Upload & Sell: On
| p.4 #14 · Nikon announced 18-35mm and 800mm F/5.6 lenses |
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
One doesn't have to be "really exotic" for this lens to make a good investment. [snip]
True that. I could totally see a business case for this. I should have said "pros who really need long reach".
I don't think the price for the new 18-35 is insane as long as it is substantially better than the current AF-D model (which is pretty bad in my experience). The price for the 24-85VR IS insane in my opinion primarily due to the fact that it is no better than the previous non-VR version and in fact in some regards it has worse optical performance. The only "gain" was VR in my opinion, which is not worth the price for a mediocre lens (I have both versions and have compared them extensively, perhaps I got a VR-version dud, but my experience is in line with most others').
I don't mind paying this kind of price if the optical quality is excellent, even if it's not a fast aperture nor a constant aperture.
One other note on the 18-35 - for me it's not just how sharp it is, but also how well it handles flare and ghosting. As a landscape guy I have the sun in the frame a lot and I really don't like lenses that flare and ghost all over the place - we'll have to see with this lens. Perhaps I will place an order and try it out myself . . . .
Well said. We'll see about its quality - maybe I was just thinking about the old 18-35D whose used price is somewhere in the $2-300s IIRC. I also forgot about the price of a new 16-35VR is.
And actually, I was being hypocritical in that post, now that I think about it. I was thinking of getting a Voightlander 20mm f/3.5, and would pay up to the 4-500 range for new Nikon FX AF wide primes. I paid full price for new NIkon 10-24, Tokina 11-16 and Olympus 12mm f/2. But the last two are stellar lenses. The NIkkor ought to be similar to at least the 10-24 in optical quality.
Moreover, if the recent past is any guide, patient US customers might get a $1-200 rebate come summer time.