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

[ralph_jensen]

<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>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.</p>

<p>Re: does VR add that much to the price? Canon's 70-200/4 non-VR is <strong>$639;</strong> Canon's almost identical 70-200/4 <em>with </em> VR is <strong>$1210.</strong></p>

<p>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.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[bmm]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>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.<br>

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 ?</p>

[wenhan_xue]

<p>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.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>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 <em>any</em> 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 <em>that</em> 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?</p>

<p>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 <em>average</em> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

i'd rather buy a good expensive lens once in a while, then have to keep switching, searching for better samples.<br>

let's just hope nikon will introduce a light and affordable f4 tele zoom, a 35 1.4, a cheaper FX body.<br>

cheers.</p>

 

[steve_in_l.a.]

<p>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?</p>

[Two23]

<p>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.</p>

<p>Kent in SD </p>

[gemma_seymour]

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.

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>Fine lenses, I'm sure, but ridiculously overpriced...especially (and obviously) the 24.</p>

<p>I guess we'll never see that wide angle prime for DX bodies.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>FX>DX in terms of importance, at least right now. </p>

<p>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. </p>

[bmm]

<p>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!!).</p>

<p>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...</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[ofey_kalakar]

<p>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.<br>

I doubt it.</p>

[paul_b.1]

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 ?

[vcakic]

<p>Paul, that's why the second hand market in my country (Croatia) is flooded with US versions of photo equipement.<br>

Sad but true, even some stuff made in Europe is cheaper overthere, let alone Nikon.</p>

[janos_kovacs]

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

But as they say, the more... the better choice.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>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.</p>

[bikealps]

<p>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?</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Allan, I believe you`re refering to the 18-35... then the reasons could be the following:<br /> It`s wider<br /> It`s AFS<br /> It has 17 elements (2ED, 3asph) vs 11 elements in the 18-35 (1ED, 1asph), hence performance should be dramatically increased<br /> It has been designed as a FX lens, in the D3X era<br /> It`s a "gold ringed" lens, I suspect with a pro-level construction quality and a good manual focus override<br /> It has a constant aperture<br /> It has the latest coatings<br /> It has VR<br /> ...</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>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.<br>

The new 16-35, although looks slimmer than the 17-35, is even a bit longer and less than a 10% lighter.</p>

[flemming_nielsen]

<p>I've seen a lot of disappointed comments about the price of the announced 24/1.4.<br>

Maybe we have been spoilt by just how good Nikon's cheap stuff has become.<br>

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.<br>

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...</p>

<p> </p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

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". </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Ciao</p>

<p>L.</p>

[leif_goodwin8]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5928654">Flemming Nielsen</a> "I've seen a lot of disappointed comments about the price of the announced 24/1.4."<br>

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.</p>