Two New Nikon Wide Angles: 24mm/f1.4 AF-S and 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by shuncheung, Feb 8, 2010.

  1. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Nikon is announcing two new wide angle lenses, both fit the FX format and of course can also be used on DX:
    • 24mm/f1.4 AF-S
    • 16-35mm/f4 AF-S with VR
    Both lenses use 77mm front filters.
    You can read photo.net's preview here: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/new-fx-wideangle-lenses/preview/

     
  2. Finally ... after all the groaning and moaning ... it is a reality. 2 ASPH elements and 2 ED with AF-S ... sounds like a winner to me. MTF is equally impressive.
    I do not see a product availability date. Any ideas?
     
  3. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The new lenses should be available in March.
     
  4. BTW, yours truly has created a brand new spanking Flickr group just for this lens. Feel free to join.
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor24mmf14/
     
  5. I was waiting for the 24/1.4, I wonder what would happen to the 28 1.4 lens??
     
  6. I was waiting for the 24/1.4, I wonder what would happen to the 28 1.4 lens??​
    It will now need a Federal bailout. :)
     
  7. This will put an end to the whacky values of the 28/1.4.
     
  8. The big news is Nikon seems to have finally begun cranking out f4 VR zooms. Those are their real need-- a mid priced line of lenses that support FX. They will sell a ton of them.
    Kent in SD
     
  9. But $1300 for an f4 , X2 , zoom ? I suppose it's a wide angle zoom, but ... ouch.
     
  10. Better than the "standard" price for Nikon's f2.8 zooms--$1,800! A $500 discount and they throw in VR for free! LOL. Or consider the other lens announcement. Is $2200 for a 1x zoom a better deal? And, no VR either.
    Kent in SD
     
  11. Does Nikon make any lens for the FF for less than $1,000? Gee ... For those who want to "upgrade" to the FF system, the price tag for its lens is something to think about before one makes the switch.

    The 16-35/4 is a huge and very expensive lens as compared to the 18-35/3.5-4.5. Is the new lens so much better than the old one?
     
  12. How on earth could you have VR with a 24mm lens? That would be silly.
    Kent, must you continue your anti-primes campaign in every thread or discussion that remotely allows for it?
     
  13. I bet all those who bought the 28 1.4 recently will be mad as hell. Their investment just depreciated by half.
     
  14. bmm

    bmm

    Well said Josh
    I for one can't wait to buy the new 24mm
     
  15. "Does Nikon make any lens for the FF for less than $1,000? Gee ... For those who want to "upgrade" to the FF system, the price tag for its lens is something to think about before one makes the switch."
    The AF-S 70-300 VR is FF, very good for the money, about $500 US.
     
  16. 24mm is a favorite focal length for me. But I'd rather have had f2 in a more compact size.
    f1.4 lenses are no brighter or easier to focus than f2 lenses.
     
  17. John, they have to be brighter on some level. It's a wider aperture, after all.
     
  18. Wow 16-35mm f4! I love that focal range. If the reviews are decent, I think this lens will soon be replacing the Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 in my camera bag.
    Thanks for the heads-up Shun.
     
  19. I too think f2 would be the best size, price, brightness compromise. F4 is a little slow, f1.4 is too expensive and big/heavy and I rather get a zoom at f2.8...so yeah, f2 would do especially these new cams with okay iso 3200.
     
  20. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I would say both of these lenses are very much expected. As we discussed in the following thread yesterday: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ViJu, a set of high-quality f4 zooms is clearly missing in Nikon's line up. I actually wrote to Nikon about that a month ago, but of course these lenses have been in the works for a while. Nikon Japan even discussed about introducing this type of lenses as quoted in the interview.
    Clearly the 85mm/f1.4 should be the next one to update, and hopefully some 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR and something like a 24-70mm/4 or 24-105mm/f4 AF-S, perhaps with VR, will be available later on this year. I do find the 24-70 range a bit too restricted on FX and the current 24-120mm f5.6 AF-S is not acceptable. If going down to f4 means Nikon can introduce a 24-105 similar to the Canon lens, that will certainly be welcome.
    What surprised me was that Nikon put VR onto the 16-35mm/f4. That is a first for having VR on a lens that is entirely a wide angle in the zoom range.
    Another surprise is that apparently there will be no DSLR body announcement for this PMA, despite all sorts of rumors from the usual suspects; some even had model numbers. I was under photo.net's non-disclosure agreement with Nikon so that I could not comment on those rumors, but it was amusing to read all sorts of false information on the web.
    Finally, it will be interesting to see whether the ridiculous price for the used 28mm/f1.4 AF-D will collapse now a replacement is finally announced, four years after the 28mm was discontinued.
     
  21. Does Nikon make any lens for the FF for less than $1,000? Gee ...​
    Uh? are you joking or what? 35/2 50/1.4 50/1.8 85/1.8 just spring to mind (because I have them), and they are all very, very good lenses. Then 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 18-35, 24-120, 70-300, 60 micro, 105 micro, and even the great 105/2 DC should be below 1000 (it is below 1000 euros here)...
    And since we are at it, the 12-24 DX is less than 1000 and works quite decently on FX between 20 and 24 . Not that I would suggest to buy it for FX of course, but since I have it, I'm happy it works.
    So yes, they make FX lenses below 1000 dollars / euros.
    L.
     
  22. I`m excited. This are really tempting lenses, now we Nikon amateur users start to have good lenses to choose... Great!
    I feel the door is opened... no mist in the horizon... a sunny daybreak...
    Mmmm, a pro-grade 16-35/4VR... I never thought in something like this... it could be VERY interesting...
     
