the old version. Also sometimes when documenting events and people at work, hair spray, paint or other stuff can be in the air and I'd rather have an expensive lens not be ruined or degraded by exposure to those; the fluorine coating should help avoid problems and I'll be able to dare closer to my subjects as a result. Finally a major issue at events with the existing 24-70 has been its field curvature which makes it difficult to get even sharpness in photographs of large groups; subjects towards the outer areas of the frame being out of focus which can be very annoying if you have 20-50 people in the image and the image is printed large. I frequently ran into this problem with the 24-70 and nowadays prefer to use the Zeiss 28mm f/2 for those shots. If the new 24-70 solves the field curvature problem then it's an additional reason to get the new lens. Another aspect of the 24-70 is that some users have experienced stiffening of the zoom action over time (even to the point of the lens getting stuck). This can be repaired but it shouldn't happen on a lens of this price class. If Nikon has been able to resolve all of these issues then the new lens justifies its price for me, but it's hard to know aspects such as ruggedness and durability before the lens has been used a few years. If the impression that readers get from my post is that the old 24-70 is a poor lens then it is the wrong impression; it has been excellent and much better than other wide to tele zooms that I've used; however, it is not perfect and improvements are welcome in some areas.
    The main attraction of the f/1.8 primes in my opinion is their light weight, small size (for DSLR lenses), high image quality, maximum aperture, and lower price. I often switch to prime lenses when I'm working at a close distance to my subjects to be less of a distraction to whatever they're doing (working or being in conversation). To capture the subjects faces in conversation it is usually necessary to use a wide angle or at most a normal lens as with a telephoto lens the angle of view makes it difficult to include faces of both sides in conversation. I use mainly the f/1.4 lenses because Nikon marketed those first but I could get away with the less expensive and more compact f/1.8 lenses. There are some situations where the f/1.4 brings with itself clear benefits, mainly more clean separation of the subject from background and environment, as well a photography at night in dimly lit restaurants, but I think most of this photography could be carried out successfully using f/1.8. Using a flash may be the standard PJ way, but for me I get different results by not using flash as the subjects are then not putting my attention to what I'm doing and many times I hear they didn't realize they were being photographed when they see the photographs. If I use a flash in a small restaurant, the subjects are immediately alerted to my presence and start turning and posing for the camera, which is probably all well for establishing eye contact in photojournalism but for my event and documentary photography of people, I prefer the subjects to focus on each other and whatever they are doing instead of making the photographer a part of the picture and giving a subtle fake smile. It is a different style. A quiet camera such as the D810 and small to moderate size primes (they don't need to be tiny relative to the size of the camera) help a lot in achieving my goals. Since the price and size of the 24-70 seems to be going up with each new generation, it is also good that there are alternatives that new photographers can choose and get the large aperture and compactness without paying a huge amount of money (with Sony, Leica etc. you can get some even smaller lenses but they're more expensive also than the f/1.8 Nikkors). I think the f/1.8 Nikkors are examples of great value, along with the 70-200/4. These lenses are accessible to many new photographers who have serious ambitions but initially a small budget.
     
  55. I think the price is lower because it is basically a rebadged tamron lens, slightly modified from Tamron's own 150-600 f/5-6.3 so as to be able to show a constant 5/5.6 max aperture at the expense of reduced zoom range on both ends.
     
  56. Chuck, here are the arrangements for the Tamron and Nikkor I don't know how similar or different they are. Certainly, they don't look identical.
    It is interesting to see the price difference with the 80-400. Of course, that is 5x zoom and the new 200-500 is just 2.5x. It would be nice if the 200-500 "outperforms" the price point.
     
  57. Chuck,

    That's idle speculation at best. To change the aperture at both ends would really imply a different design, not a "slightly tweaked" one. And Chip's links point to a VERY big difference in the two lenses.
     
