< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Pre-order options (Nikon 24mm f/1.4 & 16-35mm f/4)

Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4G ED:

Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR

  • B&H - now also accepting pre-orders

More pre-orders options coming soon.

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

    I have the 24-70 2.8 and now I’m thinking of getting t his 24 1.4 lens. I shoot everything but mostly weddings. I can always step up ISO with the d700 in low light situations and be fine.

    So would you get the 24 1.4 even if you have the 24-70 2.8

    I’d love to hear your opinions on this one

    • ViperGeek

      I suspect the 24mm prime will be more pristine than the 24-70mm at 24mm, but for the price (US$2200) you could almost buy a second D700 body!

      I knew it was going to be expensive; just not /that/ expensive.

      - Dave

      • John M

        People are still thinking in terms of 2008 pricing. Remember that Nikon hiked lens prices by around 10% in early 2009.

        $2200 is the new $2000. :(

    • Andy

      but if 24mm is your thing, i would say pre order it..

      2200 is a bit more than i expected as well. i was expecting something like 1800 – 1900 but not 2200

      • PHB

        Nikon is fairly consistent. Their stuff is slightly later, rather better and somewhat more expensive than Canon. So if Canon charges $1700 it was pretty obvious that the Nikon would have a street price of at least $1900-$2000 which is where I think it will be a few months after launch.

        If I was a pro-photographer choosing between Nikon and Canon, the price of this lens is not going to sway me one way or the other. It might make the difference between buying the lens and not buying the lens though.

        The market for which this is aimed is the pro-photographer who is considering whether to go with Nikon or Hasselblad. If you are in that bracket this is a total no-brainer lens. It is about half the cost of any lens for the ‘blad.

        If the alternative is a $35,000 body, the cost of Nikon lenses looks small.

        This lens will sell maybe a few thousand copies a year.

    • huh

      based on the samples posted, the bokeh at 2.8 is a joke compared to the beauty of this 1.4 lens. If you want to be like every other wedding shooter out there, keep hte 24-70. If you want to go beyond that zoom lens and unleash the creative potential of 1.4 apertures, go for the prime.

      • Mark

        So, what flavor was the the CoolAid. All kidding aside. I’m sure it’s a sweet prime. But frankly, 99.9% of John Q wedding client will ever notice, or care about the bokeh difference between the two. This fixed 24 1.4 is much too limiting to justify the price regardless of It’s creamy low light abilities. It amazing how Nikon can hold such a trance of their users regardless of price, and in this depressed world economy. Really shows how the US dollar is truly crumbling away..

        • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

          Frankly I think your argument is cop out. Clients don’t look at images and think “Ooh, that’s killer bokeh”, to be sure. But that doesn’t mean that they can’t appreciate the value of the technique you employ to convey the message, if not the tools you use to do it.

          In other words, the layman may not know there’s a 1001 horsepower engine under the hood of a Bugatti Veyron, but they’ll surely sputter from their lips “Damn, that’s fast!”

          And to any serious professional, they won’t look at the price of the tool, they’ll look at the value they can receive from having that tool in their arsenal. If the value is there, the price is low enough.

          Just my 2¢.

          • http://micahmedia.com Micah

            If you know how to use it, you clients will see the difference. If you don’t, then no, it’s a waste of money. If one or two weddings cover the cost, then why sweat it either way?

          • Ronan

            *1100hp.

          • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair
      • Global

        The comment is ridiculous. You do not shoot group photos at 1.4.

        2.8 is about right for weddings. Maybe you can capture certain “moments” — but its not for the wedding. For the wedding you need that 24-70 ready to go. I don’t understand why an 85/1.4 wouldn’t be a better complement for a wedding!

        As for wide-angle, I can only assume you’d be trying to get the whole group in/whole scene. In that case you need depth of field and lots of light. Not fast lensing such that everyone in back is blurred into a bokeh mess such that their faces aren’t recognizable.

