24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 … 11 12 13 14 15 end

Archive 2010 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.12 #1 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

> 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.

I used to use both lenses on Canon full frame. I sold the Nikkor because my copy of the 16-35L2 was at least its match. They are both nice lenses, but like most zooms, a compromise.

The Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 was Nikon's answer to the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L Mk II.

They don't even have the same range. I fail to see how a 16-35 can substitute for a 14-24 or vice versa.

I don't think the Canon would qualify to be in the same class as the superior Nikon 14-24mm f2.8.

But it is in the same class as the Nikkor 17-35, which, unlike the 14-24, is a comparable lens.

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.

I expect you're right, and maybe landscapers will find VR is a great way of achieving f11.

It is one of the best wide angle lenses available today.

That may be true, but it produces no result at 35 or 40mm. For me it's not a beauty contest, but a choice of the best tool for each job. I have no problem with Nikon producing specialty lenses like the 14-24, in fact I applaud it. But I still think that it has a lack of ideal options in the popular 16-40 range. Specifically, the 2.8 lens is old and not that great, and the new f4 lens is too expensive as a 2nd tier wide zoom. That's why I say it's a slamdunk for Canon: the 17-40 and 16-35 mk2 seem to fit the needs and pockets of photojournalists, wedding, travel and general photographers better than Nikon's lineup. Landscape photographers may prefer the Nikon line-up, but I wonder if they are as numerous as the others.

> Sure.....Canon lenses would seem more attractive to a Canon shooter.

Nice try, but I was quite happy using the Nikkor 17-35 until something better came along. I don't care about brands, and I'm even happy to forego AF and auto-aperture if a Nikkor gives me better pictures, like you. You're accusing the wrong person of brand propaganda, I'm afraid.

Edited on Feb 11, 2010 at 01:52 AM · View previous versions

Feb 11, 2010 at 01:39 AM

snegron
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #2 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

Gregory.Rotter wrote:
snegron wrote:
While I was waiting for an updated 24, I think the price for the new 1.4 is ridiculous! I can understand $600.00 or $700.00, but $2200.00

Thanks alot Nikon.

This is the funniest thing I've read all day. a 24 1.4 for $700?

WOW, where can I get the stuff you're smoking?

Considering the price of the 14 f2.8 prime, I think the 24 1.4 logically, should be priced similarly.

I believe that it's thanks to people who think like you that Nikon and other camera manufacturers ask for outrageous ammounts of money on certain items. You need to sit back, relax, and look at what this lens actually does: nothing spectacular. How many people are actually going to use this lens at 1.4? Chances are not many. Judging by Nikon's past fast lenses, you will have to stop it down to at least 2.8 in order to get outstanding results. Flame me. Whatever. I have used many fast Nikon lenses in the past and they were all the same.

I would love to see how much more spectacular the new 24mm 1.4 is compared to the Zeiss 25mm 2.8 (which, by the way, is priced at the $800.00 range http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/472571-REG/Zeiss_1424_663_25mm_f_2_8_ZF_Lens.html )

I don't buy that whole "Nikon needs to recoup all their investment in R & D" nonsense either. THAT would be the funniest thing you should had read all day! It would be like me saying that I am going to shoot my first wedding and charge $10,000.00 because of all the research I put into developing my business plan! People here need to get real. Why should we have to justify a ridiculous high price tag by making excuses that Nikon needs to recoup their R&D? R&D is part of doing business. You don't rape the first flock of clients just to recoup your investment in R&D.

Now really, how difficult was it for a company that has been manufacturing lenses since 1917 to come up with a simple prime like the 24mm in a 1.4? Canon introduced the EF 24mm f/1.4L USM in 1997!! Did it really take Nikon 13 years of R&D to come up with their 24mm 1.4?? And a "G" lens at that?

I'm definitely not going to waste $2200.00 on this lens.

Feb 11, 2010 at 01:39 AM

Awasos23
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #3 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

snegron - you're forgetting two things in your comparison of the Zeiss 25mm f2.8 versus a 24mm f1.4 - 2 stops of light gathering power and DOF. Also I'm fairly certain that fast wide angles are harder to design then slow wide angles or even fast telephotos.

Feb 11, 2010 at 01:56 AM

cactusclay
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #4 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

Lots of people are moving to M4/3 for the smaller size and lighter weight. I guess Nikon missed that and must think people want medium format sized lenses.

I've read several threads were people that bought the 14-24, never use it, due to lack of filter usability, the exposed front element, and the size and weight. It seems like the size and weight are the most popular reason for leaving it at home.