  58. Cool trio of lenses, love the 1.8 line, have the 20mm, 35mm and 85mm 1.8 lenses. I had the 35mm 1.4G and loved it too but sold it not long ago when I picked up a Leica M240, 28mm 2.8 asph, 35mm 1.4 FLE and 50 2.0 Summicron. The 200-500 has my interest the most though, if it is sharp enough, I think I am in, have 95mm filters for a couple of Hasselblad lenses.
    I have been doing both professional landscape and professional journalism for over 25 years now, lately most of that journalism has been with one very big high end client. I have a couple of friends who also shoot Nikon in this genre…they all seem to have started with the 24-70 and most have gotten rid of it. I tried it out for a weekend and did not like it at all, did not balance well, thought it needed a tripod collar for tripod work and a lot of the folks that had it for any stretch of time saw it go to the shop for all sorts of reasons, mostly due to it becoming de-centered or flat out busted because the thing sticks out and can strike things like poles, walls and what not.
    So the new one takes the whole “lets make the world’s longest 24mm lens” thing even further, to a ridiculous level with a workflow gaffing 82mm filter thread and obnoxious weight. I can and do carry a lot of weight, I am in better shape than most who carry a camera, but I have no desire to carry this new lens around. The reason I am saying all this is that I work in the business some are claiming to know something about. And in one case found it pretty darn rude to tell some poor guy that he needs to find a new line of work because of a back problem.
    The 24-70 is one lens that a lot of my fellow working photogs either use and wish they did not have to or flat out don’t and use primes in that range instead, few are in love with it. But there is a market for it, or else Nikon would not make it and upgrade it.
     
  59. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    it is basically a rebadged tamron lens, slightly modified from Tamron's own 150-600 f/5-6.3​
    Chuck, you have made such comment a couple of times. Is there any basis and reference to demonstrate a linkage to Tamron or it is merely your personal speculation?
    I have checked the cross section diagrams for the two lenses, and the optical designs are completely different. The Tamron has 20 elements in 13 groups while the Nikkor has 19 elements in 12 groups. The positions for the LD/ED elements are different. I am afraid that suggesting the Nikkor is a "rebadged" Tamron lens is very far from the truth.
    Nikon is very much capable of making low-cost, consumer-grade lenses (and cameras) on their own, demonstrated by the various cheap zooms with a plastic mount that are somewhat fragile. While I don't expect the new 200-500mm/f5.6 to be a low-quality lens (or I wouldn't have ordered one), I do assume that it will not be as excellent as the far more expensive 80-400mm AF-S VR.
    You can view the MTF curve and a cross-section diagram for the new Nikkor from this link: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-200-500mm-f%252F5.6E-ED-VR.html#!
    EDIT: Chip, thanks for the links to the cross-section diagrams.
     
  60. He may be referring to the rumors over the years (I've heard this since the 80s) that Tamron has actually designed and maybe built some lenses that were sold under other companies' brand names (and I always heard that Nikon was one of them... this was years ago before the interwebz, btw).

    If that were really the case here, based on the way Tamron designed and built the recent 17-50 f2.8 lenses and some others (70-300VC and their macro come to mind), I'd think that was a good thing, actually.
     
  61. Shun, thanks for the info on the other nikon lenses, especially the 24-85mm. It looks like the 28-70mm AF-d lens I used
    back in my film days.

    Joe smith
     
  62. Chuck, you have made such comment a couple of times. Is there any basis and reference to demonstrate a linkage to Tamron or it is merely your personal speculation?​
    It is my speculation, but it is based on the Dpreview piece from 9 month ago which indicated Nikon and Tamron filed a joint patent covering a variable aperture zoom design with this exact zoom range:

    http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54734338
     
  63. We already talked about Canon's 7D Mark II before. It took Canon a full 5 years to upgrade the 7D, but after merely 9 months, the price for the 7DII has already dropped from $1800 to $1500. In comparison, something like the D7100 merely drops $100 from $1200 to $1100 after a year. 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.​
    Here in the UK, the 7DII launched last September at £1600, and has now dropped to £1300, about 81% of the launch price. In the same period, the Nikon D750 dropped from £1800 to £1500, about 83% of the launch price. So I'm not sure we can conclude too much from price drops. On the other hand I agree that a 'D400' seems very unlikely at this point; Nikon's whole strategy seems to be FX at the high end. It might make more sense for them to compete with the 20MP 10fps 7DII with a 24MP 8fps 'D770' FX.
     
  64. I will speculate that Nikon will start to move the DX line in the mirrorless direction within the next year or two, and depending on how well that is received, may eventually move the whole DX DSLR line to mirrorless. That's purely my speculation.
     
  65. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Here in the UK, the 7DII launched last September at £1600, and has now dropped to £1300, about 81% of the launch price. In the same period, the Nikon D750 dropped from £1800 to £1500, about 83% of the launch price.​
    Richard, in my opinion, the D750 and D810's situation is different.
    In the US, the D810 was introduced at $3300, the original price for the D800E and therefore $300 more than that for the D800. The D750 was launched at $2300, also $300 more than the D610. After a few months, both of them dropped that extra $300 and settled into the original prices for the D800 and D610, respectively.
    My explanation is that Nikon priced the D810 and D750 high by $300 initially to soak the early adapters. After a few months, they settled into the real target prices, corresponding to the D800 and D610, respectively. Now that the D810 is a year old, and it is still holding the D800's launch price at $3000.
    The problem for the 7D Mark II is that it cannot at all hold the original $1800 price for the 7D and D300 even for a few months. Canon dropped it by $100 (to $1700) after merely 6 months and further dropped it to $1500 after 8, 9 months.
    In comparison, Nikon introduced the D7000 in October 2010, and I paid $1200 for it. A friend bought one a year later in October 2011 from Amazon @ $1100 (while B&H had that same price). Shortly after that in late 2011, Nikon Thailand's factory was flooded and D7000 production was stopped for several months. The shortage led to some temporary price increase. After that, both the D7100 and D7200 were introduced at the D7000's initial $1200 price point. So far, the D7200 is holding it.
     
