Hmmm. The 16-35VR f/4 plus my 70-300VR, plop my 50mm f/1.4d in the middle, and that sounds like a light, practical travel kit that should yield excellent IQ.
Avi B wrote:
Oh maybe I was. My bad. Poor joke hah!
I want a 35/1.4 I find 24 too wide. I like my AIS version just fine, but I think I will put it up for sale.
Avi, it is TWoK and myself that hate G/AF-S lenses.
I also would much rather have a 35 or 28 than a 24. If this was a 35 or 28, i could consider putting up with the AF-S and G features.
passthegravy wrote:
Hmmm. The 16-35VR f/4 plus my 70-300VR, plop my 50mm f/1.4d in the middle, and that sounds like a light, practical travel kit that should yield excellent IQ.
I was thinking that myself. You know they have patents for a 50mm f/1.2 AF-S
Wow... that 16-35 VR is a lens that is almost worth switching systems for. If they release a D700 with a resolution and video feature set comparable to the 5D mark II, I'm moving to the dark side.
the 16-35 actually haves me very interested. It would be an excellent travel wide. (fairly) compact, with what will probably be amazing image quality. Kinda affordable too.
Well that didn't take long. I only had to think about the new 24mm prime for as long as it took for someone to post the price. Maybe it's just me but that's an absurd price tag for a lens with limited versatility. I'm not saying I wouldn't love f1.4, but my 24-70 can get me by just fine.
So the D700 and 24 1.4 will be the ultimate low light combo, but say you didn't have the 4,600 bucks to get both now. Which would you do? D300 + 24 1.4 or D700 + 16-35 F4VR?
ISO1600 wrote:
the 16-35 actually haves me very interested. It would be an excellent travel wide. (fairly) compact, with what will probably be amazing image quality. Kinda affordable too.
Yeah but to sell a 14-24 for $1450 to get a $1,250 lens is ridiculous for me even though I don't use the 14-24 at all
tuannie wrote:
Jammy, $2,200 is pretty steep for a 24 1.4...I seriously think the 24-70 is better I never missed a wedding shot with the zoom at 2.8
That's the rub isn't it, a standard zoom is so darn versatile and with ISO 6400 f/2.8 is often fast enough. Guess it really depends if you're a prime shooter or not, clients do tend to like the dreamy look f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses have though. In the end its one less thing for people to complain about Nikon not offering
Edit: We now have one new fast prime introduced. The Nikon marketing chief says we will have several! I bet 50 f/1.2 and 135 f/2 or 1.8 is next.
