Steve Perry wrote:
Just saw that - Ready for a Nikon 16-35
Me too, but only after I see some comparisons to the 17-35 and the 14-24. Never bought a 14-24 since I use the polarizer so often, I just cant quite convince my back it needs to carry both along with everything else
Avi B wrote:
Nikon will not make a 70-200 f/4 because they are a small company, and the 70-300 good enough for that range. It should be really low on their priority list.
...
For landscape, I've found the 70-300 VR is plenty sharp on my D3x. In my quick testing, it was better than my 80-200 AF-D in the 80-200 ranges. I always thought my 80-200 was pretty sharp on that camera, the 70-300 VR is better.
Avi B wrote:
Let's first see some fast wides (which is where they are missing lenses) and then maybe VR on the 300 f/4 and/or an updated 80-400VR...
Nikon's history in releasing fast AF wides is about as sparse (maybe more so) than with their prosumer AF tele-zooms.
Of their AF primes wider than 50mm they have released in 24 years, only the 28/1.4 and 35/2 are faster than f/2.8.
What's sad is that Nikon had several years where they produced some really excellent 24/2, 28/2, and 35/1.4 manual focus lenses. None of these made it into the AF realm in 24 years.
Nikon produced ~7,500 units of the AF 28/1.4 in 12 years, compared to the ~212,000 units of the AF 28/2.8 in 24 years (averaging 8,800 per year for those 24 years).
Given such a low demand, why should Nikon even bother with any f/1.4 AF wide prime?
Because there are photographers who have a need for them, and they shouldn't all have to go with Canon to use them. The demand must be there, because Canon has released not just one but two 24/1.4Ls in the time since the 24/2.8D was released. The Mark II version is spectacular, based on everything I've seen and read about it.
If I were starting out today, knowing what I know now, I would have gone with Canon, mainly because of their greater attention to prime lenses in general, and particularly wide primes.
luminosity wrote:
Because there are photographers who have a need for them, and they shouldn't all have to go with Canon to use them. The demand must be there, because Canon has released not just one but two 24/1.4Ls in the time since the 24/2.8D was released. The Mark II version is spectacular, based on everything I've seen and read about it.
Ok, I think that explains it. Wanting f/1.4 primes is based on need. Wanting f/4 standard and tele-zooms is based on whimsy.
And while I agree that Canon has produced some very attractive f/1.4 wides (24, 35) for those who need it (or can afford it), along with a couple of f/1.2 primes (50, 85), they have also produced (and continue to produce) not one but two 70-200/4 lenses. This in addition to their 24-105/4. I would also add the 17-40/4, but it appears that Nikon may finally be answering this one if rumors are true.
So, I am making the same claim as those who want fast wide primes. I shouldn't have to go to Canon to get the lenses I want.
5:05 pm - Those are the full names of the two lenses for tonight: Nikkor AF-S 24 mm f/1.4 and Nikkor AF-S 16-35 mm f/4.0G ED VR. Nothing else will be released.
Prices, please? I guess that's a bit too much to ask at this stage of the game, huh?
Bubble wrote:
why f4 on 16-35? would it be nice to have it as f/2.8? same as canon lens?
Well, I do not believe that the 17-35/2.8 had been discontinued. But replacing it with a 16-35/2.8 actually does make sense. I am not sure about the VR rumor though, although that would differentiate it from the Canon 16-35/2.8. I just have a hard time believing that Nikon is going to release a 16-35/4 VR, which they will need to charge at least $1,000 for it.