Now Nikon comes out with an F4 wide angle zoom that only covers 19 mm of range and is nearly as large as the 24-70 2.8. Sounds like Nikon is trying to tell people what to like. I don't care for big heavy expensive zooms or primes and I resent it, when that is all that is offered. Seems like it's all about showing up Canon these days and not about making useful tools, that people would actually want to walk around with. If it wasn't for the D700, I'd be out of here and Nikon could suck wind. I hate greedy corporations that think their @##@ don't stink.

Feb 11, 2010 at 01:59 AM

luminosity
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #5 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

Please think about how good the 24-70 is at 2.8 and I think you'll get an idea of what we can expect at 1.4 from the 24/1.4. This won't be the rather pedestrian 50/1.4. This is a kitchen-sink kind of lens, as in Nikon's throwing the kitchen sink at it in order to make it great.

That you deride it as a "G" lens tells me that nothing Nikon does is going to satisfy you, because you know well that all of Nikon's lenses will be G lenses. You expected them to come out with an aperture ring-lens out of the blue? Please get real.

My 85/1.4 is just fine at 1.4, and my 85/1.8 is terrific from 2.2 onward. None of this "2.8" nonsense.

Feb 11, 2010 at 02:00 AM

snegron
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #6 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

Awasos23 wrote:
snegron - you're forgetting two things in your comparison of the Zeiss 25mm f2.8 versus a 24mm f1.4 - 2 stops of light gathering power and DOF. Also I'm fairly certain that fast wide angles are harder to design then slow wide angles or even fast telephotos.

Actually three things; 24 vs 25mm as well. I understand the light gathering power (especially for focusing under low light conditions), but imo it's not that big of a difference in actual use. As far as DOF, I would agree, but unfortunately I really doubt Nikon has done anything different on this lens than it has in its countless other fast lenses.

When I purchased my Nikon 17-55mm 2.8, I was hoping to be able to use it at 2.8. Unfortunately it has to be stopped down to 4.0 in order to get decent results. Same thing with my 80-200mm 2.8. Same thing with my 180mm 2.8. Same thing with all the other countless Nikon AF and MF primes and zooms I have used throughout the years. And yes, the logic behind my statement would be that the 24mm 1.4 will give me excellent results at 2.0 or 2.8 as opposed to 4.0 on a 2.8. My problem with this is that I believe that these lenses should perform excellent at their widest aperture without having to be stopped down. In essence (imo) it would be like buying a 24mm 1.4 in order to get it to perform well at 2.8. Isn't that what the 24mm 2.8 should be doing at 2.8?

I might be completely wrong about the new 24mm 1.4. I am just going by what I have experienced with Nikon lenses for the past 25 years. In fact, for the sake of $2200.00, I hope I'm absolutely wrong!

Feb 11, 2010 at 02:12 AM

ISO1600
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #7 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

Yes, the 16-35 might not be massively smaller than the 14-24, but it is smaller enough to make a difference. I think it will actually fit inside a crumpler 5 million, whereas the 14-24 will not.

Feb 11, 2010 at 02:20 AM

snegron
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #8 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

luminosity wrote:

That you deride it as a "G" lens tells me that nothing Nikon does is going to satisfy you, because you know well that all of Nikon's lenses will be G lenses. You expected them to come out with an aperture ring-lens out of the blue? Please get real.

It's about complexity of design. Nikon began their G line as lenses that were more affordable than the traditional ones with the aperture ring. They saved money on production costs and passed the savings on to their clients. Not anymore! The lens is now easier/less expensive to produce, yet they are charging 100% more than if it would have been the old "complicated" aperture ring lenses.

Again, it's about the principle. I know Nkion will never make another new lens with an aperture ring. I don't plan on using my old F3HP for much longer, so it doesn't really matter to me. I just have a problem with a company that charges an absurd amount of money for something that is not so technologically advanced (nor expensive to make) and could have been produced a decade ago.

Edited on Feb 11, 2010 at 02:33 AM · View previous versions

Feb 11, 2010 at 02:24 AM

simonella_viru
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #9 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

snegron wrote:
Actually three things; 24 vs 25mm as well. I understand the light gathering power (especially for focusing under low light conditions), but imo it's not that big of a difference in actual use. As far as DOF, I would agree, but unfortunately I really doubt Nikon has done anything different on this lens than it has in its countless other fast lenses.

yes, there is a big difference in actual use. 2 stops of light is a huge difference!

snegron wrote:
When I purchased my Nikon 17-55mm 2.8, I was hoping to be able to use it at 2.8. Unfortunately it has to be stopped down to 4.0 in order to get decent results. Same thing with my 80-200mm 2.8. Same thing with my 180mm 2.8. Same thing with all the other countless Nikon AF and MF primes and zooms I have used throughout the years. And yes, the logic behind my statement would be that the 24mm 1.4 will give me excellent results at 2.0 or 2.8 as opposed to 4.0 on a 2.8. My problem with this is that I believe that these lenses should perform excellent at their widest aperture without having to be stopped down. In essence (imo) it would be like buying a 24mm 1.4 in order to get it to perform well at 2.8. Isn't that what the 24mm 2.8 should be doing at 2.8?

