Nikon Introduces 24-70mm/f2.8 E AF-S with VR, 200-500mm/f5.6 E and 24mm/f1.8 AF-S

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Given the current trend of airlines all over the world to limit weight and size of carryon luggage, I certainly hope the new 200-500mm lens is sharp enough for me to leave my 500mm f 4.0 at home when traveling by air. 24mm was my favorite focal length when I shot with film. I just hope the new 24mm prime is superb. Nikon needs a top notch lens around 24-70mm that does not weigh a ton. I have the current 24-70mm f2.8 from Nikon, but it is too big and too heavy for me to take with me while traveling. I would love to buy a very sharp 24-70mm that is f 4 or f5.6. Just look at the stats for the smaller/ lighter camera systems people are buying. There is another market out there for lenses that are sharp, but not super fast and very heavy and bulky. </p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon needs a top notch lens around 24-70mm that does not weigh a ton.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Joe, as far as I am concerned, that lens already exists: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/review/24-85mm-f3.5-4.5-af-s-vr/<br>

But it is more a consumer-grade lens such that some may dismiss it. While I don't own one myself, I have used two different samples and am quite happy with it.</p>

<p>In any case, the fact of the matter is that Nikon is providing plenty of choices in that zoom range, as now there is the new 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S VR in additional to the four shown below (plus an older 35-70mm/f2.8 AF-D). Is it really that difficult to pick one that works for you?</p>

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16156860-md.jpg">

</P>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>I think this new 24mm will be a hit, because it has good appeal for both FX and DX. I am interested to see one in person to judge the size. 72mm filter is not real small but not huge either. I think Nikon deserves credit for getting this f/1.8 line fleshed out pretty quickly. The new lens set provides lots of options for new FX shooters. I hope to get an FX camera within a few years, as the prices are really coming down. My interest will be in the 1.8 primes.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>My experience is that most photojournalists <em>don't</em> work with huge lenses; I think the long lenses are used mainly by specialists who cover typical long lens subjects such as sports and large public events. 24-70 + 70-200 is very common (with Canon users the 16-35 also). I go to a lot of events including figure skating, some other sports events, large music festivals, carnivals, and a few royal weddings as well. I've also periodically attended lectures by well known photojournalists. My guess (from what I've seen) is that 90% of photojournalists don't use anything bigger than a 70-200/2.8, and some don't even use that. A lot of photojournalism is working with a reporter on stories which involve interviewing people, making a portrait or an image of the interviewee at work, and the story is written on that. There is no long lens work involved in those types of stories and a light shoulder bag carries all the equipment needed. Even at sports events on a national scale in my country I see only a few specialists who use 300/2.8, 200/2, 200-400/4 or 600/4 type lenses while there are several dozen 70-200/2.8 shooters. At large outdoor festivals with huge stages (10000+ in audience), again most accredited PJs use small lenses with 24-70, 70-200, 100-400 type dominant with 2-3 big lens users thrown in, and what is interesting is that many of the big lens shooters are often the same people from event to event, suggesting that most photojournalists don't own those huge lenses and specialists are called by photo agencies or large papers to do those shots while the majority cover the events using shorter lenses. I think most photographers find that the photographs are more dramatic and immerse the viewer if they are taken from a relatively short distance of the subject and the photographer using smaller lenses can be more mobile than someone using a 600/4.</p>

<p>I suppose traveling photo reportage is not a common thing to do now that the magazines are on decline and have to curtail their budgets but again when I've spoken to those photographers, lenses like 24-70/2.8, 16-35/2.8, 24/1.4, and 50mm and 85mm primes come up, not large superteles. It may be my subjective view but I regard the photography of large events (festivals, royal weddings etc.) and sports really a part of the entertainment industry and since entertainment is what people are willing to pay for, that's where the money is and big lenses can be justified. But there is also a more serious side of journalism that concerns real lives and documenting them and discussing society, work, living conditions and issues that people have with their lives. For example, Pep Bonet's documentary images of underprivileged children in difficult conditions, prisoners of war etc.; you can find his work at<br /> <br /> <a href="http://noorimages.com/photographer/bonet/">http://noorimages.com/photographer/bonet/</a>.<br /> Another photographer Katja Lösönen<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.katjalosonen.com/#/reportage/">http://www.katjalosonen.com/#/reportage/</a><br /> <br />said in a lecture she gave that she uses 16-35, 50, and 85. Steve McCurry? 24-70/2.8 (and 50/1.4). I think lugging around a huge set of lenses as a matter of course may be reality for a few specialists but the majority of PJ work of serious nature is carried out with shorter focal lengths.</p>

