Whoo!!! If only I shot FX and had money.

24 looks so sexy. ugh

Where's Luminosity to rain on the parade (they're both "G" lenses OMG!!)

Okay, wonder what the prices are.

My NAS.....it's........OUT OF CONTROL AHAHFWEKJAGELA

That 16-35's FX after all, VR, nano coating with a 77mm thread no less. Looks way more packable than the 14-24.

<sigh>

Very nice the 16-35 looks about the same size as the 24-70. That 24 1.4 will be my next purchase. Depending on pricing and performance I may have to unload the 14-24 and purchase both. The best part they both take a 77mm filter.

Wonder what the prices will be

Avi B wrote:
Where's Luminosity to rain on the parade (they're both "G" lenses OMG!!)

Okay, wonder what the prices are.

Seriously? I think you're thinking of someone else. I have no problems with either lens, and I am thrilled to see the 24/1.4.

Those mournful sounds you heard were owners of the 28/1.4, which just lost about a third of its value.

Lets hope this statement is true. addresses market feedback for a more affordable alternative to the professional AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED or more recent AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED ultra-wide-angle lens”.

Forget it. $2200 for the 24 1.4? No thanks.

I remember having a dream a few weeks ago and the 16-35 in my dream looked pretty similar to the one that came out, fricken creepy.

Oh maybe I was. My bad. Poor joke hah!

I want a 35/1.4 I find 24 too wide. I like my AIS version just fine, but I think I will put it up for sale.

that 16-35 will probably be an amazing travel lens.
the 24's MTF, at f1.4, looks ridiculously good.

Nikon seems to always take their time getting to stuff, but when they get to it, they seem to do very well. Canon's 24/1.4II was a big success and hopefully Nikon has matched it. Canon has to do the same with a new 24-70, which is overmatched by Nikon's version.

where are you guys seeing the pricing?

Bruce Sawle wrote:
Lets hope this statement is true. addresses market feedback for a more affordable alternative to the professional AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED or more recent AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED ultra-wide-angle lens”.

Define "more affordable". The 17-35/2.8 is $1,765 new at B&H. There's a lot of room below $1,765 which would still make this a pricey lens.

gvg45 wrote:
Wonder how flooded the B/S forums going to get with people trying to unload their 14-24 for the 16-35?


Maybe not so many if it is an extra lens. At least they listened to those of us that need to use a filter.

EBH

http://j2k.naver.com/j2k_frame.php/korean/www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/fx/singlefocal/img/af-s_24mmf14g_ed/sample2.htm

samples shots of 24mm f1.4

http://press.nikonusa.com/2010/02/nikon_releases_two_highly_anti.php

this was on the bottom...
Pricing and Availability

The versatile, wide angle AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR is scheduled to be available in late February 2010 at Nikon Authorized Dealers with an estimated selling price of $1259.95*. The ultra-fast AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4 G ED lens will be available in late March 2010 for estimated selling price of $2199.95*. For more information, please visit www.nikonusa.com.

I am holding my breath for a 35 f1.4!

That 16-35 f4 will be tempting if it's around 1k.