  23. Wow 16-35mm f4! I love that focal range. If the reviews are decent, I think this lens will soon be replacing the Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 in my camera bag.​
    And for FX users, the 17-35, 14-24... and probably many 24-70s could be left at home with this new lens. As you say, just wait to know if performance is on pair.
     
  24. These two lenses are the most exciting ones Nikon have released in years - much more so even than the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm. I am keen to hear the results of the first tests.
     
  25. gen

    gen

    I was initially excited for the 24/1.4 but if that $2200 price is true, that's obscene.
     
  26. To be honest the 14-24 and 24-70 are better suited for me. The 16-35 can stay in the shelves for somebody else. I find the range less useful and miss the f/2.8. Otherwise I would pick a used 17-35 for less money even.
    But the 24 .... if only the street price would get 20% lower like for the 70-200VR2 ....
     
  27. I only can dream about them, the price is totally out of my scope. :p But that only proofs that I am not the market target for this lens.
     
  28. In perspective, Canon has a similar offering in the 17-40 f4 zoom, without VR, streer price of 750. So Nikon's price seems awful high to me, even with the addition of VR. Canon's 24mm f1.4 is 170, so that price seems high, too. But there seems to be a lot of D700s and D3s out there, so maybe they have a captive audience for these lenses.
    I for one am even more sure I'm going to stay with DX for a long time.
     
  29. "John, they have to be brighter on some level. It's a wider aperture, after all."
    Brighter at the film plane, of course, but not brighter in the viewfinder. The old bodies like the F2 could take advantage of f1.4 for more accurate focusing, but recent bodies cannot. They are optimized for smaller apertures, which are more common since zooms became popular.
     
  30. John,
    It still is probably better at f2 than a true f2 lens would be and, oh, yeah... a f1.4 lens shoots at f1.4 a lot better than an f2 lens.
     
  31. Does VR II on the new 16-35/4 Nikkor mean 4 shutter speeds slower @16mm too? That would be 1 second exposure time.
     
  32. The 16-35/4 makes FX much more interesting to me. I'd love the 14-24/2.8, but could never live without filters or with the extreme paranoia of using it by the beach with all the salt spray. It's also smaller, lighter and VR should make up for the slower aperture. I already have 77mm filters, so that saves quite a bit of cash. Could be a world class lens for street shooting.
     
  33. (To Benjamin`s comment) I think we need to wait for user or tester opinions... 1 second seem to me a long holding time; probably it depends of the steadiness ability of the photographer, to keep a possible movement inside the limits of the VR system.
    It can be seen from another point of view... the f4 zoom with VR could work under the same light conditions the new 24/1.4 can do.
     
  34. Personally, I salivate on the 24, I am a real junkie for fast primes, but I know that unless I win the lottery (I should perhaps start playing before...) I will never buy that thing. But the 16-35 looks quite interesting to me. I can see it as a very versatile part in many "kits" I might go out with, for my D700:
    - Very light: 16-35 + 85 1.8
    - light: 16-35 + 50 1.4 + 85 1.8
    - normal, same as light + 135 DC...
    and so on. Quite interesting indeed. Now I only have to find the money.
    L.
     
  35. 16-35 is equivalent of 24-52.5 when used with DX format cameras, which is also very attractive. VR should make more sense on the DX cameras.
     
  36. I wish they'd release a DX version of the 24 mm 1.4 for a more reasonable price (maybe 400 bucks). Right now this is priced at the heart surgeons and corporate attorneys market - not for normal people *grin*
     
  37. >> Another surprise is that apparently there will be no DSLR body announcement for this PMA <<
    Hey Shun,
    Pardon my ignorance, but what's PMA? I have been waiting to see if there'd be any new DX models released so I can upgrade from my D80 (don't want to get a D90 and find there's a new model out next month). And I was really hoping there'd be an announcement this month :-(
     
  38. Well, I know that it will be a very long time before I am able to afford either one of those lenses, but maybe their announcement will drive the prices of some of the older nikon lenses down into my price range. Being on a tight budget sucks.
     
  39. Not sure that f2 would be all that great. There just wouldn't be nearly enough difference from f2.8 for most people. I do think it's f4 VR zooms that have been Nikon's biggest gap. Having them will certainly push sales of their FX bodies. If ~$1,300 is the new price point for these lenses, a trio of them would run about $4,000. That's still a discount over the price of the "holy trinity" of their f2.8 zooms, at $6,000. Lots of people have been speculating about a D700 replacement, but isn't the D300 actually older in the line up? Would be interesting to see what they come up with to replace it.
    Josh-- I'm kiding around about VR in a 24mm more than anything. I assumed the price on such a lens would be very high, but I didn't expect it to be that high. Mostly, I've been against the way the older single focal Nikons are WAY overhyped on internet message boards. The new ones will of course perform well, but I still personally find them very limiting to use. All in all, what I'm finding most interesting about Nikon is how they seem to be pushing their price premium over Canon. They don't seem to want to be competitive when it comes to price. At one time they did.
    Kent in SD
     
  40. Kent, did you see the suggested price of the new Canon 70-200?
    It looks like Canon has now learnt from Nikon, instead of the other way around. Damn. This 24 at 2290 euros is impossible now. 1900 maybe. 1700 more fair.
     
  41. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    PMA is the Photo Marketing Association. They have an annual convention and trade show, usually held around late January to early March in Las Vegas, but this year it is in Anaheim, California, near Los Angeles. Somehow Canon will not participate this year, but Nikon will be there. http://www.pmai.org/pma2010_home.aspx

    Usually various camera manufacturers announce a lot of new products 2, 3 weeks prior to the PMA and then showcase them there.

