luminosity wrote:
Pavel, I can't imagine that you had Canon's new 24/1.4II. I've never heard a bad word about it and I've seen spectacular results from various copies of it, including and maybe even especially wide open.
If you don't like 24mm, it doesn't matter if it can fly you to the moon- because it just isn't the lens for you.
I hate 24mm primes. Hell, i hate zooms that start or end at 24mm.
I for one am getting on the list for that 16-35. Don't really care too much how it does at F4 - I want to know how it compares to my 14-24 @ F8+. If it's good, there might be a used 14-24 coming to a B&S board soon.
14-24 is a fantastic lens, but despite thinking I could live w/o filters, I've discovered that there are just too many times I really needed that polarizer at 20mm or so.
Steezus wrote:
But can you really compare these MTF charts since one is at f2.8 and the other is at f4? I could be mistaken, but I didn't think there were MTF charts for the 17-35 2.8 lens @f4. If that is the case, the new f4 isn't even very good at f4 @ 16mm and is even bigger than the 17-35.
that does not work. Comparing MTF's from three different lenses, 2 of which are closed down one stop from max aperture, and one wide open, is apples and oranges. Most lenses improve a ton just closed down one stop. I bet the new zoom will be great wide open, and life changing by F8.
Of course I wish it were cheaper, but the 16-35 sounds pretty appealing to me. If it's as good as it should be a stop or two down, this will be a great lens for travel and hiking.
louis fusco wrote:
would explain vr on a 16mm lens? the camera for this should be interesting.
VR on any focal length is going to be useful for video. You might be able to handhold a 1/25th with a 16mm lens but can you handhold a 10 minute clip rock steady?
24mm @ f/1.4 + the low light capabilities of Nikon FX bodies D700/D3/D3s = market domination for the niche of shooters who NEED low light, available-light-only capabilities.
I for one will be saving my pennies for the 24/1.4. I'll hold off on the 16-35 until I buy myself a D700 and 85mm f/1.4 AF-D to go with the 24mm f/1.4 AFS.
this 24, coupled with the 85/1.4 and 50/1.4G would be great for shooting a wedding.
a while back i shot 99% of a wedding with just the Canon 24L and 135L, and it turned out great. I hate both those lenses though, for anything else haha.
Awasos23 wrote:
I'm hoping this drives down the prices of the 17-35 myself
That's what I was thinking. It will throw another lens into the mix to help "dilute" the demand maybe. I shoot at night a lot and really want the f2.8. Really though, the lens I want is still the 14-24mm f2.8. I still see f4 zooms as critical to Nikon's success, even though I personally have a need for f2.8.
I am afraid if the 24 f/1.4 is around $2200... That means the 35 f/1.4 when it comes out later this year most likely will be around 1800-2000. That is a lot.
Bad choice - VR on a wide angle lens. Phoo. Adds even more weight and bulk and cost to a lens that should be a professional alternative for lighter weight and lower cost.
It's hardly any smaller than the HUGE 24-70 f/28! What's the point? I guess it's 0.5 lbs lighter, but the damned thing is still 1.5 lbs!
And BOTH new lenses are over the top in terms of price. I'd hoped the new 16-35 would come in in the $1K range, not only $400 less than the way overpriced 24-70.
The 24 is a lens i must have the 16-35 is tempting because of the size and ability ro use filters . If i shot soley landscapes this would be a lens i would consider, but the MTF compared to my 14-24 does not look as food in the corners, and the f4 would limit me indoors.
chemprof wrote:
Bad choice - VR on a wide angle lens. Phoo. Adds even more weight and bulk and cost to a lens that should be a professional alternative for lighter weight and lower cost.
It's hardly any smaller than the HUGE 24-70 f/28! What's the point? I guess it's 0.5 lbs lighter, but the damned thing is still 1.5 lbs!
And BOTH new lenses are over the top in terms of price. I'd hoped the new 16-35 would come in in the $1K range, not only $400 less than the way overpriced 24-70.
Again... Phooo.
Gerald
PHOOOO Gerald, have you seen pricing on any Nikon glass in the past 3 years? It is all very expensive relative to what it is. Look at the 50G, it's a nearly $500 50mm f1.4.
I think those that are saying the 16-35VR is aimed at travel, landscape, and VIDEO have hit the nail on the head. VR + ultra wide/normal wide + ISO 6400 = videographers delight. It's a very interesting move for sure.
I could handhold Canon's 17-55 IS lens on a 1.6 crop at ~1/20 and get excellent images at the wide end. VRII should work even better.
Sean Mills wrote:
Great choice. Sharper images at lower shutter speeds even stopped down = less time setting up and taking down a tripod.
I say yay!
My only hesitation is f8ish performance, if those corners clean up well by f6 f8 f10, pfft, done deal, no brainer.
Mights save some time, but no matter how good the VR is, it still doesn't replace a tripod for the highest quality landscape images in low light with very low shutter speeds.
? the camera for this should be interesting.