Like jacobsen1, mine sold today as well. I got a good price and no looking back. Look forward to a hands on with the 16-35mm, but for now I will fall back on the 18-35mm. Decided to take the risk before the new lens comes out and seeing others post their 14-24mm like jacobsen1 and I did.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the lens, but I need to be able to use filters, and a bigger range was what I was missing. ~35 is perfect for me.
RRRoger wrote:
I think he is afraid that a swarm of Canon trolls will come over and start whining in this forum like they do over there now.
Oh, I'm sorry... you mean there's no trolling and whining here? So nice to see that I've been hallucinating.
With the amount of bitching, whining, moaning, and unseemly grousing that I'm seeing around here, I'm surprised that more whiners would be a legitimate concern for anyone but the whiners themselves (avoiding competition, I guess). Let's clean up our own act first and then worry about the rest of 'em. Besides, the whiners tend not to be the ones who buy gear and shoot with it... so the trolls and whiners have a lower-than-average probability of switching anyway.
The few images I have seen in the web from both lenses are impressive indeed. I agree that the web is not the place to evaluate sharpness but in general, it has always been a good indication of the quality of a lens when it looked sharp.
Modern Nikon lenses are superb, I have no questions in my mind about that. Old lenses are fantastic too and in my more than 40 years using Nikon, my lenses failed only when I did not do my part.
I can only remember one lens that did not make me happy, the 28-85. The previous owner sold it to me knowing one of the elements moved off axis when the lens suffered a blow. Realignment of the elements and the proper calibration using a collimator to center the optical formula cured the problem.
I believe the VR in the 16-35mm is ideal for video recording when panning . . . assuming Nikon comes out with a camera that can really record video.
The challenge may have been getting VR in a wide angle, which it appears Nikon has corrected . . . who knows. I look forward to this lens. I can afford the 1 stop loss from 2.8 if they release a camera that gets 2 stops better performance in a D700 body.
Love the lenses, hope Nikon continues with the fast primes, but disappointed there was no new camera to go with it. Maybe we will see an updated 24-120mm VR f/4 to go with the D700 replacement.
SoundHound wrote:
24mm $2200!! Really way too much. 16-35 VR where we don't need it-where's the 24-70= VR where we do. Will that be $3000. Really Nikon!
Well we probably won't see a 24-70 update until 2014, so yes. It should cost $3000 easily. Yah for weak $
Yah for weak $