Pavel wrote:
Sigmas 24 1.8 is no slouch? No ... it is more like a joke. Like most sigmas that I've had the displeasure to enjoy.
I have had far more problems with canon and nikon lenses than I've had with sigmas, and my sigmas are all sharp, well built and focus accurately.. So, not really a joke.
If I had a Nikon FF (for a long time I thought about adding the D700 to my kit) I'd surely get the new 16-35/4 VR over the 14-24/2.8 because it is smaller, lighter and stabilized. I don't really like the huge bulk of the latter and I don't need 14mm or f/2.8 in a WA lens. I wish Canon would make an IS version of the 17-40/4.
penghai wrote:
I don't even think many working pro will buy this lens. But many rich prosumers may.
"Working pro" is not a catch-all term that covers all or even most of the people who make a living from photography. You're thinking of the average cash-strapped wedding or other shooter, who is getting by and making a living but not getting rich. That's the majority of the market, same as you'd expect in any market. But there are lots of pros who compete differently: on relationships, or on premium quality, or on differentiated services. Those people don't compete on price, they have much better margins, and they end up making more money. There are tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of such photographers worldwide.
Any businessperson should always make purchasing decisions based on the expected return on investment (ROI). Sadly, many don't... and it's one of the reasons why they aren't more successful. Say that a "people" photographer loves the wide perspective, like a friend of mine who's earned a reputation and a loyal client base thanks to his creative use of perspective for wedding photography. His favorite lens and the one which makes his most popular images? A fisheye. The question for this -- or any -- working pro should be: if I invest this $2,200 in this product, how much additional profit will I be able to generate, and is that number a good ROI?
If this pro figures that the 24/1.4 (in this example) will help him capture another $700 or so in profit each year by helping him create images his other lenses will not, and which will influence people's decision to buy from him, then he's looking at a 30%+ ROI each year. Seems like a good deal to me. And we're only talking about $700 in additional profit per year... that's not too high a bar.
You might argue that estimating the potential marginal profit which will result from any investment is an inexact science and very difficult both to pin down in advance and then to measure over time. That's true. It's also true that the shooter needs to have the capital base to make such an investment. But those are not weaknesses for the argument: they are both absolutely critical conditions for the success of any business, and if he doesn't have some decent degree of both of those, then his business has bigger problems than "the lens is too expensive".
Don't over-generalize things, neither people nor industries nor needs nor value propositions. The world is not flat, and it's not that simple.
Pavel wrote:
Sigmas 24 1.8 is no slouch? No ... it is more like a joke. Like most sigmas that I've had the displeasure to enjoy.
ulrikft2 wrote:
I have had far more problems with canon and nikon lenses than I've had with sigmas, and my sigmas are all sharp, well built and focus accurately.. So, not really a joke.
All right, people... break it up.
I think we all know that neither of you is going to convince the other, and thus there is nothing to be gained from such a yes/no argument. My two bits, of course... y'all are welcome to beat each other over the head with your respective lenses if you like.
ulrikft2 wrote:
I think many working pro wedding shooters will. Many pro concert shooters too...
While all of the pro wedding photographers I know rely on f2.8 zooms as their "general" lenses, all of them also will go to f1.4 lenses when the light conditions are very poor. Many Catholic churches do not allow flash during a wedding, and some of those churches are like big caves! One of the guys I know that shoots Canon has a 24mm f1.4 and an 85mm f1.4 for those times. Otherwise he's using his 70-200mm f2.8 IS.
Funny the OP mentioned landscape photographers. I switched to Nikon DSLR system not from 35mm, but rather from 4x5 (large format.) If Nikon had their trio of PCE (tilt/shift) lenses at that time, I likely would have ponied up the ~$5,000 and bought them. At the time, I was using Schneider 90mm f5.6, Rodenstock 150mm f5.6, and Rodenstock 300mm f5.6 lenses for my landscape and country architecture shots (e.g. country churches, farms.) I just don't see ANY dedicated landscape photographers buying the 24mm f1.4 at all, actually. IMO, the 24mm f2.8 PCE is unquestionably the better choice for landscapes. For those of you who aren't familiar with lens movements (betting that's 95% of you), that easily trumps f1.4 in landscapes/architecture.
I personally feel the Canon is over priced. Thus I was hoping a competitive advantage with the Nikon to be priced a bit of 1K. It was wishful thinking on my part.
kinconorb wrote:
how would it be $1100 when the Canon 24/1.4 is $1700
idk $2200 seems high but if people are willing to pay it. Its still cheaper than a used very old 28/1.4 but as it stand thats $500 more than the canon model which seems about right canon 24-70 is $1200ish while the nikon is $17 almost 1800
Do people think the 16-35 f/4 will be better than the current 17-35 f/2.8?
Some reason I thought the new lens would be 2.8. I realize that the price of a new 17-35mm is more than this new lens, but a used 17-35 is less than this f/4 lens retails for.
redbaronace wrote:
Do people think the 16-35 f/4 will be better than the current 17-35 f/2.8?
Some reason I thought the new lens would be 2.8. I realize that the price of a new 17-35mm is more than this new lens, but a used 17-35 is less than this f/4 lens retails for.
Just wondered others opinions on this.
