It’s Official! – New Nikkor AF-S 24 mm f/1.4 and Nikkor AF-S 16-35 mm f/4.0G ED VR Re

[Red Dawn]

This I'm not sure is a fair call though BH. You show me any camera manufacturer's brochure that shows anything other than well lit sample images, at any ISO... I vaguely remember some Canon sample images posted online for one of their 1D bodies now, can't remember specifically which one, and they're all studio lit at ISO whatever too.

I'm not saying Nikon > Canon in any way shape or form. Just that Canon's the first thing that comes to mind and they're also the main rivals in the high ISO quality stakes. Although I'm sure doodah will take offence anyway at what I've just said once he reads this.

And also I'm not sure about the culture not being one of available light, if for the last 1-2 generations Nikon have been the ones really pushing low light performance rather than megapixels.

Fair enough I guess, since the brochures are meant to sell cameras.

I'm also not sure they champion the system, if anything Nikon's to blame because they'll be the ones who target these photographers and say, who can make my stuff look good? That'll be someone who can take stunningly lit images that have impact so people will look at a 500 pixel image on a screen and go buy buy buy... looking at this thread they've certainly succeeded

Speaking of champions of Nikon, off the top of my mind, names like Joe McNally, Scott Kelby, Bob Krist are strongly associated with the brand and really help promote it, either directly or indirectly. They have the unique talent of being good photographers as well as convincing educators / presenters

Canon also has their own ambassador program, and it's interesting that among their choice of photographers to represent them, quite a few of them are available light photographers, or who have professed to be at some point in time Certainly I think more than those that "represent" Nikon. Of course, my conclusion is hardly scientific and I'm sure with the advent of the D3 / D3s there must be many many more talented photographers all over using less of artificial light and shooting available light.....

As to needing an f1.4 lens; I find myself questioning that more and more in all honesty. Yes I'm not a war photographer, but I shoot news and weddings. In the former I never ever bring any of my f1.4 lenses around, in the latter I still do but I never feel the need to use it because of light issues anymore. If I do it will be purely for DoF reasons. And I'm not using a D3s either. Or a 1DIV.

Maybe I'm not a "hard" or "true" PJ because I'm not using primes only, but if you disregard that, I personally find having a zoom far more productive than the light gain. And with the quality from cameras these days f2.8 is plenty good enough in sooo many situations.

Of course it would be foolhardy to dismiss anyone using a zoom as not being a "true" PJ, since among the names I've mentioned, some do use zooms. My point was that the 24mm should have been tested and evaluated by someone who shoots predominantly available light (hence the list of names..), which I believe was the original point of making it f1.4 in the first place.

I actually wish they also have a line of (updated) f2 primes that are smaller and lighter, but no less better built than their top end ones, and priced accordingly (aka cheaper ).

 

[Jed]

Well, I'd like them to put an AF-S motor in my 28/1.4 just so I can MF it without having to bother with a switch

I already have three lenses that cover 24mm which is ridiculous for me, so I'm not sure about the 24/1.4 really. And I really don't get the excitement about the 16-35/4... 1mm at the wide end or 1 stop on the aperture scale... hmm I'll take the 17-35/2.8 any day of the week tyvm.

Bizarre, really. Moar lenses plox, we want moar!

 

[Kit]

Well, I'd like them to put an AF-S motor in my 28/1.4 just so I can MF it without having to bother with a switch

I already have three lenses that cover 24mm which is ridiculous for me, so I'm not sure about the 24/1.4 really. And I really don't get the excitement about the 16-35/4... 1mm at the wide end or 1 stop on the aperture scale... hmm I'll take the 17-35/2.8 any day of the week tyvm.

Bizarre, really. Moar lenses plox, we want moar!

Its scary isn't it? I didn't realise that until (I think) RD told me and I believe we are talking about the same 3 lenses?:bsmilie:

 

[Jed]

Its scary isn't it? I didn't realise that until (I think) RD told me and I believe we are talking about the same 3 lenses?:bsmilie:

Yesh my good sir, same 3 lenses.