        • Banned

          Never mind, huh was probably sent by Nikon to spread the good word.

          • huh

            let’s all get the 18-55 kit lens instead. after all, clients don’t know the difference :)

        • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

          I agree with Huh, actually. I don’t care about the family shots. Nobody cares about them. The real shots that count are the “moments” you steamrolled in your comment. Put it this way—if you’re shooting weddings today and AREN’T focusing on those moments, you’re likely either A)not making much money, or B)not going to last long in the industry.

          Tell me isolating a couple from the background in a money shot on their special day isn’t worth a pretty penny when they’re choosing a photog….

          • http://micahmedia.com Micah

            +1

          • http://www.lovebucketphotography.com Harvey

            I’d agree with that Ron. It is worth it for those moments. I’m curious about other’s opinions. Sometimes I just get GAS and well feel it’s better to see opinions before I go blow some cash on a lens I’ll end up leaving in the bag, I don’t really feel I’d leave this lens in the bag however. Also someone said get the 85 1.4 instead, I’d love to. I just feel it will be updated this year and I’d love faster focusing so I’m willing to wait on that one. Plus I have the new 70-200 so I’m covered there. I do a lot with the 50 1.4 too. So I’m not really in NEED of it although I feel like I am.

            Thanks for the feedback guys.

          • PHB

            Ron,

            I agree that isolating a couple from their surroundings is going to make for a killer shot. But to do that with a 24 you are going to have to be how close? I would prefer the photographer to be rather less intrusive. So the 85mm f/1.4 looks like the better tool to me.

            At the end of the day, Nikon gear is dirt cheap compared to the alternatives. $2200 is the starting price for Leica lenses and you would have to pay twice that for a ‘blad lens. Heck, any one of the magic three cost the same in Yen when they came out.

            Looking at the MTF charts I am thinking that this is a lens that is going to work wide open on a 50MP sensor. Most people don’t need that, but the very few who do are going to have to be using very pricey glass.

            This launch is really a marker for the future bodies that it enables. A cheap FX body would make no sense without a set of very good lenses that were cheaper than the f/2.8 zooms.

            Take a look at the MTF chart of the 16-35. The chart is damn near perfect till you reach the edge of the DX frame and it goes haywire. I see the core market for that lens as being DX shooters who want to keep open the option of moving to FX. It is a faster lens than the typical f/3.5-5.6 DX lens and comes in at mid-way between the serious DX lenses that cost $600-800 and the magic three at $1800-2400.

            The 16-35 is a gateway lens for a cheaper FX body. And even though I continue to think DX is usually the better choice, the introduction of an even smaller pro-grade sensor might well spell the end for DX in five years or so. The MX cameras are going to have all the advantages of DX over FX only more so. So if you want to shoot really long, the MX format is going to be better. And the rangefinder design should finally allow an apples to apples comparison of Lica/Nikkor lenses. Contrawise, DX will have advantages over MX, but FX will have those low light performance and high resolution advantages on an even greater scale. So I am thinking that a combination of an MX and FX body is going to make most sense round 2015.

            Despite the difference in price, I think these are two lenses that go together. Instead of buying the magic three and have a constant f/2.8 aperture from 14-200mm, you buy the f/4 duo or trio and then compliment it with a few very fast primes.

        • huh

          who said anything about group shots lol. Look at Bob Krist’s shots

          http://www.bobkrist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/RoseG_ParryMansion079.jpg

          good luck pulling that off with a slow 2.8 zoom. oh sure, the clients won’t know. If that’s how you approach photography, well keep the zoom :) that’s all you’ll ever need and likely be.

          • Global Guy

            You are in her face though. I mean the lens is practically touching her head. Its simply not that practical for candid and wedding.

