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

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>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?</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[ken_i_h]

<p>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). <br>

If you are in the area, you should go and test it yourself.</p>

[paul_b.1]

Ken , you have the opportunity to post, in this forum, the first picture taken with this lens...

[ken_i_h]

<p>Here you go. I am not sure what these can tell you, though :-)</p>

[ken_i_h]

<p>Sorry, try again...<br>

D700, 24mm, f1.4, 1/250, ISO200<br>

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.co.jp/lh/photo/7Jo9VCqcnPSdhn6smVzaLA?authkey=Gv1sRgCJuaqfX7mLyN_gE&feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_kwoecUwgMh4/S3Xq6Ee_kvI/AAAAAAAAJkg/my8dx4nE-t8/s800/KIH_4126.jpg" alt="" /></a><br>

1/160s<br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.co.jp/lh/photo/uG6mS69t5rcgwxsGRfnP-A?authkey=Gv1sRgCJuaqfX7mLyN_gE&feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_kwoecUwgMh4/S3Xq6tRalvI/AAAAAAAAJkk/Lil5aSe97GM/s800/KIH_4128.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

[paul_b.1]

<p>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.</p>

[ken_i_h]

<p>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.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>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.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>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.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>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.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>Bob Krist has some sample images with both new lenses on his site: http://www.bobkrist.com/blog/</p>

[polizonte]

<p>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.</p>

[flemming_nielsen]

<p>@Leif Goodwin: I agree with you completely. There's always an angle... Wide angle in this case :-)</p>