Its Official! New Nikkor AF-S 24 mm f/1.4 and Nikkor AF-S 16-35 mm f/4.0G ED VR Re
- Thread starter Shutterlance
- Start date
takes a seasoned photographer to note that
side track a bit... are you the famed Ansel Adams? just kidding haha :bsmilie:
I am Ansel Ah Neo.
I am Ansel Ah Neo.
ahahahaha! :bsmilie: thanks for making my day! :bsmilie:
and thanks to Nikon for making efforts to meet consumers needs by producing these twno new lenses!
It is interesting to note that now Nikon has FOUR models of 24mm lens in production:
24/1.4 AF-S, 24/2.8 AF-D, 24/2.8 AIS, and 24/3.5 PC-E
Yup options are plenty nw for wide angle, each serving its diff purpose..
Lowlight AF, General puropose AF, General Purpose MF, Tilt Shift MF
But look at the price differentials among the 4. :bigeyes:
Estimated 3.1K, 500, 600, 3K
Just for sharing :bsmilie:
I am Ansel Ah Neo.
no lah it should have been Ansel Ah Tan (sounds closer to Adam haha) :bsmilie: (no disrepesct to the great photographer himself whom I do respect a lot)
ok sorry modarators i side track a little... this was too farny to past up
so back to the main topic...
i think many here are not too keen to have the VR added since it only jacks up the price but it may come in useful in some low light circumstances i guess...
anyone here would be happy to have the VR and pay for it?
actually from a business point of view it's a smart move to capture a wider market perhaps?
anyway back to the topic of this thread...
I wonder how sharp the corners of the new 24mm f1.4 will be... i think if i'm correct i read Nikon claims great corner sharpness...
would this entice you to part with >S$3k?
takes a seasoned photographer to note that
How does it take a seasoned photographer to know that Nikon has four 24mm primes in production? And why would someone who knows that Nikon has four 24mm primes in production be any more likely to be seasoned?
(Not debating whether Ansel is seasoned or not.)
Think Nikon is trying to win back Singapore Wedding photographers..
That's strange cause I shoot weddings and I use Nikon and I have a Nikon fast wide angle prime lens. Most bizarre.
From Adorama.
16-35mm f4 VR
US$1,259.95 = S$1,791.06
For the price, I would get a used N17-35mm f2.8 else i save more and get myself N14-24mm. In this case, i get 14-200 f2.8 than 16-200 f4/f2.8. The 2mm of difference make hell lots of difference too. For wide angle, VR isnt very useful.
24mm f1.4
US$2,199.95 = S$3,127.30
Unless you really need f1.4 for Nikon body. It is way too expensive when compared to Canon 24mm f1.4 II. Even though Nikon is often priced higher than Canon, this is way too much. Have a quick check it is only US$1699 for Canon II, US$500 different from Adorama. Furthermore, US pricing is often cheaper than SG street price.
And even it is good with optics, how many people actually bought N28f1.4, I had one but from my dad. I will not buy one today. So 24 f1.4 is 4mm different from N28 f1.4, 2 stop faster than 14-24 f2.8. For serious amateur, I suggest getting a D3s with higher ISO and shoot with at 24mm 2.8.
16-35mm f4 VR
US$1,259.95 = S$1,791.06
For the price, I would get a used N17-35mm f2.8 else i save more and get myself N14-24mm. In this case, i get 14-200 f2.8 than 16-200 f4/f2.8. The 2mm of difference make hell lots of difference too. For wide angle, VR isnt very useful.
24mm f1.4
US$2,199.95 = S$3,127.30
Unless you really need f1.4 for Nikon body. It is way too expensive when compared to Canon 24mm f1.4 II. Even though Nikon is often priced higher than Canon, this is way too much. Have a quick check it is only US$1699 for Canon II, US$500 different from Adorama. Furthermore, US pricing is often cheaper than SG street price.