            If you want to set-up shots, fine. I mean, I can see it working wonderfully. I’m just saying that there is a 35/2, a 50/1.4, a 85/1.4 and the 24-70/2.8 and that these should be considered as perfectly functioning and reasonably priced tools, whereas the 24/1.4 might be more suited for cityscape, the inside of casinos, Newspaper photography where you can crop the hell out of it, or perfect set-ups.

            If you had two bodies at a wedding they should have perhaps the 70-200/2.8 and a 24-70/2.8. You can use the 14-24/2.8 for the crazy friends/funny/artsy shots.

            The 24/1.4 I don’t see being useful at 1.4 unless available light is so horrible that it forces one’s hand. And even then one might think about the 50/1.4 or 85/1.4 just so you dont have to be right up into grandma’s face just to take a shot. Or so that you aren’t blocking the couple from anyone seeing them, like some idiot photographers do with all their gear on wide.

          • Jabs

            Greetings Huh,
            There are two basic ways to isolate a subject.
            1. F-stop – as in F1.2 or F1.4 for subject isolation.
            2. Focal length – as in a telephoto at or ABOVE 200mm.

            In a crowded place, you CANNOT use a telephoto, so hence the need for a fast wide-angle lens.
            Some like 24mm lens and then also NEED a 24mm for cramped locations while sometimes you can get away with a 28 or even a 35.
            There are places where you cannot use an 85mm, as you don’t have the distance to backup.
            When properly or even creatively used, a 24mm is GREAT.
            I have used zooms for quick shots plus primes for specific shots and then I move around to get the shot I want.
            SPACE plus distance from subject often determines what lens you use.
            Creativity is often NOT a zoom lens, but the creative use of a lens and you MOVE yourself to the location that best expresses YOUR point of view as in being different and better.
            This is a brilliant lens from Nikon, indeed.

            I don’t think that many here have ever seen or done an outdoor Fashion shoot at say New York City!
            Some people shoot with 300mm F2.0 or 2.8 and even 500mm F4.0 for their subject isolation qualities.
            Most of the wedding shots that I see on the web have a problem of NOT isolating the subject from the background as frankly, they do not know how to use focal lengths properly, in my opinion.
            Too many shooters have not learnt the proper use of focal length and selective focus, hence everything looks so much alike on the Internet.

            Look at what Nikon presented when they introduced the D-3X for a CLUE !!!
            Zooms keep you in a fixed location as you move the focal length to compensate, while a prime often CHANGES your point of view.
            Big difference!

          • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

            I get close to clients all the time. Sometimes it’s what makes the shot. Don’t discount that too quickly. Sure, you don’t always want to be licking sweat from someones forehead, but there are plenty of reasons to go wide and close. Plenty. Additionally, this lens shows it can perform incredibly well at distances further than the traditional 2.8 lenses, still creating some great bokeh.

            It’s a sweet lens. In the right hands, it will no doubt make an album (or any body of work) sing.

    • http://www.d800.com The invisible man.

      At that price Nikon will probably not sell many 24mm f/1.4, it will be discontinued before we know it !
      If you keep it in “as new” condition you may make some good profit in few years.

    • Dr SCSI

      @Harvey – Go back through your pictures, group them by the EXIF attribute focal length, and see what is your predominant length. That will help you determine if you need 24mm. For weddings, always fast glass….many wedding pictures will be taken in poor to dim lighting when inside. Flash is a mood killer, thus fast glass to the rescue. 24mm, 50mm, 85mm f/1.4 primes for capturing the lots of light at many useable focal lengths, and 70-200 f/2.8 with VRII and ISO 800-3200 should be able to grab candid shots from a distance when no one is paying attention to you. :-) Another sleeper lens that WAY too many wedding photogs overlook, 135mm f/2 DC. With brides getting ever thicker these days, they won’t appreciate close up 24mm shots of themselves! Their ears will be bigger and their cheeks will appear fatter. I guess it is all about how you capture the mood.

      • Global Guy

        Exactly!!