<p>In my experience the majority of photojournalists that I've seen give lectures or at large events (or even interviews of my research group's work) use full frame DSLRs for their work, the most common are the 5D Mk III, D4s/D4/D3s, D8x0, 1Dx, and 1D III and 1D IV). I rarely see APS-C cameras in use by photojournalists these days. But this may be regionally dependent. As for mirrorless, I sometimes see e.g. Panasonic GH series cameras being used to record video professionally but for still photography, I think the PJs mainly work with full frame DSLRs.</p>

<p>As for whether the increase in weight of the 24-70 matters, probably it is not decisive for most professional photographers but it may matter for some and the 24-70 is not made for only the professionals but the advanced amateurs obviously contribute to its commercial success. I think for many of the latter, the size and weight increase (not to mention cost) may put it out of the picture. I suspect that many of the same people who wanted VR in this lens are the ones who will not buy it because of the subsequent increase in size, weight and cost. For me, the main thing is if Nikon has managed to improve the autofocus in a similar way as the 300/4, i.e. less jitter in continuous focusing, then I will likely consider it worthwhile for my own use. I also appreciate the fluorine coating as in the winter I'm very likely to use it in very cold conditions where I need to work quickly and there can also be some water spray, snow etc. involved so if the fluorine coating helps keep the front and rear elements clean (even when switching lenses) then it is a clear advantage over the old version. Also sometimes when documenting events and people at work, hair spray, paint or other stuff can be in the air and I'd rather have an expensive lens not be ruined or degraded by exposure to those; the fluorine coating should help avoid problems and I'll be able to dare closer to my subjects as a result. Finally a major issue at events with the existing 24-70 has been its field curvature which makes it difficult to get even sharpness in photographs of large groups; subjects towards the outer areas of the frame being out of focus which can be very annoying if you have 20-50 people in the image and the image is printed large. I frequently ran into this problem with the 24-70 and nowadays prefer to use the Zeiss 28mm f/2 for those shots. If the new 24-70 solves the field curvature problem then it's an additional reason to get the new lens. Another aspect of the 24-70 is that some users have experienced stiffening of the zoom action over time (even to the point of the lens getting stuck). This can be repaired but it shouldn't happen on a lens of this price class. If Nikon has been able to resolve all of these issues then the new lens justifies its price for me, but it's hard to know aspects such as ruggedness and durability before the lens has been used a few years. If the impression that readers get from my post is that the old 24-70 is a poor lens then it is the wrong impression; it has been excellent and much better than other wide to tele zooms that I've used; however, it is not perfect and improvements are welcome in some areas.</p>

<p>The main attraction of the f/1.8 primes in my opinion is their light weight, small size (for DSLR lenses), high image quality, maximum aperture, and lower price. I often switch to prime lenses when I'm working at a close distance to my subjects to be less of a distraction to whatever they're doing (working or being in conversation). To capture the subjects faces in conversation it is usually necessary to use a wide angle or at most a normal lens as with a telephoto lens the angle of view makes it difficult to include faces of both sides in conversation. I use mainly the f/1.4 lenses because Nikon marketed those first but I could get away with the less expensive and more compact f/1.8 lenses. There are some situations where the f/1.4 brings with itself clear benefits, mainly more clean separation of the subject from background and environment, as well a photography at night in dimly lit restaurants, but I think most of this photography could be carried out successfully using f/1.8. Using a flash may be the standard PJ way, but for me I get different results by not using flash as the subjects are then not putting my attention to what I'm doing and many times I hear they didn't realize they were being photographed when they see the photographs. If I use a flash in a small restaurant, the subjects are immediately alerted to my presence and start turning and posing for the camera, which is probably all well for establishing eye contact in photojournalism but for my event and documentary photography of people, I prefer the subjects to focus on each other and whatever they are doing instead of making the photographer a part of the picture and giving a subtle fake smile. It is a different style. A quiet camera such as the D810 and small to moderate size primes (they don't need to be tiny relative to the size of the camera) help a lot in achieving my goals. Since the price and size of the 24-70 seems to be going up with each new generation, it is also good that there are alternatives that new photographers can choose and get the large aperture and compactness without paying a huge amount of money (with Sony, Leica etc. you can get some even smaller lenses but they're more expensive also than the f/1.8 Nikkors). I think the f/1.8 Nikkors are examples of great value, along with the 70-200/4. These lenses are accessible to many new photographers who have serious ambitions but initially a small budget.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.nikon.com/news/2015/0804_lens_02.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very interesting. And I am surprised the price is much lower than the 80-400. Would love to see a review.</p>

