< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX lens in stock

Pin It

Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX lens is now in stock @ Amazon:

nikon-10-24-in-stock

Adorama is also ready to ship it for free.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://www.lamarlangston.blogspot.com Lamar

    im sure this has been talked about a while ago but doesnt 900 seem wayy to steep for a f/3.5-4.5 dx wide angle??

    is it that much better then the tokina?

    somebody school me on this

    • http://micahmedia.com Micah

      Well if the image quality is better than the 12-24, then an unequivocal “YES!” And then some!

      Although the price does have me still considering the 116 tokina. I think it’s going to be down to seeing one in person and judging the build. The Tokina is a nice brick. Better than my 17-55. If the 10-24 is built solidly with a metal filter ring, I’m there. The “ass-gasket” alone is worth the price of admission.

  • http://micahmedia.com Micah

    What I’m dying to know is, how does it perform on FX? The Tokina is usable around 14-15 on FX. This is a big selling point.

  • Captain

    I’ll skip this one (yawn). I want a DX 24-120 f3.5-4.5 VRII.

    • Martin

      Considering what Nikon put out so far in the DX realms it’s not likely that there will be a 24-120mm DX dedicated lens. There is a 24-120mm VR lens out there, have you noticed? Buy that instead.
      More likely than your favourite DX lens, Nikon will produce an updated 24-120mm VRII FX f/3.5-5.6 lens.
      What’s more: It will most certainly not be faster than f/5.6 at the long end, because most consumer grade lenses are just that slow at the long end. Then again would you really want it to be faster? Because that would mean more glass, more weight, higher price. And f/4.5 is not much faster than f/5.6 anyway.
      A 24-120mm on a DX camera would be like a 36-180mm on FX. Is that of any use to you? Any more useful than all the other consumer grade zoom lenses already around?
      Bottom line: Most people will not prefer this zoom range. Nikon knows this. So, dream on. Or buy the already available FX lens.

      • http://micahmedia.com Micah

        He didn’t specify DX. He probably wants FX. That’s because the current 24-120VR is wretched. It’s built nice, but the IQ is mush-tastic. Softer than a newborn’s bottom. In fact a focused picture of a newborn’s bottom with the 24-120VR at the 120mm end would look like one big blur.

        The whole time I owned it, I kept asking myself how it could be this bad. Part of it was that I was using it on a D2x. I considered holding onto it for the inevitable FX upgrade, but I don’t want a 12mp FX camera. I’m waiting for the mid-range 24mp one. It looks passable on a D3/D700, because that doesn’t stress it resolution wise. Still it’s not even good then. Just sorta barely useable.

        Nikon does desperately need a GOOD midrange zoom with VR for FX. If it doesn’t come out with the next FX camera, they’ve really dropped the ball. Canon has not one, but THREE midrange zooms with IS. What’s up with that Nikon? I don’t mean to be macabre. But isn’t it our job? To motivate the masses, and get them off their asses? To fight against…ok, I got nothing.

        But really one quality midrange with VR for FX is a gaping hole that needs patching.

        • Captain

          I did specify DX for the 24-120. I’m well aware of the current 24-120 FX lens and its faults. 24-120 is the focal length range I want for my D40.

          I’ll say again – I want a DX 24-120 f3.5-4.5 VR II.

          • Nikkorian

            There is an excellent 18-105. Tacksharp and VRII. The 15mm at the top cannot matter to you.

          • Captain

            I know what Nikkor lenses are available – I can read Nikon’s website. This is the lens I ( repeat, I) would like Nikon to make. I’m not saying I don’t want Nikon to make lenses other people want.

          • Joe Boston

            It’s called a 16-85 VR. Amazing lens.

          • Captain

            It’s not call a 16-85 VR. It’s called a 24-120. I already have a 16-85 and agree it’s an amazing lens, but I want a 24-120 because that range of focal lengths suits me better.

