New Nikkor lenses

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

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 … 5 6 end

Archive 2010 · New Nikkor lenses

Andrew Gough
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · New Nikkor lenses

crops are meaningless, you have to crop the entire corner...

Feb 09, 2010 at 06:12 AM

jianghai_ho
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · New Nikkor lenses

I'm almost sh*tting my pants just thinking about how good the 24/1.4 could be (judging by the 14-24, probaby very) but the cost.... We're encroaching on leica territory. Oh the things we do for fast lenses.

Feb 09, 2010 at 06:40 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · New Nikkor lenses

Interesting that have VR on a 16-35. I would love Canon to update the 17-40, although I hadn't thought we'd see IS, maybe, it's not so silly. I'd love to see how the 16-35 f/4 VR stacks up against the excellent 17-35 f/2.8 not to mention the 14-24 f/2.8 as well of corse Canon's offerings. If per chance the 16-35 is cheaper than the 14-28 and demonstrably superior to the Canon glass, I'd consider it for my 5D II.

Slowly but surely Nikon is filling in the gaps, but they still have a long way to go: 70-200 f/4 VR, 80-400 f/4-5.6 AF-S VR II, 300 f/4 AF-S VR II, 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 AF-S VR, something similar to Canon's MP-E, 100 f/2 AF-S VR.

Feb 09, 2010 at 06:59 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · New Nikkor lenses

snooked123 wrote:
17-40 is really bad in the corners...i am certain that the new nikkor will be much better in the corners. I have no direct experience with canon 16-35 but from the tests that I have seen it is incredibly sharp in the center but not so much in the corners.

Really bad, I don't find this at all on FF. Not saying it's in the 24 TS-E II class, but stopped down to f/8 it's pretty good, especially at 24mm+ and the 16-35 II is not much better if any in the corners.

Feb 09, 2010 at 07:03 AM

snowboarder
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · New Nikkor lenses

timpdx wrote: The 24LII is pretty much perfection, ...

Geez, I thought I would choke

Perfection? Yeah, right....

Feb 09, 2010 at 07:06 AM

sirimiri
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · New Nikkor lenses

Hey now, the Nikkor 50mm 1.2 Ai-S is a great lens, I use it on my FM2n all the time. Perhaps not so hot at 1.2 but few lenses are. At 2.0 it's beastly...and for arout $600 new or like new, I'll focus that puppy myself, thank you!

(ok, I'll also set the aperture myself, too!) :P

burningheart wrote:
Probably the same reason they don't have a ...50 1.2,...

Feb 09, 2010 at 07:15 AM

lordarka
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · New Nikkor lenses

Tri Tran wrote:
Nikon announced 16-35f4 VR and 24f1.4, the Nikon forum is in euphoria.
But, in my opinion it is not that exciting. Canon has an excellent 17-40f4 for years, all they need to to is some little updates and add IS. The 24mm L is in its second edition.
Nikon does have nice zooms (14-24 and 24-70)

Did you use all the images of Nikon glass on your Flikr page to sell stuff on eBay before switching to Canon?

The 16-35 f/4 is most likely, as many have pointed out, to offer better IQ in the corners than the Canon 17-40. It also has VR, which is cool. Now, if Nikon's D700 had a resolution as high as the 5D Mark II, and had the 5D Mark II's movie capability, I think I might even contemplate a switch to Nikon.

Arka C.

Feb 09, 2010 at 07:17 AM

Tri Tran
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · New Nikkor lenses

I use the Nikkor lenses with adapters on my Canon DSLRs. The best of both worlds

Feb 09, 2010 at 07:18 AM

Fat Dave
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · New Nikkor lenses

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Really bad, I don't find this at all on FF. Not saying it's in the 24 TS-E II class, but stopped down to f/8 it's pretty good, especially at 24mm+ and the 16-35 II is not much better if any in the corners.

I found the 17-40L "okay" in the corners stopped down (on 5DII), but only okay. Center is sharp.
I have found both versions of the 16-35L to be sharper in the corners than the 17-40 at similar apertures, but again not great, and they don't compare well to what other lenses (notably, good primes) provide.

My experience only. But for me, none of the Canon wide zooms really blow my skirt up.

Feb 09, 2010 at 07:23 AM

Tri Tran
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · New Nikkor lenses

it is strange that some people already assuming the Nikon 16-35 VR is the gold standard. The speculations are worthless without pictures

I want proofs.

Feb 09, 2010 at 07:27 AM

M Vers
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · New Nikkor lenses

Apart from price, Nikon seems to be shoring up its weak spots rather quickly. Next thing you know there will be a Nikkor 35/1.4, 85/1.2 and a 70-200/4VR. Good job Nikon! (again, apart from price).

Feb 09, 2010 at 12:18 PM

kakomu
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · New Nikkor lenses

Dawei Ye wrote:
kakomu wrote:
I don't understand the necessity for IS in the 17-40.
IS helps when one cannot use a Tripod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

I've never needed IS with my EF 20-35 f/3.5-4.5. IS in a lens with a focal length that short seems superfluous. When I use my 28-135, I barely notice the IS at the shorter focal lengths compared to the longer focal lengths.

Edited on Feb 09, 2010 at 12:42 PM · View previous versions

Feb 09, 2010 at 12:36 PM

n0b0
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · New Nikkor lenses

fotosculptor wrote:
Hmmm, VR on a wide lens zoom. To all the folks who say you don't need IS for a 24-70mm, what's your response to Nikon?

