Both are to much money for me being only a hobbyist. I would love the 16-35/4, but it looks a little bit to big and heavy for my liking. Guess I'll stick with my light and handy Tamron 17-35.
ISO1600 wrote:
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.
True, Nikon's pricing has gotten REALLY ridiculous as of late - it's pure nonsense.
davidnholtjr wrote:
Both are to much money for me being only a hobbyist. I would love the 16-35/4, but it looks a little bit to big and heavy for my liking. Guess I'll stick with my light and handy Tamron 17-35.
the 16-35 f4 VR makes perfect sense to me. It will likely be a lens that will be sharp wide open at f4, corners tack sharp by f5.6 and allow for 4 stops of vibration steadiness. Goodbye tripod. The ultimate landscape lens on FF while you're out and about and no need for the extra carry weight of a tripod. Not sure it gets much better than that.....
More overpriced stuff from nikon..... And unfortunately there are those out there that obviously have too much money and that will jump immediately on the 'lists' for these, thereby giving Nikon the nod to keep it up. People such as those that think that $1260 is "not much more" than $700(mint 18mm fixed). Um that's close to 1/2....! As much as I dislike K. Rockwell these days, I sure hope he uses his notoriety to 'boycott' these too.
C'mon... VR really necessary on a 16-35mm?? Sounds like a ploy to try and justify a higher price if u ask me. So what that its f4, all I see reference to is using this lens for landscape(ie. Polarizer)/outdoor. I doubt you're gonna use anything faster than f8 once on the tripod, much less VR.
Here's to waiting for an updated 24-120 or the like.
Looks like an interesting lens, but I'm not selling my 17-35 f/2.8 anytime soon. For weddings I think faster aperture is more important than VR. VR doesnt stop people from moving at the end of the day.
I wish they kept the older look for the 24/1.4 not that it matters but to me their new lenses looks cheaply made. While the 85/1.4 and 28/1.4 look like they were build to LAST.
You'd think that an F4 lense would be aimed at people that don't need or can't afford F2.8... Thus making it way less expensive (and lighter) than the 16-35 MRSP / weight...
davidnholtjr wrote:
Both are to much money for me being only a hobbyist. I would love the 16-35/4, but it looks a little bit to big and heavy for my liking. Guess I'll stick with my light and handy Tamron 17-35.
Me too. My Tamron is sharp as hell, cost me $225, and is super light. It gives me f/2.8 at the wide end to boot. I feel sorry for anyone that gets suckered into this $1300 16-35 just because they're scared of third-party glass. I owned the Nikon 17-35 before this one, and and traded "down" to make room for an 85 f/1.4, and don't regret the "downgrade" at all.
NsBenitez wrote:
Nikon new lenses prices are getting insane
No Leica prices are insane , Nikon prices are just higher than Canon for lenses. Canon can have lower profit margins because their other product lines are cash cows. Given their resources, R&D and manufacturing costs might be lower as well.
Canon is not Nikon, I don't understand why everyone expects them to be. They are different manufacturers, they will have different features and price points. Like Volkswagen and Honda or Samsung and Sony.
davidnholtjr wrote:
Guess I'll stick with my light and handy Tamron 17-35.
Erik Moore wrote:
Me too. My Tamron is sharp as hell, cost me $225, and is super light.
Not knocking the Tamron at all, because it's a valid choice. But note that Nikon doesn't put lead weights into lenses to make them heavier... it's a stronger, more durable build with other differences, like usually much faster and more accurate AF, especially in low light. If there were really no difference or very little difference, then more people would go for the cheaper option... contrary to what you might think, most pros and people who buy $1300 lenses are not "suckers who are scared of third-party glass."
Your choice is valid. Your implication that other shooters are not qualified to make other choices intelligently, or that a $1300 alternative to a $225 lens can actually be well worth the money, is ridiculous.
Lord Kimbo wrote:
I was very excited about the 24/1.4 but when I saw the price I was deflated. That is double the price I was expecting it to be. Too bad.
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
Chris Langer wrote:
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.
Chris
Chris,
Actually, the closer you get to 44mm or slightly above, the easier it is to make an FX lens. Remember that the 50 f/1.4 AFS is only $500. I would expect a 35 f/1.4 to be in the $1000 range (give or take a few hundred).
Cheers,
Andre
P.S.
And for those upset about prices, there are two things to remember:
1) The value of the US$ had dropped over 25% from it's peak. So if the 24 f/1.4 had been introduces two years ago, it would have cost $1650 instead of $2200.
2) Nikon is clearly targeting FX for the professionals and DX for hobbiest and consumers. If you are a hobbiest and want high-performance glass without paying the FX premium, go DX. You will save yourself thousands of $$$ and give up ~ 1 stop of high-ISO performance. What you get with DX is still an order of magnitude better than we ever got with film.
And unfortunately there are those out there that obviously have too much money and that will jump immediately on the 'lists' for these, thereby giving Nikon the nod to keep it up. People such as those that think that $1260 is "not much more" than $700(mint 18mm fixed). Um that's close to 1/2....! As much as I dislike K. Rockwell these days, I sure hope he uses his notoriety to 'boycott' these too. 
, Nikon prices are just higher than Canon for lenses. Canon can have lower profit margins because their other product lines are cash cows. Given their resources, R&D and manufacturing costs might be lower as well.