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

<ul>

<li>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.</li>

<li>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.</li>

<li>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.</li>

</ul>

<p>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.<br>

Nikon will introduce 82mm and 95mm NC (no color) and polarizers to match the two new zooms.</p>

<p>

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.

</P>

<CENTER>

<P>

new product images copyright Nikon USA

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18063858-lg.jpg">

</P>

<P>24-70mm/f2.8 E AF-S VR</P>

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18063859-lg.jpg">

</P>

<P>200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR</P>

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18063857-lg.jpg">

</P>

<P>28mm/f1.8 G AF-S</P>

</CENTER>

<p>Nikon Japan new articles:</p>

<ul>

<li ><a href="http://www.nikon.com/news/2015/0804_lens_01.htm">AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR</a></li>

<li ><a href="http://www.nikon.com/news/2015/0804_lens_02.htm">AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR</a></li>

<li ><a href="http://www.nikon.com/news/2015/0804_lens_03.htm">AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.8G ED</a></li>

</ul>

 

<p>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/</p>

<p>image: http://www.cameraegg.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/nikon-24-70mm-f28-vr3.jpg</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now Nikon has 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm f1.8 AF-S lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Any guesses as to what might be next? Something even wider? Or a 105 or 135 at f/1.8? Or is this it?<br>

24-70 - big and heavy just got bigger and heavier. So glad it's not a lens I have any need for.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

<br />Hope the tripod collar is optional - hate to pay twice for one ;-(</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only difference he was aware of was that the sports version is 2 ounces heavier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IMO there is a bit too much overlap among 20, 24, 28, and 35mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, if you don't want to buy another collar, you can always just purchase a quick-release plate for the supplied collar.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

<br>

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.</p>

What is a "E" lens?

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

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.

<blockquote>

<p>What is a "E" lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In other words, all Nikon FX-format DSLRs are compatible with E.<br /> <br />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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

In other words, Nikon is admitting canon had been right about electromagnetic aperture for 30 years.

<blockquote>

<p>In other words, Nikon is admitting canon had been right about electromagnetic aperture for 30 years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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.

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

<br />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.<br>

<br />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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.<br /> 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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

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.

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Here is the weight of all f1.8 AF-S FX lenses:</p>

<ul>

<li>20mm 355g</li>

<li>24mm 355g</li>

<li>28mm 330g</li>

<li>35mm 305g</li>

<li>50mm 185g</li>

<li>85mm 350g</li>

</ul>

<p>The new 24-70 AF-S VR weights about three of those together.</p>

<p>A lot of landscape photographers also use the 24-70/2.8 as one of the most important lenses in their kit.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. <br>

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.</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>One thing that puzzles me a bit is that Nikon still hasn't re-introduce the classic 105mm/f2.5 portrait lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Amen, Shun</p>