    The other major photo trade show is the Photokina, which is held every two years in Cologne, Germany in even years. That show is usually in late September to October: http://www.photokina-cologne.com/
     
  42. Now that I've looked over the specs, and assuming thee lenses continue Nikon's recent optical standards, that 24/1.4 is just awesome. Compact, light, fast, the only drawback is the price.
    The 16-35, not so much. I don't see me trading my 17-35/2.8 for it ever.
     
  43. There is nothing light about the 24/1.4. It is heavier than the 85/1.4 and is only 100g lighter than the 180/2.8.
     
  44. but isn't the D300 actually older in the line up?​
    It is - but the replacement is already out in form of the mighty D300s.
    As to the price of the 24/1.4 - I did not expect it to come in under $2K and Nikon didn't disappoint me in that regard.
    Compared to the Canon 16-35/2.8 IS USM, the 16-35/4 AF-S VR appears "reasonably" priced.
     
  45. Thanks Shun. So I have reason to hope for a new DX model announcement later this year. Fingers crossed.
     
  46. The 24/1.4AFS should offer pure performance, like the 14-24. If I´m not wrong it is the first "N" prime without any other attractive but a fast aperture... at such high price.
    I read it has 12 elements (vs 14 on the 14-24), with probably the same number of exotic elements. I cannot imagine this lens as a 24mm version of the 50AFS.
     
  47. The most interesting thing I've found about the new Nikon releases are the price points. The one lens I've been watching for is a 300mm f4 VR. So far it hasn't appeared. I was guessing the price would be something like $1,600, but the way Nikon has been pricing things for the past year it could well be $2,200! If so, my interest begins to cool. Not sure I would use it enough to justify the price. At one time my lens strategy was to have a lens for everything. My current strategy is to have just a few lenses but make sure they are the best available. And, only have lenses I will typically use at least once a week. Before, I would keep a lens if I used it once a year.
    Kent in SD
     
  48. Most of us wanted these lenses to show up in Nikon's line up (remember: Be careful what you wish for!?). Now everybody wants something else. Personally, I want that 24 lens .. badly.. I was hoping Nikon will wait for me to buy 85 1.4 first, than bring this thing in, since I need 85 more.
    Seriosly, though, can we expect these prices to go down a bit after a few months? I don't doubt these are excellent lenses, but Canon's 24 1.4 cost 1,700 USD and 17-40 f4 L USM is around 800 USD. And the price of 16-35 competes with 17-35, which is 2.8, after all. I don't get it. Yen vs USD, maybe?
     
  49. Oh, they both have 9 diaphragm blades!!! Grrgh...
     
  50. Uh? are you joking or what? 35/2 50/1.4 50/1.8 85/1.8 just spring to mind (because I have them), and they are all very, very good lenses. Then 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 18-35, 24-120, 70-300, 60 micro, 105 micro, and even the great 105/2 DC should be below 1000 (it is below 1000 euros here)​
    Yes, my post was a bit of an exaggeration. However, the lenses that Nikon recently introduces with the main purpose to match the resolution of the FF cameras are all very expensive and large, 14-24 and 24-70mm. They were introduced together with the new FF camera. Most of the lenses that you mentioned are "left over" lenses from the film era. Yes, they "can be" used on the FF camera, but they are not meant to and cannot fully take advantage of the capability of the full frame sensors. Mind you that the D3x has a 24MP FF sensor!
     
  51. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Vanja, keep in mind that those Canon lenses have been around for a long time. After the initial high demand is filled, the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S will likely drop just below $2000. As we said before, people have been paying $3000+ for a used 28mm/f1.4 AF-S; Nikon would have been foolish not to charge $2000+ for the 24mm/f1.4 to begin with.

    What I don't like is that the older 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-SAF-D is merely a $600 lens. I assume the new 16-35mm/f4 is improved w/ AF-S and VR, but the price increase is quite substantial.
     
  52. $2200???? I guess my NAS is not that bad.
     
  53. Well pricing is demand driven. If you photography geeks wouldn't jump up and buy every new lens that is announced, however exorbitant the price, maybe then they'll consider lowering prices *grin*
     
  54. Compared to the Canon 16-35/2.8 IS USM, the 16-35/4 AF-S VR appears "reasonably" priced.​
    The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II has no IS (image stabilization). I'm curious if the 17-40mm f/4 L will soon see an optical update with IS added, hopefully selling under €1000.
     
  55. "...high-quality f4 zooms ...clearly missing in Nikon's line up. I actually wrote to Nikon about that a month ago, but of course these lenses have been in the works for a while"
    Shun, you're being modest.
    You write to Nikon and a month later they deliver....coincidence? Perhaps. ;-)
     
  56. Don't get too much exited, the new lenses must be very precisely assembled, and I doubt, this is possible with an AF-function!
    Cheers
     
  57. The 16-35mm is good news to a lot of folks, but as a 17-35mm owner, any incremental advantage to the new lens is probably not worth it to ***ME*** given the fact that the 17-35mm already meets my needs.
    The 24/1.4 would be an expensive toy, and if I had that kind of discretionary $$$, I would probably buy one.
    As Shun had already suggested, a mid-range f4 zoom 24-XXX would be MOST WELCOME. That would be on top of my wish list.
     
  58. the 16-35mm f/4 is perfect for my needs. i can consider that a very versatile, all-around, street, landscape, professional event shoots, etc., pro lens. but it will always be just a lens for me to dream about. it's more expensive than my 2001 montero. maybe if they took out the VR, i would be able to afford it, and so do others.
    i agree with some that in that focal range, VR is not needed. it will balance well, i'm pretty sure, with any pro body.
     
  59. Don't get too much exited, the new lenses must be very precisely assembled, and I doubt, this is possible with an AF-function!
    Cheers​
    I don't necessarily agree, Wolf. Nikon is capable of producing very well made AF lenses. I would expect build quality at the price point of the newly announced lenses to be excellent. What makes you think otherwise?
     
