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

[fpessolano]

<p>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.<br>

But the 24 .... if only the street price would get 20% lower like for the 70-200VR2 .... </p>

[breogan_gomez]

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>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.</p>

<p>I for one am even more sure I'm going to stay with DX for a long time.</p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>"John, they have to be brighter on some level. It's a wider aperture, after all."</p>

<p>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.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>John,</p>

<p>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.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>Does VR II on the new 16-35/4 Nikkor mean 4 shutter speeds slower @16mm too? That would be 1 second exposure time.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>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.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p><em>(To Benjamin`s comment)</em> 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.<br /> 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.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>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:</p>

<p>- Very light: 16-35 + 85 1.8<br>

- light: 16-35 + 50 1.4 + 85 1.8<br>

- normal, same as light + 135 DC...</p>

<p>and so on. Quite interesting indeed. Now I only have to find the money.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[akira]

<p>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.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>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*</p>

[nishnishant]

<blockquote>

<p><em>>> Another surprise is that apparently there will be no DSLR body announcement for this PMA <<</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey Shun,</p>

<p>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 :-(</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>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.</p>

[Two23]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[fpessolano]

<p>Kent, did you see the suggested price of the new Canon 70-200?<br>

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.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>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. <a href="http://www.pmai.org/pma2010_home.aspx">http://www.pmai.org/pma2010_home.aspx</a><br>

<br>

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

<br>

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: <a href="http://www.photokina-cologne.com/">http://www.photokina-cologne.com/</a></p>

 

[dan_brown4]

<p>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.<br>

The 16-35, not so much. I don't see me trading my 17-35/2.8 for it ever.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>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.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>but isn't the D300 actually older in the line up?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is - but the replacement is already out in form of the mighty D300s.</p>

<p>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.<br>

Compared to the Canon 16-35/2.8 IS USM, the 16-35/4 AF-S VR appears "reasonably" priced.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Thanks Shun. So I have reason to hope for a new DX model announcement later this year. Fingers crossed.</p>

[jose_angel]

 

 

 

 

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

 

 

 

 

[Two23]

<p>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.</p>

<p>Kent in SD </p>

[vcakic]

<p>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.<br>

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?</p>

[vcakic]

<p>Oh, they both have 9 diaphragm blades!!! Grrgh...</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>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)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, my post was a bit of an exaggeration. However, the lenses that Nikon <em>recently</em> 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!</p>