I'd guess the 16-35VR is meant to compete with the Canon 17-40L not the f/2.8 lenses. A more cost effective lighter lens for landscapers (who like to complain about the 14-24 lacking filters).
Todd Warnke wrote:
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.
+1. I recently bought a used 70-300VR. In the bang-for-the-buck race, it's not too far behind the 50mm f/1.8 and the 18-70mm "kit" lens (used) just for pure value for the cost.
A 70-200 f/4 would have to be competitively priced with the 70-300VR because, for anyone making a buying decision between the two, the wider aperture of the 70-200 would be offset by the extra reach of the 70-300VR, and vice versa.
passthegravy wrote:
....A 70-200 f/4 would have to be competitively priced with the 70-300VR because, for anyone making a buying decision between the two, the wider aperture of the 70-200 would be offset by the extra reach of the 70-300VR, and vice versa.
I would think the promised benefits of a 16-35/4 VR are: lower cost than the 14-24 (say, $800 to $900); a smaller/lighter form factor; the ability to use filters; and the VR. If that's the value proposition they deliver, and since I fully expect the optics to be as good as they should be, I'm going to be very tempted to buy the 16-35 instead of the 14-24.
As for the 24/1.4, I expect pricing to follow the trends and patterns of other lenses. Compared to the other offerings at similar FL's and apertures, I'd guess at the same $800 to $900 as I did for the zoom.
Mike Mohrmann wrote:
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.
Mike, you have to differentiate between what you want and what Nikon can profitably produce. It's possible that they may make a 70-200/4. It's also possible, as others have convincingly argued, that they will not do it because it does not make economic sense for them to do so. If they don't do it, then they are not "at fault" in any way and you need to quit looking at it like they're underserving or mistreating the market niche you happen to occupy.
My personal belief is that they won't make a 70-200/4. The 70-300 VR is just too good... good enough to provide great results on the D3x. The loss of 1.5 stops of light at 200mm is real, but with D3/D700 bodies providing ISO 3200 that's beautiful and ISO 6400 that's very usable, I don't see any reason for Nikon to consider that 1.5 stops sufficient cause to create a whole new lens, which they have to design, market, sell, and support while it cannibalizes some sales away from both the 70-300 VR and the 70-200/2.8.
I may be wrong, and they may make one someday. Perhaps even tomorrow. But until then, it ain't there. Set up the system that pleases you best, with whatever brand pleases you best, and shoot with what's out there. Anything else is gratuitous and self-induced suffering.
ISO1600 wrote:
haha i know what he was talking about, i am just lost as to WHY
People want a super-rotator type design on their PC lenses (like Canon just went to with their new 24 & 17 TS lenses), where they can independently rotate the tilt and/or shift axis relative to each other.
Catfur wrote:
People want a super-rotator type design on their PC lenses (like Canon just went to with their new 24 & 17 TS lenses), where they can independently rotate the tilt and/or shift axis relative to each other.
as cool as that would be, there is no way that they would redesign their new PC lenses this soon.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
As for the 24/1.4, I expect pricing to follow the trends and patterns of other lenses. Compared to the other offerings at similar FL's and apertures, I'd guess at the same $800 to $900 as I did for the zoom.
If they release a 24/1.4 for 800-900 i will eat my shoe.
