First report on the new lenses from Bob Krist. Check it out (yes the copter shot is there).
AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR:
- Price: $1259.95
- Available in late February 2010
- Ultra wide-angle zoom lens that covers focal lengths from 16mm to 35mm
- Vibration Reduction (VR II) enables sharper pictures while shooting at shutter speeds up to four stops* slower than would otherwise be possible
*As determined in Nikon performance tests. - The adoption of Nano Crystal Coat effectively reduces ghost and flare
- An ultra wide-angle zoom lens that, while offering a wide angle view of 107°, is compatible with 77mm screw-on filters
- Fixed maximum aperture of f/4
- ED glass and aspherical lens elements are utilized for a new optical design that achieves high resolution
- Quiet focusing with built-in Silent Wave Motor (SWM)
- Two focus modes selectable – M/A and M
| Focal length |  |
16-35mm |
|
||
| Maximum aperture | |
f/4 |
|
||
| Minimum aperture | |
f/22 |
|
||
| Lens construction | |
17 elements in 12 groups (with two ED glass and three aspherical lens elements, and Nano Crystal Coat) |
|
||
| Angle of view | |
107° – 60° (83° – 44° with Nikon DX format) |
|
||
| Closest focusing distance | |
0.29 m (1.0 ft.) at a focal length of 16mm or 35mm, 0.28 m (0.9 ft.) at a focal length between 20mm and 28mm |
|
||
| Maximum reproduction ratio | |
0.25x |
|
||
| No. of diaphragm blades | |
9 (rounded) |
|
||
| Filter/attachment size | |
77mm |
|
||
| Diameter x length (extension from the camera’s lens-mount flange) |
|
Approximately 82.5 x 125 mm |
|
||
| Weight | |
Approximately 680 g/24.0 oz. |
|
||
| Supplied accessories | |
77mm Snap-on Front Lens Cap LC-77, Rear Lens Cap LF-1, Bayonet Hood HB-23, Flexible Lens Pouch CL-11 |
Links:
- Nikon Imaging (MFT charts, lens construction, sample images). One of the sample images is from Miami
- Product brochure
AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED:
- Price: $2199.95
- Available in late March 2010
- A fast, wide-angle lens with a fixed focal length of 24mm at the maximum aperture of f/1.4
- Fast lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.4 that allows users to capture images with beautiful blur characteristics
- ED glass and aspherical lens elements are utilized for a new optical design that achieves high resolution and good balance in terms of aberration for pleasing blur characteristics
- The adoption of Nano Crystal Coat effectively reduces ghost and flare
- Quiet focusing with built-in Silent Wave Motor (SWM)
- Two focus modes selectable – M/A and M
| Focal length | |
24mm |
|
||
| Maximum aperture | |
f/1.4 |
|
||
| Minimum aperture | |
f/16 |
|
||
| Lens construction | |
12 elements in 10 groups (with two ED glass and two aspherical lens elements, and Nano Crystal Coat) |
|
||
| Angle of view | |
84° (61° with Nikon DX format) |
|
||
| Closest focusing distance | |
0.25 m/0.82 ft. |
|
||
| Maximum reproduction ratio | |
0.18x |
|
||
| No. of diaphragm blades | |
9 (rounded) |
|
||
| Filter/attachment size | |
77mm |
|
||
| Diameter x length (extension from the camera’s lens-mount flange) | |
Approximately 83 x 88.5 mm |
|
||
| Weight | |
Approximately 620 g/21.9 oz. |
|
||
| Supplied accessories | |
77mm Snap-on Front Lens Cap LC-77, Rear Lens Cap LF-1, Bayonet Hood HB-51, Flexible Lens Pouch CL-1118 |
Links:
- Nikon Imaging (MFT charts, lens construction, sample images).
- Product brochure
Full press release after the break:
The Ultra-Wide 16-35mm f/4 VR and Ultra-Fast 24mm f/1.4 Lenses Provide Photographers With New Perspectives and Creative Versatility
MELVILLE, N.Y. (Feb. 8, 2010) – Nikon Inc. today announced two new lenses for professional and enthusiast photographers that epitomize NIKKOR leadership in optical excellence. The highly anticipated AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED lens is engineered to meet the demand for an ultra-fast professional lens for wide angle applications, while the AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR offers Nikon’s widest FX-format focal range with VR, offering additional versatility to a broad range of photographers.
“The 16-35mm f/4 VR and 24mm f/1.4 are two new lenses designed to address the needs of an ever-expanding number of Nikon FX-format photographers, delivering dramatic perspectives, amazing clarity, contrast and color when capturing stills or HD video,” said Edward Fasano, general manager for marketing, SLR Systems Products at Nikon Inc. “Customers that choose these new lenses will experience excellent image quality and sturdy handling, which is made possible through our commitment to excellence and expert NIKKOR engineering.”
World renowned NIKKOR technologies play an essential role in the design of these two new lenses, and both feature Nikon’s exclusive Silent Wave Motor (SWM) technology for quiet, fast and accurate autofocus performance. The optical construction of both lenses also utilizes precision Nikon ED glass elements along with multiple aspherical elements to suppress chromatic aberrations resulting in sharp, high contrast images. Additionally, Nikon’s proprietary Nano-Crystal Coat minimizes instances of internal “ghosting” and flaring, further ensuring exceptional image integrity.
The 24mm f/1.4G ED Lens
Perhaps one of the most hotly anticipated lenses in recent memory, the new AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED lens blends a natural yet versatile 24mm perspective with an ultra-fast f/1.4 aperture to expand an existing collection of well over 60 NIKKOR interchangeable lenses. The f/1.4 maximum aperture allows photographers to shoot handheld in low light and provides dramatic separation between subject and a softened background. In a wide variety of photographic situations, both FX and DX-format shooters will enjoy the benefits of extra-bright f/1.4 viewing, superb image quality and the dramatic perspectives afforded by a picture angle of 84 degrees (61 degrees when mounted on a DX-format body).
The 16-35mm f/4 VR Lens Brings a New Perspective to VR
The new AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR lens is an ideal lens for enthusiasts and professionals craving a constant maximum aperture and ultra-wide angle zoom versatility with the benefits of Nikon’s Vibration Reduction (VR) II image stabilization. As the widest FX-format NIKKOR zoom lens with VR, users can realize the ability to shoot up to four shutter speeds slower than otherwise possible, expanding low light shooting opportunities and contributing to dramatically sharper handheld photography and video capture. Nikon VR II image stabilization technology is engineered specifically for and optimized to function most effectively for each lens, ensuring optimum performance. Whether joining the growing ranks of FX-format photographers or using the Nikon DX-format, photographers will appreciate the perspectives possible when shooting architecture, interiors, landscapes and more.
Pricing and Availability
The versatile, wide angle AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR is scheduled to be available in late February 2010 at Nikon Authorized Dealers with an estimated selling price of $1259.95*. The ultra-fast AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4 G ED lens will be available in late March 2010 for estimated selling price of $2199.95*. For more information, please visit www.nikonusa.com.
Related posts:
419 Comments
Yesss!!!!!
What? no surprise? boo
Well, for me the big surprise is, that the 16-35 isn’t targeted to replace the crappy 18-35/3.5-4.5, but the professional 17-35/2.8 instead. Almost the same size, weight and price tag, but 1 stop slower.
Nooo!!!
I don’t think that that lens at $2200 qualifies as “hotly anticipated” by many. I defy anyone to get better photos from that lens than from $200 of national parks passes and $2000 donation to the Sierra Club. Let alone the social consequences of that choice…
Yeah, I know, it can be done by maybe 500 of us, and I’m not one of them. Still, it’d be a hell of a lens at a milonga!
ps. Thanks to those of you who explained here that making a lens like that is a complex endeavour. If I’d still been hoping it would be a quarter that price I’d be much more glum.
Has it begun jet?
Bob Kris is now bitching about the gear enthusiasts on this website, look at this from his own blog:
“Now, as for that equipment, hit the jump for my thoughts on that….
It’s pretty nice, but it’s not orgasmic, transformational, or life-changing. (At least not for me…I used to think I was a gearhead, but I am truly humbled by the level of hysteria excitement the prospect of new gear brings on in some quarters!).
One guy went so far as to contact the helicopter company to ask the pilot and ops guy what I was using, another accused me of using a green screen and phoneying up the whole thing (Yup, that’s just what I did, right after I engineered the sub-prime meltdown), and in the worst insult of all, somebody else thought I was shooting through a plexiglass door or window in the chopper. Not to mention the dozens who have been studying the snapshot like CIA analysts might pore over a satellite picture of an Iranian nuke facility.
This is just a thought, but all that energy some of you have been expending trying to figure out what the new gear is, might be better spent actually making pictures!
If you put even a quarter of that gumption, imagination, and ingenuity being spent on gear-lust analysis into actual picture making, photography would enter a new golden age and the pages of Flickr would look like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel!”
Well here is my response to him:
“Bob, I don’t think it’s appropriate of you to characterize the gear-enthusiasts when you played your own part, by releasing a mystery picture that ignited the fire in the first place. For you to tell people to “go shoot” and forget about this whole new gear thing, is hypocrisy. Aren’t you the one testing the unreleased gear and bragging about it? Please… Next time, man up and just keep it a REAL secret, and maybe your rant will be more credible.”
I saw that, very weird – Bob Krist had a different tone when he posted here and he apologized for everything, including the fact that he started that whole thing. He basically admitted that he was doing a campaign for Nikon and I think he got some heat from the headquarter. This was the only real leak in this whole release.
See his posts here:
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/08/i-say-those-are-samples-from-the-new-nikkor-16-35mm-f4-vr-lens.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-51837
Fast aperture prime!
Booo no new DSLRs =(
Nikon already has the best cameras bodies, the lenses were what was missing. This is excellent news.
You can buy the:
85/1.4 + 50/1.4 + 35/2 + 24/2.8
for the price of one 24/1.4
What a rip off. Nikon is completely lying to us about what this thing costs to make. They don’t respect us. what a scam.
dam….I love wide lenses and fast primes but dam…. all of those for the 24mm 1.4 …man it makes you rethink your life..
But I already have those. Come on, 2200 ain’t that bad for SOTA excellence.
What do you mean they’re lying? Where did they make claims about what it costs to make? Nikon isn’t required to sell lenses for cost, or else they’d never put any work into advancing technology, because they wouldn’t have any money to spare.
I’m pretty disappointed by the price tag on both these lenses (not that I personally could justify buying them for even half those prices), but they set the price they think the market will bear. It’s not a ripoff if their target audience is willing to pay it.
The fact is, this lens isn’t targeted at you or me. We get the 24mm F/2.8. The pros who really need that big aperture are much less likely to be shocked at the price.
Agree.
It has begun indeed! F’in AWESOME. I sense more f/4 walkaround/hiking lenses coming up in the next few months! Admin, you rock.
What at 680g – thats a monster, its not far short of the 17-35 2.8
A monster? That’s f’ing light to me. Have you tried 14-24 & 24-70 ???
have you tried the 17-35mm 2.8 a faster lens then this 16-35 at about the same weight and more compact
Sorry but this new 16-35mm is lame
You can’t say that until you’ve seen the performance. If the IQ is that of the 14-24, that will make it a very interesting lens if you don’t need the 2.8 (and chances are, you don’t, given focal length and current low ISO perf).
I agree, the 16-35mm f/4 is Nikon’s ipad… Fail
Ugh. 24mm — not 28mm or 35mm. Ugh. $2,000 bucks for a 24mm. I guess Nikon just assumed that if jerks pay $4,000 for 28mm, they’d pay half for a 24mm. What I don’t understand is why this couldn’t be a 1.8 and ohhh, cut a grand off that price. Why is 85/1.4 $1000. Why is 35/2 so affordable. Why is 50/1.4 $450 bucks — but 24mm/1.4 is $2000 are you freaking kidding me??
What I don’t understand is why this is $2,000 bucks, but the 34/2 is one fourth as much. This pricing is insane. Nikon is just trying to artificially create a new legendary 28/1.4.
Nikon is really disappointing.