  66. Chuck,

    I sure wish they had done that. They might have kept me. As it was, I defected to µ43 because even the smallest DX DSLRs are just too big for me these days and the "1" cameras had nothing interesting to me whatsoever. I doubt I'll go back.
     
  67. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    It is my speculation, but it is based on the Dpreview piece from 9 month ago which indicated Nikon and Tamron filed a joint patent covering a variable aperture zoom design with this exact zoom range:​
    Chuck, your link is to a DPReview Forum post, not an official DPReview article, which I would have put a lot more weight, and worse yet, that forum post's source is the Nikon Rumors web site.
    In any case, that 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. It is a very big jump from there to suggest that Tamron must be manufacturing the new 200-500mm/f5.6 Nikon for Nikon based on the Tamron 150-600, and that must be the reason why the 200-500mm Nikkor is cheaper than expected.
    It would be equally ridiculous to suggest that maybe Nikon is actually manufacturing the Tamron 150-600mm zoom only because there is some joint patent around.
    will speculate that Nikon will start to move the DX line in the mirrorless direction within the next year or two​
    As long as we all understand that is your speculation ... :)
     
  68. Where would the fun be if we don't speculate?
     
  69. I hang out on one of the mirrorless forums, and it is remarkable to hear some of the users talk about "the future of cameras." It is borderline proselytizing. I keep hearing about the inevitability of DSLR death and mirrorless ascendence. Problem is, I have not seen good evidence this shift is actually happening. I think mirrorless is great. I just think it says more about people when the conversation turns into a zero-sum game (i.e. it must be one or the other).
     
  70. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I shoot both FX and DX, e.g. my "current" DSLRs include a D750, a D800E, a D7100 and a D7200. It is certainly not either or. I don't have any mirrorless camera at this point mainly because I don't feel that the technology is mature enough for me, as I don't like the current crop.
    However, I think future sports/action/wildlife cameras will have to be mirrorless because of the mechanical limitation around 12 fps. When we gradually move up to 20 fps or more, mirrorless is the only way to go (including Sony's fixed, semi-transparent mirror). Nikon's transition to E electromagnetic aperture is part of that transition. Therefore, yes, the new 24mm/f1.8 AF-S being a G instead of E lens might not be as future proof under that scenario.
     
  71. Chip, there is indeed sales info that says that overall, mirrorless is flat in sales and DSLRs are shrinking, as a market.

    But "the future of photography"? Puh-leeze. There will be a lot of people for whom DSLR is best for a very very long time...

    That said, once they solve a few of the mirrorless "problems" I wouldn't be surprised to see anything that's not FX or larger go mirrorless.
     
  72. I am not saying DSLR will die. I am saying DX and FX formats are IMHO too similar for it to be sensible in the long run to maintain two separate but still broadly similar lines of DSLRs and lenses for them. Eventually it will make sense to transform DX DSLR line from FX junior to something more differentiated from FX DSLRs.
     
  73. Any mirrorless camera that Nikon makes would still have to work fully with existing lenses for the F mount, including G lenses, otherwise it's a no go for Nikon since their main selling point is the vast number of existing lenses that users gain access to when they buy a Nikon (interchangeable lens) camera. 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. Since Nikon is still introducing new G lenses (with typical prime lens lifespan of 20+ years between updates), it is clear they have no intention of fully removing the mechanical control from their cameras in the foreseeable future.
     
  74. However, I think future sports/action/wildlife cameras will have to be mirrorless because of the mechanical limitation around 12 fps. When we gradually move up to 20 fps or more, mirrorless is the only way to go (including Sony's fixed, semi-transparent mirror). Nikon's transition to E electromagnetic aperture is part of that transition. Therefore, yes, the new 24mm/f1.8 AF-S being a G instead of E lens might not be as future proof under that scenario.​
    So long as it is possible to use live view in real time, I see no reason why mechanical moving mirror camera would not be adaptable to higher frame rates. The camera could simply lock up the mirror and switch to live view when desired frame rate exceeds certain threshold. As to E aperture being essential for high frame rate, I don't get that either. Why does the aperture have to stop down and then open back up with each frame? Why can't the aperture simply stop down to shooting aperture and then stay there as long as the high fps camera continues to chug away?
     
