Comments on: 100%! http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/ where there’s smoke there’s fire Fri, 25 May 2012 20:37:10 +0000 hourly 1 By: mark http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-50001 mark Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:56:12 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-50001 100% like Nostradamus. 100% like Nostradamus.

]]> By: b.deren http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49759 b.deren Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:57:02 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49759 100% is not guaranteed anymore. From now on I'll look for 200% in the title :) 100% is not guaranteed anymore. From now on I’ll look for 200% in the title :)

]]> By: jack http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49555 jack Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:20:17 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49555 ... 100% disappointed … 100% disappointed

]]> By: Matthew Saville http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49286 Matthew Saville Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:17:59 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49286 Finally, someone answers this question for me. :-P F/4 = landscapes lens! =Matt= Finally, someone answers this question for me. :-P F/4 = landscapes lens!

=Matt=

]]> By: Matthew Saville http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49285 Matthew Saville Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:15:25 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49285 I think adding VR is mostly just to silence the whiners, and to fulfill Thom Hogan's prophesies. Sure, more experienced photographers understand how in-effective VR is at such wide angles, but the masses, the consumers, don't. They'll probably sell 20-30% more lenses just because the VR is there and some people don't fully understand it... =Matt= I think adding VR is mostly just to silence the whiners, and to fulfill Thom Hogan’s prophesies. Sure, more experienced photographers understand how in-effective VR is at such wide angles, but the masses, the consumers, don’t. They’ll probably sell 20-30% more lenses just because the VR is there and some people don’t fully understand it…

=Matt=

]]> By: Matthew Saville http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49283 Matthew Saville Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:11:48 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49283 Yep, I'm in the "new 35 1.4!" boat as well. I understand that 24 1.4 is where Nikon needs to start if they are going through their product line creating serious full-frame primes. I'm certainly glad they didn't make the mistake of updating the 85 1.4 first since it's honestly an amazing lens despite everyone's pleas for SWM. But a 35 1.4 AFS, built-like-a-rock and sharp as heck, yeah that's what I want... =Matt= Yep, I’m in the “new 35 1.4!” boat as well. I understand that 24 1.4 is where Nikon needs to start if they are going through their product line creating serious full-frame primes. I’m certainly glad they didn’t make the mistake of updating the 85 1.4 first since it’s honestly an amazing lens despite everyone’s pleas for SWM. But a 35 1.4 AFS, built-like-a-rock and sharp as heck, yeah that’s what I want…

=Matt=

]]> By: Matthew Saville http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49282 Matthew Saville Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:07:40 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49282 Anyone who switches to Canon NOW clearly has no sense of what an amazing point Nikon has reached, and how much more amazing the next few generations will be. Nikon's shift in upper management and attitude towards full-frame has completely revolutionized the company and I honestly laugh at the offerings from Canon, I feel sympathy for all the 5D mk2 owners out there. Unless of course you absolutely love the control preferences, (YUCK) ....need 1080p video, (YAWN) or love f/1.2 and insane bokeh... (admittedly a good reason to switch!) I'm absolutely thrilled that Nikon has stuck with their amazing 12 MP sensor for so long, and not yet gone the route of higher megapixels and higher noise. I hope we see at least one more 12 MP FX camera from Nikon; a D700s with the D3s sensor and dual card slots (couldn't care less about video) would be MY DREAM PJ CAMERA! I understand that some of you absolutely "need" an affordable 24 megapixels, or 1080p video, and I understand that Nikon needs to get these features out asap just so they don't look silly next to the Sony A850 etc. But as a casual AND professional photographer, I honestly think that 90% of the people out there complaining for megapixels and HD video are, well, just complaining. Just my opinionated opinion! =Matt= Anyone who switches to Canon NOW clearly has no sense of what an amazing point Nikon has reached, and how much more amazing the next few generations will be. Nikon’s shift in upper management and attitude towards full-frame has completely revolutionized the company and I honestly laugh at the offerings from Canon, I feel sympathy for all the 5D mk2 owners out there. Unless of course you absolutely love the control preferences, (YUCK) ….need 1080p video, (YAWN) or love f/1.2 and insane bokeh… (admittedly a good reason to switch!)

I’m absolutely thrilled that Nikon has stuck with their amazing 12 MP sensor for so long, and not yet gone the route of higher megapixels and higher noise. I hope we see at least one more 12 MP FX camera from Nikon; a D700s with the D3s sensor and dual card slots (couldn’t care less about video) would be MY DREAM PJ CAMERA!

I understand that some of you absolutely “need” an affordable 24 megapixels, or 1080p video, and I understand that Nikon needs to get these features out asap just so they don’t look silly next to the Sony A850 etc. But as a casual AND professional photographer, I honestly think that 90% of the people out there complaining for megapixels and HD video are, well, just complaining.