  • ebraun

    I’ll skip anything DX. Where are the new FX lenses at? A new 80-400 AF-S and 85 f/1.4 AF-S would interest me a lot more.

    • http://micahmedia.com Micah

      So what’re you shooting with now? Do you already have DX lenses? An FX rig?

      • ebraun

        D700: 70-200VR, 14-24, 28-105D, 16mm, 50 f/1.4D. I never owned a DX lens even when i shot with DX cameras. DX lenses are of no interest to me at all. The only one i considered buying was the 10.5mm fisheye when i shot DX, but i already had the 16mm and thought it was silly to own 2 fisheyes so i just waited for FX.

        • Char

          Just be patient, the lenses will come ;). For now, its the DX people’s time. I’m not too interested in DX lenses either (though I do have a DX camera), but why should I be pissed off when DX lenses appear?

          For the time being, you can shoot some nice images – you got the perfect equipment for doing so, don’t you?

        • Anonymous

          wake up and smell coffee, the 80-400mm and 85mm 1.4 VR AF-S with nano coatings is like 5 years old rumor that never happened.

          why the hell are you waiting? go grab the 80-400mm or 85mm 1.4 that nikon already have to offer.

        • http://micahmedia.com Micah

          The current 80-400 and 85/1.4 are sharper than three of the lenses in your current arsenal. Were there some features lacking in the current lenses that you wanted? Or are you like me and hope they come out with new ones to drive the price of the perfectly good old ones down?

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/niloy/show/ Niloy

    Why would anyone with any bit of sense buy this DX f5.6 lens for $900?

    I was gonna say they should just get the future-proof 14-24 instead, but then I saw it now costs double…

    The shame.

    • D40-Owner

      Well, if your job is to take wide landscape pics at f/8, then you don’t really care about f/5.6, do you? If the lens optical quality at optimal apertures is worth $900, that’s fine.
      Different jobs, different tools.

    • Char

      Cause the 14-24 is no real alternative on DX bodies even if it would cost the same. It cannot take filters, it weighs in at > 1kg, and it does not go to 10mm. So, if I would have to choose a landcape lens for my DX body, I would always prefer the 10-24 over the 14-24.

    • http://dotcrimemanifesto.com/ PHB

      If you buy the 14-24 you are limiting yourself to heavy FX bodies and lenses forever. You will get a given pixel resolution in the flagship FX body up to 12 months before you get it in DX. You will get one stop better ISO performance. You will get 1kg extra weight.

      If you want the lighter D700x you will be waiting maybe a year after the launch of the D400 and to make use of it you will have to use the $1800 zooms and $1000 primes, all weighing upwards of 1Kg.

      Note that none of this has to do with cost.

      Now for long lenses the tradeoff is completely different. A DX 70-200 zoom would weigh only slightly less than an FX 70-200 zoom. In fact there are folk who think that the falloff issue in the current 70-200 is because Nikon optimized it for their D2 bodies. So it certainly makes sense to insist on FX for any pro lens 50mm or longer. But that is hardly a difficult decision as Nikon do not and almost certainly will not make a pro DX-only lens longer than 50mm.

      There will however be some lenses that are particularly useful for DX use and merely interesting for FX. For example, an 80-400 zoom is not going to be as interesting to someone with a D3 and a 70-200 and 200-400 in their bag unless they plan to leave the other two lenses at home. But if they leave the D3 at home and take a D300 instead they will have 120-600mm equivalent in one lens. Nikon did once make a lens like that, it was special order and was definitely tripod only.

      The best argument I have heard so far for the D3x is that it is a D3 and a D300 in the same body, so you can take 10MP DX mode shots on an FX body.

      I just ordered one for next day delivery on Amazon. I will test it out and report back.

    • http://micahmedia.com Micah

      Why would anyone ask this question?

      Try one and find out!

      • http://micahmedia.com Micah

        And what 5.6 lens are you talking about?