        And Nikon is so cruel. We don’t even HAVE a 135/2 anymore! They left the idiotic 105/DC on the table, despite having a 105 VR — and they completely tool away the 135/2. This is such idiocy. The 135/2 was required for portrait full frame. And they didn’t upgrade it!

        Instead they just took it away, and gave us a creamy distortion machine. Well no matter how creamy the 24 may mostly be — its still the distortion king. I’m just surprised Nikon wasn’t completely half-witted and go for a 20/1.4.

        Give us a 35/1.4 FX, a an 85/1.2 VR, 30/1.8 FX!!!, a 200/2.8 VR Micro, 135/2 DC VR! And don’t take away the 135/2 DC — take away the 105/2 DC, sheesh!!

        If 50/1.2 as rumored is next its just plain STUPID. How about updating the actual work horse primes. What we’ve got now are only suitable for film or the boring 50mm that makes everything compromised every time. 50mm is horrible length. 50mm and 24mm should have been skipped! They should not have been first!

        35, 85, 28, 200 micro, 135 DC in that order would be a far better group for primes. Or at least what they should have started with.

  • ABC

    help me with this….is this lens mostly used for landscape for the wide angle..they were talking about the Bokeh effect with this fast lens

    • David

      Street photography.

      • Banned

        Or indoor. That’s about it tho. And don’t tell me weddings, no wedding photographers in their right mind will limit themselves to 24mm in a fast moving situation like a wedding party. No time to change lens.

        • Anonymous

          a lot of us shoot with two bodies!

          • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

            :)

            Gee whiz, I never thought of that. I guess maybe there IS a use for this lens in weddings after all. I’m gonna have to go back now and see what else I missed in life with my narrow generalizations.

          • Bert

            2 bodies, one with 85mm 1.4 and one with 35mm f2. Not sure about the new 24mm, might be a little too wide. Still trying convince myself I need it.

          • Bert

            Would be nice if someone would sell me a 28mm 1.4 for about $1500, lol

          • longtimenikonshooter

            Maybe we need three bodies now. One has 24 1.4 on all the time, one with 24-70, and last one with 70-200. Man, this lens will certainly kick ass. I can’t figure out why any one won’t use it.

          • PHB

            Because it costs over two grand?

        • http://www.invisiblelandscapes.com polvopolvo

          Are you serious? – I shoot four or five bodies and don’t change lenses at all…..

          • another anonymous

            i can’t. i don’t have so many necks to hang the bodies ;)

  • Gorji

    #6 Never thought of being in top 10

  • Gorji

    The lens looks fabulous. Good optics cost $$$. I can’t afford this one but should be sharp and fast!!!

  • JamesT

    Robert’s Imaging also has their wait list up. I’ve had good success with them getting product early (such as the 35mm f/1.8 and 60mm AF- Micro) and they never jack up the price on hot items.

    • yrsued

      Actually, Roberts might save you a buck or two and they treat you like a friend more than just a customer!! I deal with Christy and Jody exclusively!! I already got my Wait List Confirmation E-Mail from Christy for the 16-35. Nikon says they will deliver by the end of February for this lens. I’m waiting.

  • jon

    10th!!
    so many lenses..so little money..damn..

    • johnny

      Heh!
      I’m sticking with DX until my house is fully paid back.

      • another anonymous

        i’m sticking with DX while collecting FX lenses for THE BIG BIG BODY

  • BenS

    I say Nikon would not price it that high if that lense was not that good. I think this lense is special. Plus, the hiigh Yen is not helping either. Lets wait for the reviews before we pass judgement on this lense.

    Anyway, Nikon srp are always higher compared to store prices, at least here in my area.

    • another anonymous

      be sure almost everybody waits for proper review… from many reasons and even if actually doesn’t have the money

  • shivas

    wayyy over priced, I think it’ll correct after a few months much like the 10-24 DX did. . .it came out high and eventually came down. . .