Just my opinionated opinion!
=Matt=

]]> By: Shan http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49281 Shan Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:04:14 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49281 .... 100% not today! …. 100% not today!

]]> By: Matthew Saville http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49280 Matthew Saville Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:55:52 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49280 Again, I have to say for the THIRD time: It's called landscape photography, people! When you take 90% of your shots at f/16, and have to carry each ounce of gear on your back, those big fat f/2.8 zooms make no sense at all. Google the Canon 17-40 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 Pro-grade lenses with some of the sharpest optics ever made. Especially stopped down to f/11, where most landscapers usually find themselves. "F/8 and be there" was the mantra of old National Geographic photographers... =Matt= Again, I have to say for the THIRD time: It’s called landscape photography, people! When you take 90% of your shots at f/16, and have to carry each ounce of gear on your back, those big fat f/2.8 zooms make no sense at all. Google the Canon 17-40 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 Pro-grade lenses with some of the sharpest optics ever made. Especially stopped down to f/11, where most landscapers usually find themselves. “F/8 and be there” was the mantra of old National Geographic photographers…

=Matt=

]]> By: Matthew Saville http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49278 Matthew Saville Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:46:38 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49278 The legendary 25-50 f/4 AIS comes to mind. I owned it once, AMAZINGLY sharp on film. Lightweight landscape photographer's dream lens! I have to say though, I think it will be a much more exciting lens for full-frame landscape photographers, because it could potentially be extremely sharp, very light, and quite affordable which no other full-frame lens has ever been. The 14-24 is insanely sharp but doesn't accept front filters, weighs a ton and costs a fortune. The 17-35 accepts front filters but is a bit heavy for landscapes and a bit overpriced for the sharpness. The 18-35 is just borderline un-acceptable for the most dedicated landscapers. So, MAJOR score for FX landscape shooters. Especially if a D700 body gets a 24 megapixel sensor ASAP. And, I suppose, a good score for DX shooters considering a jump to full-frame in the future, because the range is useful enough on DX. 16mm on DX (24mm) is nothing to sneeze at for landscapes, although if I were a serious adventure photographer I'd be packing the 16-85, in fact I could just pack two of those lenses, one for backup, considering to the weight that would be needed to achieve similar sharpness on FX. (Since IMO the 24-120 is un-acceptable as a die-hard landscape lens) Anyways. Very excited to see both lenses! =Matt= The legendary 25-50 f/4 AIS comes to mind. I owned it once, AMAZINGLY sharp on film. Lightweight landscape photographer’s dream lens!

I have to say though, I think it will be a much more exciting lens for full-frame landscape photographers, because it could potentially be extremely sharp, very light, and quite affordable which no other full-frame lens has ever been. The 14-24 is insanely sharp but doesn’t accept front filters, weighs a ton and costs a fortune. The 17-35 accepts front filters but is a bit heavy for landscapes and a bit overpriced for the sharpness. The 18-35 is just borderline un-acceptable for the most dedicated landscapers.

So, MAJOR score for FX landscape shooters. Especially if a D700 body gets a 24 megapixel sensor ASAP. And, I suppose, a good score for DX shooters considering a jump to full-frame in the future, because the range is useful enough on DX. 16mm on DX (24mm) is nothing to sneeze at for landscapes, although if I were a serious adventure photographer I’d be packing the 16-85, in fact I could just pack two of those lenses, one for backup, considering to the weight that would be needed to achieve similar sharpness on FX. (Since IMO the 24-120 is un-acceptable as a die-hard landscape lens)

Anyways. Very excited to see both lenses!

=Matt=

]]> By: Matthew Saville http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49277 Matthew Saville Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:36:08 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49277 It's called landscape photography, you should try it some time. f/16, a circular polarizer, and a tripod. (VR is just to satisfy the whining masses) BRING ON THE F/4 ZOOM GENERATION!!! 70-200 F/4 NEXT!!! =Matt= It’s called landscape photography, you should try it some time. f/16, a circular polarizer, and a tripod. (VR is just to satisfy the whining masses)

BRING ON THE F/4 ZOOM GENERATION!!! 70-200 F/4 NEXT!!!

=Matt=

]]> By: WoutK89 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49274 WoutK89 Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:00:25 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49274 It is only one stop slower (not a problem with the ISO capabilities of the D700 and up), and since wide angles for landscape are used at f/8-f/11 and mostly on a tripod, the lowest aperture doesnt matter. Why is everyone so much against f/4, when it is cheaper, lighter and smaller. I guess its just hard to satisfy people, showing the 2.8 on their lenses. It is only one stop slower (not a problem with the ISO capabilities of the D700 and up), and since wide angles for landscape are used at f/8-f/11 and mostly on a tripod, the lowest aperture doesnt matter. Why is everyone so much against f/4, when it is cheaper, lighter and smaller. I guess its just hard to satisfy people, showing the 2.8 on their lenses.