[chuck]

<p>I think the price is lower because it is basically a rebadged tamron lens, slightly modified from Tamron's own 150-600 f/5-6.3 so as to be able to show a constant 5/5.6 max aperture at the expense of reduced zoom range on both ends.</p>

 

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Chuck, here are the arrangements for the <a href="http://cdn.audiencemedia.com/var/photoreview/storage/images/media/images/tamron_150-600mm_diagram/2093267-1-eng-GB/tamron_150-600mm_diagram.jpg">Tamron</a> and <a href="http://imgsv.imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/telephotozoom/af-s_200-500mmf_56e_ed_vr/img/lensonstruction.png">Nikkor</a> I don't know how similar or different they are. Certainly, they don't look identical.</p>

<p>It is interesting to see the price difference with the 80-400. Of course, that is 5x zoom and the new 200-500 is just 2.5x. It would be nice if the 200-500 "outperforms" the price point. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Chuck,<br /><br />That's idle speculation at best. To change the aperture at both ends would really imply a different design, not a "slightly tweaked" one. And Chip's links point to a VERY big difference in the two lenses.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Cool trio of lenses, love the 1.8 line, have the 20mm, 35mm and 85mm 1.8 lenses. I had the 35mm 1.4G and loved it too but sold it not long ago when I picked up a Leica M240, 28mm 2.8 asph, 35mm 1.4 FLE and 50 2.0 Summicron. The 200-500 has my interest the most though, if it is sharp enough, I think I am in, have 95mm filters for a couple of Hasselblad lenses. </p>

<p>I have been doing both professional landscape and professional journalism for over 25 years now, lately most of that journalism has been with one very big high end client. I have a couple of friends who also shoot Nikon in this genre…they all seem to have started with the 24-70 and most have gotten rid of it. I tried it out for a weekend and did not like it at all, did not balance well, thought it needed a tripod collar for tripod work and a lot of the folks that had it for any stretch of time saw it go to the shop for all sorts of reasons, mostly due to it becoming de-centered or flat out busted because the thing sticks out and can strike things like poles, walls and what not. </p>

<p>So the new one takes the whole “lets make the world’s longest 24mm lens” thing even further, to a ridiculous level with a workflow gaffing 82mm filter thread and obnoxious weight. I can and do carry a lot of weight, I am in better shape than most who carry a camera, but I have no desire to carry this new lens around. The reason I am saying all this is that I work in the business some are claiming to know something about. And in one case found it pretty darn rude to tell some poor guy that he needs to find a new line of work because of a back problem. </p>

<p>The 24-70 is one lens that a lot of my fellow working photogs either use and wish they did not have to or flat out don’t and use primes in that range instead, few are in love with it. But there is a market for it, or else Nikon would not make it and upgrade it. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>it is basically a rebadged tamron lens, slightly modified from Tamron's own 150-600 f/5-6.3</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chuck, you have made such comment a couple of times. Is there any basis and reference to demonstrate a linkage to Tamron or it is merely your personal speculation?</p>

<p>I have checked the cross section diagrams for the two lenses, and the optical designs are completely different. The Tamron has 20 elements in 13 groups while the Nikkor has 19 elements in 12 groups. The positions for the LD/ED elements are different. I am afraid that suggesting the Nikkor is a "rebadged" Tamron lens is very far from the truth.</p>

<p>Nikon is very much capable of making low-cost, consumer-grade lenses (and cameras) on their own, demonstrated by the various cheap zooms with a plastic mount that are somewhat fragile. While I don't expect the new 200-500mm/f5.6 to be a low-quality lens (or I wouldn't have ordered one), I do assume that it will not be as excellent as the far more expensive 80-400mm AF-S VR.</p>