The 16-35/4 is OK. The price is at least in the right range compared to other idiotically priced lenses. It should only be $900 bucks though. We are talking f/4 — not even f/3.5..
I was really hyped to see some new lenses but when you think about it…they’re killing us….why is the 24 so much..2K.why,? does it flood in the and lock on your camera by itself..???the 85,50 ….what happened with the 24?…no ones buying it and it will be down to 1500 or i would love it at 1200…….just give us our new body now lol
@Global Guy
I agree the 24 is overpriced, just look at the Canon equivalent.
However you can’t compare it to the 35, the 50, or even the 85, a 24/1.4 is a lot harder to make than a 50/1.4, I think you know that as well as I do.
But then again, 1800 is a more reasonable price for that lens, 2200 is absurd.
The wider a DSLR lens is, the harder it is to make a DSLR wide. The placement of the mirror sweep means that the lens had to be a reverse telephoto, Unlike Leica, Nikon and Canon have to make the light leave the back of the lens practically co-linear.
That means that they have to use large glass and fairly fancy glass that takes a lot of special polishing.
Nikon street prices are almost always slightly less than the recommended retail. But this one could well be pricey for a while.
Just seen the price of the new Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II USM Lens, £2799 GBP, makes the Nikon version seem cheap at a grand less!
wooohooo it has begun!
it has begun how cliche
I’m waiting every time just for this ‘It has begun’ b/s. This is so daft. I love it.
strange looking lens, nikon site uploaded a photo
the 16-35
price?
what’s the price of 16-35? i guess it’s cheaper than 17-35 f2.8?
Price?
Canada lists the MSRP for the 16-35mm f/4 at $1399.95
No price listed for the Prime yet.
not bad for a new nikon zoom…
not bad? It is way too high for me. I was very excited about the release of this lens and was hoping to be able to afford it. I can’t justify it at this price, especially when Canon’s equivalent sells for $730. That is $530 more or around 70% more expensive! I’m sure it will be a nice lens, but IMO, it is way too expensive. Sheesh, I don’t think I will EVER be able to afford a full frame set up.
I was really hoping this would be an “affordable” wide angle lens to make full frame more accessible to the common folk. Now one has to be rich to afford full frame camera (digital) and a decent wide angle lens to go along with it. I already own the 24 2.8 prime and it did okay on film, but my copy is awful! on a DSLR.
The 17-40L is old, non-VR and nor exactly a stellar performer. When it was launched, the 17-40L had an MSRP of 120,000 yen, which is ~$1400.
I agree that the price tag is about right, basically. The lens does feature VR and nano coating, and seems to be of decent build quality.
But, and this is why I’m disappointed, the MTF chart at the short end of the lens http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_nikkor16-35mmf_4d_ed_vr/img/pic_002.gif implies that there is no sharpness what so ever in the corners. I don’t feel that corner performance is overly critical with wide angle lenses, but still, the 14-24mm showed us the promised land, and I thought that this 16-35mm would be a better performer.
Well, if the 16-35 f4 drops 70% or even 50% in price, then I have nothing to complain about and could likely afford it. I understand that Nikon’s version has the VR and nano. My point is that I was hoping this lens would come in at a lower price (under 1000), so more people could afford a good performing wide angle lens. I wish they had left off the VR and cut the price accordingly.
Back in film days, one could get a basic SLR, some Velvia, and any number of lenses which performed well on film for a reasonable amount of money and produce pictures with great image quality. Now, one has to be relatively wealthy to afford making pictures on a 35mm sensor. If you shoot Nikon anyway. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it seems that in the past most people could afford gear that is capable of producing the best image quality. Now, the same gear is priced for the top income earners or professionals only. I know that the photographer has more of an impact on most photos than the gear. Im strictly talking about the gear here.
Geoff is right, Nikon thinks that they don´t need to compete with Canon but the f/4 L line of Canon is what attract the most of people switching boats…
What makes me laugh is how NIkon is listening to the wrong people a wide angle lens with VR LMAO even if it is f/4 it is STUPID, but the newbies want cameras that are lightweight, that are dumb with VR lenses because they are dumbs.
$2,349.95* canadian
for the prime? thats a bit pricer than I thought it would be.
I daren’t look to see what they will be selling for here in Australia.
Price info would be nice…
Boring release for me though…I was hoping for a d90 replacement.
see above comment
Last time they announced FX lenses, they put out a DX body. Who knows, maybe is in the pipe for PMA…
Lol…moving on!!!
$2200 for the 24mm !!!
the price is close to canon one…
The Canon 24mm f/1.4L is selling for much lower at $1,699 in Adorama.
oh crap. forget it for $2200.
See those gold rings around each lens?
The price will be through the roof!
Wrong, gold rings are an indication of nothing else than… It’s got gold rings.
Gold was supposed to be for ED glass. Which at one time was only found in pro lenses.
So explain the absence of a gold ring on the 180/2.8 ED
It’s ancient. They hadn’t discovered gold when that lens was released.
@SZRimaging, If gold rings = ED glass, that might explain why the 24mm f/1.4 has the ring, it has two ED elements and two Aspherical elements. This lens costs a fortune to manufacturer, which explains the cost. Also, if you factor in a the weak $, this lens would have been 15-20% cheaper just a year ago. There is no doubt, the 24 f/1.4 is a PRO lens…but damned $2200 is a lot of money. I will buy one, just because I fear they will stop making them a year from now.
No, the gold rings means that the lens has been accepted by the Nikon gold ring award team, The process takes over a year and is not automatic. Even some very high priced lenses have been released without gold rings.
These days Nikon is unlikely to release a pro-photography lens unless it gains the gold ring. But what we do not see is the much larger number of internal designs that failed to pass.
Looking at the MTF chart it is no surprise to see why it got the award. The chart is much better than the 50mm chart – and this is for a wide angle, a much harder design constraint.
Chart falls off towards the edge, which is only to be expected. Might be something of a CA issue wide open, but not huge. The lens is optimized for sharpness.
Will be interested to see how this does for sagittal coma flare and bokeh which don’t show on the chart.
What? Never heard of this award before. And where did you get the MTF charts?
You’re Mr. B.S. Extraordinaire, aren’t you?
No, I read the Nikon history site where they talk about the gold ring issue themselves and the pressure to win it.
Likewise the MTF charts are linked in the article.
You click on the link and you learn something, its called the Web. We built it out in CERN back around 1992. You may have heard of it.
But I guess I didn’t invent grammar apparently.
@PHB, sagittal coma flare should be held in check.
“2 Aspherical Lens Elements -Aspherical lens elements virtually eliminate coma and other types of aberration, even when shooting at the widest available aperture.”
The Nikon NOCT used just one aspherical lens.
Can you please post a link to the Nikon History site where they explain about the Gold Ring? I have been searching for hours on Google and only come up with people who are guessing incorrectly! Thanks.
Then why is it that most all of the Nikon lenses that have the gold ring are at least a $1,000.00 and quite a few of them are well in excess of $1,500.00?
Gold Ring = $,$$$.$$
So the 16-35 is 20mm longer than the 17-35 and is only 65g lighter. Hmmm. Wonder how much it will be?
I was correct, pricing through the roof!
Pricing and Availability
The versatile, wide angle AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR is scheduled to be available in late February 2010 at Nikon Authorized Dealers with an estimated selling price of $1259.95*. The ultra-fast AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4 G ED lens will be available in late March 2010 for estimated selling price of $2199.95*. For more information, please visit
Cheaper than the old 28mm fetches on EBay at the mo…
The Canon fast primes are halo models, not the big sellers that Canon fanbois may have led you to believe.
But these prices suggest to me that I am right to hope that Nikon is planning to deliver an 85mm f/1.4 and not the $2000, grapefruit-sized monstrosity that Canon peddles to folk who like soft focus lenses.
Given Nikon’s recent trend towards upward pricing, I’ll be wiling to guess that an AF-S 85/1.4 will be at least $2k or pretty close to it.
jp
OK so now I need to find out whether this 16-35 is comparable to the 14-24 in terms of image quality. It sure has a lot going for it on paper.
It looks like it is actually a better lens than the 17-35mm f/2.8. The MTF chart is way better.
MTF is not necessarily trustworthy between manufacturers, but pretty good brand for brand.
The 16-35 is very competitive with the 14-24. And it has VR, which to me says that the lens is one which is aimed at least in part at either the current 14-24 owner who does not always want the bulk and fragility of a lens with a lens element that hangs out the front or the possible future 14-24 owner who wants something that will compliment it later should he buy it.
Both re utterly amazing charts for wide angle lenses. We have been used to this type of performance in ultra-telephotos for years. This is not quite on those levels, but it is very close.
If you take a center crop out of these frames you are going to have utterly stunning sharpness over the DX frame. The 16-85 is virtually flawless on the DX frame. The 24mm would be utterly pointless on a DX body, but I will be more than happy to pay $300 for an f/1.8 DX version of the same at 18 or 20mm.
Alternatively stick to FX frame but shoot at a more academy style aspect ratio and you pretty much have perfection.
AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED : 242 700 yen at Yodobashi
AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR : 137 400 yen at Yodobashi
http://www.yodobashi.com/ec/product/100000001001193228/index.html
http://www.yodobashi.com/ec/promotion/newtopics/detail/10000000000000006045/index.html
That’s $1500 and 2700 wow
FWIW, those prices include tax, shipping, and 10% “points” (discount on your next purchase), so (for example) the prime price is about equivalent to an in-store price of about $2,300 in a state with 6% sales tax. FWIW.
Jeffrey is right. I should have been more specific.
Apologies.
Already have a 17-35mm 2.8 , they release a 16-35mm F4 that manages to be about the same weight, same diameter and 20mm longer than what I have now. No thanks Nikon.
For me personally all this has done is to reaffirm my decision to buy the pro-sumer lenses instead of the pro lenses.
This is way too much money for a hobby for me!
Notice this sentence from the press release: “The AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR balances well with more compact FX format cameras such as the D700″.
Compact FX cameras is pluralized. You get my drift………..
IT HAS BEEN DONE.
cameras section still not loading
I think the price of the prime lens is way too high. Yeah I know its fast glass, but 50mm AFS f/1.4 is only $550CAD. Its over 4x the price for a 35mm?
Pass…
apples and oranges here.
but at $2200 i won’t be getting one either.
Its not really apples and oranges, and if you had to choose one over the other?
I think there are a lot of other good Nikon lenses people would want to buy with the money difference between those two lenses.
way different construction and design. you can’t compare pricing on a wide angle fast prime to a 50mm 1.4, just like you can’t compare the price of a 50mm 1.4 to an 85mm 1.4.
also, it’s a bit strange for someone to consider to choose one over the other, given the two lenses are meant for a different type of photography. not all low light shots are created equal. i’m a strong believer in choosing the right equipment for the job, not what’s cheaper. so yes, should my work require me to shoot with a wide angle at 1.4, i would buy this lens instead of the 50 1.4.
There are many points why this lens is as expensive as it is. But most importantly, the price tag is correct. This lens is not sold as often as a 50mm, it uses much more glass, also Canons version of this lens has steep price tag.
This lens will not be an option for many, that is true, but so far FX is pointed at professionals only, and I think Nikon is doing a great job closing their gaps in the lens lineup. With the D3x, the 14-24mm and now this 24mm, the F-Mount is all of sudden very attractive to many midformat users. 24mp is quite something, and so far, for wideangle, 35mm format was not an option for many.
Anyway, this doesn’t change the price tag of the 24mm, and I’m very certain that we will see a 28mm f/1.8 or f/2 within one, max two years. This will be the budget version of the 24mm at around a quarter of its costs.
Wow, that’s kind of a strong statement to be predicting a 28 this early. I hope you are right though, a 28/2 would be very interesting/versatile.
I’m still waiting for my 35/1.4 though. make it 1500 and i’m sold.
If FX primes is a pro-niche market, I see no reason for Nikon to spend R&D money on a cheaper alternative.
Maybe the 28/2 in DX would make more sense…
The 24mm f/1.4 is a very particular lens, not every photographer will see himself forced to get one. I see it mostly for people that are downsizing form midformat.