  75. photo.net wont allow me to post my response.
    so much bs in this thread..
    why did i read it..
    laters girls.
    go buy a pony
     
  76. 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
     
  77. 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 :)
     
  78. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Why does the aperture have to stop down and then open back up with each frame?​
    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.
    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.​
    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.
    As I said earlier, the Nikon F mount is in a constant evolution. We have:
    • SLRs on which you cannot mount unmodified pre-AI lenses
    • SLRs that cannot meter with AI/AI-S lenses
    • AF SLRs that cannot drive AF-S/AF-S lenses
    • AF SLR/DSLrs that cannot drive AF/AF-D lenses to auto focus
    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.
     
  79. 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​
    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.
    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.
     
  80. 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?
     
  81. 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.​
    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? :)
     
  82. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Re Nikon 200-500mm lens: Very strange. This lens is listed at $2,450 for pre-order from Japan​
    Mary, where did you get that price?
    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
    At 124.75 yen per US dollar today, that is very close to $1400.
     
  83. i had my workout today
    shot 3 hours ago
    nikon d3, iso 6400, -0.7ev, sb 910 @ -3ev + 24-70 @24mm and f2.8
    the band is called bloodshed remains, hardcore punk band from austria
    [​IMG]
    if i can use this setup in the moshpit and at alot more dangerous places you can use it too.
    quit your bitchin about a weight increase that is a nonissue.
     
  84. let me rephrase that
    can you afford an assistant?
     
  85. 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.
    Still have no interest in the 24-70, prefer lighter primes in those focal lengths.

    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...
     
  86. 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.​
    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.
    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.​
    maybe you should have written, it is hard for you 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.
     
  87. 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.
     
  88. if i can use this setup in the moshpit and at alot more dangerous places you can use it too.
    quit your bitchin about a weight increase that is a nonissue.​
    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.
     
  89. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

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

    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.
    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.​
    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?
    If anything, still not understanding such simple logic seems very strange to me.
    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.
     
  90. [Re 200-500mm lens:] Mary, where did you get that price?​
    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.
    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.
     
  91. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    the surprising high price ($2,450) was from that auction site​
    So some scalper is greatly inflating the price for a potentially hot new lens? Since it is eBay, I suppose anything can happen.
     
  92. So some scalper is greatly inflating the price for a potentially hot new lens? Since it is eBay, I suppose anything can happen.​
    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.
     
  93. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I would imagine that they would figure out such typographical error pretty quickly, since nobody orders it at such a crazy price. :)
     
  94. 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.
    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.
     
  95. If you don't like it, don't buy.
    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.

    What else can you do?
     
  96. I would imagine that they would figure out such typographical error pretty quickly, since nobody orders it at such a crazy price. :)
    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?
     
  97. Mary - B&H estimates availability 9/17/15. I hope when you get yours you will share some feedback :)
     
  98. Mary - B&H estimates availability 9/17/15. I hope when you get yours you will share some feedback :)
    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.
     
  99. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  100. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Daniel, while admittedly I don't necessarily agree with you very often in general, I do share some of the same sentiment in your 1:20pm post above.
    But I have gone one step further. I pre-ordered a 200-500mm/f5.6 immediately and hopefully I'll receive one of the earliest ones, knowing that getting an early sample comes with its share of risks. I still vividly remember Dan Brown's frustration dealing with the 300mm/f4 PF's VR issue earlier this year: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dBRT
    Hopefully this lens checks out and I'll have opportunities to capture thousands of images with it in September and October. If not, I still have my 80-400mm AF-S VR and other lenses to get the job done.
    And I am well aware that a $1400 200-500mm/f5.6 is definitely not going to be in the same league as a 200-400mm/f4 or 500mm/f4 that cost 5, 6, or even 7 times as much. It probably won't be as excellent as the 80-400mm AF-S VR that costs about $1000 more. Its price is essentially in the "too good to be true" category. When I first heard the price from Nikon USA, I immediately verified with them that they indeed meant $1400 instead of $14,000. I would imagine that there has to be a catch somewhere.
     
  101. Regarding getting something which might be broadly comparable to this 500mm lens, has anyone used TC-20E III with
    70-200 VR II?
     
  102. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    has anyone used TC-20E III with 70-200 VR II​
    I have just to check it out, and I have no plan to use that combo again: New 70-200 f/2.8G ED VRII for my D7000, a good marriage?

