So is tonight THE night?!

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 end

Archive 2010 · So is tonight THE night?!

Phyl
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · So is tonight THE night?!

According to Nikon Rumors:

"Some Nikon events are scheduled in some countries for tomorrow. As you probably know this means announcement tonight at around 11pm or midnight US Eastern time. One of the sources is a known “Nikon” person in a public forum which I will not mention here. I also have two other, independent confirmations. That must be it!"

and according the the Nikon Chief of Marketing:

“We will have several large aperture prime lenses and light compact zoom lens this year”

SOoooo, is tonight the night we get the big lens announcement? Who's going to be up at Midnight EST with me watching? C'mon already, Nikon. Spill the beans!

Feb 08, 2010 at 03:24 PM

Steve Perry
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · So is tonight THE night?!

Just saw that - Ready for a Nikon 16-35

Feb 08, 2010 at 03:33 PM

Phyl
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · So is tonight THE night?!

24 1.4, please!

Feb 08, 2010 at 03:35 PM

Jammy Straub
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · So is tonight THE night?!

Kind of exciting really! I really hope most of the 'light compact zoom lenses' are FX lenses. We need another 18-xx like a hole in the head.

Feb 08, 2010 at 03:42 PM

Supa Lao
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · So is tonight THE night?!

I'm hoping for more FX lenses, but I doubt I'll be buying anything of them soon.

Feb 08, 2010 at 03:43 PM

Avi B
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · So is tonight THE night?!

Cant wait for the next 18-XXX DX lens!!! Woot! Yay!!

Feb 08, 2010 at 03:48 PM

ISO1600
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · So is tonight THE night?!

i want a new line of AF-D fast primes.

Feb 08, 2010 at 03:48 PM

jasoncallen
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · So is tonight THE night?!

Time to put my credit cards in a coffee tin full of water in the freezer again...

Usually by the time they thaw out, will power overpowers my NAS.

Feb 08, 2010 at 04:21 PM

Mishu01
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · So is tonight THE night?!

Have you ever heard that Santa does not exists? Move on guys!

Apart some cheap chinese plasticky things... we will not see any important lens. Big Brother told me so...

Feb 08, 2010 at 04:22 PM

Mario Moschel
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · So is tonight THE night?!

Look at the exif data in Bob Krist's newer pictures in his blog:

http://www.bobkrist.com/blog/

especially both of Philadelphia skyline.

The second Philly skyline picture has the following exif data:

Maximum Lens Aperture: f/4.1at (35mm eq:52mm)

THIS exif data doesn't mean the used max aperture, it means the absolute max aperture of the lens. And there is no other lens from Nikon in that range (35mm) that has f4.
So the picture must have been shot with the new 16-35/4 VR, because Bob would NEVER use other lenses than Nikon.

File name: PhillySkyline01_10_0013.jpg
File size: 749637 bytes (995x661, 9.1bpp, 3x)
EXIF Summary: 1/8s f/6.7 ISO200 35mm (35mm eq:52mm)
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D300S
Camera Software: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Photographer: Bob Krist for GPTMC
Maximum Lens Aperture: f/4.1
Sensing Method: One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern: 1110
Focal Length (35mm Equiv): 52 mm
usw.

Edited on Feb 10, 2010 at 07:32 PM · View previous versions

Feb 08, 2010 at 04:37 PM

Phyl
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · So is tonight THE night?!

jasoncallen wrote:
Time to put my credit cards in a coffee tin full of water in the freezer again...

Usually by the time they thaw out, will power overpowers my NAS.

OMG. That's priceless. And not a bad idea at that. Too bad B&H keeps my card on file...

Feb 08, 2010 at 04:39 PM

gunner.sip
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · So is tonight THE night?!

yes, tonite will be wonderful nite

Feb 08, 2010 at 04:44 PM

Jammy Straub
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · So is tonight THE night?!

Maybe not tonight, but soon. You know I can't see any exif data for that photo. I wonder if he's reposted a stripped version. I'm using preview in OSX.

Feb 08, 2010 at 04:55 PM

lou f
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · So is tonight THE night?!

Mario Moschel wrote:
Look at the exif data in Bob Krist's newer pictures in his blog:

http://www.bobkrist.com/blog/

especially both of Philadelphia skyline.

The second Philly skyline picture has the following exif data:

Maximum Lens Aperture: f/4.1at (35mm eq:52mm)

THIS exif data doesn't mean the used max aperture, it means the absolute max aperture of the lens. And there is no other lens from Nikon in that range (35mm) that has f4.
So the picture must have been shot with the new 16-35/4 VR, because Bob would NEVER use other lenses than Nikon.

File name: PhillySkyline01_10_0013.jpg
File size: 749637 bytes (995x661, 9.1bpp, 3x)
EXIF Summary: 1/8s f/6.7 ISO200 35mm (35mm eq:52mm)
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D300S
Camera Software: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Photographer: Bob Krist for GPTMC
Maximum Lens Aperture: f/4.1
Sensing Method: One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern: 1110
Focal Length (35mm Equiv): 52 mm
usw.

nice lens, nice news wipe article.