<p>You can view the MTF curve and a cross-section diagram for the new Nikkor from this link: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-200-500mm-f%252F5.6E-ED-VR.html#!</p>

<p>EDIT: Chip, thanks for the links to the cross-section diagrams.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>He may be referring to the rumors over the years (I've heard this since the 80s) that Tamron has actually designed and maybe built some lenses that were sold under other companies' brand names (and I always heard that Nikon was one of them... this was years ago before the interwebz, btw).<br /><br />If that were really the case here, based on the way Tamron designed and built the recent 17-50 f2.8 lenses and some others (70-300VC and their macro come to mind), I'd think that was a good thing, actually.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

Shun, thanks for the info on the other nikon lenses, especially the 24-85mm. It looks like the 28-70mm AF-d lens I used

back in my film days.

 

Joe smith

[chuck]

<blockquote>

<p>Chuck, you have made such comment a couple of times. Is there any basis and reference to demonstrate a linkage to Tamron or it is merely your personal speculation?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is my speculation, but it is based on the Dpreview piece from 9 month ago which indicated Nikon and Tamron filed a joint patent covering a variable aperture zoom design with this exact zoom range:<br>

<br /> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54734338</p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>We already talked about Canon's 7D Mark II before. It took Canon a full 5 years to upgrade the 7D, but after merely 9 months, the price for the 7DII has already dropped from $1800 to $1500. In comparison, something like the D7100 merely drops $100 from $1200 to $1100 after a year. It is hard to blame Nikon for not producing this so called "D400" that is not selling well or upgrade the 17-55 that go with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here in the UK, the 7DII launched last September at £1600, and has now dropped to £1300, about 81% of the launch price. In the same period, the Nikon D750 dropped from £1800 to £1500, about 83% of the launch price. So I'm not sure we can conclude too much from price drops. On the other hand I agree that a 'D400' seems very unlikely at this point; Nikon's whole strategy seems to be FX at the high end. It might make more sense for them to compete with the 20MP 10fps 7DII with a 24MP 8fps 'D770' FX.</p>

[chuck]

<p>I will speculate that Nikon will start to move the DX line in the mirrorless direction within the next year or two, and depending on how well that is received, may eventually move the whole DX DSLR line to mirrorless. That's purely my speculation.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Here in the UK, the 7DII launched last September at £1600, and has now dropped to £1300, about 81% of the launch price. In the same period, the Nikon D750 dropped from £1800 to £1500, about 83% of the launch price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Richard, in my opinion, the D750 and D810's situation is different.</p>

<p>In the US, the D810 was introduced at $3300, the original price for the D800E and therefore $300 more than that for the D800. The D750 was launched at $2300, also $300 more than the D610. After a few months, both of them dropped that extra $300 and settled into the original prices for the D800 and D610, respectively.</p>

<p>My explanation is that Nikon priced the D810 and D750 high by $300 initially to soak the early adapters. After a few months, they settled into the real target prices, corresponding to the D800 and D610, respectively. Now that the D810 is a year old, and it is still holding the D800's launch price at $3000.</p>

<p>The problem for the 7D Mark II is that it cannot at all hold the original $1800 price for the 7D and D300 even for a few months. Canon dropped it by $100 (to $1700) after merely 6 months and further dropped it to $1500 after 8, 9 months.</p>

<p>In comparison, Nikon introduced the D7000 in October 2010, and I paid $1200 for it. A friend bought one a year later in October 2011 from Amazon @ $1100 (while B&H had that same price). Shortly after that in late 2011, Nikon Thailand's factory was flooded and D7000 production was stopped for several months. The shortage led to some temporary price increase. After that, both the D7100 and D7200 were introduced at the D7000's initial $1200 price point. So far, the D7200 is holding it.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Chuck,<br /><br />I sure wish they had done that. They might have kept me. As it was, I defected to µ43 because even the smallest DX DSLRs are just too big for me these days and the "1" cameras had nothing interesting to me whatsoever. I doubt I'll go back.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>It is my speculation, but it is based on the Dpreview piece from 9 month ago which indicated Nikon and Tamron filed a joint patent covering a variable aperture zoom design with this exact zoom range:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chuck, your link is to a DPReview Forum post, not an official DPReview article, which I would have put a lot more weight, and worse yet, that forum post's source is the Nikon Rumors web site.</p>