    I should point out that when you mount a TC onto a zoom, typically the quality will improve a lot if you stop down, even by just one stop. However, we are starting from 200mm, f2.8. A 2x TC makes it a 400mm, f5.6. Stopping down will give me a usable 400mm f8. That is just way too slow for a long tele, not to mention that those two components combined will cost you close to $3000. The economics simply makes no sense.
    Chuck, see all the good stuff you missed in the last decade? :)
     
  103. I am very intrigued by the 200-500mm myself. Though it does feel like a too good to be true scenario. Right now I am using a 55-300mm AF-S for wildlife and I was going to upgrade to the sigma 150-600mm Sport though I was reluctant as that would leave me with no "walkaround" zoom lens. For not too much more than the 150-600mm Sigma Sport costs I can pick up the 70-200mm f4 Nikon and the 200-500mm f5.6 Nikon. That might be a good kit to cover my basis. I will go with the latter if the 200-500mm Nikon stacks up well against the 150-600 Sport Sigma which I have heard good things about.
    Currently shooting on a D7000.
     
  104. no, my world of photography is not everyone elses
    but i do not complain.
    i am also a graffiti artist and i carry 50 kilograms on my back just for fun...
    my photobackpack weights about 10-15 kilos..depending on what i am going to do.
    i bring equipment to places if i want that shot.
    so do all my friends who make a living with fine art b&w film photography
    no one bitches about weight
    no one
    only on forums.
    the flicker in your eyes caused by exhaustion...
    just to get away with a photo that did not exist when you started into your day should be the goal
    this and nothing else
    i am sure the canon forums are full of complaints about the new 24-70 and how ridiculous the arrest switch for the
    zoom that only works at 24 mm, is...
    the filter size
    the prize
    i got it on my 1dx.
    i hated it when i first got it.
    produces awesome photos
    case closed
    all the wishlists of whatever might have been awesome about something and where it should be
    miss just one point
    seriously
    what was the first camera you took a shot with you were proud of
    i am sure there was a lot of complaing going on back then..now was it.
    make the best of what you get
    quit your bitching, go take photos
    ..
    or hunt for rainbows and ponies.
    i am srsly disgusted by what i read here..
    its a disgrace to photography
    i help alot on these forums
    like the dude that asked about the greyed out menu of the inteval shooting mode.
    you didnt know it..the postings where *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#*
    and here are all the experts and knowit alls.
    dafuq
    it makes me wanna puke.
     
  105. [Summary of complaint:] ...i am srsly disgusted by what i read here... its a disgrace to photography...​
    Norbert, I have no idea what you are referring to. Will you please be specific? Is every post disgusting to you? if not, what specifically disgusts you? Think we need some clarification. :)
     
  106. 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.​
    Shun, i quoted you apologizing for getting "personal," so please dont try to deny you crossed a line there. Your tone wasnt appropriate for a moderator, and you cannot claim to be objective in your highly subjective and incorrect statements. In essence, you are blaming me for pointing out the obvious, which is that Nikon hasnt been as innovative as either of those competitors in a number of key areas. That's just a fact. Apparently, that upset you. If anything, nikon should thank sigma for producing lenses they won't in F-mount and giving consumers a reason to hold the line. In any event, you can defend Nikon all you want, but every time you say something ridiculous, you lose credibility.

    For example, you say, "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." While it is true that both companies probably have bigger profit margins on FX gear, APS-C sells far more units. So, i dont really see how that comment justifies lack of interest in a viable market segment on Nikon's part. We cant say the same about Canon, because they do offer at least one professional APS-C camera. And if we're looking at Nikon's FX offerings, other than the recent D750 and the 800 series, they have been underwhelming and beset with either QC or bad UI issues. i might have bought a Df had it had a better AF system; this might have ameliorated my need to replace my D300s. the logic of paying more for a camera with missing features isn't a solid one.

    But then, in your own words, you say, "I think Nikon still has prosumer DX in mind," which contradicts at least two of your earlier statements. and you conveniently overlook the fact that sigma, tamron, fuji and panasonic all offer stabilized 24-70 equivalents for APS-C cameras. that is a curiously odd omission, since it's so obvious.

    As a moderator, i really think you can do better than getting mad at people because they don't agree with you.
     
