Comments on: 2 more (Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED DX)

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:51:18 +0000

Terrible idea. People want a camera that can do it all.

By: MB

MB — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:37:36 +0000

It seams like it was taken with mobile phone, and yes it is ugly.
But the lens is real and that is all that matters.

By: Desinderlase

Desinderlase — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:23:18 +0000

If nikon updates all their lenses now, what are they going to sell after few years?

btw, Nikon already have best FX wide, and good enough compact tele.

By: hendrik

hendrik — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:41:21 +0000

i think nikon should re-think about their strategy, or think about one if they dont have any. Most people would agree with me with this kind of solution:
1. DX for longer reach (create power zoom such as 80-400 in compact and economical package).
2. FX for super wide (create super wide angle zoom such as 8-14mm f/4 or super wide fisheyes)

By: rob

rob — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:06:53 +0000

it may not be for the mass market. but it still has a market. its simple business.

like a luxury car, its not mass market. but there is always a customer for stuff like that.

i think you need to learn a little about how things sell and why they sell

By: aFrIcanSH

aFrIcanSH — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:57:00 +0000

think about the PC-E Nikkors then considering it’s not for the mass market.

By: cs

cs — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:29:48 +0000

really??

wow.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:08:54 +0000

With a 14-24, what’s the point?

By: BlackNoise

BlackNoise — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:13:03 +0000

When Black Silicon arrives then DX, 4/3, APS-C and other compacts will be the better choice among the camera makers. Due to low noise/ high ISO that will be equivalent to FX.

By: rob

rob — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:36:37 +0000

the market is driven by what sells. the reason you dont have all afs primes, and a new 70-200mm is because there is not enough of a market for it. simple.

nikon does not make things for fun, it makes things to sell

nikon could make all that stuff, but they would not make money from it.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:18:01 +0000

Monty-Python much appreciated.

By: aFrIcanSH

aFrIcanSH — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:41:53 +0000

actually they’re asking for primes because canon has a larger range than they do.

By: ___

___ — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:27:50 +0000

All the people asking for super-fast pro FX primes should realize that the “pro” market (that’s the one where people make more money with their gear than they spend on it…) does not use primes a whole lot.

By: Henry Nikon Fan

Henry Nikon Fan — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:49:35 +0000

I agree with you. Below is from my previous post:

I do not think that DX is dead, I just think that the main future of DX will be consumer cameras and ultimately not semi-pro or pro level cameras. These will be FX.

Based on this I have sold my DX lenses and moved over to all Full Frame lenses in anticipation of this.

DX is great and will be around indifinately, but not at the higher end levels.

With regards to this lens it looks nice if it is real, but why would I want another variable aperture zoom lens. It is though at a different range than all of the other 18-whatever DX lenses, but we do have the AF-S DX 12-24mm F/4 lens already. If this lens is considerably cheaper than that lens then it makes sense. I do question that though based on the pricing of the AF-S DX VR 18-200mm lens compared to the AF-S DX VR 16-85mm lens. These two are almost the same price.

By: Micah

Micah — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:28:34 +0000

Huh? If this is a joke, I don’t get it. Just like I didn’t get your previous sarcasm.

If you’re claiming I’m a rich college student, well you missed the boat there. If you’re claiming you’re a poor college student can can’t get any pics online, well you lost me there too.

It sounded like you were trying to claim you have an FX camera and a 14-24. How does a poor college student own that gear and claim poverty?

It costs me $84 a year to have a website. That’s chump change compared to the cheapest FX body and certainly compared to any piece of Nikon branded gear. Flickr is free. All the social networking sites have free image hosting. Who can’t afford free?

Man, I’m not picking on you, but I just don’t get where you’re coming from. I’m just trying to understand. Cut down on the sarcasm and ribbing and say what you mean.

Otherwise this discourse is running something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 03:30:39 +0000

ok, since ‘rich’ college students have websites I’ll be sure to send you a link….

By: aFrIcanSH

aFrIcanSH — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:11:50 +0000

But some people haven’t been SO satisfied with the 70-200, there are some primes from the AF-D era which would need some decent (no-so-necessary) updates with the new AF-S and Nano coating (take the 85mm f1.4, 105mm f2, 135mm f2 for examples, as well as POSSIBLY new wide angle primes) and some semi-pro teleprimes like 300mm f4 VR and 400mm f5.6 VR?though these 2 aren’t that important)

DX wise there are heaps of lenses. 18-105, 16-85, 18-70 as well as the 55-200, the 18-55′s and 35mm f1.8, 12-24,10.5 fisheye, the 70-300 on DX and isn’t that expensive relative to pro glass, and there’s the 50mm f1.4G (FX but meh). I guess fine, nikon releases the 10-24 to cover the wideangle market since the 12-24 is rather expensive, but it only works if the 10-24 is cheap enough for people to buy.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:52:19 +0000

Flare and ghosting. The 12-24 is the only ultra-wide zoom that hasn’t left me with hours of fruitless PP. Time is money.

It’s true they have become the “unwanted” ultra-wide new, but that simply means they are a second-hand bargain.

By: Micah

Micah — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:24:37 +0000

The 12-24 has a nice build, but the IQ was sub-par on the ones I’ve laid paws on. Overpriced and didn’t compare well to the 10-20 Sigma I had (and even that could’ve been improved on). Would it get the job done? Maybe, but a heavy expensive lens that isn’t all that sharp qualifies as a dog in my book. A big heavy expensive lens like the 17-55 on the other hand is a thing of beauty because the image quality is so damned good. That sucker is sharp at all but the smallest apertures.

It’s not so bad that it would get in the way of taking a stunning picture. If you own one and it works for you, cheers. But I was quite disappointed that a lens of a third party manufacturer could outperform Nikon gear at a third of the price.

By: Micah

Micah — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:12:17 +0000

Hey Jeff, go check the comments in the previous post. We’re all waiting to see your work online.