    • shivas

      sorry – in reference to the 24 1.4. . .

      the 16-35 f/4 might be a smidge over priced, but at $1259, is ok. . .

      • washy

        I wish I could see the MTF at 2.8 for this to compare to the 14-24. The extra 2 stops would be great and I may have purchased this instead of the 14-24 if it was out then, but I dont feel like I want to break the bank for both.

        • another anonymous

          big dilema also for me, i was prepared to 14-24 as want go wider than 24 after my 24-70, but after a review of this 24/1.4 it can possibly break my plans.. it’s really too soon to make a decision and i really don’t know how at the moment

  • Ray

    if i had exactly 2200 to blow, i would borrow the tax difference LOL.. well maybe but from the samples..

    anywayyyyyy back to reality. I have no monayy!! …maybe one day i will have the money and this lens will be in the used market for a little less than 1800… you know because uhm… … hm…

  • Anonymous

    What happened to Thom’s predictions?
    ;-)

    • PHB

      Well his predictions are for the year:

      http://www.bythom.com/2010predictions.htm

      The 24mm and 16-35 are cover two of the items on his list. And we all expect to see fast 35 and 85 primes plus a replacement for the 80-400.

      Looking over his list, some of his predictions clearly depend on variables we do not know about, namely the number of sensors that are currently in inventory. Nikon does not look to be very complacent to me, rather they seem to be going after a scorched earth type strategy, looking to beat Canon tit for tat across the board.

      I would expect rather more linkage between the D700 bodies and the D3 bodies than Thom predicts. A D900 would logically be a 24MP body based on the D3x sensor or an upgrade to it. If there is an upgrade to the D3x sensor it better appear in a D3xs within a few months. I think it more likely that Nikon will introduce the D900 with the D3x sensor to use up the inventory and then bring out a D3xs with the new sensor.

      • Anonymous

        no, no – on dpreview he had multiple lists of expected products, incl D700 replacement, SB700 and more, including a surprise. He said “we will have lots to talk about, lots”….

        • another anonymous

          definitely ;)

  • aetas

    I do not consider myself a PRO PHOTOGRAPHER which it seems 90% of the people posting are. I do make a little money from portraits every now and then and sell a few landscaping prints. Why is it that everyone wants to say that if your not a PRO then you dont need such and such lens. Alot of people have different needs and shooting styles. You dont have to be a pro to think a lens is to much or to shoot with it. Sometimes you just want quality and cross your fingers to get it at a reasonable price. I want to move into fx a and add a 70-200 so I am waiting for a 700 replacement and seeing what nikon has. Does that make me wrong because I dont CLAIM to be a PRO shooter. Im sure there are others on this site in my same situation.

    • aetas

      spelling fell apart in that one

    • jon

      +1
      like gollum said..my precioussss (lens)..

    • PHB

      If you are not a pro then you don’t ‘need’ anything.

      That does not stop you wanting something or buying it. Contrary to the impression you might get from this forum, the majority of D3 bodies sold to amateurs. There are way more pro-photographers who carry a D300 or D700 than a D3.

      And when Nikon made that famous 2000mm reflex lens the main market was Saudi princes. $2000 for a lens is cheap compared to what I spend on my cars. I just bought a new back axle for the MGB for the sole purpose of being able to fit a set of wire wheels ($500 each). One of the ignition coils has gone on the Jag and I am looking at possibly replacing all eight at $128 each. And it also needs a new mass flow at $320.

      • Dr SCSI

        @PHB, YOU LOST ME WITH THE CARS AND PRINCES! LOL :-)

        @AETS, If you get paid, you are a PRO! You may not be a fulltime pro, you may get paid small for what you do and you may have a normal 9-5 job like many here, but at least you are getting paid occasionally for something you like to do (hopefully) all the time.