  107. 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.​
    Tai chi is great. i agree exercise is good, but in my case, i slipped a disc while covering Occupy protests in Oakland and carrying around a D3s+ 24-70+70-200 is a messenger bag for hours at a time over varying terrain. Eventually i switched to a backpack for the heavy lenses, and a domke bag for my prime kit. That helps a bit, and i've been doing more stretching, but i am definitely conscious of weight these days.
    the 24-70 would not come into my mind for indoor concerts.​
    It's perfect, actually, for photo pit assignments. when you can only shoot the first 3 songs of a set, lens-changing is often not something you want to do.
    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).​
    well, it's still a good body, although i would prefer more resolution for cropping. im considering a d750 but havent pulled the trigger yet. in the meantime, i have 35/50/85 1.4 primes, might add a 20/1.8 or 24/1.8. the D3s is great for shooting with big lenses in action situations, but not the most inobtrusive thing to be moving through a packed crowd.
     
  108. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Shun, i quoted you apologizing for getting "personal," so please dont try to deny you crossed a line there. Your tone wasnt appropriate for a moderator, and you cannot claim to be objective in your highly subjective and incorrect statements.​
    Eric, I mentioned personal precisely because I found you to be highly biased and not at all objective, and any discussion/debate with you is getting frustrating. On one hand you complain about Nikon neglecting high-end APS-C. However, when Sony offers many camera options for both full-35mm-frame and APS-C in both mirror and mirrorless, you dismissed their approach as "carpet bombing," in a thread with the interesting subject: Fuji bias?
    However, the word "attack" was added by you. And you are still unable to identify exactly how I "attacked" you. If the best complaint you can come up with is that you don't like my tone, you are entitled to your opinions, but that is not an "attack."
    But then, in your own words, you say, "I think Nikon still has prosumer DX in mind," which contradicts at least two of your earlier statements. and you conveniently overlook the fact that sigma, tamron, fuji and panasonic all offer stabilized 24-70 equivalents for APS-C cameras. that is a curiously odd omission, since it's so obvious.​
    First of all, pro is high end. Prosumer is not. I said Nikon is not interested in high-end DX DSLRs, but they indeed added a prosumer DX E lens last month, and I think it is the prelude that Nikon will enter the prosumer DX mirrorless market, as one of the objectives for producing E lenses is preparing for mirrorless bodies that have no mechanical aperture lever. Where is the contradiction?
    And please, no "equivalent." We were talking about 24-70mm/f2.8 for FX, which is a big lens to begin with. Adding optical image stabilization will make a big lens even bigger, which is exactly one of the things you are complaining about here. And that is certainly a factor people should consider. If you read my opening post, I pointed out that the new VR version is bigger with 82mm filter thread, heavier, and very expensive. Those are some of the down sides for the new lens that an objective reporter like me should point out immediately.
    An APS-C equivalent of the 24-70mm/f2.8 is a much smaller lens e.g. 16-50mm due to the shorter focus length range and smaller image circle. Nikon has had a 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR for several years. While Canon still has no 24-70mm/f2.8 IS, they do have a 17-55mm/f2.8 IS for APS-C, a 24-70mm/f4 IS and 24-105mm/f4 IS. Once you reduce the overall size of the lens, by reducing some combinations among the focal length, the image circle, and maximum aperture, it becomes a lot easier to add optical stabilization without producing a lens that is way too big and too inconvenient. Everybody is bounced by those same physical limitations. That is why only Tamron was ahead of Nikon producing a 24-70mm/f2.8 with stabilization while neither Canon nor Sigma has one today.
    Again, if you haven't done so, read that link Dieter provided earlier. Those Nikon lens designers talked about precisely that back in 2007, they considered adding VR to the first-generation 24-70mm/f2.8, but the technology available at that time would have produced a lens that was way too big such that they abandoned the idea.
    If you are willing to spend some time looking into the facts, something that you thought was "obvious" perhaps isn't the way you think at all. APS-C lenses and FF lenses have very different design restrictions, so do SLR lenses and mirrorless lenses. Comparing lenses for different formats and different camera types is like comparing apples and oranges.
     
  109. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Norbert, I have no idea what you are referring to.​
    Mary, I, for one, would like to have a good understanding of things around me. However, in this particular case, maybe it is better that you remain having no idea about this. :)
     
  110. I should point out that when you mount a TC onto a zoom, typically the quality[​IMG]will improve a lot if you stop down, even by just one stop. However, we are starting from 200mm, f2.8. A 2x TC makes it a 400mm, f5.6. Stopping down will give me a usable 400mm f8. That is just way too slow for a long tele, not to mention that those two components combined will cost you close to $3000. The economics simply makes no sense.
    Chuck, see all the good stuff you missed in the last decade? :)
    70-200 VR II + TC-20E III cost about twice as much as a single 200-500. But in return you get a very high quality 70-200 lens in addition to lesser quality option to reach 2/3 of the range covered by 200-500.
    So I guess whether it make sense depends on whether 70-200 range or the 200-500 is more important to the style of photography in question. If one shoots primarily long telephoto wild life shots, then it probably does not make sense. But if one envision 70-200 to be more useful overall, and would still like to occasionally reach out to 400, then it seems to me whether the teleconverter option makes sense depends on just how bad the image quality is with the lens + TC combo.
     
