Wow that 16-35 is a VERY tempting lens. Although I don't spend enough time in this FR to justify a huge outlay on the 14-24, maybe I could justify the 16-35 with a longer range and VR and apparently top-notch IQ. Hmmmmm...
The 24 doesn't interest me at all because - again - I don't spend enough time there to justify the cost, but I do see the market for it for top landscape pros. Looks killer based on the MTF's...
Good on Nikon for starting to fill in some new FX lenses. Keep 'em coming! Let the 180-200mm prime range be next, something in and around the likes of the 180/f2.8 would be dandy, heck even a new AF-S 300/f4 VR. They'll sell well.
Now what kinda lead time we looking at on this 16-35?
dj dunzie wrote:
The 24 doesn't interest me at all because - again - I don't spend enough time there to justify the cost, but I do see the market for it for top landscape pros. Looks killer based on the MTF's...
I cant figure why a landscape pro would want the 24? Why spend all that money on speed when you're going to shoot at f11, and super sharp alternatives in that range exist for much less money?
Personally, I'd love one. I shoot mostly people, and I can't imagine a better Nikon kit for weddings than 24 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 + D700. But man, that lens costs more than I paid for my D700 new. Ouch.
I'm gonna wait until Sigma releases it's version of a 24mm f1.4 and enjoy the wonderful performance, quality, boken and affordability I've come to enjoy from their 30mm and 50mm f1.4
Visuals wrote:
I'm gonna wait until Sigma releases it's version of a 24mm f1.4 and enjoy the wonderful performance, quality, boken and affordability I've come to enjoy from their 30mm and 50mm f1.4
I'd like for them to release it, but I don't think they are going to... they already have a wide low light prime.
The cost doesn't particularly surprise me. They put virtually all their modern technology into it, from ED glass to nano coating to AF-S. It's a kitchen-sink kind of lens, with no corners cut (that we know of yet, at least). I expect distortions to be amazingly well controlled, given the amount of glass in it.
Visuals wrote:
I'm gonna wait until Sigma releases it's version of a 24mm f1.4 and enjoy the wonderful performance, quality, boken and affordability I've come to enjoy from their 30mm and 50mm f1.4
Pavel wrote:
Sigmas 24 1.8 is no slouch? No ... it is more like a joke. Like most sigmas that I've had the displeasure to enjoy.
In the past, Sigma seemed to be trying to be the low price player. Starting about three years ago their corporate philosophy seemed to change. Maybe they saw what happened to Vivitar etc. Sigma's later EX pro lenses can be very, very good. I prefer their 50mm f1.4 over all the others out there. I tried their 30mm f1.4 side by side with Nikon 35mm f1.8G and the difference was easy to see. I had the older Sigma 28 f1.8 and it was OK. Like many film era lenses, I had some problems with CA. Still better than I expected though.
What we REALLY need is the equivilent of the 20/2.8 for DX. Maybe a 14/2.8 or something with a relatively flat field. A good wide... You know, something small and flat we can toss in bag if we need to go wide. I don't really understand the mid-wide tele's that are the size of soda cans... I mean if you need wide, you need WIDE. Crop in post. Also, a lot of times if you need wide you need fast since you are in some interior location and cannot back up past the wall or corner you are mashed into. Rant off...
Gregory.Rotter wrote:
If the RRP of the 16-35 stays as high as it is, seriously, if you've got the cash for a £1050 UWA lens, then you've probably got the money for a 14-24 priced £250 more. Aside from the fact that the new lens can take filters, and has VR/IS, I think it's a no brainer for someone who doesn't care about filter use. What do you think?
I completely agree, the size alone makes me wonder what real benefits you achieve by going with the 16-35 since the price difference isn't that great. It is bigger than the 17-35 and that thing wasn't exactly compact. I guess the weight issue might be a big decision for some, but the 14-24 has almost no flaws other than the filter issue.
So does anyone really think that an updated 85/1.4 is really going to retail for less than $2k? I sure don't!