Other photographers, also professionals, might just want something fairly fast for low light, like a reception. These are shots that will end up in a wedding album, and this particular shot isn’t what they are getting payed for, therefor, it can be hard to justify 2000 Dollar for a prime like that.
Especially now with the 16-35mm f/4 in the lineup, a faster affordable wide angle prime would make perfect sense. Whoever buys the f/4 zoom, might have a huge interest in a 28mm f/2.
Fast 50mm glass is way easier to make than fast 24mm glass. Even so, I won’t be dishing out $2,220. I might have spent $1,500 but not $2,200.
I am a full time pro and even though I can do $2200 with not too much trouble, it is still hard to justify from a business standpoint.
Well said. I am a full time pro as well and I love nothing more than shooting wide open at high ISOs with little to no flash. I really, really want this lens, but I just can’t justify the price tag. I know these lenses aren’t cheap to make so I’m not going to hate on Nikon, but I was hoping that they would produce something comparable in price to Canon’s 24mm 1.4, which goes for $1700 on Amazon. I would have considered that. I’m curious to see if they put out a 35mm f/1.4 later this year. I may be willing to splurge if they do as that is one of my favorite focal lengths. But until then, I think I may spend my money on a Contax 645 instead. Anyone looking to sell?
People, comparing an older lens in price to a just announced lens, is in my opinion, hopeless. The price of the Nikon will be the same when it is at the same age as the Canon is now. Or at least, in Europe most probably the pice will drop faster.
@ WouK89
The Canon 24mm updated version is only an year or so old, and it has been 1700 right from the day it hit the stores. So it’s not an old lens. Therefore Nikon’s 24mm will not be 1700 in a year, it will not be 1700 in five years.
I never understood, why f4 seen to a popular…? Allot of canon users would perfer a f4. Is it price point or what? If one was to go for a good lense should they look at the fastest?
Constant f4 lenses are usually high end glass that looks good, but costs half of it’s f2.8 siblings price. It is also usually lighter and more compact. If you don’t need the speed of the f2.8, then usually f4 glass is a good choice. At least with Canon gear. Nikon doesn’t have enough to judge.
The problem with Nikon’s version is that it is way too expensive.
I think all new lenses are getting too expensive. There seems to be a higher rate of price inflation than with the rest of the market.
That said, it should be about $900, not over $1k if you ask me.
Don’t buy it then. Get something cheaper, but don’t expect the same performance.
I’m on the fence. I use primes for work that matters, so I am not sure I need a zoom in this range.
F4 with VR on a wide lens is enough. Especially if the deciding factors are weight and price
the F/4 L line is popular because they are high performance lenses (the 70-200mm f/4 and f/4 IS are SUPER sharp) at a reasonable price for shooters that are starting or that have a smaller market, also for a studio shooter (who will often be in f/5.6-f/8) suits them well.
But with the idiotic price tag Nikon went with this lens they aren´t competing at all :/ the lens is 2x the price of the Canon… yeah I can hear the newbies and the dumbsters say “BUT ITs HaZ VR!!!!!!!!!LOLMAOLO” but VR in a wide angle lens is stupid.
$2200 for the 24mm f1.4? I think I’ve been cured of NAS!
cash in hand baby, 24 f1.4 prime…..lets do this!
24mm is nice… but at USD2200? you gotta be kidding right?
Most of you here are probably more the pro types, but for me where are the new DX moderated priced lenses?
I love the AF-S DX 10-24mm lens on DX, why would I want a AF-S 16-35mm on DX?
because this lens is obiously made for FX shooters. Not every lens nikon makes has to be a DX lens which ive seen alot. So expect alot more fx lenses being released this next year since dx has a pretty well upgraded list of lenses. from wide to telephoto.
Nikon came out with the 35mm DX f/1.8 just a short time after the 50mm f/1.4. The two lenses are fairly close in design, the difference being that the 35mm has smaller elements and uses a hybrid aspherical element which is a lot cheaper to make than grinding glass.
So it would not be exactly unexpected for Nikon to come out with a fast DX prime to compliment the 24mm f/1.4, not as fast obviously, but certainly faster than the current 20mm prime.
Now we have the wide lenses, the next launch would logically be at the tele end. Perhaps the 85 f/1.4 and the 80-400 replacement ???
Nikon Canada has the 16-35 at $1400. Wonder what the street price will be….$1250??
http://www.nikon.ca/en/Product.aspx?m=14357
Well, it’s not too far off my budget. Let’s hope supply keeps up with the demand.
wow , you never fail to amaze me admin
This 16-35mm seems like consumer glass to me… I’m thinking that FX D9000 isn’t far off.
You may be right about another body, but that gold ring on it seems to imply more than consumer glass to me, but I am no expert.
Prosumer if you ask me. As a semi-pro, who uses primes when it counts, the 16-35 is a welcome addition.
Here is the math! Using B&H for 14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm and Nikon suggested pricing for 16-35mm and 24mm it all adds up to $9,353.80.
All I have to say is WOW!
I could get by with just the 16-35mm and the 70-200mm on an FX body. That would be less than $5000 at street prices, and this is glass that should retain resale value well.
You are correct about the resale value, but you still have to buy them to begin with.
and your point is what? That quality costs? Correct.
such a disappointment. Nikon must make a mid-range ($) full-frame, video DSLR. i may start looking at Canons.
Bye!
+1
so how good is the 16-35mm lens from the MTF chart? anyone?
wow, I was really pumped up for that 24mm….but then I just deflated after seeing the price.
Hopefully the price on a used 28mm f/1.4 won’t be so outrageous anymore so I can pick up one of those instead.
that was my thought exactly!
You guys are funny. Comparing 24/1.4 price relative to 50/1.4? That’s hilarious. However, the price for the 16-35VR is quite shocking. The Canon equivalent (17-40) is only $800. It’s been that price since 2003 when I first bought mine. Granted, it didn’t have VR, but $600 more for VR? I’m sure the lens is better than the 17-40, but the premium I would have added is $150 for Nikkor quality and $150 for VR. This lens should be around $1100 or less. Well, I already have 14-24 so I guess I’ll save my money for either D900, Nikon EVIL, 35/1.4 or 85/1.4.
Ahem, inflation.
well, its 1260, 160 more than ur desired price, which isn’t that bad I guess.
But the 24mm on the other hand, is 500 more than the canon equivalent. now that’s absurd.
here here i totally agree
It’s hard to believe they would put VR in one of these short lenses and leave it out of the venerable AF-S 24-70mm f2.8.
I’m somewhat glad that the venerable 24-70 doesn’t have 1/4 – 1/2 extra lbs of weight to it just for VR. It’s already heavy enough, but I need Nikon to quickly figure out how to add VR to it without increasing weight.
I don’t find the 24-70 too heavy. Its just the right weight. VR definitely could harm that, but it would be worth it. The 24-70’s focus can be iffy in many cases anyway.
Sounds like you got a dud. Mine focusses faster than a cracking whip.
@KR’s Dog
+1 Woof…Woof….
Can I now give the Nikon employee that told me I don’t need VR under 70mm a shot in the nose? I fiigurred the real reason was that they didn’t make one at the time.
You don’t need VR under 100mm, as long as you don’t have Parkinson’s.
That’s a pricy prime. Yes, I wish the 16-35 VR (which I find really exciting) were a bit less too, but at least that one didn’t make my eyes water when I read it.
let’s see..sell 70-200 vr2 and get the new 24mm..hmm…
Let’s see if youre short-sighted or far-sighted. Who can afford both. Poking out one eye to save the other.
HAHAHA i love reading comments, i just gotta say, people ask for those two lens and Nikon gives, then everyone says no thanks…
what do you guys expect for a 24mm 1.4? $1200? Look at it this way, we can finally cause the 28 1.4 to drop in value enough to be under $2000 if this lens is a better performer. and then all the whiners about nikon having no fast glass can shut it and pay for one.
as for the 16-35 f4, I will probably buy one eventually. 17-35 is nice, but i think I can use the 400 dollar difference since my pics dont need f2.8 wide angle zoom. I think I need the 400 dollars for some cool flash gear or even selling my 50 1.4 d and getting the 50 1.4g to be cool
or save the 400, sell the 50, and get the 85 1.4 (used of course)…
You’re wrong. What people were really asking for is a 24-105VR f4. I would buy that in a heartbeat. It was my favorite Canon lens, and sometimes I look at 5DII + 24-105IS with great envy and think to myself why not own two systems?
and what if it was priced only 200 dollars less than the 24-70, still a heartbeat? or two? lol
I think it’s coming eventually. I think this 16-35 is the first of a few f/4’s to compete against the Canon f/4 lenses and to provide a perfect second tier series for those who don’t want or need the weight/cost of the f/2.8’s. They’ll mate perfectly w/the D700 (and the probable D700s & D900 that are on the way). They’ll all have VR (Even on this wide) to somewhat make up for the slower f/4 & for use in video and to be seen as keeping up w/ the times. I think the 1250 price is about right, figure it will settle out at 900$ after a while. BTW this would also provides a perfect lens series to buy if you’re just getting into things w/ a DX body but know you’re going to move up to FX eventually (but I agree a 24-105 f/4 VR will work alot better for that…like I said, I think it’s coming).
You got it Ray. Too many whining wannabees with a D40 and an 18-55mm, pretending they’re in the market for fast glass and expecting to have it given away. Get back to taking pictures of your cats and quit with the fantasy comments.
+1
Weren’t there supposed to be a couple fast primes???
Is the 16-35 f/4 suppose to supersede the 18-35mm f3.5-4.5D IF ED Lens?
Because pricewise the 16-35 f/4 is twice the cost of the 18-35.
Funny I just picked up the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 used mint for $335 last week . . . guess I can hold out on this lens for a price drop to more realistic levels.
The 18-200mm was released for $849, and now it can be found for $749 easy. Same with the prosumer 12-24mm DX dropping in price and the 10-24mm DX as well.
I think this lens will migrate to $999 soon enough, or maybe when they release a new body, then a discount when buying the combo (like they did with the 18-200, or 70-300 over Christmas).
Is the 24mm F/1.4 the new 28mm F/1.4 ?
Coveted by many, bought by few, discontinued, then through the roof price for used ?
No, the 24mm f/1.4 is the new 24mm f/1.4.
+1 Anonymous
Just think, there was only just over 7K, 28mm f/1.4 D lenses produced in about a 12 year span. 5 years after the production of the 28mm stopped, Nikon gives us an even wider lens with Nano Coating, 2 Extra-Low Dispersion Elements, 2 Aspherical Elements, a focusing motor, 9 ROUNDED aperture blades, and 1 extra lens element bringing the count to 12! I don’t know what this lens went for originally back in ‘94 when it hit the street, but if we adjust for inflation and today’s week dollar, I think $2200 MSRP is a fair deal. I just hope enough people buy them, to give Nikon the incentive to continue manufacturing such masterpieces for a period of time long enough for me to save the money to get one!
I appreciate the VR II on a wide angle zoom but meh.. for the price I’d rather play more and get a 14-24.
Also, that 24mm.. nice but.. 2200$?? WOWAAAA
I want a 28mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 for 1500$ or less.
Great job done, Admin. I was hoping for a 24 dx, but enjoyed your reporting all the same.
You can still use this on DX, but of course you’ll have to pay for it.
MTF Comparison
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/wideangle/af-s_24mmf_14d/index.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/archives/lens/af/wideangle/af_28mmf_14d/index.htm
Cheers
John
The differences are fascinating. The 28mm is never as sharp as the 24mm is across almost the whole frame. The new 24 is much sharper across the whole frame and the sagittal/meridional lines are much closer together indicating likely better CA performance.
The wavy pattern of the 28mm is very typical of the Nikon primes of the era. The lenses show signs of being tweaked by hand at various points along the curve to try to keep everything in line. The 24mm curves have a very modern, computer-optimized feel. That is what you get from having a computer run a few million test rays over every point on the lens surface and run optimization algorithms over the set.
Another point of interest is the lens cross sections. The lens elements of the 24 look fairly conventional most are symmetric or have a flat side and an curved side. There is an aspherical element but its essentially a more or less symmetric lens ground asphericaly on one side.