        Many people buy the gear because they can afford this expensive hobby, even before they know how to use it. Others buy the gear because it is a buisness decision, like an automechanic buying specialty tools to service his customers broken Jags. If you need it and you can afford it, buy it. If you desire it and you can afford it, but it. If you realize you didn’t really need it, sell to me at 50% off! :-) If you desire it, because you want to see what it could do for you, but you can’t afford it, then DON’T complain about its price; just don’t buy it then! This is the clearest message you can send to Nikon or any manufacturer for that matter. It is all about economies of scale and supply and demand. If only a few thousand people a year buy this lens, then it doesn’t make sense for Nikon to lower the price, they just produce fewer and smaller batches, ‘oila, prices go up. Just think, there was LESS THAN 8K 28mm f/1.4 lenses produced in a 12 year period. Going back to car analogies, the Buggatti (spelling?) Veyron costs 1 Million Euro ($1.4M) and the manufacturer claims they make no profit on its sale; the Veyron is just advertising for Buggatti. Sure the Veyron is sexy, but I don’t hear anyone complaining about the price, the masses just don’t buy it. Nikon wants to make money, they don’t need to advertise a crazy lens (at cost) capable of outrageousness just to get attention; they leave that silliness to Sigma with their $30K 200-500 f/2.8 zoom lens or Canon with their $120,000 1200mm f/5.6 lens, (which equates to $1000 per Centimeter.) If people want to gripe about the $2200 price tag for the 24mm f/1.4, they should go price a used 28mm f/1.4, it will make the 24mm look like a bargain!

        • aetas

          @ Dr SCSI, Its good to see some down to earth people on here every once in awhile that likes nikon and cant wait till the next thing comes out. I may not need it myself all the time but I love seeing where nikon is going.

          • another anonymous

            +1 and my lens choise is to use only few but quality lenses to have joy from the shooting and reasonable images at cost i can afford.. it’s not that much at all

  • Anonymous

    It is about $500 past what I would be willing to spend….

  • TIBOR

    Sigma will certainly come out with a 24MM 1.4 HSM , using the same technolgy as on their new 50mm 1.4 HSM (which has much better bokeh than the Nikon one). for 1/3 of the price & 10 year canadian warranty !!!

    • Theoretical

      And 1/10 the build quality consistency.

    • Astrophotographer

      I thought Sigma already had a 24 f1.8, and that it wasn’t very good.

      • TIBOR

        no, but the 50mm 1.4 is excellent, as good as the 50mm 1.2 from canon.

        • Ken Rockwell’s Dog

          which is also crap

          • Dr SCSI

            +1 KR’s Dog!!

            A friend of mine is a Canon boy and he just dropped serious money for the 50mm 1.2 from Canon. After using it for a couple of weeks, he started looking for the reciepts to take it back because he thinks he got a bad one. I can’t wait until Nikon releases the upcoming 50mm f/1.2 NOCT and it blows the existing Canon and Leica gear out of the water.

            I am now on Nikon lens purchase #8, over $10K in gear, and I have never regretted a purchase because of Nikon quality. My only beef with Nikon is due to my own impatience waiting for the latest and greatest. But the truth is, Nikon releases their products faster than I can afford to buy them. :-( I will be getting the 24 1.4, the new 50mm 1.2 NOCT, and the new 85mm 1.4. My main reason for all these purchases, primarily low light hand held shooting action, and the fact that Nikon hasn’t made a 12-400mm f/1.0 yet.

          • another anonymous

            ;)
            +1 both KR’s Dog and Dr SCSI..
            it’s far more interesting here today, nikon would release such lens more frequently to put some more live into this comunity

      • Christina

        they do, and mine is on the way as we speak. Not sure if you will be back to see replies, but you are right.

        Sigma has a 24mm 1.8 with macro capabilities as well. I bought it, and two hand straps for my husbands cameras, and the bill came to 506 dollars including tax and SH from Amazon.