And even it is good with optics, how many people actually bought N28f1.4, I had one but from my dad. I will not buy one today. So 24 f1.4 is 4mm different from N28 f1.4, 2 stop faster than 14-24 f2.8. For serious amateur, I suggest getting a D3s with higher ISO and shoot with at 24mm 2.8.
Serious, and well to do. If you can afford a D3s you can probably go get a 24/1.4 too if you wanted. And some of the stuff in your siggie!
Yeah, good point.
Anyway, there are some effects you can do with a 24 f/1.4 lens (bokeh and isolation for eg) that you cannot achieve with an f2.8 lens.
And as for the higher Nikon price, I believe (if the MTF charts can be trusted) the N 24 G lens will be way better than the Canon version at large apertures.
I've been contemplating the 17-35 to replace my current 20mm for a month. Nw that the 16-35 is launched, I hv another contender.
The F4 VR is a good gimmick, presenting a new technology to new photographer. This 16-35 is not to attract 'oldies', but the new market. At F4 16mm, I could get close to the isolation the 17 F2.8. COULD.
With Nano Coating, it adds another + point.
But I'm old school
need the aperture ring for my F3HP
The F4 VR is a good gimmick, presenting a new technology to new photographer. This 16-35 is not to attract 'oldies', but the new market. At F4 16mm, I could get close to the isolation the 17 F2.8. COULD.
With Nano Coating, it adds another + point.
But I'm old school
need the aperture ring for my F3HP
Thom Hogan predicts 16-35mm f4 VR will be a sellout
"I predict that the 16-35mm will be a complete sellout, so get in line soon if you want one. The fact that it accepts filters, is smaller and lighter than the 14-24mm, and that it is at a lower price point will have most pros and D700 owners wanting one. If this is the start of an f/4 cycle of zooms for Nikon, look out, these are going to be tremendously popular. "
source: on his 8 Feb blog write up
what do you guys think?
"I predict that the 16-35mm will be a complete sellout, so get in line soon if you want one. The fact that it accepts filters, is smaller and lighter than the 14-24mm, and that it is at a lower price point will have most pros and D700 owners wanting one. If this is the start of an f/4 cycle of zooms for Nikon, look out, these are going to be tremendously popular. "
source: on his 8 Feb blog write up
what do you guys think?
well guess what ken rockwell agree with many your sentiments about having VR on the 16-35mm...
"I don't care about VR with ultrawide lenses. I can hold a lens of this focal length rock-steady at 1/8 of a second, so if VR is going to help me, and I'm sure it will, it had better let me work down to about a full second. We'll see."
but he decides that this baby will be a better recommendation to the 17-35mm...
"Therefore , this 16-35mm f/4 VR just became my top recommendation for an FX ultrawide zoom."
source here
"I don't care about VR with ultrawide lenses. I can hold a lens of this focal length rock-steady at 1/8 of a second, so if VR is going to help me, and I'm sure it will, it had better let me work down to about a full second. We'll see."
but he decides that this baby will be a better recommendation to the 17-35mm...
"Therefore , this 16-35mm f/4 VR just became my top recommendation for an FX ultrawide zoom."
source here
Last edited:
I summarise this:
If you already own the 17-35mm, there's very little reason for you to get the 16-35mm.
If you do not own the 17-35mm, and you're a typical landscape shooter, the 16-35mm is a good choice.
If you don't care about filters, the 14-24mm is your best choice.
If you care about filters, and usually stop down to f5.6 or f8 for landscape shooting, the 16-35mm is a good choice.
If you already own the 17-35mm, there's very little reason for you to get the 16-35mm.
If you do not own the 17-35mm, and you're a typical landscape shooter, the 16-35mm is a good choice.
If you don't care about filters, the 14-24mm is your best choice.
If you care about filters, and usually stop down to f5.6 or f8 for landscape shooting, the 16-35mm is a good choice.
IMO this lens is for fx and we know high iso capability for fx so it is compensated with f4. Price will be cheaper to boast their sales compared to 14-24 which cannot use any filter which is important for landscape. Shooting with/without them is a huge difference!
Similar threads