The three front elements of the 24 are each highly asymmetric. They bulge out in the manner of the old fisheye lenses. Those are not the sort of lenses Nikon was using regularly in the 1990s.
The 85mm f/1.4 may look like the patent, or that may just be a ruse to confuse Canon and the new lenses will be in this style.
Excellent MTF’s for both new lenses.
The 24 f1.4 destroys the old 28 f1.4. I have briefly shot with the 28 f1.4 – the biggest issue I noticed was the fact that it wasn’t AF-S. The slightest change in subject to camera distance sometimes didn’t cause the lens to refocus due to the screw driven focus. With AF-S, the lens can do micro changes in the focusing.
The fact that it is super-sharp, AF-S and 24mm is worth the $2200 price, IMO. Stop bitchin’ about the price, folks!
Wow.. my first post to express my disgust for the pricing.. I love nikon gear but really this is too much, this is rape.. it should be illegal..no joke. hehe
It should not be illegal, if no one wants to pay this price then they won’t. That is the free market at work!
I was just joking.. but I do feel all these companies won’t flinch to suck you dry.. it’s just sometimes it hurts more than others like (today).. they make you feel like they have your best interest in mind and you buy into their system and then bang.. up your arse they go..
If you want to indicate that you’re joking, you shouldn’t end your comment with “no joke”.
2000 bucks for 24 f/1.4….mehhhhhhhhh
24mm f1.4 for $2000 isn’t all that surprising. canon’s wide prime is about the same price without nano-technology.
Canon’s $1475. Nano technology . BS Marketing term.
You obviously haven’t shot with nano coated lenses. Meh…
Well, $2200 for the Nikon and $1700 for the Canon (rounded up a dollar for each; the Canon is the current B&H USA price for the 24 f1.4L II; the Canon list price is $50 more). The Canon uses a coating as well called an SWC coating – same sort of notion as the nano-coat. From Canon: ” Lens elements have a newly-designed anti-reflective SWC (Sub Wavelength Coating) that departs from conventional coatings by using an extremely fine structure that minimizes ghosting and flaring across the lens surface, regardless of the angle with which light enters or exits. It also features two UD lens elements to minimize chromatic aberrations, incorporates rear-focusing, ultrasonic, quiet and high-speed AF with full-time manual override. A circular aperture provides beautiful out-of-focus detail and offers legendary dust- and water-resistant L-series construction using only lead-free glass.”
ok, the difference is 500 bucks in the US. In Japan, EF24mm F1.4L II USM is 199,800 yen, and AF-S 24mm F1.4G is 218,400 yen. So the difference is roughly 200 bucks.
zoom is disappointment. i was really hoping in something smaller. at this configuration, it is a bit cheaper and lot worse then 17-35. hm
Disappointment? C’mon! The 17-35 was great….on film. On FX, corners aren’t great. Expect the 16-35 to beat it handily.
Price will come down over the course of the year.
16-35VR 4.0, does that mean a companion 35-150VR 4.0??? That would make a nice travel kit. Then add a D700, a 50 1.4AFS and a SB900 with off camera cord and I’d be set for a round-the-world trip. Oh yeah – add memory and batts.
I was thinking along the same line. If true, I will have my travel kit lenses. Travel is a hobby I take very seriously, and that 16-35VR gets more compelling the more I think about it. Unfortunately, I’m off on a trip next month, and they don’t have companion lens.
This is the wide end launch. The f/4 telephoto zoom will probably launch with the 85mm f/1.4 prime.
a good travel lens would be 16-200 VR 2.8
Nah, I don’t need a 6lbs lens in front of my camera. I’ll settle for 16-35VR + telephoto zoom + a 1.4 prime.
For that money better go to the moon and take pictures with your iphone
The 16-36 will also appeal to the DX crowd…much like the 17-40 on the Canon side of the fence.
Ok, on to the next rumors. What’s next admin
BTW, as always, good work.
I have no use for a prime. besides mu 50mm and 105m but I would deal with the weight for a 24-70 with vr2 price and weight no matter
If this is Nikon’s big announcements, I would have to say they are way off the mark when it comes to improving their cameras.
i think youre right, cause these are lenses not cameras.
Thx
ye ye ye show is over whats next Nikon ?
zzzz-zzzz-zzzz
my prayer is answer LOL! now what…..waiting for the 85mm f1.4 AFS
You wanted a lens, I wanted a new body. Looks like both of use were disappointed in Nikon. Right now all I can do is shake my head in disbelief.
Well, nothing what I expected at all… don’t get me wrong – I’d love to own this 24mm lens, I’ve been awaiting it since rumor #1 on it, but even if it is worth its price, it’s far out of my reach. In other words, this lens doesn’t exist for me, at least for now. Like someone else before me – I deflated…
Which takes me to my other thought. I’ve been an amateur Nikon fan for a while, DX only so far, four lenses, some extra stuff. I’ve spent around $4K+ for my hear altogether to start wondering if Nikon was the right choice, especially when I look at what range of lenses Canon offers for its wider mount… If it takes so much money to bring 1.4 good fast lens by Nikon, then I only expect much better (cheaper) from Canon (and I do realize that many Canon lenses are also expensive)… Isn’t that a last call to switch before spending really big money for the lenses? Wouldn’t that be a smart decision?
Another question, which I sincerely don’t know the answer to: is it really impossible to produce a satisfactory-quality consumer-level equivalent of this lens at a price range similar to the one of 50mm 1.4G? Will that be that bad or maybe almost equally good? Or isn’t that because Nikon is afraid that the cheaper choice would satisfy 90%+ people and leave this expensive 24mm to real professionals? Because if it is impossible, then decision to switch will be even faster…
Very glad this lens is out, but this revolution doesn’t apply to me. Well, Nikon, you have 10 more months to come up with something attractive for non-professional users.
Neither can Canon produce a 24/1.4 at the price you want.
Well, halfway would be fine, $1200 I would be glad to pay, even though it’s big money where I live…
btw, seach youtube for videos on lens manufacturing. i have seen both canon and nikon videos, quite informative. And certainly, still labor intensive.
The Canon 24 F/1.4L is a $1,700 lens. Yes it’s cheaper, but if a $2K lens is out of your price range, would a $1,700 lens be acceptable? Doesn’t seem to me that the price is too mismatched. Given today’s sensors, a 24 F/1.4 is a highly specialized lens appealing to a very niche market. It’s cool to say that Nikon has one, but like it’s Canon equivalent and the low-selling 28 F/1.4D that preceded it, this lens isn’t part of a main-stream high-end line-up. It’s a tool geared for a specific type of photography — much like the super-telephotos at the other end of the focal length spectrum. For those that need it, the price won’t be an issue.
Trust me, you’re rant about holes in Nikon’s lens line-up have nothing to do with the technical possibilities or impossibilities of Nikon’s lens mount. It doesn’t matter if it’s Nikon, Canon, or Sony — fast wide glass with dozens of enhanced and corrective elements is expensive to make. Considering that such glass is going into a lens with small market appeal, I think the price is justified.
$2,000 for the 24mm f/1.4, let the whining begin!
lucky me i still got the good 28mm f/1.4.
so the lost lens number, 2182 and 2184.
#2181 – AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED (announced April, 2009)
#2182 – ??? 16-35F4
#2183 – AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G (announced February, 2009)
#2184 – ??? 24 F1.4
#2185 – AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II (announced July, 2009)
Just comparing the MTF charts between the 17-35mm f/2.8 and the new 16-35mm f/4 it seems the new lens is only slighly better at the wide end. Doesn’t seem to be as good as the 14-24mm as I was expecting.
Could this be the start of a new Nikon trinity of lenses? …16-35…35-105…105-300… all at f/4 … nah
Well I was hoping for an update to the 17-35 f/2.8. The 16-35 f/4 isn’t exactly that, but it has me thinking about it anyway. I’ll be curious to see review on it. I’ve become accustomed to (spoiled by) f/2.8 lenses though. I guess the VR helps in low light though. Hmmmm
That’s it???? No D700 update?
no we’re not gonna see that guy for a while.
I like the 24mm and may get it at some point. I am struggling to figure out the intent of the 16-35.
$2200 is cheap considering old 28mm f/1.4 is over $4500 on ebay. Where can I order it?
Woah $2500cad, I might as well get the 70-200/2.8VR2….
If you can’t decide whether you want a 24mm prime or a 70-200 zoom, then you’re probably not in the target market for either. Send me your money instead.
they do not have much to show, I would say. This is kind of crappy announcement from Nikon. Well but as we all know they are bit slow lately. Service and websites are bad too. So on the other hand Hurray NIKON!!!!! That you managed to get this 2000 USD? thanks for nothing, Nikon is NUTS
These lenses are obviously out of your league in more ways than one. That doesn’t make this a crappy announcements.
Finally something worth looking at. Glad to see the 16-35 is not a toy. Should put the pola and grad people back in the game. Might be time to sell my old 12-24 workhorse. That would require a D700 replacement though. Next up? Remember 12MP is now the new 6MP. Let’s see how this performs at 24MP when it’s available.
Okay, both of those lenses look incredible, but can anyone tell me why they are each about $500 more than their Canon equivalents?
I would like to invest in pro lenses, but I feel like I’ll be out several thousand dollars if I stick with Nikon.
Nikkor lenses tend to get more favorable reviews than the Canon equivalents and they know it well. So they charge about 1.2 times more. The same can be said about cameras, too. Compare the price of D3X and 1Ds Mark III.
Hmm… So this is NAS. At first, I was, “meh, I already have 14-24.” Then I thought about the weight savings and the VR and the 77mm thread, and now I’m almost at “I’ve gots to have it, my precious.”
This sucks. Hello Canon D5MkII
And the angry Hitler video is coming in 3… 2…
It looks like there are a lot of disappointed people here.
Please, please do make the switch to Canon, GF-1, …
So that I can benefit from the 2nd hand market.
And when Nikon noticed the trend and they revise their price down, I will benefit again.
Please, please make the switch! I am counting on you! Thanks!
Already made the switch to the GF1 with the 20mm pancake lens. Sold my D700. Good riddance.
Im so happy Nikon has a fast wide prime with AFS.
Been waiting years and years patiently for this specific FL (24mm 1.4).
24mm is my favorite wide angle FL. 2.8 is too slow, and 1.4 is perfect!~
Have been tempted by Canons 24mm 1.4L Ver I for $1200 at the time.
Lost some interest w/ Canons 24mm 1.4L Ver II for $1700 price.
Then Feared Nikon would charge $1800 for their 24mm 1.4.
But at $2,200… the gravity of this new reality has sobered my intentions/dreams.
Maybee its the yen, mabyee its supply/demand. Maybee it seems like prices are getting stupid crazy.
Maybee I need a stiff drink and downgrade to a Holga.
get on with it, pal, the new Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS macro cost $1000, almost $100 higher than Nikon’s 105mm f/2.8VR. The latest Canon pro lenses (like 17mm T/S ) are not cheap at all…
No worries Pat. I’ll just buy the $3,000 Nikon 85mm 1.4 when it comes out.
85/1.4 won’t cost $3,500. Wide angle primes are more expensive than their mid-tele counterparts. However, expect it to be $1400-1600.
Shows how diddly people know about the difference between a fast wide prime and a med. telephoto.
The current Nikon 85mm 1.4 is a good value. Thats why I own one. However, you shouldn’t expect the next 85/1.4 by Nikon to be $1600, when the Canon ver is $2k.
Regardless, Nikon made what seems to be a fantastic 24mm 1.4 lens. However the tradeoff is paying for that craftsmanship. No complaints or crying here. However, At this point in time, Im not worthy.
I cannot believe this:
You can get a 70-200 f/2.8 for $2,329, and 14-24mm f/2.8 for $1,825, but the 24 f/1.4 is $2,200. This lens is clearly overpriced.
I’m estatic about the 24mm f/1.4G but very disappointed in the 16-35mm that it couldn’t be a f/2.8. One stop, but I personally I hope Nikon will still bring something faster, very disappointed.
