Wide angle zooms are updated less often?

I am just on the lookout for a 16-35mm but prefer to get used. I had a look at the release dates.

 

The 24-70s and the 70-200s get more updated right. Maybe averaging 8yrs. However the wide angles; the 18-35 AF-D was from 2000-2013 (13yrs) before the AF-S G version came out. The 17-35 was from 1999 and it was maybe replaced with the 14-24 at 2007 (9yrs). The current 16-35 is currently already 7yrs and the 14-24 10yrs.

In my opinion, the one that is really out of date is the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S. Its edge and corner performance near 17mm is very poor on modern, high-pixel FX bodies. The AF-S versions of the 16-35 and 18-35 are still quite up to date.

You think optical improvement can happen that fast?

Not optical improvements. Just product updates for the customer for whatever reason including to boost sales. They seem to be more frequent with the mid and tele zooms. I can wait, the 16-35 has been out for 7yrs already. Perhaps in 2 or 3yr from now.

the one that is really out of date is the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S

I had expected a 16-35/2.8 from Nikon years ago; such a lens appears to be the widest one possible that can be made without a domed front element that makes filter use such a hassle. Apparently Nikon thought that had it all in the bag with the 14-24 and could rest on their laurels. Now both Canon and Sigma have zooms that go quite a bit wider: 11-24/4 and 12-24/4, respectively. Canon's quite pricey but the Sigma's price is quite reasonable ($200-$300 more than used Nikon 14-24 lenses). Nikon still has the advantage (if one can call it that) of f/2.8; though given the choice, I would likely opt for the larger range of the Tamron 15-30/2.8 instead. So there have been wide-angle zooms 'updates' for Nikon users, just not by Nikon itself. Just another boat Nikon missed.

 

Nikon 16-35 introduced VR into the ultra-wide angle zoom world. Many considered it useless; for me it was the main reason to choose that particular lens. Why Nikon never followed up with a f/2.8 version (with VR) is a mystery to me.

A Sigma 14mm f1.8 is making its way to market. That's the one I'm wanting.

 

 

Kent in SD

I don't really see why a lens that works fine and produces excellent results needs to be replaced by a new model; from a service point of view it is bad for the owners of an existing lens since the service life is, I believe, counted from the time a lens is discontinued and parts start running out at some point. It can of course be good in that the second hand market then can get some newer lenses, if that's your point of view.

 

Nikon have introduced several new wide angles in recent years, the 20/1.8, 24/1.8, 35/1.8, 19 PC, etc. If one goes back a few more years there are the 28/1.8, 35/1.4, 24/1.4, and 24 PC. They also offer several (super)wide angle zooms: 18-35, 14-24, 16-35, and the older 17-35/2.8. I guess the 17-35/2.8 hasn't been updated is because the 14-24/2.8 has been so popular. I guess Canon users get a lot of updates to their 16-35mm f/2.8 and maybe Nikon also should consider a new version, though I personally haven't warmed up for the range. I think some photojournalists pair the 16-35 with 70-200 and cover a large range with just two lenses; for me the intermediate focal lengths are more important than the ultrawide so I just pair the 24-70 with the 70-200.

 

I used to have the 14-24/2.8 but apart from interior shots, I found little use for it, and ended up selling it after comparing it side by side with the 20/1.8 and finding the latter superior optically, especially in terms of flare and ghosting prevention, furthermore I found the AF was a lot more consistent and precise on the prime, and the fact that it's a fraction of the weight meant I carry it much more often; in the first few months of ownership I had used the 20/1.8 more than I had used the zoom in several years. I didn't care for the 20-35/2.8 many years ago, either; the 24-70/2.8 is the wide angle zoom I go for most of the time, preferring its practical, non-extreme range for more natural looking images. I go for the 20/1.8 when I need a wider angle and because of its small size, light weight, fast maximum aperture, and bomb-proof AF, it has become my favorite.

