I have to ask...seems like NIKON do things that I can't comprehend. I haven't run into situations that I thought I needed VR in my 14-24. So why VR in the 16-35 with an F4 Why not just make a new 16-35 f2.8 to replace the 17-35 for peeps who wants to use filter?? Why make a 16-35 F4 VR at all? It isn't cheap or much lighter either. Can someone give me some logic? I feel there are lenses that Nikon needs to focus on more than the 85 3.5 micro and 16-35 F4 VR.
gvg45 wrote:
If the 24 f/1.4 is that much better then the 28 f/1.4 I think the price will drop.
I almost considered buying a 28mm f1.4 for just under $3k last month. Now to save pennies for the new 24mm f1.4 - having owned the Canon 24mm f1.4L, and now loving the 24-70mm f2.8 AF-S, if the 24mm f1.4 is good, it will be a big hit for Nikon and many FX shooters.
The $1260 price for the 16-35mm f4.0 seems very tempting... hopefully it will have a similar stellar performance as the 14-24mm f2.8 did.
tuannie wrote:
I have to ask...seems like NIKON do things that I can't comprehend. I haven't run into situations that I thought I needed VR in my 14-24. So why VR in the 16-35 with an F4 Why not just make a new 16-35 f2.8 to replace the 17-35 for peeps who wants to use filter?? Why make a 16-35 F4 VR at all? It isn't cheap or much lighter either. Can someone give me some logic? I feel there are lenses that Nikon needs to focus on more than the 85 3.5 micro and 16-35 F4 VR.
I am assuming that 16-35 is for landscape, so you dont need f2.8 at all, even at night time, VR II replaces f2.8. if you are shooting moving object, i am assuming that you dont need to use wide angle lens anyway, so thats why this thing costs so much .
tuannie wrote:
I have to ask...seems like NIKON do things that I can't comprehend. I haven't run into situations that I thought I needed VR in my 14-24. So why VR in the 16-35 with an F4 Why not just make a new 16-35 f2.8 to replace the 17-35 for peeps who wants to use filter?? Why make a 16-35 F4 VR at all? It isn't cheap or much lighter either. Can someone give me some logic? I feel there are lenses that Nikon needs to focus on more than the 85 3.5 micro and 16-35 F4 VR.
the 16-35 makes a lot of sense to me, but would make more sense if they still had a fast UWA prime in the lineup.
I'm thinking about selling one of my 18/2.8's and getting this new zoom, as that will give me a fast small prime, and this versatile zoom that should have great performance optically... and be very flexible for walkaround shooting for most of the day.
Huang123 wrote:
I am assuming that 16-35 is for landscape, so you dont need f2.8 at all, even at night time, VR II replaces f2.8. if you are shooting moving object, i am assuming that you dont need to use wide angle lens anyway, so thats why this thing costs so much .
landscape = tripod at large aperture anyway yes? VR will never replace shutter speed. f2.8 give you faster shutter while vr gives you sharper images at slower shutter speed so it still don't make sense to me. one of the thing I constantly have to deal with when I shoot weddings with the 70-200 VR is motion blur of the subject while almost everything else stay sharp
tuannie wrote:
I have to ask...seems like NIKON do things that I can't comprehend. I haven't run into situations that I thought I needed VR in my 14-24. So why VR in the 16-35 with an F4
Why VR because a lot of people are saying they want VR even Canon users are saying IS on all lenses whether it is needed or not. It may not be the silent majority asking for it but I think Nikon heard those asking and added it.
ISO1600 wrote:
the 16-35 makes a lot of sense to me, but would make more sense if they still had a fast UWA prime in the lineup.
I'm thinking about selling one of my 18/2.8's and getting this new zoom, as that will give me a fast small prime, and this versatile zoom that should have great performance optically... and be very flexible for walkaround shooting for most of the day.
I guess for 14-24 like myself it would not make much sense unless I really want to shed that extra 10ish onces from my bag.
Jammy Straub wrote:
The Nikon marketing chief says we will have several! I bet 50 f/1.2 and 135 f/2 or 1.8 is next.