  111. Haha, Mary Norbert's posts are like poetry - the reader finds his or her own meaning :)
    And a vote of support for Shun's frank but professional moderating style (at least in my view)
     
  112. Chuck, the quality of that lens with 1.4X is ok at f/5.6 up to 280mm but with the 2X it is only good when stopped down to f/8 and used in the near distance range. In my experience the 70-200/2.8 II + TC-20E III at 400mm quality is quite poor at further distances (e.g. 20m) even stopped down so I would avoid using it. It is not at all comparable to a "real" 400mm lens (including zooms that can reach that focal length without the use of a TC). However if you need to occasionally get to 280mm then it is feasible to do that using that zoom and a 1.4X but remember to stop down to f/5.6.
     
  113. Daniel, while admittedly I don't necessarily agree with you very often in general, I do share some of the same sentiment in your 1:20pm post above.​
    I just had to crack up at this. You are ok Shun, lets maybe make this a new direction for our interaction on this forum...:)
    And I am well aware that a $1400 200-500mm/f5.6 is definitely not going to be in the same league as a 200-400mm/f4 or 500mm/f4 that cost 5, 6, or even 7 times as much.​
    This is why I am going to rent it. I usually get a special request loan or rent the 200-400 VRII for high paying annual shoots I do, it's a sharp, sharp lens and does well with a TC-14 as well. But it is big, not 400 2.8 big but commit to using it if you haul it big. So the 200-500 really appeals to me in regards to being a lens I can yank out of the bag, nail a few shots with and get back to the lenses I really love using which are small and light primes.
    One thing to consider here is that Nikon *could* by sheer virtue of advances in technology, have created a great sharp zoom in the same way they created at the time a landmark zoom in the budget 75-150 F3.5 series E. That lens was nearly an embarrassment for Nikon because it ended up producing far better images than even some primes at the time in a higher price point.
    But time & experience with it will tell the real story, 5.6 is a slowish lens by most standards so contrast could be the first thing that suffers. You never know though....maybe Nikon knocked it out of the park with this one, lets hope so!
     
  114. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    My experience is similar to Ilkka's. I have also checked version 1 of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR with version 1 of the TC-20E, and the results are similar. Version 2 of the lens and Version 3 of the TC-20E are both slightly better; therefore the combination is also slightly better, but wide open will yield a totally unacceptable (to me) 400mm/f5.6 lens either way.
    IMO, the TC-20E is essentially good for only three types of lenses, all AF-S VR: 200mm/f2, 300mm/f2.8, and 400mm/f2.8. Those are relatively fast, high-quality "prime" lenses, hence they are still pretty good after the 2x degradation.
    You can mount a 2x TC onto the 600mm/f4, but there is so much magnification that it is tough to get good results on such a slow lens.
    Obviously the quality of the new 200-500mm/f5.6 has yet to be checked out by independent parties outside of Nikon. But at least some people (Mary, Daniel, and me) are willing to be guinea pigs. Among Nikkors, that is probably the least expensive way to get you to 400mm and 500mm. Outside of that, the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 seem to be pretty good. I just don't particularly like the f6.3 minimum aperture.
     
  115. Nice burst of innovation from Nikon! The 24/1.8 is more accessible, pricewise, against the fast version. I noticed the long 200-500mm does not have the Golden Ring in spite of having ED glass. Does E lens iris work on D700?
     
  116. E lens aperture control should work with the D700 provided you have upgraded its firmware. A: 1.04 / B: 1.03
     
  117. On one hand you complain about Nikon neglecting high-end APS-C. However, when Sony offers many camera options for both full-35mm-frame and APS-C in both mirror and mirrorless, you dismissed their approach as "carpet bombing,"​
    That's apples and oranges, not inconsistency on my part. also, i don't know that i'm dismissing Sony as much as putting their offerings into context. If you look closely at Sony, you'll see they've put more emphasis into designing bodies than full-fledged lens options. Not only are they currently making two kinds of APS-C and two kinds of full frame bodies, but they also make the RX series with the 1" sensor -- the RX 10 compact and the RX100 superzoom. they also have the RX1 full-frame compact. But their lenses arent nearly as well-iterated. There's no FE-mount 24-70/2.8 or 70-200 equivalent, for example, and similar gaps in their prime lineup. im not the first to note this, but if you buy a Sony A7 series for its low-light performance, you then have to give back a stop when using f/4 zooms. There are also gaps in Sony's APS-C mirrorless lineup: the A6000 is one of the better mirrorless bodies, and has the AF Fuji lacks, but Fuji has better lenses overall and a more complete lineup.