  60. gen

    gen

    At first I thought that the $2200 price tag was expensive. Then I did some more research and saw that the Leica 24/1.4 ASPH is $6400! The Nikkor looks cheap next to the Leica :)
     
  61. I can see where the 24/1.4 on a D700 at about ISO 3200 would be awesome working an indoor or evening event for up-close and personal stuff. That's a useful new tool for sure.
    I just wish I could justify the cost :-\
     
  62. Seems fairly clear to me that Nikon's intent is for FX to be pro oriented and DX to cover the amateur market. This doesn't trouble me because it means there is more range to choose from to match one's wallet. Such choice didn't exist in film days, it seems to me, and this current marketplace is amazing. You can get fantastic image quality from DX bodies and lenses covering the full range from ultra wide up to 300 mm, which is the FX equivalent of 450 mm, and all at prices which, adjusted for inflation, are just incredible compared with what we had available in film days. That 55-200 and the 70-300 are incredibly affordable, and posted test results show excellent IQ. Given the crop factor, the versatility of those offerings is far beyond anything we had in the 90s, seems to me.
    I don't expect Nikon to be producing comparably affordable FX offerings soon, but people need to be able to relax and enjoy what is already available. Myself, I don't want to see budget FX stuff appearing soon because that will just mean compromise in image quality, and if you think about it, that makes no sense based on the price of the FX bodies.
    Apparently the universal photography advice is mostly ignored today (as it probably was in film days too), but I'll repeat it anyway. To make the best quality pictures, take your $2400, buy the $600 DX body, then use the rest to get good lenses. If you had a $3000 photo budget and you spent $2400 on the D700 and are now peeved that you can't fill in all your lens needs for the remaining $600, you were misinformed at the planning stage.
     
  63. Hi Robert, any AF-lens is a compromise of easy moving mechanical parts with a steep fast moving focusing mechanism. Furthermore, I personally don't necessary see the needs any AF-functions for wide-angle lenses like these. And, I don't like the mixture of plastic with aluminum lens housings. Compared with regular lens constructions, these lenses must be bulky and heavy. My 2 cents!
    Cheers
     
  64. so, anyone sell a kidney to set aside the cash for these yet?
    $2200 for a 1.4 prime does not bode well for the introduction price of the 85/1.4 AF-S, whenever it comes. i can't see that going for less than $1700. that better have VR too...
    and $1300 for an f/4 zoom?
    good gosh, man!
    for those prices, both of them had better be flawless...
    but look on the bright side: relatively speaking, many of nikon's older lenses are now "affordable" in comparison. the 24-70/2.8 looks like a bargain now at "only" $1700.
     
  65. I would like to see Nikon develop mid/lower range FX products. The F4 16-35VR seems like a great alternative to a 14-24 but still carries a whallop of a price tag.
    DX budget products produce excellent imagery with improved coatings. Technology has come a long way. They can do these without VR and nano. I personally don't need outstanding build quality.
    Maybe a new E line? :)
    24-105 3.5-4.5 AF-S VR - $599
    24 2.8 AF-S - $349
    135 F2.8 AF-S - $549
     
  66. Inspite of all the bells and whistles touted on Nikon's site, I would be willing to bet it is not a stellar performer compared to the 24mm f/2.8 (in my case an AIS) wide open or even 1 stop down. It is two stops brighter but I would be willing to live with a darker viewfinder with better resolution.
    And the price tag is enough to choke a horse.
     
  67. Good they didn't come out with some completely lame lenses again like the 85/3.5 and some 18-something DX zoom. These should be two solid lenses. PErsonally I think the 16-35 is more attractive than the 14-24 simply due to size and a more practical zoom range for me. Whether the price is high or not is in my mind defined by image quality. But I do think that the VR is completely unnecessary; I can hand-hold a wideangle steady longer than my subjects will stay still.
    I was hoping for a 28/2, then a 24/2, but knew that 24/1.4 was going to be the most likely outcome. Big and expensive, but still a lot better than the 28/1.4. Now again it's pretty much up to image quality for the lens to prove itself. Zeiss is coming out with a new 25 mm lens, so it will be an interesting time.
     
  68. Compared to the Canon 16-35/2.8 IS USM, the 16-35/4 AF-S VR appears "reasonably" priced.​
    Sorry, I had meant to type Canon 16-35/2.8 II USM...
    Shun, I don't get this one:
    What I don't like is that the older 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S is merely a $600 lens.​
    There is an 18-35 AF-S? The current model is an AF IF-ED. I sold mine late last year to get a Tokina 11-16/2.8
    I think it is great that Nikon is bringing out a f/4 zoom and I hope there are more to come. I also think that 16-35 is a nice range on FX and not quite as versatile on DX. What I don't get is the VR on that lens. It appears it is aimed at the landscape photographer - who certainly won't need the VR. For journalism and street, I assume everyone would prefer to have f/2.8 available and may or may not need the VR then. I am sure I am missing something here but maybe someone can enlighten me as what the intended market for this lens is? Just asking, as a 16-35/4 AF-S would probably cost around $800.
     
  69. What I don't get is the VR on that lens. It appears it is aimed at the landscape photographer - who certainly won't need the VR.​
    Think in terms of mounting this lens on a DX camera as it will be 53mm on the long end at which point the VR will be helpful. It seems Nikon will add VR to all the lenses that are 50mm or longer when the max aperture is not f2.8. VR is also very useful for shooting video hand-held.
     
  70. For those of us who can't justify the 24/1.4 in the next couple of years, how is the 24/2 AIS on FX? If I ignore the last couple of millimeters in the corners, I'm finding that I like the 28/2 a lot -- does the 24/2 behave similarly?.
     