Something like a 50mm f1.2 is an exotic. I would bet that for every buyer for one of those, there will be >5,000 buyers for a 70-200mm f4 VR. The big news is that Nikon seems to finally be coming out with a line of mid priced f4 VR zooms. This is EXACTLY what they need to push sales of any FX bodies to the middle tier of customers. The choice has been either buy f2.8 pro zooms or put together a hodge podge of often "iffy" stuff. It's the f4 zooms that will make Nikon roll. However, if they stick to that $1,300 price point, keep in mind a set of three (wide, mid, and tele zooms) would be running $4,000. That's not a trifle sum, but a bit less than ~$6,000 for the f2.8 "holy trinity." Well see what develops over the coming months.
lidesun wrote:
But is that lens's design just too old compared with all those newer lens?
And the f/4 with VR really doesn't make sense, but lots of photographer will love it....
but it definitely not a lens for wedding guys for sure...
24/1.4 sounds very attractive.... have to get one for sure for my own sick !
Well that's all I am saying...F4 + VR glad I am not the only one. I think a lot of people misinterpret VR and how it is used. VR does not mean sharp images
And yes, that's why I said they should just make a 16-35 f2.8 replacement although you are right...perhaps the price vs focal length would be too close to the 14-24. Either way, 16-35 with VR is odd.
At the very beginning of rumor, I was expecting a 16-35 f4 NON VR and sell <800 ish like the canon 17-40 f4. but now $1300 with VR, I would just add few hundreds for a 14-24 even tho cant use filter but with wider angle
These are nice but I am shocked by the size of an F4 lens - that thing is HUGE! But it does give a nice round out to the choices Nikon shooters have.
I have most of what I need in nikon glass. The only lens I'm after now is to get the last tilt shift lens, the 45 and with that I am done with Nikon glass (well the 300 F4 perhaps).
I sold the Canon kit just a while ago due in part to how poor the 24-105 F4.0 IS and their 24 f 1.4 both were. Both were quite disappointing, not good enough for my standards and I would not mind if I were in the market for a 24 f 1.4 spending the extra money IF the lens performs much better. The canon had a bit too much (but still fairly low) distortion and HORRIBLE CA's. I also found the fast lenses at the wide end with todays high iso performers made a pointless mix for me. I know that others feel differently though. Perhaps the 24 will justify it's price premium? Lets keep in mind that the price is the msrp and after the "gotta have it" crowd get theirs in the first few months - perhaps the price will do the normal thing and drop to about ? $ 1900.
Like I said, I have what I need in Nikon and am pretty much done. These lenses are nice but I know I won't be buying them. Still, it is great to see their introduction. I'm over getting sticker shock over pricing. I've been shell-shocked into numbness Leica glass is looking cheaper by the day! The summarit 75 and 35 are reasonable and all I need along with the hard to justify, but hard to stop thinking about; M9. I want tini lenses and easy to carry like only Leica seems to make possible so that is where my nas has drifted to now.
A year ago I would have been ecstatic over just this kind of lens announcement. Now I get some of what I thought I needed - but no lust left. My trip with Canon showed me that I was barking up the wrong tree. Bummer! I miss the crazy, irrational lust - the crazy, irrational self delusions - that I need more, that the next lens is THE magic bullet. Anyone else feel let down by having what one needs - and nothing to do but take pictures?
Pavel, I can't imagine that you had Canon's new 24/1.4II. I've never heard a bad word about it and I've seen spectacular results from various copies of it, including and maybe even especially wide open.
Why not just make a new 16-35 f2.8 to replace the 17-35 for peeps who wants to use filter?? Why make a 16-35 F4 VR at all? It isn't cheap or much lighter either. Can someone give me some logic? I feel there are lenses that Nikon needs to focus on more than the 85 3.5 micro and 16-35 F4 VR.
Leica glass is looking cheaper by the day! The summarit 75 and 35 are reasonable and all I need along with the hard to justify, but hard to stop thinking about; M9. I want tini lenses and easy to carry like only Leica seems to make possible so that is where my nas has drifted to now.