It has begun again–the WHINING, the incessant WHINING, about Nikon’s high prices. Just sad to hear so many grown people cry and moan about something they’ll never purchase, and never intended to purchase in the first place. Probably same crybabies that complain that a Porshe 911 is too expensive, as if they were going to actually purchase one.
Fast glass has always been expensive. Nothing has changed in the past 30+ years. If you want cheap, there’s Quantaray or some other crap.
+1
i agree
I can only speak for myself. Yes, that’s whining, however not about high price of Porsche 911, but lack of anything reasonable between 911 and an old VW Golf 20+ years old. Somehow the “non-slr” cameras are getting incredibly smaller and smaller and more sophisticated and yet producing better pictures. How come so little of that progress is available for the let’s say semi-pro level? Well, maybe I misunderstand progress…
After all, whining is just another form of concern and interest, which help to shape the market, isn’t it?
Did you know that there is a Sigma FX 24mm f/1.8 priced at $449.00 and a Sigma FX 20mm f/1.8 at $519.00 in Amazon?
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Aspherical-Macro-Aperture-Cameras/dp/B00005RKSP/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1265713059&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Aspherical-Angle-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B00005RKSL/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1265713146&sr=1-1
I must have missed those… my bad. Thank you!
damned if you do, damned if you
don’t. bunch of whiners.
Great work NR. We absolutely read it first here!
To all the whiners complaining about Nikon’s high prices, here’s the perfect camera with lens for you, at a great price:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/654843-REG/Vivitar_94009_Hello_Kitty_Digital_Camera.html
i so want that camera.
Some of us just can’t afford glass that cost more than our bodies.
No one is saying awesome glass that’s difficult to engineer and manufacture should be cheap.
We just get super bummed when we can’t afford it. The 35 1.8 DX, fast, awesome glass, cheap. We like that. Even the new AFS 50 1.4 is reasonably priced.
Can’t we hope out loud that a real nice 24 1.4 would be affordable ?
@Anonymous
Yes you can, “hope out loud that a real nice 24 1.4 would be affordable”, just like I can hope out loud that the Corvette ZR1 with 625HP wil soon replace my Ford Focus for the same amount of money!
A friend of mine had a saying, “Champaign tastes on a beer budget!”.
I can’t afford the ZR1, well actually I probably could, but at the cost of a divorce; however, I can sneak great Nikon glass in the house without having to consult a lawyer first.
I guess if we were on a car rumor website the idea would make since. But this is “Nikon Rumors” a camera site. So when something comes out that we see as overpriced then we are going to mention it. Just like if a new audi came out and the audi guys said it was over priced.
i am now more keen to make the switch!…
where is the new DSLR ?
Had to visit this morning, if I could have placed a bet on the comments that I was sure I would see on the new lenses I would have won a fortune.
“They are far too expensive” “The Canon version is so much cheaper” “Nikon is ripping us off” etc, etc, etc.
A lot of people still do not seem to realise that there is nothing truer than the old British saying that “You cannot buy a Rolls Royce for Ford prices”. The other thing is that at release the prices quoted are the list prices which will soon drop. The 70-200 f2.8 was available for pre order at £2,000, now it can be bought for £1,700 a reduction of 15%, so take 15% off the list prices and that’s what it will be selling at by the summer.
Now for the next bet, how long will it be before the first idiot points a high powered torch into the lens and declares that it’s got ’speckles’ or some other defect. They of course will not have taken any photos with it as they never actually use there cameras for photography.
+1 ROFLMFAO!!
“how long will it be before the first idiot points a high powered torch into the lens and declares that it’s got ’speckles’ or some other defect”
It is all about the end game, in the END, Nikon’s got GAME!
this has been said many times, but i felt this was necessary to say again.
as a professional Photographer, especially one who shoots alot of Night Clubs so speed and wide angle are important to me, i held Very high hopes for the 24 1.4, and truthfully felt that it would be justified with a higher than average price tag. but $2200 is WAY more than Higher than Average! That is a simple Gauge of the consumer! $1000-$1300 would have been an acceptable Price tag for this lens, and it would have sold in high quantities at that price i believe. but at $2200, ill be lucky if i can afford to rent it now and then… suffice it to say i am immensely dissapointed, and sincerely hope that Nikon reads this.
Nikon, Canon, and Zeiss are all laughing at your proposed price.
Did you check the price of the Canon 24/1.4? Probably not.
Yes, the Canon 24mm F/1.4L II that runs $1,699 on B&H. I am perfectly aware of this as my wife shoots Canon and has wanted that lens for the same purpose for some time. Last night when i posted that original post I admit that i spoke irrationally out of an ill-concieved hope that this lens might open up the avaliablility for a shooter like myself to use. But you are still looking at at least a $500 price gap between “equivalent” products. Besides which, i dont know how many of you shoot professionally or what you shoot professionally, but i make my living of nightclubs and simple portraits. The portraits are occasionally at best and the nightclubs i get just $100 for the night, and i have to fight for that because there are so many people who call themselves professionals but will do it for free! how am i supposed to compete when my expences cant even be covered, let alone get ahead enough to afford top of the line equiptment!
@Douglas
As a professional, I am certain you like to get PAID for the photographs you make. Nikon likes to get PAID for the lenses they make…take a closer look at the specifications on this lens and you will find that on paper it should be one hell of a performer. For $2200, I will wait for the reviews to confirm what the paper is claiming. But if I know Nikon, their $2200 price tag is justified for their top notch work. A $1000-$1300 24mm f/1.4 would only be a decent to good performer at best, for a decent to good photographer asking average prices for his average work. Where do you fit Doug?
I have a 14-24mm f/2.8 and am considering parting ways with it for the 16-35mm f/4. Anyone else in the same situation? I just bought a Lee Filter Kit and now I can use it on this lens when using some ND Grads.
Second, the limited range of the 14-24mm. Beautiful, but I found myself changing lenses a lot to the 24-70mm f/2.8.
I can live with losing a stop, as long as the D700 replacement gets me 2 stops better performance.
Who else is parting with their 14-24mm? Am I making a mistake? I already posted it on FredMiranda . . . and will sleep on it.
I don’t have a 14-24… but if I were in the market for one, I would also reconsider and get the 16-35 instead. It’s lighter, more range, takes filters, and a whole lot cheaper. The only thing to lose is the one stop, which isn’t a big deal anyway on ultra-wides.
You also lose 2mm off the wide end.
That corresponds to 114-84 vs 107-63 degrees.
If you wait a short while the price will come down and you may find you can keep both.
So far no one has been talking distortion. We’ll see how the 2 compare. If this was released first I wouldn’t have bought the 14-24 and lose filtration and protection. Considering the lengths people will go to to put a grad on the 14-24 and loose half the length, the 16-35 fits the bill and gives you a lot extra out to 35mm plus VRII. Have to wait for the pundits to weigh in.
I’m in the same boat except I don’t own the 14-24. I’ve been heavily considering it for a long time though, but this 16-35mm makes me reconsider. I like that it can take filters and I would be less worried about damaging the glass. I just have to get comfortable with the idea of f/4 instead of f/2.8 and I will want to see how well the 16-35mm performs. I don’t expect it to beat the 14-24mm in terms of distortion, but I hope it’s very close.
Segura,
My gut says, “Keep the 14-24, it is a GREAT lens and will continue to be a GREAT lens.” But to give decent advice, I have to know what you plan on shooting with your gear. It sounds like you are a street shooter, or vacation shooter, setting out for a day of shooting, but not sure what your after until you see it. If this is the case, get a second camera body and carry two cameras with the lenses you most use for the focal lengths you most shoot. My problem is deciding what gear to take when I set out for the unknown; that’s when I usually just take it all.
I have a decent selection of glass, both zooms and primes, but since I like low light photography, I am leaning towards more fast primes. If you don’t know what your preference is in gear, go back and look at the EXIF data of all your pictures, especially the ones you like; look at the focal lengths and the f stop. This should help you decide…
Cheers!
All this talk about prices and whether a pro would buy these lenses misses what for me is the real point here, which is:
Doesn’t the 16-35mm/f4 look long and thin for a wide-angle lens?
I mean seriously, I expect a WA to be short and fat, or have a weird bug-eye front element. Truly I know nothing whatsoever about optics
It only looks thin because it is so long!!!
Hmmm. I would have liked it much better if the 16-35 had come without VR but for 200$ less instead. The lens will be spending quite some time on a tripod anyways. Shutter speeds between 1s and 1/50s are pretty rare for me on a wide angle. During daytime, I get faster speeds than 1/50s at ISO 100 and f/8, more so when using an FX body with a base ISO of 200. During dusk / dawn and night I would pretty much always use a tripod anyways (in quite some cases, I would use a tripod also during daytime).
So, what the hell shall I do with VR on such a lens? Rather useless feature, at least for me.
Nikon already has a two non-VR lenses in this range – the 14-24 and 17-35.
Given that VR adds weight and introduces a significant design constraint, it makes sense to offer a choice of lenses with and without VR. The 14-24 is big enough and heavy enough as is.
Expecting Nikon to produce cheap FX lenses is like expecting Jaguar to sell a bargain basement version of their XJ8 limo.
The fact that the 16-35 has VR and is long and slim shows just how much the very active, as in a few people shouting loudly from the rooftops, video shooters are having.
huh?
In Norway the 24 will have a pricetag of 19500 NOK = $3300!! OUCH!!
someone are disappointed about the sharpness of the 16 35. Look at the published MTFs, it’s as sharp as the 14-24, only a very little worse in 1 mm at the corner. Let’s wait for the real performance to prove this.
You are right, now that I’ve gotten home from work and reviewed the MTF charts more it does seem much sharper then the 17-35mm, however edge sharpness still seems to take a dive compared to the 14-24mm.
This is Landscape without tripod exactly what I wanted thanks Nikon you the BEST!!!!!!
Glad you’re happy, Ken.
I like the price of the 24mm, that’s only a few hours of work for me and it will keep the stupid poor people away.
two days for me…
Or an hour and ten minutes for Elliot Spitzer’s ‘girlfriend’.
1,5 months for me u_u
The lenses may sen very good but we are waiting for a new camera body has been somewhat disappointing.
All of us have great profesioneles but not money to buy the D3X, and do some advertising, we are crying out for a camera of at least 16 mp or more. We will continue waiting.
Congratulations on the blog.
Desde Argamasilla de Alba. Spain.
I wants the precious!!
Wonder what kind of price it will actually sell for.
According to Google:
2 199.95 U.S. dollars = 1 406.61765 British pounds
More likely to go for the D700 1st
I can’t believe it. A lens, no matter how many technologies are involved in, cost no less than 1200 USD with the astonishing aperture of f:4. Where are the people claiming for the virtues of a f.1,4 wide angle ? . “laugh out loud”.
Besides I have to read the commentary that NR makes who says:… new optical design that achieves high resolution and …good balance!… in terms of aberration for pleasing blur characteristics…” Come on guys if you wan to make publicity you should be more enthusiastic.
2200 USD wow! I have a 24mm f:2,8 manual I’ll keep it like gold dust. However If any one wants to buy it I sell it for 1995 USD (Or Euros, Cheer up!) I’m learning Nikon’s marketing techniques.
Finally, but 2200 USD or Euro’s … are they nuts? Similar lens at the Canon camp cost half as much … lnag anticipated, will anticipate a little more …
I am definitely getting the 16-35, just because of how often I use my 24-70 over my 14-24mm for landscapes just to be able to use my filters. It’ll be great to be able to use filters at 16mm. And at $1300, that’s cheaper than I was expecting, honestly.
And I wasn’t gonna be interested in the 24mm f/1.4, because I figured, “eh, at the focal length the bokeh won’t be that great.” But after seeing those sample images, that 24mm would be an amazing portrait lens for the style of portraits I’m most interested in doing (wide, environmental portraits.) But, I don’t think that I’ll have the money for that just yet. Gonna have to save up for that one.
Very nice night for me, that’s for sure.
Great coverage, admin.
Looking at the 16-35’s MTF it clearly shows to be in the pro league:
It has the larger high performance area, nearly as good as 14-24 and 24-70 except for the outmost edges and outperforms resolutionwise the 17-35 and 18-35 easily.
