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.
I was dead wrong since I've never needed nor used the fast wide primes... I guessed $900.
I am fazed by the price because it's way out of my normal shooting style. But if you need that fast/wide prime, and judging from the number of people who've continuously bitched about the lack thereof for the last couple of years, then I'd say it will probably be a huge success for Nikon (meaning, they'll sell as many or perhaps many more than what they forecasted).
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.
my prediction was close to $3K. i am too high but much more realistic than all those predicting in the $1K range. i'm not interested in any f1.4 wide prime anyway as i wouldn't use it at f1.4. f11 performance in a wide prime matters most to me. OTOH, i would like to see the updated 85/1.4 sooner rather than later and i expect it to be over $1.5K, perhaps well over. still that is much cheaper than getting an equivalent FOV on Hasselblad or Leica S2.
Herb...
ISO1600 wrote:
Herb, i was predicting at least 1600-1800. I am not phased by the price, as i don't want a 24mm.
i figure 90% of those who complained and lusted won't buy one.
Herb...
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
But if you need that fast/wide prime, and judging from the number of people who've continuously bitched about the lack thereof for the last couple of years, then I'd say it will probably be a huge success for Nikon (meaning, they'll sell as many or perhaps many more than what they forecasted).
I was just looking at the price of the 14-24 in the UK at Grays of Westminster, at £1295. The RRP of this lens in the UK is £1635. That's 20% less than RRP. By that logic I expect the 16-35 F4 to be priced at around £839. That still seems a bit high by my standards. I'd rather buy a used 18-35 for half that. A new 18-35 costs £535. I suppose the addition of Nano coating and IS makes up for the difference in price, but still.
*EDIT*
Just realised, I've got a spare 77mm UV 0 filter. In that case, I MUST be it
the 18-35 is fine until about 2/3 out when stopped down on FX. it loses sharpness very quickly after that and no amount of post processing brings it back, much like the 70-200 VR. since the 18-35 covers a very useful range for landscape work, corner to corner performance matters a lot. i had one for about 3 months and sold it before i even got my 17-35 as a replacement. at least on the 17-35, the corners hold up until past 4/5 out when stopped down. if the 16-35 has good corners at 16 at f11, then the 17-35 will go on sale. having an f2.8 wide zoom isn't important to me but uniform edge to edge sharpness matters.
If the RRP of the 16-35 stays as high as it is, seriously, if you've got the cash for a £1050 UWA lens, then you've probably got the money for a 14-24 priced £250 more. Aside from the fact that the new lens can take filters, and has VR/IS, I think it's a no brainer for someone who doesn't care about filter use. What do you think?
HerbChong wrote:
the 18-35 is fine until about 2/3 out when stopped down on FX. it loses sharpness very quickly after that and no amount of post processing brings it back, much like the 70-200 VR. since the 18-35 covers a very useful range for landscape work, corner to corner performance matters a lot. i had one for about 3 months and sold it before i even got my 17-35 as a replacement. at least on the 17-35, the corners hold up until past 4/5 out when stopped down. if the 16-35 has good corners at 16 at f11, then the 17-35 will go on sale. having an f2.8 wide zoom isn't important to me but uniform edge to edge sharpness matters.