It's the trinity I tell you, the trinity. None of this f2.8 zoom nonsense :bsmilie:

tongue firmly in cheek

 

[Kit]

Yesh my good sir, same 3 lenses.

It's the trinity I tell you, the trinity. None of this f2.8 zoom nonsense :bsmilie:

tongue firmly in cheek

Well, for one of them.....:bsmilie:

Quick! Do a 24mm showdown!!

 

[nice_user]

Exactly..
tell me a 24 2.8AFD or 24-70AFS cant do the same shots with supplementary lights?

My problem with all these samples is that they are all shot with tons of supplementary lighting.

Really? Is that the best way to show off the available light quality of a f1.4 lens?

Even Bob Krist's shots are all lighted, with assistants and all. I know that he's shooting commercially for an ad agency, and studio lighting and setup shots are all the norm and rage..... but.....

this is a 24 f1.4 lens, for crying out loud. I would rather see TRUE and real available light PJ style shots shot in horrible light conditions, up close and personal which would really extoll the virtues of a f1.4 optic matched with the highest ISO camera known to man, the D3S.

Instead, we get "pretty" pictures of well lighted subjects, posed and smiling for the camera. I'm not quite sure that would be a typical application of a 24 f1.4 lens. This is not a knock on Bob Krist, who is a talented photographer in his own right. It's rather the style of the shoot that bothers me in pictures meant to sell a 24 f1.4.

I have said it before - the Nikon culture is not one of available light. Even in the D3 brochure, one of the ISO 6400 shot meant to show off the high ISO qualities of the camera is supplemented with additional lighting. The "heroes" of Nikon - the likes of people like Joe McNally, Bob Krist etc are flash-type shooters who do wonderfully work with supplementary lighting and have no qualms about pullng out their SB900s. Not just one, but a few of them.

It is no wonder Nikon does not see the need to fill in its lens gap with the likes of a 35 f1.4. Why would they need to, when the photographers who champion the system don't really need a f1.4 lens?

I would love to see a Jeff Ascough, a Gary Knight, a James Nachtwey or a Pablo Pellegrin put this lens through its paces in a real gritty reportage environment, situations which would show us the applications of a fast and wide angle lens.

Maybe along a dimly lit street of Iraq among embedded marines doing a house to house search. Or at dusk in Haiti, photographing people still searching desperately through the rubble. Even a simple shot of a family having a quiet meal by a single candelight, enjoying the quiet solitude of a family moment.

These are what fast lenses are made for!

 

[Ansel]

Exactly..
tell me a 24 2.8AFD or 24-70AFS cant do the same shots with supplementary lights?

It's the bokeh, silly, it's the bokeh.

 

[Shutterlance]

It's the bokeh, silly, it's the bokeh.

yep

 

[Shutterlance]

more sample shots using the new 24mm f1.4

WARNING - Large files

Shot 1

Shot 2

Shot 3

Shot 4

have a look

 

[wuminlee]

awesome!!!

 

[wildcat]

more sample shots using the new 24mm f1.4

WARNING - Large files

Shot 1

Shot 2

Shot 3

Shot 4

have a look

Thanks for sharing! Call it a newbie's obsession with aperture :bsmilie: but I have to say it's more useful at the f4 or f5 that three of the pictures were taken at, than the single photo at f1.4 that the third photo was taken at.

I would be tempted to shoot everything at f1.4 (okay, okay.. stop down to f2) if I had this :sweat:

 

[catohcat]

Anyone has a chance to compare between Canon 24mm 1.4 and the new Nikon one?

 

[Shutterlance]

Thanks for sharing!

you're welcome!

 

[Shutterlance]

I would be tempted to shoot everything at f1.4 (okay, okay.. stop down to f2) if I had this :sweat:

yeah the temptatio nis always there but at f1.4 or even f2 the DoF is so thin it's a challenge to get the right paces in sharp focus with that lovely bokeh behind making the main interest "pop"...

but if you can get it right.... oooooooooooooo what a feeling!