See
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_nikkor16-35mmf_4d_ed_vr/img/pic_002.gif
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_zoom14-24mmf_28g/img/pic_002.gif
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_zoom17-35mmf_28d_if/img/pic_002.gif
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af_zoom18-35mmf_35-45d_if/img/pic_002.gif
The only issue I could see is that the distortion as seen in http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_nikkor16-35mmf_4d_ed_vr/sample2.htm
gives elements off the center some 2d-look for which I disliked&sold my 12-24 in DX times. The 14-24 shows no such uglyness as far as I’ve witnessed yet, neither did the 17-35 when I owned it in film times.
Anyone with an idea if same angle lenses can really give different appearance of the motive bejond pure DOF and FOV?
Leica 24 1.4 is $6500 so stop it.
We are not Brunei’s Sultans. If you can afford that may be better changing to Hasselblad equipment. It would be likely a very good lens but not as much to justify such a price. Sensors doesn’t reach as much sharpness like that lens and it’s likely they wouldn’t.
How much??? I was quite interested in the 24mm f1.4, it would have kicked the 20mm f2.8 out of my bag but not for 2k. I thought we had left the days of silly priced wideangles behind (like the 28mm f1.4). At least the 28mm was built properly unlike this newfangled plastic thing. Surely this one doesn’t have a hand made element?
Nice lenses. If and when I go full frame, I’ll probably get that 16-35 VR.
With regard to the 24mm, I’m not surprised by the price. Its street price will probably be close to the Canon’s.
I still wish they release more primes, including a cheap wide DX prime (24mm 1,8 DX or so?).
With that price Nikon can Jam it up thr 77mm A-Hole !!!
Here in Italy Canon 24mm f1.4 costs 1.250 euros (about 1700 dollars). Why we nikonias must always to pay more?
Wow, that’s the same as the Canon equivalent in US! If I ever go to Italy I’ll make sure I pick one up for $500 less.
You probably pay more in taxes
What is it with all these whining dirtbags bleating about the price for a state of the art wide angle lens? They’re not going to give it away you complete and utter fantasists and I for one am glad it is priced at a point that will guarantee its build quality. The last comment by GT (D40 owner with less than a thousand clicks on the shutter) says it all. They’re not even in the market for a prime, nevermind a quality zoom, but they want to bitch about it anyway. Pathetic.
Sorry Bud…. but it aint worth 1/3 or more of my 200mm f2.0 lens….
Why not?
Presumably because it’s only got 1/8 of the focal length.
hahahahahahahaha
2200$ ?????
are they crazy or what?!?
otherwise still waiting for 35mm/1,4, 200mm/2.8, 300mm/4 Nikon… and my beard is getting longer and longer….
Nikon must be obsessed by the professional fashion, events, sports, etc. photographer market. Oh, new lenses that may better suit a D3s.
What about the forgotten landscape photographers, what about the D900 & compact primes? What’s the point of having a bulky f/1.4 wideangle if it’s going to be used at f/8 most of the times (for landscapes)? Just look at the Voiglander 20mm f/3.5 to have an idea how tiny a wide can be built.
And where hell is the 28-200mm VR?
the 24mm f1.4 is not a landscape lens, it’s intended for reportage and it’s a good choice for environmental portraits too
I want a 16-35 f4.0 zoom, but I also want to know what the NEXT rumor is.
it is a great disappointment for me, no new small FX body, is there any possibly that the press is still not finish yet?
This is it for this week, come back after PMA
24mm 2.8 here i come!
I have the amazing 14-24/2.8, although I liked the new lenses (the more options people have the better it is) I don’t feel particularly drawn to them… as an underwater photographer the 16-35 seems a pretty good choice over the 18-35 or 14-24 (hard to put inside a housing) for the FX shooters.
superb optic ! great quality but do you thing that one day Nikon would be able to produce a DSLR at 18 or 25 Mpix in full frame ????? working on lense is very nice but a full frame pro would be better !!!!!
D3X more than 24mpx ?????? what are you talkin about 21 for Canon dohhh!!!!
Nikon is joking with non-professionals. Those who say that Nikon has right to make the price 2200 $ are rich as hell. And if Nikon is making stuff for richmen, then there is no future in this company. Thank God there are rivals, such as Canon, because then it would probably cost 3000-5000$. Nikon, I give you your last chance.
You immoral Canon s been doin some F4 expensive lenses for ever you must be blind or wearin glasses like Canon lusers lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hmmm, you are talking to me like: “If you go to Canon, I will kill you.” I just want to tell that if we won’t buy every Nikon lens that come out, Nikon will have either to make them cheaper or make them better. And I really don’t like to talk to people, such as you, who dont wear glasses, but you should do. XD
One more thing, I wasn’t talking about “F4″ lens (first learn how to write f/4
), whose price (1200$) is quite good, but about 24mm AF-S f/1.4 lens.
Its commin you think that they produce this lenses for what???? …and specially this 16-35 vr its for a new D700 xS or wha ever!!!!!!!!!!!
First Landscape stabilized Lens wide angle for DX and FX can’t match that ,can you????
No you can’t lol !!!!
…and I don’t want talk about video ,I just wait the full hd in a few months to talk about it in equal level !!!
I think a majority of (nikon users) us are pissed that nikon has no bodies to compare with 5d and 7d. But I think these lenses are at least a look in the right direction. These lenses will be very sought after… we have waited a long time.
nikon releases are offset to canon releases and viceversa. people in both camps who expect either company to produce killer models months after the rival introduces a new model are living in a dream world. It took canon years to match the D300 and nikon will answer the 7D with the D400. Likewise canon will not make an 7DII a month after nikon’s D400. Informed users will simply observe this pattern and not freak out when a competitor makes a better model, because they know an even better model from their own brand is down the road. It’s a cycle and this is why time is better spent enjoying current models than fretting over upcoming ones.
even better, buy glass instead and it will not go obsolte in 2 years.
Good morning,
I’m glad I did not stay up until 12AM for that !
Well if the 16-35mm is very good, then, maybe I’ll think about it, but f/4 ?
Nikon France have a press release but no price. They do say that the 24/1.4 comes with a dedicated hood, HB-51 and a soft case.
http://nikon.fr/fr_FR/press_room/press_releases_main.page?Period=&Quarter=0&SY=0&ID=templatedata\fr_FR\news_article\data\BV-PR-WWA1002-45136
Nikon Germany list a European price, 2.149 EURO.
http://www.nikon.de/de_DE/press_room/press_releases_main.page?Period=&Quarter=0&SY=0&ID=templatedata\de_DE\news_article\data\BV-PR-WWA1002-45136
USD 2199.95 is EUR 1,577.48 at today’s exchange rate. Once again the Europeans get to pay over the odds.
i don’t know how many people are like me but 16-35 looks like a good option. I don’t need the 2.8 for low light as my wide angle stuff is typically not action and i can afford to have a longer shutter speed in lower light situations. If this lens has close to the performance of the 14-24 (priced much higher than this lens), i;d say it’s worth it. Unfortunately it would be nice if it were a bit wider. I would like to see a 12mm FF lens to match the sigma angle, but obviously better performance. I’m sure we will not see that, at least anytime soon.
People griping about the price of the 24mm 1.4.. Honestly get over it. It’s a super pro lens with the intention of being sold to only people who need the very best mid-wide angle performance. 24mm is covered by many lenses in Nikon’s lineup. That’s not to say they will be as good as this one due to the large aperture, but that’s kind of the point. The people who actually NEED this type of performance at this focal length for their careers will buy it in 2 seconds. I just don’t see why people here are complaining. It’s the same as when people were complaining about the initial d3x price. The people who actually need it, bought it. no problem. The people have no business spending 8 grand on a camera, didn’t. Yes, you guys with smaller studios may be professional photographers, but i truly think Nikon is developing these massively priced lenses for photojournalists, sports photographers, magazine photographers, etc who have companies buying their equipment. Price almost becomes a non-issue at that point.
Well said. D3X bellyaching, redux.
Well looks like i’ll be passing on the 16-35. Price is to high for just a hobby. I’ll stick with my Tamron 17-35.
I also like Tamron (the 28-75mm is fantastic), very sharp lens but the built quality is far away from Nikon pro lenses, when I had the Tamron I was always affraid that it fall in parts in my hands and the autofocus is good, but again not as good as an AF-S. Well, $399 vs $1800 (24-70mm) it’s a big $$$$ difference.
But I’m glad that people can have access to high pictures quality for only $399.
I’ll get my Nikkor 24-70mm next week but I’m not so exited about it, I wish Nikon would have made a 28-75mm VR instead.
Thumbs up at Admin again.
Please let use know the next rumour soon!
Waiting for 35 1.4 :p
Ordered my 16-35 at my local dealer today!
They’ll have it 2-6 weeks depending on shipping – yey !
Here is the link to Nikon France:
http://www.nikon.fr/fr_FR/press_room/press_releases_main.page?lang=
Translation:
No D700s, D700x, D900, D800 but here is two lenses that you could use with theses cameras when they will be available, we think it’s better to have lenses without the camera rather having the camera without lenses, if you really need a camera, we are working on an adapter for Nikon lenses to Canon cameras.
Thanks for waiting and watching.
Nikon France.
I am interested to hear how a 16-35mm wide-angle zoom with VRII can be half the price of this great 24mm prime w/o VR? Maybe it easily leverages what exists with the current 17-35? Lower build quality (nooooo!)? Or does the 24 leverage a patent and launching this was expensive? Maybe I am missing something as I still consider myself a ‘newbie’. I hope someone can addres this.
Faster glass – higher price
general rule ! ! !
Nikon will probably sell x10 more 16-35mm than 24mm f/1.4, more you sell, less it cost !
Everyone take a deep breath.
I’m a serious amateur (meaning I actually print and exhibit, but can’t finance new gear by 2 or 3 pro shootings) who’s used Nikon for 20 years of film and then switched to Canon for the 5D. I’ve been waiting for Nikon to catch up in FF as I’ve always found the Nikon interface/handling superior for _actually taking_ great pictures.
To me, the situation for non-professionals remains unchanged: Canon remains a few steps ahead regarding non-professional FF bodies. Nikon has the better std to tele zoom lenses (24-70 tops its Canon counterpart, as does the 70-200/2.8 II) and at least the _option_ of someday buying a 200-400 supertele for wildlife. Canon’s 16-35/2.8 is a good UWA, but needs to be stopped down to f8 for acceptable corners in landscape shots. And f8 handheld w/o VR in the late afternoon is not an option. Nikon’s 14-24 is much better, but even more expensive and most prosumers shy away from the hard-to-protect-or-filter domed glass.
Ergo: Nikon is right on target w/ that 16-35/f4 VR, the target being a sizable market of mid-range pros (weddings) and ambitious amateurs. Let’s face it: FF photography is NOT for the masses, just like travelling around the world or driving a premium car.
ERGO: I’d LOVE to buy that lens. Yet Nikon lacks the (premium) prosumer FF body to justify that lens. And Canon lacks the wide-end zoom to satisfy the resolution of its FF bodies. And a decent AF for the 5D range…
My point? Both FF systems are still seriously flawed. It seems that Nikon and Canon have a secret agreement to keep people switching in order to have bigger turnovers…
… As long as lens lineups and bodies don’t really click (pardon the pun), disappointment in both camps is natural.
Thanks admin, for keeping me on my toes, though!
I would concur, but really fail to see how Canon’s strategy makes any sense.
Nikon launched their FX line with the wide-angle zoom that made sense of it. Canon launched an FX line that offers no real advantage over buying a DX body two years later but costs and weighs twice as much.
Nikon is always later to market, but only by about a year and the difference in quality shows. It takes time to get the handling right, whether of a camera or a lens. Canon sells well to ‘measurebators’ who like specs, but less well to people who care about performance.
This launch is very much about catching up with Canon. Nikon are signaling that they are going to match Canon on the wide primes and the f/4 VA zooms. So I would very much expect them to match or beat Canon’s 18MP compact full frame body as well, not to mention the 85 f/1.4 and a mid-range f/4 zoom.