  71. makes the 35mm f1.8 DX AF-S prime look like an even better bargain at only $200!
     
  72. Dave,
    for DX... no doubt! I LOVE mine!
     
  73. "Another surprise is that apparently there will be no DSLR body announcement for this PMA, despite all sorts of rumors from the usual suspects; some even had model numbers. I was under photo.net's non-disclosure agreement with Nikon so that I could not comment on those rumors, but it was amusing to read all sorts of false information on the web." Shun Cheung
    Just wondering how you know for sure that there will not be a new nikon dslr release at this PMA
    without having all ready broken the non-disclosure agreement with Nikon.
     
  74. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Just wondering how you know for sure that there will not be a new nikon dslr release at this PMA without having all ready broken the non-disclosure agreement with Nikon.​
    Curtis, please re-read what you just quotied. I said: "apparently there will be no DSLR body announcement for this PMA," I never said "for sure."
    And Dieter, the 18-35mm is an AF-D, not AF-S, sorry.
     
  75. In perspective, Canon has a similar offering in the 17-40 f4 zoom, without VR, streer price of 750. So Nikon's price seems awful high to me, even with the addition of VR.​
    Are the optics comparable? I haven't used Canon's 17-40 f/4 but I've heard that the corners are soft when used with a full-frame sensor. Hopefully the nano-coated Nikon will outperform that Canon model. VR is a always a plus in my opinion. The 16-35 should be a very nice travel lens.
     
  76. "In perspective, Canon has a similar offering in the 17-40 f4 zoom, without VR, streer price of 750. So Nikon's price seems awful high to me, even with the addition of VR."​
    As Dan South suggested, Canon's 17-40 is well regarded as a solid performer but doesn't have a wow factor or awesome reputation. I'm guessing that the new Nikon will beat it optically.
    Re: does VR add that much to the price? Canon's 70-200/4 non-VR is $639; Canon's almost identical 70-200/4 with VR is $1210.
    So if the Nikon 16-35 is excellent optically, $1300 is not an unreasonable price in light of the non-VR Canon 17-40's price of $729.
     
  77. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Folks, for the majority of us, including me, the two new lenses are not yet available for testing. Therefore, any discussion about how good or bad they may be and how they compare against equivalent Canon lenses is very premature.
    I had a chance to check with Bjorn Rorslett. He has seen pre-production models of the new lenses, and his initial reaction is positive. That is as much as I can say so far.
     
  78. bmm

    bmm

    Can't wait to see the test results for the 24. If its even half decent its heading my way along with a D700 asap.
    The only thing that will sadden me in switching is losing the incredible friendly size of the current AF-D 24/2.8 (which many of you would know is as small and light as the 35/2 and 50/1.4). While I'm going to love this lens, gone are the days of throwing a couple of these tiny but awesome bits of glass into my pockets or into a travel bag... we're talking a far more substantial bit of kit now.
     
  79. i am starting to believe that nikon has launched a new 28 1,4, just 4 mm wider. the 28.1,4 was and probably still is available in some places as new, for around 2300$. with such a high price, and conservative focal length, no one really rushed to buy it. off-course, there were no digital FF cameras for a while.
    could the 4 mm and the availability of the D700/D3 make this one a seller ? or we will only see it in the magazines ?
     
  80. Personally, I would prefer 35mm AF-S f1.4G lens because 24mm is too wide for FX in my practice. But I still welcome Nikon's new lenses, It shows their commitment which benefits us.
     
  81. My 2¢: The 16-35/4G is flat weird. On FX, VR isn't needed with WA, or even a mid-range zoom. It wasn't an oversight that VR wasn't put on the 14-24 and 24-70/2.8G lenses. On average, FX shooters aren't the ones with shooting technique poor enough to demand/need VR at this focal range. The lens is slower than the 17-35/2.8D, which isn't any kind of improvement or advance at all. AF-S might benefit some people with improved AF speed in good light, but a slower aperture works at cross-purposes to low-light AF speed for photojournalists, etc., Landscape FX shooters don't really need AF-S at all. This lens essentially duplicates the focal range of a 12-24/4 DX, but for FX bodies, and at $1260, it doesn't cost all that much less than the 17-35. The only thing this lens really gains for most FX shooters is the nano coating. Oh yeah...and it's 2.3 oz. lighter. Who is this lens for, exactly?
    It essentially duplicates the FX 24-70 range for DX cameras, but it's a loser for DX shooters. The f/4 max aperture won't get the nice OOF backgrounds that one might want at a 50 or 70mm equivalent, there are already lenses in the DX line that will do the same job with more focal range and are cheaper, and while VR in that focal range makes perfect sense for the average DX shooter (i.e. folks who concentrate mostly on pics of their kids and cats), those folks won't pony up for this lens (it costs more than twice what their D40/D3000 did, for heaven's sake). I don't see this one flying off the shelves, especially if its existence lowers the price of the 17-35/2.8D (I'm hoping it does). IMO, we'd have been better served with a real update/upgrade to the 17-35/2.8D...nano coating, f/2.0, and some improved lens elements. OK, AF-S, too. The only thing this lens does for me is cause concern the 17-35 might be discontinued before I get one.
    The 24/1.4 is a prayer answered for FX and 35mm film shooters who need to shoot very WA in very low light and can use a 'sans aperture ring' lens (feeling vindicated again for selling my FM3A). It should be nightscape city! OTOH, it makes no sense whatsoever for DX shooters at 10x the cost of the 35/1.8 DX. If it's optically any good, it'll put the 28/1.4 owners upside-down, especially if they bought their lens in the last few years. The 28/1.4 does have an aperture ring, though. At $2k, it's a limited market, especially with the trend toward high-quality WA zooms (the only reason not to get a 14-24/2.8G for the same MSRP is f/1.4). I don't see every FX owner running out and buying one. It might make a good investment, though, if it ends up having a short production lifespan.
     