Feb 08, 2010 at 05:04 PM

rsolti13
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · So is tonight THE night?!

I can't wait for everyone to start dumping those 85mm f/1.4 AF-Ds for an AF-S version.....should save me $100-$200 just like the 70-200mm VII rush

Feb 08, 2010 at 05:13 PM

DrewChilly
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · So is tonight THE night?!

I know I'm going to sound like a typical Nikon whiner, but I really wish we would get Nikon's version of a 70/80 - 200mm f/4. I'm a college kid and can't quite afford to spring for an f/2.8 version and I'm iffy about the third party offerings.

Feb 08, 2010 at 05:42 PM

Todd Warnke
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · So is tonight THE night?!

Drew, just get the 70-300VR. Sure, you give up a stop at the long end, but it's sharp, easy to use, light and about half the price that a 70-200/4 would be. Then save up for a used 70/200VRI. While a f/4 range would be cool, in the end I'm happy that Nikon has chosen the use their limited resources to make a great pro range, a cheap and happy entry range and a superb if limited 3.x-5.6 prosumer zoom range. It means I can get my wife lenses that are better than the kit stuff, affordable and are good enough that when I occasionally poach them for my own use I'm happy with the results.

Peace,

Todd

Feb 08, 2010 at 05:55 PM

Avi B
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · So is tonight THE night?!

Drew, get the 70-300VR. You're not going to get a 70-200 f/4 from Nikon. That's the closest that you will get.

Feb 08, 2010 at 05:56 PM

bellyface
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · So is tonight THE night?!

Ashton Kutcher is introducing an FX coolpix subcompact that has an X-ray mode.

Feb 08, 2010 at 06:04 PM

Mike Mohrmann
Online
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · So is tonight THE night?!

DrewChilly wrote:
I know I'm going to sound like a typical Nikon whiner, but I really wish we would get Nikon's version of a 70/80 - 200mm f/4. I'm a college kid and can't quite afford to spring for an f/2.8 version and I'm iffy about the third party offerings.

There are those who have been shooting SLRs for decades who would prefer a 70-200/4 instead of a 70-200/2.8. You are not alone.

Todd Warnke wrote:
... and a superb if limited 3.x-5.6 prosumer zoom range.

Limited (aperture) is the word. Many don't need 300mm, and those who don't would prefer a bit faster than f/5.3 at 200mm. I fall into that category.

Not everyone wants to schlep around a 70-200/2.8. Even those who own the 70-200/2.8 might prefer a smaller lens on occasion.

Avi B wrote:
Drew, get the 70-300VR. You're not going to get a 70-200 f/4 from Nikon. That's the closest that you will get.

Yeah, that's what I figure. That leaves it to Canon to release a DSLR similar in capability and features of the D700. A more likely possibility, but not a given either.

Feb 08, 2010 at 06:20 PM

Todd Warnke
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #21 · So is tonight THE night?!

Mike Mohrmann wrote:

Todd Warnke wrote:
... and a superb if limited 3.x-5.6 prosumer zoom range.

Limited (aperture) is the word. Many don't need 300mm, and those who don't would prefer a bit faster than f/5.3 at 200mm. I fall into that category.

Not everyone wants to schlep around a 70-200/2.8. Even those who own the 70-200/2.8 might prefer a smaller lens on occasion.

That is precisely the point. Nikon has and can probably afford to have only 3 lines, not 4. Kit, middle and pro. I prefer that to kit, f/4 and pro. Why? Well the 70-300 is half the cost of what an f/4 lens would be and, except for that 5.6 thing, every bit as good as the mythical f/4 lens would be. Yet, for about 50% more than the f/4 line would be you can have the f/2.8 stuff. So I can afford the 2.8 glass for me and the middle stuff for a light kit (as well as for the wife). This saves a lot over a 2.8 + 4.0 kit and I give up little to nothing. The f/4 glass is an interesting concept, but if that one stop really matters, that I'm guessing that two stops would be even better much of the time as well. Meaning that the f/4 would only solve about half the problems that a 5.6 lens introduces, so there would still be a need for the 2.8 glass. I find that if I'm not at 2.8-3.5 on the 70-200, then I'm at 7.1 or higher, so the 4.0 glass gets me nothing that I don't already have better in the 70-200 (faster) or 70-300 (lighter, cheaper).

Peace,

Todd

Feb 08, 2010 at 06:38 PM

Jammy Straub
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · So is tonight THE night?!

Todd Warnke wrote:
Mike Mohrmann wrote:
Todd Warnke wrote:
... and a superb if limited 3.x-5.6 prosumer zoom range.
Limited (aperture) is the word. Many don't need 300mm, and those who don't would prefer a bit faster than f/5.3 at 200mm. I fall into that category.
Not everyone wants to schlep around a 70-200/2.8. Even those who own the 70-200/2.8 might prefer a smaller lens on occasion.