‘Yet Nikon lacks the (premium) prosumer FF body to justify that lens…’
Really? What’s wrong with the D700?
Simple: you don’t need that kind of resolving power for the 12MP D700. Just as you could comfortable use the Canon 17-40L on a 12MP 5D. But it can’t keep up with the 24MP res of the Canon 5D2.
With the new Nikon 16-35 it’s the other way around: The MTF chart suggests a resolving power that’s beyond the D700.
In both cases, buyers are expected to overspend and hope for a future lens / body to match. I didn’t say there was anything wrong with the D700, I did say that it doesn’t justify buying the new 16-35!
+1
But I think that new FX body w/ higher resolution is on the way and soon. Call it a D800 or D900 (w/ higher resolution than the D3s). Question is will it be a D3x chip or something in between, say 18MP. I also think we’re going to be getting and D700s (update w/ same sensor as the D3s). Full lineup of FX w/ a new series of FX f/4 VRII lenses to match (that midrange f/4VR zoom is coming too).
@ PHB:
“Canon sells well to ‘measurebators’”… True. But also to a lot of pros. But the ‘measurebators’ have no allegiance: Remember their hurray when the Nikon D3x came out? 24MP + frame rate?
Naw, I think Canon just concentrates their marketing on what they do best: Excellent sensors in “ergonomically challenged” bodies… Just as Nikon has always tried a “the few – the proud” approach with fewer and better lens types. It was a dogfight in the 90s, but it became a chase in the 00s. Canon can break even on R&D costs much quicker because of the much bigger market share. It’s only logical that they take more of a “trial and error” approach.
Catching up will be very hard for Nikon as long as they do attack the 5Dii: Almost double the resolution than the D700 w/ tonal range and signal-noise-ration on par? (see DxO below) AND at the same or lower price? That’s quite a reason to go Canon as long as the glass can keep up, if only barely.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Canon/EOS-5D-Mark-II
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Nikon/D700
Sorry, typo:
“Catching up will be very hard for Nikon as long as they do attack the 5Dii: ” should say “as long as they DON’T attack the 5Dii”
holy crap that’s expensive… i guess I was really hoping… I have invested too much already in the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, 105mm (all f2.8). I cant afford another $2200 lens. Dammit. would be great for all the concert indoor stage work i do, where light is bad. I just bought the 3Ds to help with high iso/low noise. Too bad its not in the $1000 range otherwise I would have bought it.
105mm micro is the BEST lens I’ve ever seen, I can’t believe how sharp that thing is, most of the time I don’t even need the VR.
yes it is an amazing lens. best $700 i ever spent (well minus that one stripper in Miami). I was hoping the 24 f1.4 would be in that $1200 range, i would have bought one instantly. I do a lot of stage work that yields some money, not enough to justify this i think (although I will obsess with it and will find a way to buy it I guess). I need to see specs of how it will do at 1.4. is it sharp? is it fast to focus? I shoot dance shows.
AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G versus AF-D NIKKOR 28mm 1.4,
May anybody see at the postet MTF charts of the new 24/1.4 and old 28/1.4. Which one is better? Thanks
Robert
Still no AF-S 1.2/85 – AF-S 1.8/85 – AF-S 2.0/135
I think the AF-S VR 85mm f/1.4 will come this year, it could be extremely sharp even at f/1.4 thanks to ASPH, NC, ED (and IF + 9 blades diaph), that will be cool, but not for me, can’t have a 105mm and a 85mm in the same bag !
Why would anyone think the Canon 85 f/1.2 is worth putting in their bag?
It is a lot heavier than a 1.4 would have been. It is soft. And the depth of field wide open is so thin that the Canon bodies cannot autofocus it. Not to mention not being very useful. How often do you want the eyes in focus and a blury nose and ear? OK so Petter Hegre can find a use for it.
For me it’s not important wether it will be 1.2 or 1.4 or a much cheaper 1.8
But I need a very fast 85mm, 105mm, 135mm
I had these Lenses from Canon and there ist nothing from Nikon
Nikon 16-35mm is surprisingly wider than Sigma 10-20mm on DX. Nikon has 107 degrees and Sigma has 102.4 degrees angle of view. However, Nikon 10-24mm DX has 109 degrees angle of view.
Weird !!
the 16-35 will have an angle of 80 something on a dx body. the 10-20mm, if on fx body, would have probably a 120 to 130 degree angle but will have the corners completely rounded off. I didn’t do the exact math so my nuembrs could be off, but you get my drift. The 16 to 35 is never wider than the 10-20.
Unless you are being sarcastic…
wait i read wrong i think. you are refering to the 16-35 on a FF and the others on a DX body. nevermind
Sigma uses the 1.7x crop of their camera to calculate the APS-C field of view
thanks WoutK89, now it makes sense
What a disappointment. No body announcements. I’m in the advanced amature category and would really love a mid range body that compares with the megapixel and HD capabilities of Canon. I want full HD and I want comparable megapixels. I guess it’s a waiting game. I’ll wait as long as I can, but this is really disappointing.
Does Nikon really make that much of their money on high-end lenses for professionals. This announcement seems like it will effect about 1% of the Nikon users.
So when’s the next announcement?
I don’t understand, LOL
They made a 16-35 which weights almost as a 17-35 f/2.8, which costs almost as a 17-35, which is 1 stop darker and you praise it ?? You must be crazy, I’ve never seen such a stupid announcment from Nikon ever.
How can you judge before you see the lens? What if the IQ is much better than 17-35…
The IQ of the 17-35 closed to f/4 is practically the same.
I take it you already received the 16-35 to pass that judgment??? Or maybe you’re Ken Rockwell.
I guess the biggest opportunity for 16-35/4 to shine is distortion at widest setting. According to Photozone, the 17-35 distorts noticeably at 17mm, even on DX frames. This is something you cannot correct by stopping down the lens…
I own the Nikon 14-24mm and the 24-70mm and I can’t tell you how many times while shooting indoor events (especially indoor homes) that I’ve had to swap out lenses just to get a wider angle. The 16-35mm VR seems to be an ideal answer for shooting some events. I just compared the MTF charts for all three of these lenses and the 16-35mm VR looks like it can certainly hold its own again the other two. I think the VR would also be a welcome benefit indoors if flash cannot be used, such as some weddings. Also, being able to use 77mm filters on the 16-35mm VR helps when wanting to use my graduated filters for landscape. And the difference between 14mm and 16mm isn’t going to seem like such a drastic loss. Personally, I can see me getting the 16-35mm VR and if it works well, I would most likely sell the 14-24mm – the 14-24mm is one of my least used lenses.
Interesting perspective, I was thinking the same. I was about to buy a 14-24 because I like wide angle, but I’m interested in this 16-35. My mains issues are:
- Is the difference between 14 and 16 important? could be…
- The difference between 2.8 and 4 IS important indoors.
- I’ve also had a look at the charts and the 14-24 blows the 16-35 away, at the wide end especially. And the charts were made at 2.8 and 4 respectively, so you can imagine the perf of the 14-24 at 4…
On the down side no filters with the 14-24 and that BLOWS.
Here is a poll to see which lens you would rather have…go on give it a try:
http://twtpoll.com/318ytz
What’s an ADVANCED amateur photographer ????
There is ONLY 2 kind of photographers in this world:
)
- Professionals photographers (they make money taking pictures and it’s a living).
- Amateurs photographers (they spend money to take pictures).
That does not mean that an amateur photographer can’t takes as good (or even better) pictures than a professional photographer.
And of course, retired photographers who spend most of their time on NR and sell TC to finance an expensive hobby
ZZZZZZZzzzzzz
i still remember the days when nikon first introduced hd video on a dslr, I think the comments went something like “Who the hell needs hd video, we are photographers, not videographers! Video dslr is stupid!” but today all I can see is, “Why cant Nikon make 1080 hd video to compete with Canon???” hypocrites.
lol
Well, the community of users is very diverse so you’re gonna have people complaining about virtually anything, it’s just not the same people.
True. I guess I am the only one and a few other guys considering the 16-35 f4, since the price is somewhat close to what i’d hope it to be! (i was expecting about $1099 since $900 is impossible, but 1250 isnt too bad if its a good performer!
And I thought that only my wife was complaining about everythings !
I feel better now, thanks !
Hey admin, check this out. It could just be crappy grammar or translation but, in the press release for the 16-34VR, there’s this:
“The AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR balances well with more compact FX format cameras such as the D700 and is…”
Uh…more compact cameraS? There’s only three FX models right now, and only one is compact…no?
Hey funnyman, I posted the exact same thing yesterday, thanks for paying attention!!!
(Was posted February 8, 2010 at 11:16 pm)
You certainly project an image of needing attention from others here…
Is your name Admin? (if so I apologize for your parents’ mistake)
Whatever. I can’t read all 8 million comments before posting, and it’s obvious from the other comments that no one else does.
What? Are you worried someone will steal your cred for noticing the obvious? Dayum.
too early to talk about the next FF camera
@Kens dog oh my god your smart with all of your responses and ken lets focus now on 80-400 replace please
Prices in Finland…
1200 euro 16-35mm
2200 euro 24mm
I love Findland (good customers
)
Here’s what I get out of this… A strong commitment to FX and full frame… maybe for next gen DLSR’s …
But it’s sad… New coolpix’s big flop.. and now high price full frame lens.. mean while
Canon introduces a EOS 550D.. right in the markets sweet spot..
Hello Nikon I’m Still Waiting… and keeping money in the bank…
shame on you nikon! no lightweight high resolution fx body for landscape, i will change to canon..
Goodbye to you too
************* KEN ROCKWELL *******************
but I respect him and I often visit his website (when I’m not on Ebay or NR).
What’s the big deal about KW ?
I see peoples on NR often making fun of him (or his dog), but why ?
He does not ask for your money, he does not force you to buy this or that.
He spend time updating a website that no one is oblige to look at, I even made a donation on time (only few $).
I don’t agree with everything his says (specialy on the D40
I thing it good that people like him help us to have an extra view on what’s the photo market have to offert.
Will it be better to believe anything and everything that Nikon says ?
Now, does Nikon could give us some replacement for prosumer tele (300mm f/4, 80-400mm, 400 f/5.6) …
I like to see prime replacement as the 24mm, but any of these lenses outselling the 24mm …
IT HAS BEGUN!
I get bummed out at times with NR and sometime it’s fair. Then I think to myself, self, where do I go to find out what’s up with Nikon, even on the off times? Here, not dpr or nikonians a pay service including Thom and Ron and Ken. I really like this announcement. These are two lenses that will complete my kit. It will be the “Holy Trinity” light. 16-35/4 w/vr (goodbye el cheapo 18-35), 28-70 (sooner or later a 24-70 w/vr, then bye old friend), 70-200VRII (loved, specks or not).
In appreciation of NR I will buy these two thru the Ritz camera link, I shop with them and yes I like them, so thanks NR.
Thanks fxed! I will post the pre-order links once the retailers have them online. Not sure what takes them so long – Amazon is usually done 1-2 hours after the announcement.
Can I send him a TC for free ?
)
(don’t hit me, I couldn’t help it
Thank your for the updates, seen Nikon releasing thoses lenses make me think that the big news is comming soon, maybe for the PMA !
I keep thinking that a 3 colors sensors is not impossible (3×12mp ?).
So where are the new TCs?
I was really expecting more than just two lenses especially after the Nikon page slip-up. Where are the new TC-1.4E III and TC-1.7E III teleconverters?
It is just hard to satisfy all
The TCs had 80% chance of release and this is what happens when the chance is only 80%. The two new lenses had a chance of 95-99%.
I’m still puzzled to here these idiots wanting a bigger sensor for landscape photography. I’m going to give you a bit of advice, you don’t need a 24mp sensor. All you need is an IQ above 80 and a program called Genuine Fractals. I’ll tell you right now the vast majority of photographers use these programs for huge enlargements since even a 24mp photograph isn’t exactly huge when printed off at 300ppi.
In short YOU DONT NEED 24mp. I can make the exact same print with my D3s that I can with my D3x. So what does that tell you?