  82. D.B. I think you are rather pessimistic about the two lenses. first of all, the 24 1.4 cannot be compared to the 35 1.8 DX because the last gives a 50 mm view angle for DX shooters, does not cover 24x36*, it is just a 1.8, while the first gives about 35 mm on DX.
    now, i am both a DX (hobby) and FX shooter (work), and i would love to be able to own a lens that is 24 1.4 on FX and 35 1.4 on DX. at this point, i am much closer to a sigma 20 1.8, financially speaking, but who knows.
    second of all, the 16-35 makes some sense for both FX and DX, especially for FX. nikon users were long craving for a canon 17-40 equivalent, and here it is. at double the price, granted, but it has VR and it's the 14-24's younger brother. if the edges are at least half as good as the ones from the 14-24, canon users could be in line to get it as well.
    off-course, there will come a time when it will be compared to the tamron 17-50 VC, by enthusiastic DX owners, it will share a similar fate with the canon offering, but it is a very welcome addition.
    i'd rather buy a good expensive lens once in a while, then have to keep switching, searching for better samples.
    let's just hope nikon will introduce a light and affordable f4 tele zoom, a 35 1.4, a cheaper FX body.
    cheers.
     
  83. For my part, I'm an FX shooter who's not interested in either of these 2 lenses at the moment. The 24 prime may become interesting to me at some point, while the slow zoom probably would never interest me. I shoot wildlife, action, and portraits, and for this the 24 may come in handy one day, but the slow zoom seems like a dedicated landscape lens (assuming stellar optics, for that price), useless for anything else because of the slow aperture combined with the high price. I believe the full lens line refresh for FX will continue, and I look forward to it as there's a lot I want. The top of the list - Nikon hasn't yet issued a single macro lens modernized for FX specifically (except the 60, and its consumer quality and focal length make it useless for actual macro). Next up for me would be a general refresh of all their primes from 300/4 down (since everything longer/faster than that has been refreshed for FX already), starting with the 300/4, then the portrait lengths (85/1.4, 105 DC, 135 DC). Listening Nikon?
     
  84. I really agree with the insights given by Steve in L.A., above. He pointed out that Nikon appears to be splitting their offerings with FX designed for pro shooters (e.g. weddings etc.) and DX for the consumer market. So far it appears that all the new FX lenses have nano coating and AFS. Will remain to be seen if VR continues to show up; I'm betting it does on f4 zooms. I also agree that even the recent entry level photo gear such as D5000 + kit lenses gives as good or better image quality than what we got in the 90s. Where I -might- disagree with him just a little is where he doesn't think beginners will be buying FX anyway and thus Nikon shouldn't introduce lower cost FX lenses. We have all seen plenty of posts on forums of beginners who will spend $2,500 on D700 and then budget $150 for lenses. On one forum I recently saw someone say they were considering buying D700 and putting a Tokina 19-35mm on it. (I kid you not.) There seems to be a market for cheaper consumer FX lenses. I also agree with his approach of buying the top lenses and then going cheap on the camera. It's still the lenses that make the single biggest difference. I'm not as optimistic as Shun about the price of the lenses easing down after their initial entry, but we all know that camera bodies certainly drop. I think I will continue with my strategy of focusing on lenses (pun intended!) this year, and put off buying FX body for now. I'm thinking the best use of my photo system money right now would be to buy a nice pile of the new Paul Buff Einstein monolights (640ws). (They have less than 2 second recycle and t1 flash duration is very fast.) I think those would make the biggest difference for me. With the current trend of photo gear prices, it's become critical to carefully analyze your needs and think through exactly what it is you want to do. Mistakes have become even more costly.
    Kent in SD
     
  85. As I predicted, Nikon disappoints again, with the release of what is surely intended to be the replacement for the AF Nikkor
    28mm/f1.4D lens as a "G" series lens without a proper aperture ring. Clearly, Nikon no longer has any use for those of us
    who value full discrete manual control of our equipment. Ah well, hopefully the price of the 28 will drop back to sane levels
    so I can finally obtain one.
     
  86. Fine lenses, I'm sure, but ridiculously overpriced...especially (and obviously) the 24.
    I guess we'll never see that wide angle prime for DX bodies.
     
  87. FX>DX in terms of importance, at least right now.
    The 24/1.4 is not overpriced given what's in it. It contains virtually all of Nikon's modern technology and that is not cheap.
     
  88. bmm

    bmm

    I do agree a touch with Wenhan in wondering about a fast FX 35mm, which I think is a more useful focal length again. Still, maybe the game-plan is to have updated AF-S "G" f/1.4's at 24, 35, 50 and 85 released over the next couple of years. If so, I'm grinning from ear to ear (but my bank manager isn't!!).
    I wonder if one can do this kind of update on the 180mm without stuffing up its long-standing optical excellence?? Now that would be a great new lens for FX...
     
  89. the slow zoom seems like a dedicated landscape lens (assuming stellar optics, for that price), useless for anything else because of the slow aperture combined with the high price.​
    Useless? Most of the time I shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 to maximize optical performance. I shoot "wide open" less than 1 percent of the time (e.g. dark interiors hand-held). f/4 isn't going to slow me down too badly especially when coupled with VR and a high-ISO camera.
    There's a lot to like about the new 16-35 lens (on paper at least): top notch optics, VR, light weight, modest size, and reasonable price. Let's just hope that the distortion isn't unreasonable and that the designers avoided the "lens creep" problem.
     
