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

[ShunCheung]

<p>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.<br>

<br>

What I don't like is that the older 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 <strike>AF-S</strike>AF-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.</p>

[enrique_r.]

<p>$2200???? I guess my NAS is not that bad.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>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*</p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>"...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"<br>

Shun, you're being modest.<br>

You write to Nikon and a month later they deliver....coincidence? Perhaps. ;-)</p>

 

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>Don't get too much exited, the new lenses must be very precisely assembled, and I doubt, this is possible with an AF-function!<br>

Cheers</p>

 

[photo_galleries]

<p>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. </p>

<p>The 24/1.4 would be an expensive toy, and if I had that kind of discretionary $$$, I would probably buy one.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't get too much exited, the new lenses must be very precisely assembled, and I doubt, this is possible with an AF-function!<br />Cheers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

[gen]

<p>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 :)</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>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.<br>

I just wish I could justify the cost :-\</p>

[steve_in_l.a.]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>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!<br>

Cheers</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>so, anyone sell a kidney to set aside the cash for these yet?</p>

<p>$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...</p>

<p>and $1300 for an f/4 zoom?</p>

<p>good gosh, man!</p>

<p>for those prices, both of them had better be flawless...</p>

<p>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.</p>

[hiro]

<p>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.<br>

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. <br>

Maybe a new E line? (:<br>

24-105 3.5-4.5 AF-S VR - $599<br>

24 2.8 AF-S - $349 <br>

135 F2.8 AF-S - $549</p>

 

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>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.</p>

<p>And the price tag is enough to choke a horse.</p>

 

[oskar_ojala]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, I had meant to type Canon 16-35/2.8 II USM...<br /> Shun, I don't get this one:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I don't like is that the older 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S is merely a $600 lens.</p>

</blockquote>

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

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[john_morris4]

<p>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?.</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>makes the 35mm f1.8 DX AF-S prime look like an even better bargain at only $200!</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>for DX... no doubt! I LOVE mine!</p>

[curtis_pennell1]

<p><em></em><br>

<em>"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</em><br>

Just wondering how you know for sure that there will not be a new nikon dslr release at this PMA<br>

without having all ready broken the non-disclosure agreement with Nikon.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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."</p>

<p>And Dieter, the 18-35mm is an AF-D, not AF-S, sorry.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>