Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED and 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR lenses officially announced


NikF601

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2010
1,541
0
36
52
CCK
#2
18-35mm without VR ??? made production cost much cheaper?
 

Zichar

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2008
2,079
10
0
#3
The 800mm costs 18K ... ouch hehe
 

avsquare

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2012
3,306
0
0
#4
US$750 for the UWA, I guess SG pricing should be the same as Canon's 17-40L. I wonder if the quality would be about that too?
 

ageha

Senior Member
Apr 29, 2011
5,841
9
0
Earth
www.flickr.com
#5
avsquare said:
US$750 for the UWA, I guess SG pricing should be the same as Canon's 17-40L. I wonder if the quality would be about that too?
Doubt it.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#6
avsquare said:
US$750 for the UWA, I guess SG pricing should be the same as Canon's 17-40L. I wonder if the quality would be about that too?
Do you mean quality as in true high end L lens quality or the dubious weak optical quality of the 17-40mm f/4L?

Haha. Not a fan boy of either camp, since I use both makes, but the 17-40mm L has never been known for quality in my books. I hope Nikon's offerings won't be anywhere near the 17-40mm when it comes to quality.
 

avsquare

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2012
3,306
0
0
#7
Do you mean quality as in true high end L lens quality or the dubious weak optical quality of the 17-40mm f/4L?

Haha. Not a fan boy of either camp, since I use both makes, but the 17-40mm L has never been known for quality in my books. I hope Nikon's offerings won't be anywhere near the 17-40mm when it comes to quality.
I'm not a fanboy either and I do use both makes, so I'm refer to the factual quality of 17-40L :bsmilie:

Because if you have a look at both camps: The "premier" or "better" optical quality ones are all over $2k street price. Canon do have a cheaper one which is 17-40L, but although it claims it "L" and gives it the red ring, the quality seems weak compared to the other L counterparts and make it look like cheaper consumer grade UWA from Canon's line.

For the Nikon's line, all existing in-production UWAs are all given the golden ring, Nikon's way of indicating that these lens are "professional grade". Since this new 18-35mm doesn't get the golden ring and it's priced at US$750, I suppose this is Nikon's way of saying that it's "consumer grade" class of lens. Thus the thought of, will it imply that the quality could be the same as it's Canon's counterpart of "consumer grade" UWA, which is the 17-40L?

But again, there are wonderful lens from Nikon like 85 f/1.8G which performs almost the same as the 85 f/1.4G, and when all these images sized down to web view, looks all the same :bsmilie:
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,692
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#8
I bought my 1st copy of the 17-40mm back in 2003, when it was launched. Back then, it was Canon's wide angle saviour. Cheap and good, relatively speaking. I don't know if anyone remember how bad their 17-35mm and 16-35mm mki was. Those were stinkers. When 6mp DSLRs ruled the earth, the 17-40mm was probably one of the few wide angle zoom which gave good results. I got a 2nd copy years later and used it with a 5d mkii. With the correct technique, its still an alright lens.

 

avsquare

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2012
3,306
0
0
#9
I bought my 1st copy of the 17-40mm back in 2003, when it was launched. Back then, it was Canon's wide angle saviour. Cheap and good, relatively speaking. I don't know if anyone remember how bad their 17-35mm and 16-35mm mki was. Those were stinkers. When 6mp DSLRs ruled the earth, the 17-40mm was probably one of the few wide angle zoom which gave good results. I got a 2nd copy years later and used it with a 5d mkii. With the correct technique, its still an alright lens.
Would agree with you - I've toyed with a 2nd hand copy of the 16-35 mark one at one of the 2nd hand shops at Peninsular, the CA was terrible by today's "standards". I've always been wondering when will Canon refresh the 17-40L because it's kind of... old (it's already a decade). Indeed by 6MP DSLR standards it's a very good lens. But the past 2 years seemed to be all about MP raise.. now people is complaining that the D800's 36MP sensor is exposing all the optical flaws of most of the existing lens :bsmilie:
 

lenslust

New Member
Apr 22, 2012
1,211
2
0
#10
Do you mean quality as in true high end L lens quality or the dubious weak optical quality of the 17-40mm f/4L?

Haha. Not a fan boy of either camp, since I use both makes, but the 17-40mm L has never been known for quality in my books. I hope Nikon's offerings won't be anywhere near the 17-40mm when it comes to quality.
Used the earlier 'D' version. Am pretty pleased with the results give it's a budget WA (on a D100). It's a very good buy for what it's worth.

The down side is the visible pincushion effect at the wide ends. Sharpness was something that can be improved, but it was very good enough already at the standards of those days.