  90. The 24/1.4 at a $2200 price tag can only affect the 28 mm f1.4 AF D market price if it also has exotic hand polished real glass aspherical lenses.
    I doubt it.
     
  91. Well..., I live in Europa where the new 24/1,4 will cost EUR: 2200 . That is 2200x1.3798 (today)=3035.56 $ !!! How about this ?
     
  92. Paul, that's why the second hand market in my country (Croatia) is flooded with US versions of photo equipement.
    Sad but true, even some stuff made in Europe is cheaper overthere, let alone Nikon.
     
  93. Good news from Nikon. It was about time they addressed the update of our Nikon primes lineup. The 24 f/1.4 looks like a very promissing product and definately very pleasing. I'd wish the price tag would have been a bit lower.
    The 16-35 looks really great but again, on my D3, it will not replace neither my 14-24 nor my 24-70. I would still prefer the 17-35 in this price range.
    Now as far as the "new" 70-200 f/4 is concerned, if Nikon continue the f/4 game, I am really curious to see what market will it have, as I think it will not be cheaper than the 80-200 F/2.8.
    But as they say, the more... the better choice.
     
  94. Janos: If Nikon can make a 70-200/4 at about the size and weight of the Sigma 50-15/2.8, I think there will be a lot of folks interested. There's a lot of times when I'd prefer not to carry the f2.8 variant, but want something better than the 70-300/5.6.
     
  95. why would I pay $1300+ for a 16-35 f4 zoom when I can get a 17-35 f3.5-4.5 zoom for $600?
     
  96. Allan, I believe you`re refering to the 18-35... then the reasons could be the following:
    It`s wider
    It`s AFS
    It has 17 elements (2ED, 3asph) vs 11 elements in the 18-35 (1ED, 1asph), hence performance should be dramatically increased
    It has been designed as a FX lens, in the D3X era
    It`s a "gold ringed" lens, I suspect with a pro-level construction quality and a good manual focus override
    It has a constant aperture
    It has the latest coatings
    It has VR
    ...
     
  97. I`d say, the question could be: it`s worth the new 16-35VR over a used 17-35AFS in perfect shape? Price could be more or less the same.
    The new 16-35, although looks slimmer than the 17-35, is even a bit longer and less than a 10% lighter.
     
  98. I've seen a lot of disappointed comments about the price of the announced 24/1.4.
    Maybe we have been spoilt by just how good Nikon's cheap stuff has become.
    But surely a heavy duty full frame wide angle with that sort of aperture belongs in the category of exotics! It's aimed at pros that know exactly, if it will be worth the investment for just their kind of work.
    The comfort for the rest of us being that Nikon is practically giving away 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 so that no one is left out of the available light game. Let's just hope that there is a 24/2 (perhaps DX to keep the price down and create a cash cow for Nikon) in the pipeline somewhere for those of us who don´t see our return on investment in cash...
     
  99. Yes, they "can be" used on the FF camera, but they are not meant to and cannot fully take advantage of the capability of the full frame sensors. Mind you that the D3x has a 24MP FF sensor!​
    There is not such thing in my view as a leftover lens: a lens that works is a lens that works. I own the 135 f2 DC and I can assure you that it has absolutely zero problems with 24 MP. Same goes for the 85 1.8 and the 50 1.4, ofg which I own the old AFD version. Here, the new one has smoother bokeh (not hard to get, given how harsh the old 50 is...) and it is somewhat sharper at 1.4, on the other hand, for all its AFS, it focuses more slowly. Now, if I was to buy a 50 now I would for sure buy the new one, but having it already, I felt no need to upgrade because the old one was already quite good.
    The 85 and 135 are extremely good, and I really don't see they could be substantially improved optically: the only thing they can get is the AFS, which would be nice of course, but at least for me, far from crucial. And, if you want, VR, which has so far never appeared on any fast prime below 200mm, except if you want the 105 2.8, assuming you can call it "fast".
    In some other cases you are right, mostly with WA. The 35/2 is quite good, I don't see them "upgrading" it very soon. The 24 2.8, I hear, is so-so, but I did never try it. The 20 2.8 on the other hand, is plain bad. Not only on the D3x, it does not cut it on the D700, and for that matter, on the D200 either. My 12-24 DX used on the D700 at 20 mm is visibly better. I'm quite happy to see this 24 1.4, but I think that updated 20-24-28 2.8 should follow at decent prices. Still, I don't think they will come very soon, especially with the 16-35 coming to cover precisely that range.
    My basic point is: there are lenses in the lineup that show their age. There are lenses missing. There are lenses who are old, but still so good (e.g. the two DC) that it makes limited sense, in my opinion, to "upgrade" them. Most examples are of course medium-long primes, which are optically simpler and reached already the point of diminishing return.
    Ciao
    L.
     
  100. Flemming Nielsen "I've seen a lot of disappointed comments about the price of the announced 24/1.4."
    If it was cheap, the unwashed hordes would complain that the optical quality was not up to scratch. A high quality fast wide angle lens is expensive to make.
     