    Nikon, on the other hand, is in a completely different situation. i guess we can sit here and pretend that it doesnt matter that they've abandoned high-end APS-C, but the fact is that it does.
    And please, no "equivalent." We were talking about 24-70mm/f2.8 for FX, which is a big lens to begin with.​
    actually, you are limiting the discussion to full frame. i was talking about stabilized standard 2.8 zooms in multiple formats. if you can go off into tangents about PC-E lenses which have nothing to do with these lens announcements, then i can talk about nikon not updating the 17-55, even as other manufacturers have made smaller stabilized zooms with the same spec.
    If you are willing to spend some time looking into the facts, something that you thought was "obvious" perhaps isn't the way you think at all.​
    i have to laugh here, as you seem to think the facts and your opinions are one and the same. There's a lot of subjectivity in your comments. And admitting you are exhibiting personal bias while denying you are making attacks is really a strange, contradictory kind of nit-pickiness. if you want to be an apologist for Nikon, so be it. But attempting to censor or demean other people's perspectives because you find those perspectives irritating is petty.
     
  118. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Eric, enough said. I'll let you have the last word, at least for now. :)
     
  119. [applause]
     
  120. Just arrived after two weeks of disconnection, it`s great to see there are new interesting releases.
    And not only this, I`m even more happy to check that I`m owner of the smallest&lightest 24-70/2.8 Nikkor ever... hmmm, I`d say it feels now lighter in my bag than before... :D
     
  121. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Jose, it reminds me a story my wife told me years ago. She was in high school and they were guessing the birth order of a classmate. One student guessed that person was youngest sibling, another person guessed that she was the oldest, and my wife guessed that she was the middle child.
    The answer, the other two students were both correct, and my wife was wrong. That student was the only child so that she was both the oldest and youngest. However, she wasn't the middle child since nobody was older or younger.
    Sorry to burst your bubble, but your 2007-edition 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S has always been the lightest 24-70mm/f2.8 Nikon has ever made, until perhaps some day they add a plastic-barrel version. :) However, it is no longer the heaviest.
     
  122. Don't know why you guys are talking about small and light 2.8 versions - if you want small and light in a 24-70, Nikon has a version weighing in just a little over 6 ounces ;) Compact 24-70 Nikkor
     
  123. Chip, I don't think Ix-Nikkor lenses are really compatible with FX cameras.
     
  124. Thanks guys - next time I'll have to go with more than just a winky face
     
  125. Wow. I turn my back for a couple of weeks while I go to a conference...

    My $.02: I'm not bothered by the weight increase to the 24-70, given how much else I carry (and how much of a biological counterweight to my camera bag I have in the belly area). If the optics of the 24-70 are sufficiently better, I might be interested - the current 24-70 has always been in the "not good enough to justify the cost" (for me) category, the field curvature (also a problem with the 14-24) being part of that. VR is a bonus, and might compensate for some of the times I'd otherwise be using an f/1.4 Sigma in the same range.

    Which isn't to say that weight is no issue at all. I was at Griffith Observatory last Friday, and very grateful, as I walked down the trail, that I had my RX100 with me rather than my D810 kit. (I was even more grateful not to be walking up the trail.) But the small incremental difference on the 24-70 won't make much of a dent in my camera bag, which in my most recent flight held a D810, 14-24, 70-200, 50mm Art, 35mm Art, three laptops, an external battery pack, two tablets, two phones and a projector. I turn out to be grateful that it did, because I've still not been reunited with my hold baggage (having landed on Saturday).

    I look forward to reviews of that and the 200-500 - and maybe even the 24mm, for convenience reasons. My 500mm Ai-P is painful to use in the absence of autofocus, and I miss the convenience of my 150-500mm OS Sigma when zooming to try to find the subject. The Sigma, sadly, was optically poor at 500mm. If the new lens holds up to a D810 (at all) then it is priced to be more tempting than the 80-400 and might temporarily delay my lust for a 400 f/2.8. Although hopefully not too long, because I notice DxO think the new 400mm is marginally worse than the old one (except that it's a lot lighter - but I know I can hand-hold the old one, so I don't care) and I want to pick up the previous 400mm before they disappear from the market. Someone buy me one?
     

Share This Page

1111