What am I missing with the 16-35? It looks like it is still big and bulky with 77mm filter and it is approaching the price of the 17-35/2.8 and is the price of a used 17-35..
The 24 1.4 looks bad ass. Still hoping for a 35 1.4, but I don't think the wife approval factor would allow me to purchase one at Nikon prices anytime soon!
"[...]
The MTF chart for each lens is based on the value at the maximum aperture of the lens; the red line shows the spatial frequency of 10 lines/mm and the blue line, 30 lines/mm.
In the off-axis field, contrast reproducibility of the lens for sagittal direction and meridional direction varies with astigmatic affection.
[...]"
Can someone please translate that into layman's terms?
Steezus wrote:
What am I missing with the 16-35? It looks like it is still big and bulky with 77mm filter and it is approaching the price of the 17-35/2.8 and is the price of a used 17-35..
The MTF's for the 16-35 are massively improved over the 17-35.
Jammy Straub wrote:
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.
Can't even imagine how much those will cost. I will need to charge 5K+ just to shoot & burn to afford Nikon primes
I will tell you though, taping my 24-70 at 35mm and a 50 1.4 yields a heck of a lot better photos for me when I tried it. It eliminates you zooming and force you to compose and capture the whole scene...with zoom the first thing you will do is fiddle with the ranges.
tuannie wrote:
Can't even imagine how much those will cost. I will need to charge 5K+ just to shoot & burn to afford Nikon primes
I will tell you though, taping my 24-70 at 35mm and a 50 1.4 yields a heck of a lot better photos for me when I tried it. It eliminates you zooming and force you to compose and capture the whole scene...with zoom the first thing you will do is fiddle with the ranges.
Very much my experience as well, it's easier to shoot with a zoom. I make better images with a fixed focal length though. It forces you to get creative instead of going for the safe shot.
Guoseph wrote:
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?
I'd say the ultimate low light combo would be a D3S + 24 1.4. Comparing the D300 + 2.4 or D700 + 16-35VR seems like comparing grenades and bananas.
RyanPederson wrote:
I'd say the ultimate low light combo would be a D3S + 24 1.4. Comparing the D300 + 2.4 or D700 + 16-35VR seems like comparing grenades and bananas.
You are right about the D3S. I was thinking something more "accessible"
I've been waiting for a 24-105-type lens, but so far, no go.
I bought a 17-35 to go to Europe over the summer, and sold it for slightly more than a new 16-35 would cost me now. Interestingly, looking at the EXIF info something like 90% of my shots were 24mm or more, so I could have just taken the 24-70 instead.
The 16-35 + 50 1.4 + 70-300 is a nice travel combo, but it'll be super heavy. I think I'll just hold out for a 24-105ish lens, and until then I'll have to "rough it" with the 24-70.
Paul L. wrote:
I've been waiting for a 24-105-type lens, but so far, no go.
I bought a 17-35 to go to Europe over the summer, and sold it for slightly more than a new 16-35 would cost me now. Interestingly, looking at the EXIF info something like 90% of my shots were 24mm or more, so I could have just taken the 24-70 instead.
The 16-35 + 50 1.4 + 70-300 is a nice travel combo, but it'll be super heavy. I think I'll just hold out for a 24-105ish lens, and until then I'll have to "rough it" with the 24-70. ...Show more →
Nikon already makes such a lens (24-120mm VR), sadly it's a steaming pile of dung.
ISO1600 wrote:
i don't think the 28/1.4 will go down much in price, because we all still want it just as bad.
Really? I personally don't lust a 28 1.4 now that there is a 24mm out there. However, I would snatch one up to SAVE money if the prices is around $1,500. If not, I would shell out $2,200 if I wanted a fast 24mm bad enough.
The Canon 24/1.4II sells for about $1700, which means the Nikon version will, at least for the time being, be about $500 more. I can't imagine the performance will be $500 better.
Well if Canon can make a nice 24-105, Nikon can do something similar!