Umm... Ease up on the coffee and Red Bull?

Feb 09, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Will Patterson
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · New Nikkor lenses

I'd rather have my 17-40L for $550, thanks

Great lens, very sharp, even in the corners on my 1D3 and on my 5D2.

Feb 09, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · New Nikkor lenses

EB-1 wrote:
Canon 17-40 is not so good in the corners. The Nikkor is almost certain to be better.

EBH

It may, but the MTF does not seem to imply so.

kakomu wrote:
Dawei Ye wrote:
kakomu wrote:
I don't understand the necessity for IS in the 17-40.
IS helps when one cannot use a Tripod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

I've never needed IS with my EF 20-35 f/3.5-4.5. IS in a lens with a focal length that short seems superfluous. When I use my 28-135, I barely notice the IS at the shorter focal lengths compared to the longer focal lengths.

I am often thankful for the IS in my 17-55/2.8 IS. Here are two extreme examples.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Edited on Feb 09, 2010 at 01:28 PM · View previous versions

Feb 09, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Breitling65
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · New Nikkor lenses

stargazer78 wrote:

Says who?

What aperture been used in shot? Also mine was very soft on 40mm/F4 end not on 17mm.

Feb 09, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Hrow
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · New Nikkor lenses

IS on a wide can be a godsend for anyone doing interiors while traveling light. If you don't need it that's fine but there are many of us who think it is a very worthwhile addition. Obviously, the folks at Nikon saw a market as well.

To a number of the posters, sorry to hear that your 17-40 is such crap. Mine isn't so I guess I will add that to my list of things for which to be thankful.

The assumption, no the certainty reflected here, that the new Nikkors will be better than current offerings without even having seen the lens (much less images from the lens) is just silly. As long newer and more expensive are the only standards by which we judge quality, manufacturers will just continue ride our sorry asses to bank.

Feb 09, 2010 at 12:56 PM

n0b0
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · New Nikkor lenses

Hrow wrote:
IS on a wide can be a godsend for anyone doing interiors while traveling light. If you don't need it that's fine but there are many of us who think it is a very worthwhile addition. Obviously, the folks at Nikon saw a market as well.

I can see where you're coming from but I hope you can also understand that for the folks who don't need IS, paying an extra $400-700 (based on Aussie retail price for the 70-200 f/4 & f/2.8) for the IS may seem like a waste of money.

Solution? Just like the 70-200 lenses I used as example, there should be both IS and non-IS version.

Feb 09, 2010 at 01:15 PM

kewlcanon
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #19 · New Nikkor lenses

Not sure if IS is needed for f/4 wide angle lenses, for f/2.8 I'll agree.

Feb 09, 2010 at 01:20 PM

Will Patterson
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · New Nikkor lenses

Feb 09, 2010 at 01:21 PM

Beni
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #21 · New Nikkor lenses

I have a good 17-40L but even stopped down the corners are worse than those 5D mkII examples and I'm using a 5D.

Methinks the VR is aimed straight at video use where it will come in very handy for that lens. I wouldn't mind a 17-40L IS, not sure if I'd pay double for it though and I'm a very strong advocate for a 24-70L IS myself.

Feb 09, 2010 at 01:21 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #22 · New Nikkor lenses

Beni wrote:
I'm a very strong advocate for a 24-70L IS myself.

Me too.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Feb 09, 2010 at 01:40 PM

Hrow
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #23 · New Nikkor lenses

n0b0 wrote:
Hrow wrote:
IS on a wide can be a godsend for anyone doing interiors while traveling light. If you don't need it that's fine but there are many of us who think it is a very worthwhile addition. Obviously, the folks at Nikon saw a market as well.

I can see where you're coming from but I hope you can also understand that for the folks who don't need IS, paying an extra $400-700 (based on Aussie retail price for the 70-200 f/4 & f/2.8) for the IS may seem like a waste of money.

Solution? Just like the 70-200 lenses I used as example, there should be both IS and non-IS version.

Having both options is the best way to go IMO and its one of Canon's strong points. I just am getting a little tired of people asserting that since they don't need IS on a wide that it is a stupid idea. It isn't, they just don't need that feature.

The best analogy is GPS. My wife drives to about 5 places and that's it. She knows where they are and how to get there. She thinks my GPS is the stupidest thing on earth and doesn't understand why I benefit from it since she knows where she is and where she is going. On the other hand, I drive places where I have never been and on back roads that aren't on most maps. To me the GPS has a lot of value. Different strokes. For her a GPS is stupid. For me, it is not.

Same thing with IS - even on wides.

Feb 09, 2010 at 01:46 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #24 · New Nikkor lenses

Well said.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Feb 09, 2010 at 01:51 PM

Hrow
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #25 · New Nikkor lenses

kewlcanon wrote:
Not sure if IS is needed for f/4 wide angle lenses, for f/2.8 I'll agree.

Not sure I follow the logic on this. If anything, having the extra stop helps reduce the need for IS - from a camera shake perspective only.

One of the things that is often missed is that is frequently not desirable to have to open up to get a "non-shake" shot. If I need F8 for DOF purposes but have to open up 4 stops to preserve sharpness that would otherwise be lost to shake then I am not in the situation that I want.

Feb 09, 2010 at 01:53 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 end