Although the 24 is too pricey compared to the Canon, I will likely get one as I am desperately missing my L version.
As for the 16-35, I have the 14-24 already. I don't need F2.8 on a wide end as I use it mostly with flash/auxiliary lighting, so perhaps I will trade the 14-24 and get the 16-35?
I don't see why one would get the 16-35 f/4 when they could get a mint copy of the 17-35 f/2.8 for less. Probably much less when the 16-35 hits the street.
16-35mm f4. Too slow, I need f2.8. It's easier to focus in the dark and I don't have to put out so many lights to reach f2.8.
24mm f1.4. Interesting, but I already have Sigma 30mm f1.4 which is fairly close. Hard for me to justify that kind of money for a lens that has so little flexibility.
Verdict: Buy neither. Neither lens is a good fit for my style or system. Instead, put money into a pile of the new Paul Buff Einstein monolights (640ws). They have recycle of 1.8 seconds and very short flash duration. Those I can use.
24mm f1.4. Interesting, but I already have Sigma 30mm f1.4 which is fairly close. Hard for me to justify that kind of money for a lens that has so little flexibility.
The flexibility comes with the aperture range, not the focal length. I find that to be much more useful overall.
I'm getting both, but I'm not sure how long it will take for the 24mm due to the cost.
I came from canon. I don't like lenses with aperture rings. So the 17-35mm was out for me. I had the 14-24mm but it's massive and expensive. I liked the fact it was f/2.8, but it's not ideal for me. So I'm going to the 16-35mm pretty soon (I already sold my 14-24mm today). The 24L was my favorite lens on my 5D/5Dii for years on my canon. I have the sigma version now and a 50G. But $2200 is waaaaaay too much for me right now. If I sell my 24-70G for it I can swing it but that's tough. I might do that though and go with a 16-35, 24, 50, 70-300 kit for a while, then save for the 24-70 again.
But yeah, these 2 lenses filled in the lens gaps in Nikon's line for me perfectly. I know it won't for everyone, but I'm very happy. I was happy with what I had honestly (-vs- canon) but this just seals the deal.
luminosity wrote: 24mm f1.4. Interesting, but I already have Sigma 30mm f1.4 which is fairly close. Hard for me to justify that kind of money for a lens that has so little flexibility.
The flexibility comes with the aperture range, not the focal length. I find that to be much more useful overall.
It can be, and I do find there are times when f2.8 isn't fast enough for me. For that, I have the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I generally find f1.4 to have too narrow DOF to make the image the way I want. Remember, when it's dark, I usually have the option to simply throw out more flash. I have about 15 of them (x7 monolights, x8 SB flash) plus triggers for each. I am planning on buying even more of the new Einstein monolights too. I don't use the 30mm I have now very often, and rarely at anything above f4. I need the flexibility of focal length more than anything. I am an outdoor shooter, not a studio guy.
I would like to see how the new 16–35/4 looks, distortion-wise for interior work (I use the 24 PC-E and the 14–24, and a sharp copy of the older 35/2 presently. That flexibility will come in handy. I do not need a fast 24.
I will get the 24mm for $2200 over a used 28mm f1.4 for $3000 any day
and I predict that in the next few weeks we are going to see lots of these used lenses in the $2000 range.....thank you Nikon for the new lenses...!
When the 28mm 1.4 gets down to $1800 I may get one also....
Because low light photography is not something I do often, in my case none of those lenses will benefit my style of shooting.
I have been using for years a 24mm f2.8 AIS that has given me excellent pictures. My "low light lens" is the 50mm f1.8 and I can count with my fingers when it was used for that purpose.
The 16-85 VR, which I do not own, has been excellent for landscape photography but since I combine my 12-24 Nikkor with the 24-85 I feel that in the wide to normal to slight tele I am properly covered for what I do.
No reasons for me to spend so much money in those new lenses.
most of the time, 2.8 isn't fast enough for me, as far as primes are concerned.
I would rather have fast (small) primes and slow zooms, because a slow zoom is at least an affordable and somewhat compact lens, compared to "fast" 2.8 zooms that aren't as fast as my $100 primes.
ISO1600 wrote:
most of the time, 2.8 isn't fast enough for me, as far as primes are concerned.
I would rather have fast (small) primes and slow zooms, because a slow zoom is at least an affordable and somewhat compact lens, compared to "fast" 2.8 zooms that aren't as fast as my $100 primes.
Ding ding. That right there is partly why I ended up selling my 70-200vr. f/2.8 ended up not being here nor there for my needs, it was mostly an $1800 boat anchor I hated carrying and used for 10% of my work. It's started to make a lot of sense for me to have something like an 135mm f/2 and a 70-300VR vs a 70-200VR.
Ding ding. That right there is partly why I ended up selling my 70-200vr. f/2.8 ended up not being here nor there for my needs, it was mostly an $1800 boat anchor I hated carrying and used for 10% of my work. It's started to make a lot of sense for me to have something like an 135mm f/2 and a 70-300VR vs a 70-200VR.
+1
This is what I did as well, sold my 70-200 vr but then I bought a 70-180 which for my use is nice and light for outside general work.
I even sold my excellent, excellent 14-24, 24-70 for a 17-35.... I needed to be able to use filters and not carry both of these around.
Now all I need is a 35 f1.4 please and a new 135 f2 and I'll be fine . . and please help me stay away from a 24 f1.4 but it's pulling me in!! help help!
I hear ya Jammy. I sold my 70-200 f2.8vr for the "boatanchor" reason as well. I just wasn't encouraged to use it as I really didn't require the speed. The 70-300vr is a wonderful light substitute for me. However nobody seems to understand how my Tamron 28-300vc seems to be glued to my D700 most of the time. It just is so darned convenient and renders such nice images. Thus far I haven't had issues with it's speed nor it's focusing abilities. Either I got a freak copy or they are just that versatile.
and a new 135 f2