decent results for you- a very subjective statement that is merely your opinion. nobody is forcing you to stop your lenses down by a stop or more. for many, image quality at max apertures is more than acceptable.

snegron wrote:
I might be completely wrong about the new 24mm 1.4. I am just going by what I have experienced with Nikon lenses for the past 25 years. In fact, for the sake of $2200.00, I hope I'm absolutely wrong!
it's a value judgement. for some, this lens will be worth it. chances are it'll have fantastic image quality. sure, to get optimum image quality it'll have to be stopped down. but i'm certain that image quality will be more than acceptable to many @ max aperture (f/1.4). will i pay $2200 US for this lens? certainly not

Feb 11, 2010 at 02:28 AM

Jammy Straub
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #10 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

Wait, did I just read that most f/1.4 and fast lens user don't use their lenses at max aperture most of the time? That goes against my experience with most 24L, 35L, 50L, and 85L users I've shot with. People tend to plunk down ~$1.5-2k so they can shoot at f/1.2-1.4, not to stop down to f/2 or 2.8 for more sharpness or less CA.

My experiences with modern viewers tell me that the majority of them like the narrow DOF look done well and when appropriate and most fast lens users like shooting that way. It's a roundabout and backwards way of self validating my opinion, but searching the most interesting photos on Flickr only reinforces this.

Feb 11, 2010 at 03:04 AM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #11 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

snegron wrote:
How many people are actually going to use this lens at 1.4? Chances are not many.

I don't know where you get the data for your conclusions (and "25 years of shooting" doesn't count), but my opinion and perception are diametrically opposite from yours. Most people buy f/1.4 lenses precisely so they can use them at 1.4 or thereabouts. I've yet to meet anyone who really wanted to shoot at f/2.8, so he bought an f/1.4 lens for 3x or 5x the price just to stop down for better sharpness.

snegron wrote:
I would love to see how much more spectacular the new 24mm 1.4 is compared to the Zeiss 25mm 2.8 (which, by the way, is priced at the $800.00 range

You are completely missing the point, so your logic is good but it's based on flawed assumptions and thus ends up giving you invalid conclusions. The max aperture is probably the single most important part of the manufacturing cost -- hence the price -- of a lens. Those two stops of aperture require that the f/1.4 lens have elements with 4x the area (2x the diameter) of the f/2.8 version. Larger glass is more expensive to make... more area, more work, more chances to screw up. They also have lower manufacturing yields... when making larger glass, more errors get made and more flaws get found in the glass, so a higher percentage do not pass QC. And of course, those that do get rejected were more expensive in the first place, so the cost of rejections goes way up. In the end, the net cost of larger pieces of optical-quality glass goes up exponentially with area, not linearly.

You have got to compare apples to apples. The Zeiss, or any other f/2.8 lens, has very little relevance to a f/1.4 lens. The change in max aperture is what drives the cost. That's why a 50/1.8D is $100, while the comparable 50/1.4D is $375... and that's less than one stop of difference! Same goes for the 85/1.8 and 85/1.4... more than triple the price. That's why a 70-300 VR that is f/5.6 at 300mm costs $500 and a 70-200 VR that is f/2.8 costs at least $1600 (VR1 version). Lots of other examples.

snegron wrote:
I'm definitely not going to waste $2200.00 on this lens.

And that's OK... if it doesn't fit your needs or your perception of value, then don't buy it. That's part of the point, you know: Nikon is not raping or fleecing people, rather there are people who do see that value and choose to buy it. Everyone votes with their wallet. For you, the 24/1.4 is a waste of $2200. For me, the 24/1.4 is not a real necessity since I'm doing fine without it... but I'll eventually get it, have a great time shooting with it, then sell about $500 worth of prints a year of images made with that lens. An annual return on investment of over 20% on an asset that holds its value very well is a stellar deal as far as I'm concerned... most financial or real-estate investments cannot match that kind of ROI.

Feb 11, 2010 at 03:36 AM

rjk55425
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #12 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

Jammy Straub wrote:
Wait, did I just read that most f/1.4 and fast lens user don't use their lenses at max aperture most of the time? That goes against my experience with most 24L, 35L, 50L, and 85L users I've shot with. People tend to plunk down ~$1.5-2k so they can shoot at f/1.2-1.4, not to stop down to f/2 or 2.8 for more sharpness or less CA.