  101. why would I pay $1300+ for a 16-35 f4 zoom when I can get a 17-35 f3.5-4.5 zoom for $600?
    Presumably the pricing is based on the idea that the new products have higher optical quality and/or new features. If the new 16-35 Nikkor is close to the 14-24 in optical quality, it will sell like hot cakes.
    Personally I am a bit annoyed that Nikon so clearly makes their new FX lenses ultra-high end with ridiculous prices and apertures. I sometimes have to go to ISO 3200 to be able to shoot with my 24-70 in evening events, both indoor and outdoor, and a faster 24 would be occasionally useful, but I cannot put so much money into such a special-use lens especially since I'm not really into the exaggerated perspective of a 24mm when applied to people shots. For people photos in small rooms, certainly 24/1.4 makes a lot of sense but the price is too high. I use the 28mm f/2 Ai-S which is a great lens, compact, and not too expensive (around 600EUR mint- used). But it's not sharp at f/2. I would much rather see Nikon make an f/2 wide angle which is really sharp wide open than make a much more expensive f/1.4 lens which is acceptable at f/2 but not at f/1.4, which is true of most such lenses (possibly excluding Leica M, way beyond my means). Nikon and Zeiss have made several f/2 telephotos which are quite good wide open, e.g. 100/2 ZF and the 200/2 AF-S VR. I would like to see wide angles with similar performance. The loss in extra bulk and weight not to mention subtly lower price would be welcome to me. Anyway, I am hoping that an AF-S 35/1.4 35/2, or 28/2 will appear as I'd prefer to purchase that rather than the 24/1.4 for several reasons. Of course, if money were not an issue I'd just go get the 24/1.4 to see if I can work with it despite the relatively extreme angle of view (for people photos, IMO) and high price. The Canon 24/1.4 Mk II is a very recent lens and substantially less expensive than the new Nikkor. Let's hope Nikon has been able to make a significantly better lens optically, to warrant the high price for those who can afford it, instead of just riding on the artificial price high of the 28/1.4 on the second hand market. By the way which has nothing to do with the precision ground aspherical element, the 20-35/2.8 also has one and doesn't command a high price on the used market.
     
  102. I am in Tokyo now and today stopped by the "Nikon Plaza" in Ginza. There was a big showcase that had bunch of bodies and lenses and the two new lenses were in it. I asked to test 24mm f/1.4 and the they did let me use it for a while with my own D700 (in the show room only). I am not qualified to give review on it here, but my impression is "good". Focus was not impressively fast, but at wide open the "oozing" of bright light was much less noticeable than other 1.4 lenses I had (50mm 1.4D and 1.4G).
    If you are in the area, you should go and test it yourself.
     
  103. Ken , you have the opportunity to post, in this forum, the first picture taken with this lens...
     
  104. Here you go. I am not sure what these can tell you, though :)
     
  105. Sorry, try again...
    D700, 24mm, f1.4, 1/250, ISO200
    [​IMG]
    1/160s
    [​IMG]
     
  106. Thanks Ken..., it seems this lens shows extremely low distortions, but vignetting is easily visible at f1.4. In the 2-nd picture I see the background highlights which are not circular !? Nice watch btw.
     
  107. I agree with vignetting. The 2nd pic background, I think that was the reflection of strange lighting from the ceiling and the glass diaplay case surface may not be exactly flat, etc.... But yes, the jury is still out.... We'll see.
     
  108. Nikon seems to care less about vignetting these days than they used to; many new prime lenses vignette much more than their AF-D predecessors did. The 70-200 Mk II is an exception, of course. Too bad frankly I think the increase in noise that results from vignetting correction is very unwelcome in my opinion. However, the apparent vignetting in the top example appears to be more due to subject lighting than the lens property. In the lower example I think it's subtle and acceptable for such a lens.
     
  109. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    When you shoot an f1.4, f2.8 type lens wide open, it is going to vignet. For the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S' intended applications: indoor, available-light photography under dim conditions, vignetting is not something I would worry about at all.
     
  110. It's easy to see vignetting with the 24/1.4 @ f/1.4. Stopping down ever so little helps and by f/2.8 it's largely gone. Like Shun, I don't think the potential users of the 24 will be much worried about this.
     
  111. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I don't have the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S yet and probably will never buy one myself, although photo.net should be getting a test sample in the coming weeks.
    I just captured the attached image with the 35mm/f1.4 AI-S that I bought way back in 1987. It is wide open at f1.4 on my D700. Since I live in California, a uniform blue sky is not that difficult to come by. The thing is that at f1.4, it was over-exposing even at 1/8000 so that I had to switch to ISO Lo 1 (~ISO 100) and 1/6400 sec.
    In other words, essentially you will probably never use these f1.4 wides with a uniform blue sky in the background, and most of these vignetting discussion is merely academic. In real-life shooting conditions, it is mostly a non issue.
    When we get our test smaple, I'll put the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S through various conditions. In these days, I find the f2.8 zooms sufficient for my indoor work. I rarely use my 35mm/f1.4 any more, as that lens was purchased way back during the film era when ISO 400 was boarderline.
    00VlHt-220225584.jpg
     
  112. I was just checking the MTF curves for the new lenses. The 24/1.4 looks very promising in this respect, considering that the curves are for f/1.4. Also Nikon's sample images suggest quite nice bokeh for a wide angle.
    The 16-35 appears to not be competing with the 14-24 for corner sharpness at f/4 (the 30lpmm curves particularly). The 35mm end looks better though. I would hope that the corners improve markedly as the lens is stopped down - since this lens is likely to be used for architecture, landscapes etc. subjects that typically may have details in the corners.
     
  113. Bob Krist has some sample images with both new lenses on his site: http://www.bobkrist.com/blog/
     
  114. As a former owner of a Canon 17-40mm f4 and a current owner of a Nikon14-24mm f2.8 AFS, purchased when it cost $330 less than the present street price, the new 16-35 f4 AFS VR seems to be reasonably priced; the f4 maximum aperture wouldn't be a drawback for me since I shoot @ f8- f11 most of the time. The VR feature would be a useful feature for nature photos taken while kayaking/canoeing as well as the option of using a protective filter. I imagine the new lens will compete with and/or bring down the price of the 14-24mm a bit.
     
  115. @Leif Goodwin: I agree with you completely. There's always an angle... Wide angle in this case :)
     

Share This Page