 

I would like the 19mm for interiors and landscape shots, but its rather high price does hold me back. In retrospect the 14-24/2.8 had quite good bang for buck as an interior lens. It is also famous as an astrophotography lens, but I don't do so much of that. Thinking about the 14-24/2.8, I don't know what they could improve on it to justify a new version; perhaps more precise AF? When I've used it in interior spaces sometimes there is a person of interest whom I focus on, and there is some jitter in the focusing in some of those situations whereas the 20/1.8 is very confident in focusing in similar situations. I don't know why this is so, is it the optics or the focus motor? The 20/1.8 does have a poorly made manual focusing ring - something I can never understand is why Nikon makes such difficult to use manual focus rings for some of their autofocus lenses. The 24 PC would be nice to get a revision on, including greater freedom of lens movements, a larger image circle, and less field curvature at long distances.

 

So I guess it is possible to find faults and make improvement suggestions for Nikon lenses, but given the number of different models they make, it is understandable that updates are not made so often. I don't know if it would be better if they offered fewer models and made more frequent updates.

I thought that Nikon might update the 17-35/2.8, perhaps into a 16-35/2.8, once they had "made their money" on the 14-24. If it's true that there have been approximately 350,000 14-24/2.8's made, my rough estimate is that Nikon has made at least 200, if not 300 million dollars profit on the 14-24/2.8. If true, then it's time for Nikon to update the 17-35/2.8. Also, the 17-35/2.8's price in the USA has gone way up lately, which in 'Nikon World' usually means that manufacturing has ceased on the old model.

RaymondC,what is it that you do not like about the current wide angle Nikkors? A used 16-35 could be yours for what most would consider really good value for money. Especially when you consider how long you may keep it or its resale value once you decide to let it go.

 

Lenses have quite a long life span, most people generally replace the camera well before their lenses are considered outdated.

I had the 20-35/2.8, and now the 17-35/2.8. The 20-35 lived on the camera, and the combo was just small enough to carry without it getting in the way. The 17-35 focuses closer and seems a little better at f/2.8 & 35mm, but is just enough bigger and heavier to feel "in the way" when on the body. The 16-35/4VR is even bigger. I will probably try the 18-35/3.5-4.5 some day, but I think I would miss the slight amount of subject isolation that f2.8 gives me at 35mm, and the stop of speed since no VR. Just in the (unlikely) case that someone at Nikon happens to be listening, please don't make a 17-35/2.8 replacement any bigger or heavier if something like it is in the design phase..

There are lots of reasons why lenses are updated or not.

One is market --or they may have made too many in the first production run, so have a big backlog of unsold lenses.

Another is lack of competition in the class of lens involved.

and so on.

 

So the answer is probably "yes" - until the third-party companies started exploiting the issue, wide-angles were not as "hot".

But it doesn't have anything I can see to do with the focal length per se.

 

I'd bet that right at this moment, there are Nikon lens designers working on a 16mm or 17mm tilt-and-shift lens to match the one from Canon, for example

Nikon just introduced the 19mm PC; I'm pretty sure that is as wide as they're going to go with the F mount tilt/shift lenses. It's certainly expensive enough. Tilt/shift lenses sell in extremely small quantities (about a thousand 14-24/2.8's is made per one PC wide angle) and I would be surprised if they made a profit on them. The more different models they make the more costly the lineup becomes, and there isn't so much benefit from spacing them out too finely (today with 36MP one can just crop a bit without any practical downside). Canon have the advantage of shorter flange distance and wider mount which probably is why they could make a 17mm tilt/shift. Neither the Nikon 19mm nor the Canon 17mm can take a normal hood and so they're vulnerable to ghosting if light source is in the frame (which often is). A hand can be used to block bright light sources in some cases but it's hardly convenient. Edited May 12, 2017 by ilkka_nissila

I had overlooked the 19mm PC. I think you're right that that is the response.

 

I have and love the Canon TSE 17. On it, at least, I find very little problem with flare, etc.

I'm not saying ghosting is a common issue with that lens, just that I have acted as a temporary hood/flag during a night time exposure made with a 17 ts-e when a street light just outside of the image needed to be be flagged to prevent ghosting and we needed to figure out how to prevent it.