  • Mike

    I typically give a lot of weight to the reviews of Thom Hogan — http://www.bythom.com — on lenses, and considering that he stopped carrying the Nikon 12-24mm DX lens and only carries the Sigma 10-20mm lens, the question to my mind has to be: is Nikon’s new 10-24mm lens really FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS better than the Sigma glass??? I can almost buy another SB-900 for the difference in price!!!

  • Mike

    I should have posted the link to Thom’s review of the Sigma glass: http://www.bythom.com/sigma10to20.htm

    • Anonymous

      you make your decision based on thom’s long ass and boring “too detailed” review?

      you got a pair of legs so start walking to the store to try the lens out for yourself.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, because all of us live just a walk down the road from a camera store…

  • Andrew
  • PJS

    PHB – re: “You will get one stop better ISO performance.” If you are comparing the 14-24 f/2.8 and the new 10-24, you will actually get TWO stops better performance on a DX camera when each lens is set to 24mm. It can make a big difference in the forest…

    • http://dotcrimemanifesto.com/ PHB

      The FX format sensor is twice the size of the DX. So you will get twice the ISO performance at the top end for a given sensor.

      Comparing the lenses is missing the point. The 14-24 will still be f/2.8 on a DX body. Nikon does not make an equivalent constant aperture f/2.8 zoom lens in DX format. There would be little point. f/3.5-4.5 is close enough.

      You get it all back on the top end. Nikon does not make a 600mm f/2.8 but put the 400 on a DX body and that is what you get. And they do not make a 120-600 zoom or a 900mm f/4.

      I am pretty sure you can buy a lightweight tripod for a lot less than the difference in price between the D300+10-24 and D700+14-24.

      There are certainly going to be reasons for preferring the big glass and FX format, just as there are reasons for using medium format. But methinks some folk protest somewhat too much.

  • Zoetmb

    Amazon apparently sold out theirs – it’s now being sold on Amazon by Calumet, Willoughby’s and Beach Camera. Willoughby’s has nothing to do with the defunct giant New York-based Peerless-Willoughby’s other than the license of the name. How is it that Calumet and Willoughby’s get lenses before BH, Adorama and J&R? That doesn’t make sense to me. (Unless they’re lying about them being in stock.) I can understand Beach because they’re pretty large.

  • Lance

    Are there any other sample images available? Maybe on an english site? I saw that other review some time ago and can’t read it!

  • Marko

    I’m owning a Sigma 10-20. It’s a very unpredictable lens. The characteristic varies a lot during the zoom range and f stops. Really tricky to get it work well. Plus it is vers susceptable to flare. Tons of wasted photos in terms of contrast and sharpness. I’m never sure with this lens till I upload it on my PC.

    Yes. I would pay the extra cost for Nikon 10-24 if it is better. I believe it is. After all Sigma 10-20 is starting to show its age when comapared to Tokina and others. Plus with Nikon you get also control over distorsion and CA in Capture NX which is great.

    I think Nikon knows perfectly what is doing to squeeze our wallets :)

  • http://robinedgar.blogspot.com Robin Edgar

    I had both the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 in my hands today at a mini-trade show in Montreal. I shot some test shots and some video on my Nikon D90. On the whole I prefer the Tokina to the Nikon. It built quality seems better, the Nikon zoom ring was stiff. It’s a whole stop faster for the most part. And it is somewhat cheaper than the Nikon. The Nikon is a bit more versatile with the extra zoom range but the difference at the wide end seems negligible. I was unable to try the Nikon on a full frame DSLR but the Tokina is definitely useable on FX cameras in the 14-16mm range as is the Tokina fisheye zoom lens BTW. . .

  • Bruce Daily

    I picked one up last week and really like it. It’s solid, though it has a plastic filter ring. I have never used a Tokina, but it’s definitely better than the Tamron. I haven’t shot a lot with it yet, but I’m very pleased with what I’ve gotten so far.

    Bruce

  • Back to top