It’s tell me that fractals will not creat pixels that does not exist (and I love broccoli).
It sure will make the image look better (as “sharpen” tool does in photoshop) but it will NOT CREAT informations.
Ask NASA why they spent millions dollars in an ultra high definition camera (orbiting around the moon to map it), they could just use Fractals !
With a 24×36mm sensor, 30-40mp will be the optimum (keeping good ISO sensitivity).
Too many comments for me to read to see if these have been posted, but they just showed up on a flickr contacts new uploads. Photos with the D700, and the two new lenses.
Very nice
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10234786@N06/
The 16-35 mm seems to be an intersting lens so far. Let´s wait for a test at photozone, the first published MTF-lines look good.
The price tag for the 24/1,4 is for professionals only. I have a 17-35/2,8, so I don´t need it. I bought an used Leica lens 28/2,8 and mounted a Nikon adaptor, so I have a professional w-angle lens. IMHO, I think that Nikon loose the contact to most users: we miss a body who can compete against Canon´s D5 and D7, and this with a moderate price tag. I have 4 Nikon bodies and more than 10 lenses, who wants the gear, I´ll change to Canon, thanks to Nikon´s marketing experts.
You’ll be missed, I’ll take the gear, for 10 euro
Where have you been ?
Can I go to lunch now ?
I do not understand the strategy behind. As Canon lenses are less expensive Nikon makes it easier and easier to jump ship. The 24mm 1.4 lens will cost about 2149 Euro in Germany that is price difference to Canon of approx. 500 Euro!!! Hopefully the new 24 is has amazing IQ to justify the big price diff.
The Canon is only years older, did you think of that when comparing prices to an unreleased lens?
Why is there a need for it. Nikon and Canon and other competitors as well are still producing very good old designed lenses. I don’t think that age is too important by comparing lenses. It is only about is a good one or not and much does it cost
I was talking about costs only, of course. You cant compare a 2 year old lens, to an unreleased lens in price!
Hopefully it will. I cross my fingers for them
Ok, I am trying not to voice my personal opinion on this blog but this time I will. Many readers have been waiting for a new AF-S 24 1.4 for years and now finally after Nikon delivers it, the price is too high. Yes it is, but so is the price of the D3s, Leica M9, etc.
If you have those options, which one would you choose?
A. Nikon doesn’t release a AF-S 24 1.4 lens at all
B. Nikon releases the 24 1.4 with a selling price of $2200
I’d take option B any day. And if you choose option A, then you don’t really need that lens.
I think Nikon did an excellent job with those two lenses and I am sure there are more primes to come.
Judging from the MTF chart, this baby is worth the price. For those who know a little bit about optical design, it is worth looking at the cross-section. Two things are noteworthy. First, this lens uses a Gauss-type optical arrangement (similar to the Noct-Nikkor of fame) as the actual lens at the back (no expenses spared there!!). Secondly, the retrofocus speader at the front has a third element that points forward. With that, it intercepts the peripheral rays earlier and spreads them earlier, which should make for just about perfect lack of of barrel distortion. Ordinarily, this cannot be done without creating awful ghosts, because the rays hit the third element at a shallow angle. However, Nikon chose to do just that which gives me the impression that they have perfected the Nano-coating to accomplish what no-one has accomplished before: a 24mm 1.4, with space for a mirror (something Leica does not need to plan for) and an MTF chart to salivate over, coupled with CA correction, absence of barrel distortion and still no ghosting.
Now, is that worth $2200 or not? You be the judge. I don’t need 1.4, and my 14-24 is “good enough”, but if I ever feel that 2.8 is not enough for me at 24mm, this is the lens to get.
+1
I totally agree, people ask, people get, but they dont take the it when Nikon prices it like expected?
There is nothing wrong with the price of the 24mm. Sure it’s not for everyone, but this won’t come as a surprise for Nikon. This is a high-class wide angle prime that makes Nikon very very attractive to any mid format shooter that haven’t updated to the latest digital back yet.
if 24mp is enough, for now, Nikon is with the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24mm f/1.4 a very interesting substitute for a mid format camera at a fraction of its price. If the 50mm f/1.2 holds to be true, it will be even more attractive.
Very well done Nikon, very well. And you too, Admin, great coverage!
a dont no what you guys think of all the rumors but im getting the impression that there isnt going to be a D700s D700x D800 or a D900 until at least the end of the year which is rather sad and it looks like i’ll be having to order the D300s+battery grip which is fine as i’ll have the FX format & DX format covered but id rather have the D800 or if we are all really lucky the D3Xs woooow now that is worth waiting for NIKON is by far the BEST
Looking at the spec for 16-35, this thing is as long and large as Canon 24-70 which is one of the bulkier lenses in Canon’s line-up. The new lens is also as heavy as Canon 70-200 f4 IS !! Its price is twice that of $600 Canon 17-40mm. It is such heavy, and voluminous (sp?) lens when professional PJ and landscape shooters are all crying for lighter and more compact form. The addition of VR alone cannot justify such high price. Such stabilizer feature is more desirable in long lenses not wide zooms. This thing better be sharp sharp sharp at the corners wide open, or else…–sigh–
“Its price is twice that of $600 Canon 17-40mm”
and we have another winner. And now make a fair comparison, two lenses, similar specs (focal length, aperture, stabilization) and similar age. Maybe you will see in a year, the Nikon will have dropped in price, while the Canon is probably still the same price, or not dropped as much as the Nikon did.
Well the Canon isn’t even worth what they’re asking for it! It’s crap in the corners on full frame. I was smart for the time as an inexpensive stop gap lens for people with crop and full frame canon bodies. It’s always had lackluster performance. Don’t believe me, try one. The 17-35 is sharper. And I’m not even blown away by the 17-35 either.
If Nikon have made a lens that out-performs the 17-40 and 17-35, then it’s already worth the price tag. But really it’d be a steal if it was better, since it’s got VR–something even Canon can’t claim.
If you are making a dumb comment regarding genuine fractals than you obviously have not used the program before. Do you know that some of those rather large presidential pictures of obama were taken with a 12mp camera. Funny how a 12mp camera is good enough for that but not good enough for the average amateur photographer. Heck even most pro’s don’t really need 24mp.
Comparing cameras that NASA might use in comparison to what the average DSLR owner needs and should require is hardly a good comparison. Hell they’d spend 100 million dollars on glass for a lens.
It gets to the point where you get pixel quality or pixel quantity. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the pixels on a D3s gather twice as much light as a D3x.
If you think you “need” a 24mp camera you’ll be very disappointed when you learn it won’t make your pictures look any better. If you truly needed that huge 24mp sensor you would have no problem paying the premium for a camera as great as the D3x is.
I did not vote for Obama but I think you’re right, I’m already looking for a D1 on Ebay, 2.1mp is good enough (if you use Fractals of course).
12mp is more than you need for portraits. For landscape and products, 24+ would be a boon.
This lens kind of makes me wonder why they wouldn’t have put VR into the 10-24mm for DX users. It would have been that much more advantageous due to the lesser iso capabilities of DX sensors.
That and this 16-35 lens will only be a couple hundred more than the 10-24 which now seems more over priced than it did before. I could find the 10-24’s price more bearable if it had VR. That would also differentiate it some more from the 12-24.
I dont know where you shop, but here, the 10-24 is 20% cheaper than the 12-24. So isn’t that differentiation enough?
I live in Canada, and here the two are about the same price.~ $1000 for the 12-24, ~$950 for the 1024.
The new 16-35 suggested Canadian price is $1399, but they rarely sell for the suggested price. I’d expect it to be maybe $1250 CAD when it arrives.
As an example, the 24-70 suggested price is $1950 but it sells for $1765. Similar situation with the 14-24.
I’d think that there should probably be greater than a $300 difference in price between the 10-24 and the 16-35 given that the latter has better build quality, constant aperture, and VR. That’s all I was trying to get at. To me, the 10-24 should be around $750-$800 Canadian. At $950 it feels overpriced.
Here the difference will be more like 600 euro between the Dx and Fx lens
That’s what I was thinking. The new lens with pro build and VRII etc. is only a few hundred more than the made in China half frame DX 10-24. How loud can you scream rip off?
Anyone know when the 16-35mm going to be available?
Late february
That sux when I mas wait so long time when 24f 1.4 will arrive
March, even longer wait, good luck
Curious Nikon, where exactly is this alleged big surprise? I was hoping to see a large sensor compact camera from you that’d rival Sigma’s DP line.
My personal opinion is that Nikon will surprise us this year for sure. If there were no DSLRs presented at the time being, there will for sure be big surprises untill the end of the year. And I am sure Nikon will know how to use this precious time to make Nikon DSLRs much much better. I am sure about that. Just stay calm and relax.
I will agree with you that Nikon will bring out a new cameras sometime this year or next year. But my main concern is the rumors, that will presented it self during the course of the year. There will be good rumors and bad rumors during the year or next. I’m concern about the bad rumors because people will take the rumors at face value, even though the rumors not true. I’m also concern that people will get frustrated because of these rumors. My advise to everyone who wants to present a rumor, please get your facts straight before you present your rumors to the forums. That’s all I ask.
Thank You
OMG 2200$ for a 24mm fixed? holly sh****! Ok it have AFS, ED, , but why so expensive?! The 1,4 50mm just cost 400 $…. 800 for this feller is ok, but 2200 is to much…. ! realy!
In that case, i buy the Sigma 24mm 1,8.. its not the best, but good enough…
Yes I’m suprised – not about the 24mm 1,4 – about the price….
Have you noticed the price on the 28/1.4? This is supposed to be better, and if it is, it’ll be worth it…to some.
The lenses looks great,, but any new about the new DSLR Fx camera?
I don’t know if you guys’ ve seen the picture Nikon use to promote the 16-35mm (the statue of liberty), it’s awful !
)
Even my 5 years old daugther will do better.
I think it’s a marketing trick:
“You see the ugly picture we took with our new 16-35mm !
It look like one of your pictures ! So buy our new zoom lens !”
Same as the “match.com” adds pictures, it use to be cute girls but now they are advertising ugly girls “see, you can’t date a cute girl but what about that ugly one ?”
What Statue of Liberty shot? I don’t see it anywhere…
Nikon ent out an email about the two new lenses with sample shots.
So do you recommend buying the 17-35 2.8 now? I would imagine the price might spike up now that its replacement is 4.0 and is cheaper….
I create a pro con lists about this new lens to help me decide if it is worth it. it is super expensive… http://www.proconlists.com/list/consumer-electronics/nikon-af-s-nikkor-24mm-/6
The d3x is starting to approach the resolution of medium format cameras. Checkout the price of medium format prime lenses. That should put the price of the new 24mm into context as the lens was designed to be sharp on the d3x, and probably any follow on camera with even higher resolution.
Oh, and both lenses now show up at B&H.
I didn’t find them just now. What is up with that?
A very important question people. When the 70-200mm VR2 came out, how is the pricing on it? If I recall correctly (which I’m checking right now) the pricing seems to vary. The 70-200mm VR2 has dropped in price as of now (by a hundred dollars or so).
I expect that the 24mm 1.4’s $2000+ price tag is only MSRP and the resellers and sellers will charge full price right off the bat and will slowly go down (but to a certain level where it can’t go any lower of course).
….its time to switch….
I wonder how it will compare to my NIkon 28mm f1.4 in terms of low-light AF, bokeh, and sharpness at 1.4.
I’m guessing the new 24mm will have softer bokeh, but otherwise I can’t imagine it being much of an improvement in IQ…
impressive specs….
$2200 for the 24mm, more expensive than canon? Why would I stay here… come on
Well, Nikon had to choose between making a better lens than Canon or cheaper. If it were just the same, I’d agree. But I suspect Nikon brought the goods with this one.
Check out Nikon 16-35mm first report from Bob Krist
http://www.bobkrist.com/blog/fast-wide-and-handsome-ii/
I’m curious if I can use this 24mm f/1.4 for wedding on D300 body? Fast lens is a key in wedding shots, but could I use only one in curch for eg.? I know it’s expensive but the only one should be interesting try. What you think?