My experiences with modern viewers tell me that the majority of them like the narrow DOF look done well and when appropriate and most fast lens users like shooting that way. It's a roundabout and backwards way of self validating my opinion, but searching the most interesting photos on Flickr only reinforces this.

Very true but its also true you generally give up some degree of sharpness to do this. Not all lenses but most of them.

Feb 11, 2010 at 03:40 AM

ulrikft2
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #13 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

I had the 24 1.4 L on my canon body when i shot canon, loved it, I think I would love this thing on a d700 too..

low light street shooting, concert shooting etc. It does not look too big either.

Feb 11, 2010 at 06:53 AM

Steezus
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #14 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

rjk55425 wrote:Very true but its also true you generally give up some degree of sharpness to do this. Not all lenses but most of them.

I thought the aspherical elements that Nikon is finally able to mass produce solved the problems with having less-than-sharp optics at max aperture. Am I wrong about that? I think I read an interview with the designer of the 14-24 lens on Nikon's website. They have a lot of really awesome articles about the technology and development that goes into their equipment.

I would love the 24 1.4, but I don't have anything to cover 35, so I am drinking goats blood at night in the hopes that they release a 35 1.4. I would pay up to $1,700 for that.

Feb 11, 2010 at 10:17 AM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.12 #15 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

Valorin wrote:
brainiac wrote:
You're accusing the wrong person of brand propaganda, I'm afraid.

Yeah, all you do is spread the truth.

No, I share my opinion, just like you do. My opinion isn't formed by brand, and my current kit bag typically contains gear from at least four different brands. My opinions about the relative usefulness of the 17-35 AF-S, 14-24, 16-35L2, 17-40L come from actually using all those lenses.

Feb 11, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Steezus
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #16 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

Sorry, but you come off as a Canon troll in this forum after seeing your many, many, many postings in the Canon forums about how Canon bodies are actually better at high ISO if you do x, y, and z-- ad nauseum.

Feb 11, 2010 at 11:48 AM

rjk55425
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #17 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

Steezus wrote:
rjk55425 wrote:Very true but its also true you generally give up some degree of sharpness to do this. Not all lenses but most of them.

I thought the aspherical elements that Nikon is finally able to mass produce solved the problems with having less-than-sharp optics at max aperture. Am I wrong about that? I think I read an interview with the designer of the 14-24 lens on Nikon's website. They have a lot of really awesome articles about the technology and development that goes into their equipment.

I would love the 24 1.4, but I don't have anything to cover 35, so I am drinking goats blood at night in the hopes that they release a 35 1.4. I would pay up to $1,700 for that.

There are examples of lenses that have stellar reputations for extreme sharpness wide open such as the 14-24. I would expect the 24 1.4 to be an example of that. But there are also plenty of equally fast way less expensive lenses that don't achieve this in my experience. Lenses that don't noticeably sharpen up or gain contrast when stopping down are really special.
Canon 135 2.0, Nikon 200 2.0 and 14-24 are good examples and I am sure there are more. But for everyone, someone will have a sample that is counter to the norm.

Feb 11, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Robb Mann
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #18 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

I'm amazed at the people who are crying over the price of the 24 f1.4 AF-S. The discontinued 28mm f1.4 AF-D is still selling for over $3000 at KEH (but probably not for too much longer). I was expecting the 24 f1.4 to come in around $2500, so it's actually cheaper than I was hoping.

I also don't see much chance of the market being 'flooded' with people 'unloading' their 14-24 f2.8's to get the 16-35 f4. I know I won't be getting rid of mine. I might pick up the 16-35 as a supplement, for those times when I'm hiking miles in for a shoot and every ounce counts.

Feb 11, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #19 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Most people buy f/1.4 lenses precisely so they can use them at 1.4 or thereabouts. I've yet to meet anyone who really wanted to shoot at f/2.8, so he bought an f/1.4 lens for 3x or 5x the price just to stop down for better sharpness.

Well, of course. It's like saying the earth is round (well, almost....

). I find it hard to believe it is needed to actually be said.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Feb 11, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Avi B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #20 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL!

To those crying about the price of the 24/1.4, I suggest two things:
1. Your US dollar has been devalued, get used to stuff costing more (not just lenses)
2. You were never going to buy it anyway

And to the gentleman that suggested no one buys fast lenses at their max aperture, I think that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Why would one spend the money unless they were intending to shoot it wide-open or close to it 90% of the time? Speaking for myself, I find myself loving the results at f/1.4-2 on the 85/1.4, so I use it there. I also use my 17-55/2.8 @2.8 often, and find the results to be very good. I use my AIS 35/1.4 at either f/2 or 1.4 most of the time as well. Kind of the purpose of owning such a lens.

Feb 11, 2010 at 02:45 PM

1 2 3 … 11 12 13 14 15 end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 11 12 13 14 15 end