That is precisely the point. Nikon has and can probably afford to have only 3 lines, not 4. Kit, middle and pro. I prefer that to kit, f/4 and pro. Why? Well the 70-300 is half the cost of what an f/4 lens would be and, except for that 5.6 thing, every bit as good as the mythical f/4 lens would be. Yet, for about 50% more than the f/4 line would be you can have the f/2.8 stuff. So I can afford the 2.8 glass for me and the middle stuff for a light kit (as well as for the wife). This saves a lot over a 2.8 + 4.0 kit and I give up little to nothing. The f/4 glass is an interesting concept, but if that one stop really matters, that I'm guessing that two stops would be even better much of the time as well. Meaning that the f/4 would only solve about half the problems that a 5.6 lens introduces, so there would still be a need for the 2.8 glass. I find that if I'm not at 2.8-3.5 on the 70-200, then I'm at 7.1 or higher, so the 4.0 glass gets me nothing that I don't already have better in the 70-200 (faster) or 70-300 (lighter, cheaper).
Peace,
Todd

My thoughts as well.

This is coming from the former owner of a 70-200mm f/4L IS, one of the best zooms I've ever used. It was a great lens, but neither here nor there. A compromise of a compromise. f/2.8 zooms are already pushing it for indoor use, I've never understood how some wedding photogs use lenses like the 24-105IS. Big heavy f/2.8 zooms, f/3.5-4.5 & f/4-5.6 lighter zooms, and f/3.5-5.6 & f/4-5.6 entry level zooms make sense to me.

Feb 08, 2010 at 06:56 PM

mfletch
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #23 · So is tonight THE night?!

Nice catch. But does this mean the 16-35 f/4, if real, is gonna be a DX lens? I was hoping for a focal range like this but for FX.

Mario Moschel wrote:
Look at the exif data in Bob Krist's newer pictures in his blog:

http://www.bobkrist.com/blog/

especially both of Philadelphia skyline.

The second Philly skyline picture has the following exif data:

Maximum Lens Aperture: f/4.1at (35mm eq:52mm)

THIS exif data doesn't mean the used max aperture, it means the absolute max aperture of the lens. And there is no other lens from Nikon in that range (35mm) that has f4.
So the picture must have been shot with the new 16-35/4 VR, because Bob would NEVER use other lenses than Nikon.

File name: PhillySkyline01_10_0013.jpg
File size: 749637 bytes (995x661, 9.1bpp, 3x)
EXIF Summary: 1/8s f/6.7 ISO200 35mm (35mm eq:52mm)
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D300S
Camera Software: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Photographer: Bob Krist for GPTMC
Maximum Lens Aperture: f/4.1
Sensing Method: One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern: 1110
Focal Length (35mm Equiv): 52 mm
usw.

Feb 08, 2010 at 07:01 PM

ISO1600
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #24 · So is tonight THE night?!

he's probably shoot a new 35mm f4.1 pancake.

hahahahahhhaa we're all screwed. Who asked for a 35mm f4.1 pancake?

Feb 08, 2010 at 07:17 PM

Mike Mohrmann
Online
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #25 · So is tonight THE night?!

Todd Warnke wrote:
Mike Mohrmann wrote:

Todd Warnke wrote:
... and a superb if limited 3.x-5.6 prosumer zoom range.

Limited (aperture) is the word. Many don't need 300mm, and those who don't would prefer a bit faster than f/5.3 at 200mm. I fall into that category.

Not everyone wants to schlep around a 70-200/2.8. Even those who own the 70-200/2.8 might prefer a smaller lens on occasion.

That is precisely the point. Nikon has and can probably afford to have only 3 lines, not 4. Kit, middle and pro. I prefer that to kit, f/4 and pro. Why? Well the 70-300 is half the cost of what an f/4 lens would be and, except for that 5.6 thing, every bit as good as the mythical f/4 lens would be. Yet, for about 50% more than the f/4 line would be you can have the f/2.8 stuff. So I can afford the 2.8 glass for me and the middle stuff for a light kit (as well as for the wife). This saves a lot over a 2.8 + 4.0 kit and I give up little to nothing. The f/4 glass is an interesting concept, but if that one stop really matters, that I'm guessing that two stops would be even better much of the time as well. Meaning that the f/4 would only solve about half the problems that a 5.6 lens introduces, so there would still be a need for the 2.8 glass. I find that if I'm not at 2.8-3.5 on the 70-200, then I'm at 7.1 or higher, so the 4.0 glass gets me nothing that I don't already have better in the 70-200 (faster) or 70-300 (lighter, cheaper).

Actually, my point is wanting the fastest lens I can afford AND am willing to carry around. I can afford the 70-200/2.8. In fact, I have one (the VR1). And guess what? It sits at home 90% of the time. I'd rather have f/4 (or even f/3.5-4.5) zooms and some f/1.4-2.0 primes when I need faster than f/4.

Feb 08, 2010 at 07:34 PM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end