<p>In any case, that joint patent between Tamron and Nikon is for a 200-500mm/f4.5-5.6 lens that has a different optical design from the newly announced constant f5.6 lens. It is a very big jump from there to suggest that Tamron must be manufacturing the new 200-500mm/f5.6 Nikon for Nikon based on the Tamron 150-600, and that must be the reason why the 200-500mm Nikkor is cheaper than expected.</p>

<p>It would be equally ridiculous to suggest that maybe Nikon is actually manufacturing the Tamron 150-600mm zoom only because there is some joint patent around.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>will speculate that Nikon will start to move the DX line in the mirrorless direction within the next year or two</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As long as we all understand that is your speculation ... :-)</p>

 

[chuck]

Where would the fun be if we don't speculate?

[chip_chipowski]

<p>I hang out on one of the mirrorless forums, and it is remarkable to hear some of the users talk about "the future of cameras." It is borderline proselytizing. I keep hearing about the inevitability of DSLR death and mirrorless ascendence. Problem is, I have not seen good evidence this shift is actually happening. I think mirrorless is great. I just think it says more about people when the conversation turns into a zero-sum game (i.e. it must be one or the other).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I shoot both FX and DX, e.g. my "current" DSLRs include a D750, a D800E, a D7100 and a D7200. It is certainly not either or. I don't have any mirrorless camera at this point mainly because I don't feel that the technology is mature enough for me, as I don't like the current crop.</p>

<p>However, I think future sports/action/wildlife cameras will have to be mirrorless because of the mechanical limitation around 12 fps. When we gradually move up to 20 fps or more, mirrorless is the only way to go (including Sony's fixed, semi-transparent mirror). Nikon's transition to E electromagnetic aperture is part of that transition. Therefore, yes, the new 24mm/f1.8 AF-S being a G instead of E lens might not be as future proof under that scenario.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Chip, there is indeed sales info that says that overall, mirrorless is flat in sales and DSLRs are shrinking, as a market.<br /><br />But "the future of photography"? Puh-leeze. There will be a lot of people for whom DSLR is best for a very very long time...<br /><br />That said, once they solve a few of the mirrorless "problems" I wouldn't be surprised to see anything that's not FX or larger go mirrorless.</p>

[chuck]

<p>I am not saying DSLR will die. I am saying DX and FX formats are IMHO too similar for it to be sensible in the long run to maintain two separate but still broadly similar lines of DSLRs and lenses for them. Eventually it will make sense to transform DX DSLR line from FX junior to something more differentiated from FX DSLRs.<br>

</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Any mirrorless camera that Nikon makes would still have to work fully with existing lenses for the F mount, including G lenses, otherwise it's a no go for Nikon since their main selling point is the vast number of existing lenses that users gain access to when they buy a Nikon (interchangeable lens) camera. Any mirrorless F mount camera will still have the aperture control arm and for cameras that have a different mount, native lenses will use electronic control and F mount lenses will be supported through an adapter like the FT-1 that has the mechanical control mechanism for aperture built in. Since Nikon is still introducing new G lenses (with typical prime lens lifespan of 20+ years between updates), it is clear they have no intention of fully removing the mechanical control from their cameras in the foreseeable future.</p>

[chuck]

<blockquote>

<p>However, I think future sports/action/wildlife cameras will have to be mirrorless because of the mechanical limitation around 12 fps. When we gradually move up to 20 fps or more, mirrorless is the only way to go (including Sony's fixed, semi-transparent mirror). Nikon's transition to E electromagnetic aperture is part of that transition. Therefore, yes, the new 24mm/f1.8 AF-S being a G instead of E lens might not be as future proof under that scenario.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So long as it is possible to use live view in real time, I see no reason why mechanical moving mirror camera would not be adaptable to higher frame rates. The camera could simply lock up the mirror and switch to live view when desired frame rate exceeds certain threshold. As to E aperture being essential for high frame rate, I don't get that either. Why does the aperture have to stop down and then open back up with each frame? Why can't the aperture simply stop down to shooting aperture and then stay there as long as the high fps camera continues to chug away?</p>