]]> By: zeeGerman http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49271 zeeGerman Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:26:49 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49271 Th simple VR's work against panning, that is true. However, the more advanced VR systems can detect whether or not you're panning, and will only compensate the vertical shake but not the horizontal. Th simple VR’s work against panning, that is true. However, the more advanced VR systems can detect whether or not you’re panning, and will only compensate the vertical shake but not the horizontal.

]]> By: RThomas http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49268 RThomas Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:12:49 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49268 I own the original 70-210mm f/4 fixed aperture zoom and I would certainly appreciate a light fixed-aperture wide-angle lens to go with it. I used to own the 17-35mm f/2.8 and it was heavy indeed. I own the original 70-210mm f/4 fixed aperture zoom and I would certainly appreciate a light fixed-aperture wide-angle lens to go with it. I used to own the 17-35mm f/2.8 and it was heavy indeed.

]]> By: Chad http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49261 Chad Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:19:42 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49261 Am I the only one who doesn't quite understand what's so great about a 16-35mm at f/4? I never quit got how the dx 12-24mm f/4 was that great of lens, f/4 seems kind of slow for the amount of money we're talking about. I guess the VR will help, but not with moving subjects. I guess that's the point though, you most people don't shoot wide angles, wide open? Am I the only one who doesn’t quite understand what’s so great about a 16-35mm at f/4? I never quit got how the dx 12-24mm f/4 was that great of lens, f/4 seems kind of slow for the amount of money we’re talking about. I guess the VR will help, but not with moving subjects. I guess that’s the point though, you most people don’t shoot wide angles, wide open?

]]> By: Del-Uks http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49260 Del-Uks Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:53:54 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49260 I'm pretty sure the 17-35's corners will be sharper than the forthcoming 16-35 at f/4. At 17mm, from f/5.6 to f/11 the 17-35 is razor sharp from center to corners and that's the average aperture I usually use with ultra wide angle lens. This babe and the new 24mm f/1.4 (mostly for night shot) will be my way to go... My two cents. I’m pretty sure the 17-35′s corners will be sharper than the forthcoming 16-35 at f/4.

At 17mm, from f/5.6 to f/11 the 17-35 is razor sharp from center to corners and that’s the average aperture I usually use with ultra wide angle lens.

This babe and the new 24mm f/1.4 (mostly for night shot) will be my way to go…

My two cents.

]]> By: Gordon http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49257 Gordon Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:25:57 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49257 The 17-35mm is in need of an update, it's corner sharpness is not that good. Hopefully the 16-35 is much sharper then the 17-35mm. The 17-35mm is in need of an update, it’s corner sharpness is not that good. Hopefully the 16-35 is much sharper then the 17-35mm.

]]> By: b http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49253 b Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:10:15 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49253 i really really hope so, i might pray for that. but i also don't think it's going to happen. i really really hope so, i might pray for that.

but i also don’t think it’s going to happen.

]]> By: Eli http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49247 Eli Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:44:21 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49247 "The 16-85 is in no way a substitute for the 16-35, shorter zoom range, equals better optical quality" Not to mention the 16-35's constant aperture--a huge plus for me at least--and probable top-notch build quality. If you compare the 17-55 to the 16-85 in terms of build, there is a massive difference--16-85 is a very nice range but it is still a consumer lens, it is all plastic, and it has its optical faults. If the 16-35 has optical quality on par with the 14-24 and build on par with at least the 12-24 or something, for $1K or so, I'm sold. “The 16-85 is in no way a substitute for the 16-35, shorter zoom range, equals better optical quality”

Not to mention the 16-35′s constant aperture–a huge plus for me at least–and probable top-notch build quality. If you compare the 17-55 to the 16-85 in terms of build, there is a massive difference–16-85 is a very nice range but it is still a consumer lens, it is all plastic, and it has its optical faults. If the 16-35 has optical quality on par with the 14-24 and build on par with at least the 12-24 or something, for $1K or so, I’m sold.

]]> By: Worminator http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-49245 Worminator Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:40:58 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/01/100.aspx#comment-49245 Very handy, certainly, though in the DX waters though it would have to compete with the DX 17-50 /2.8 on one hand, and the 18-xx family on the other. So it's walking a fine line on teh price/performance tightrope, I'd say. On FX it's a different story, and I know many people were waiting a long time for this. Very handy, certainly, though in the DX waters though it would have to compete with the DX 17-50 /2.8 on one hand, and the 18-xx family on the other. So it’s walking a fine line on teh price/performance tightrope, I’d say.

On FX it’s a different story, and I know many people were waiting a long time for this.

]]>