No one knows till it comes out. Frankly, if it's not sharper then the 17-35, I think that's going to hurt sales.
It's a much newer design, and I'm guessing it falls between the 17-35 and the 14-24 IQ-wise.
Just out of curiosity, how much would you guys and gals expect the 24/1.4 and the 16-35 to drop in price over the next year or so? Obviously several factors play a role but just loosely basing this off current lenses of the same caliber.
M Vers wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how much would you guys and gals expect the 24/1.4 and the 16-35 to drop in price over the next year or so? Obviously several factors play a role but just loosely basing this off current lenses of the same caliber.
What makes you think they will drop in price? The performance of the US dollar isn't getting any better. There's a good chance they will go up in price over the next year.
gman1339 wrote:
What makes you think they will drop in price? The performance of the US dollar isn't getting any better. There's a good chance they will go up in price over the next year.
I never thought they would. Just carrying over a conversation from another board.
Just because the Dollar is getting weaker, doesn't mean that all pricing is based around the dollar. The 35 1.8G as well as the 70-200 VR II have BOTH dropped in price from their UK RRP since their release. The only reason lens prices went up was because of the price hikes that we experienced in december of 2008. If they have another price hike, I'll eat my hat.
Erik Moore wrote:
I cant figure why a landscape pro would want the 24? Why spend all that money on speed when you're going to shoot at f11, and super sharp alternatives in that range exist for much less money?
Personally, I'd love one. I shoot mostly people, and I can't imagine a better Nikon kit for weddings than 24 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 + D700. But man, that lens costs more than I paid for my D700 new. Ouch.
My current wedding kit;
12-24 F4 AFG
35 F2 AFD
50 F1.8 AFD
105 F2 DC
Genereally, F2 lenses work well for me.
tuannie wrote:
Well that's all I am saying...F4 + VR glad I am not the only one. I think a lot of people misinterpret VR and how it is used. VR does not mean sharp images
And yes, that's why I said they should just make a 16-35 f2.8 replacement although you are right...perhaps the price vs focal length would be too close to the 14-24. Either way, 16-35 with VR is odd.
Yes - by comparison the two Canon L wide zooms look like a slamdunk.
16-35 f2.8: good, takes filters, nice size/weight, professional, affordable.
17-40 f4: good, takes filters, good size/weight, and a very useful undistorted 40mm end with weather seal for $700.
Meanwhile the new Nikon has VR which is of questionable use on UWA lenses, f4, and quite a high price compared to the lens it must be designed to compete with (17-40). The 14-24 is spectacular but not very practical. The 17-35 is old and expensive.
I don't get it. Even with this new 16-35 VR the Canon choices seem generally more attractive. A superb but not too big 17-40 f2.8 should have been Nikon's answer.
brainiac wrote:
Yes - by comparison the two Canon L wide zooms look like a slamdunk.
16-35 f2.8: good, takes filters, nice size/weight, professional, affordable.
17-40 f4: good, takes filters, good size/weight, and a very useful undistorted 40mm end with weather seal for $700.
Meanwhile the new Nikon has VR which is of questionable use on UWA lenses, f4, and quite a high price compared to the lens it must be designed to compete with (17-40).
Since when is the Canon 16-35L Mk II affordable or for that matter such a wonderful lens. The older Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 is actually a better lens than the new Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L Mk II.
The Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 was Nikon's answer to the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L Mk II. I don't think the Canon would qualify to be in the same class as the superior Nikon 14-24mm f2.8.
The 17-40L is a decent lens and for the price, it is attractive. However, it does not have VR and going by Nikon's track record, chances are the 16-35mm f4 VR will be a much better lens than the 17-40L. But since we can not validate or proove this right now due to non-availbility of the new Nikon, no point stressing this.
I think VR will be of value on a wide angle lens. There are several places a photographer may end up at where tripod use is not allowed and the VR may mean the difference between a keeper or blurry shot. Or, maybe Nikon may be thinking ahead and incorporating VR for video use.
brainiac wrote:
The 14-24 is spectacular but not very practical.
It is one of the best wide angle lenses available today. Good enough for many to spend a considerable amount on not just purchasing the lens, but also a little more for the Nikon G-to-EF adapter for use on their Canon SLR's.
The 14-24mm f2.8 is a large and heavy lens for sure, but not very different in size compared to a converted Zeiss 17-35mm f2.8 N
Granted it does not have the ability to use standard filters, but I don't see that as being the criteria to label a lens "not very practical"
brainiac wrote:
I don't get it. Even with this new 16-35 VR the Canon choices seem generally more attractive.
Sure.....Canon lenses would seem more attractive to a Canon shooter.
I used to have the 16-35L, 24-70L, and 70-200 f2.8 IS as my primary kit which later evolved to the converted Zeiss 17-35mm f2.8 N, 24-85N, and 70-200L and now have the Nikon 14-24 AFS, 24-70 AFS, and 80-200AFS.
For someone like me who made the switch from Canon to Nikon, I see the Nikon 16-35mm as a good addition to my lens lineup. Having used the Canon lenses you mention here, the Canon wide zooms really don't come close to what Nikon is offering it's users
So, not really a joke. 
One of the guys I know that shoots Canon has a 24mm f1.4 and an 85mm f1.4 for those times. Otherwise he's using his 70-200mm f2.8 IS.