It's a good option over the 16-35 f/4 if you don't need the VR and constant f/4. Colour rendition of the 18-35 was quite good too.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#11
avsquare said:
But again, there are wonderful lens from Nikon like 85 f/1.8G which performs almost the same as the 85 f/1.4G, and when all these images sized down to web view, looks all the same :bsmilie:
Yup. I thought Nikon had a good run with their latest lens offerings, and certainly hope that they keep up their good work!
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#12
Kit said:
I bought my 1st copy of the 17-40mm back in 2003, when it was launched. Back then, it was Canon's wide angle saviour. Cheap and good, relatively speaking. I don't know if anyone remember how bad their 17-35mm and 16-35mm mki was. Those were stinkers. When 6mp DSLRs ruled the earth, the 17-40mm was probably one of the few wide angle zoom which gave good results. I got a 2nd copy years later and used it with a 5d mkii. With the correct technique, its still an alright lens.
Yeah. I guess there weren't many choices back in 2003. But the launch of the various EF-S lenses certainly didn't make the 17-40mm look good at all. There is the stellar 17-55mm offering excellent optical quality, larger aperture and IS. There is also the superb 10-22mm, providing the extra wide view. Other then for use with the APS-H and the older full frame cameras, I really don't see why the 17-40mm is any useful today. And how it deserves the "L" branding.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#13
lenslust said:
Used the earlier 'D' version. Am pretty pleased with the results give it's a budget WA (on a D100). It's a very good buy for what it's worth.

The down side is the visible pincushion effect at the wide ends. Sharpness was something that can be improved, but it was very good enough already at the standards of those days.

It's a good option over the 16-35 f/4 if you don't need the VR and constant f/4. Colour rendition of the 18-35 was quite good too.
Yeah. I just managed to toy with the older D version recently. I didn't spend time analyzing the image quality, but there are no obvious flaws. It was marketed as a budget wide angle lens (as compared to the big brother, the 17-35mm f/2.8), and I expect it to perform as such. The new lens ought to beat its predecessor though.
 

ageha

Senior Member
Apr 29, 2011
5,841
9
0
Earth
www.flickr.com
#14
I bought my 1st copy of the 17-40mm back in 2003, when it was launched. Back then, it was Canon's wide angle saviour. Cheap and good, relatively speaking. I don't know if anyone remember how bad their 17-35mm and 16-35mm mki was. Those were stinkers. When 6mp DSLRs ruled the earth, the 17-40mm was probably one of the few wide angle zoom which gave good results. I got a 2nd copy years later and used it with a 5d mkii. With the correct technique, its still an alright lens.

Ah, I hate when people upload only lowres photos on flickr! ;)
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,692
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#16
Yeah. I guess there weren't many choices back in 2003. But the launch of the various EF-S lenses certainly didn't make the 17-40mm look good at all. There is the stellar 17-55mm offering excellent optical quality, larger aperture and IS. There is also the superb 10-22mm, providing the extra wide view. Other then for use with the APS-H and the older full frame cameras, I really don't see why the 17-40mm is any useful today. And how it deserves the "L" branding.
The newer EF-S lenses doesn't mean anything if you are using FF bodies. So you are still quite limited in choices unless you go with the 3rd party lenses. Like I mentioned before, the 17-40mm is capable of delivering decent results with the 5D MKII. I wouldn't imagine that it would be much different on the 5D MKIII.
 

Dfive

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2008
3,141
10
38
Singapore lah....
#17
800FL Lenses....... hahaha..... i recall once when Nikon said Fluorite lenses were brittle n no good...... some 10yrs ago..... what a change now !!
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,692
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#18
Would agree with you - I've toyed with a 2nd hand copy of the 16-35 mark one at one of the 2nd hand shops at Peninsular, the CA was terrible by today's "standards". I've always been wondering when will Canon refresh the 17-40L because it's kind of... old (it's already a decade). Indeed by 6MP DSLR standards it's a very good lens. But the past 2 years seemed to be all about MP raise.. now people is complaining that the D800's 36MP sensor is exposing all the optical flaws of most of the existing lens :bsmilie:
Higher resolution also demand better camera handling techniques. Yes, people are complaining about ultra high resolution cameras. On the other hand, I still see people insisting that they can handhold 1/8th sec shots with the latest and greatest VR/IS. There you go.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#19
Kit said:
The newer EF-S lenses doesn't mean anything if you are using FF bodies. So you are still quite limited in choices unless you go with the 3rd party lenses. Like I mentioned before, the 17-40mm is capable of delivering decent results with the 5D MKII. I wouldn't imagine that it would be much different on the 5D MKIII.
I was referring to the time of the 6MP era, where we only have the cheaper APS-C cameras, the advanced APS-H sensors and the pioneer FF models. The 17-40mm is only useful (and probably solely due to its value then outright quality) at the higher end models of yester-year. The 17-40mm had no place in the crop sensor cameras.

In today's world of incredibly powerful full frame sensors, it is my contention that the 17-40mm f/4 is redundant, kept alive by budget FF photographers, which I think is an odd category.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#20
Kit said:
Higher resolution also demand better camera handling techniques. Yes, people are complaining about ultra high resolution cameras. On the other hand, I still see people insisting that they can handhold 1/8th sec shots with the latest and greatest VR/IS. There you go.
Hahaha! Yes. I am always so amazed by such people and their purported skills.
 

Top Bottom