        I have checked out the reviews, and they seem to be decent. I am going to slap this lens on my D90 and hope it’s a good sample because I do read that some times they back focus, and my D90 can’t be fine tuned for this irrregularity (the D700 does).

        if it’s not great, then I plan on selling it on.

    • Mike

      The Sigma 50 1.4 is more expensive than Nikon’s. So on that note, their 24 1.4 version might be more too. I really want to like Sigma, but they always pull up short and say “this is good enough” rather than making it excellent.

      • TIBOR

        the 50mm 1.4 is considered as one of the best ever created.

        • another anonymous

          i don’t know their 50/1.4, but that way their 24/1.4 will be not only better but also more pricy, but will keep that quality also my copy as it will keep the price if i buy?

  • tooties

    a 16-35 f/4 at a price similar to a used 17-35 f/2.8?
    Glad I got me a good condition used 17-35!

    • Segura

      If the f/4 is sharper, I would have no problems getting it . . . it is 1 stop.

      • PHB

        MTF chart says that it is. And it comes with VR.

        I would go for the f/4 and think about adding fast primes later. So the walk-around lens loses one stop on the f/2.8 but it is sharper and you have three extra stops in the bag for when you need them.

  • http://www.209photography.com singapore photograph

    have to start saving up $…

  • photogradstudent

    So… I am a bit confused. I was saving for the ever so famous 14-24. But now should I get the 16-35 even though it’s max is at f/4?

    • Char

      I guess that depends on what you want to do with it.

      Shoot lots of low-light indoors? 14-24
      Shoot lots of landscapes using filters? 16-35
      Do photojournalism? Probably 14-24
      Take lots of handheld shots in cathedrals? Probably 16-35
      Use the resolving power of the D3x at wide-angle? You will have to wait for reviews, but the 14-24 is excellent here
      Go as wide as possible? Probably neither, but the Sigma 12-24

    • MrMoo

      I too was saving for the 14-24, but now it’s the 16-35 for me. As a relatively inexperienced hobbyist, it should serve me well for quite some time. And as an added bonus, the $600 difference will pay for my hotel room at Photoshop World next month.

  • Gribben

    I dont care about the price. Nikon is just soo much better than .C.mm uhh heee.
    So. I just pay what they want. No big deal.

  • http://www.focusclub.ro DX Shooter

    As a DX shooter, at this price, I’ll probably wait for the 24mm f/1.8 or f/2 AF-S DX.

    • http://www.truphotos.com gnohz

      I’m a DX shooter too, and was hoping the 24mm or 35mm FX will be less than the price it’s now. But think now I need to either wait for 24mm/35mm DX, or wait till I save more $ lol :p

  • Steve

    I thought this would be a lens used almost exclusively by photojournalists. Am I wrong?

  • Rock Kenwell

    Dear oh dear, once again I have to take a break from shooting my daily 10,000 frames and step in to clear things up.
    The one and only thing this 24/1.4 was ever designed to do is Macro.

    Yes, you heard me. Respect my authority. Macro.
    Now I can feel all your lttle faces scrunching up in disbelief, so let me explain.
    I’ve given Nikon a stern telling off over the mildly impractical 77mm filter size but other than that, this little optical bauty will only ever fulfill its true potential when it is reversed on a bellows unit for extreme close ups. The 1.4 will still give a reasonably clear viewfinder image. Is’t that obvious?

    There will be some nifty tricks and trade secrets that you must know to really make this baby rock but of course you can read all about this in my new book:

    “Up Close and Impersonal – how to shoot bugs without bugging them”
    (By Rock Kenwell – Thats’s me!)

    As usual, if you quote “Nikonrumors” I’ll waive the $5 signing fee if you buy my book at the Nikon stand at PMA (Well, actually just behind it, between the toilets and the emergency exits)

    See you there,
    Rock Kenwell

    • Kon Reckwell

      I’m sick to the back teeth of people impersonating me. For those who really know me, I will be standing IN FRONT of the Nikon stand at PMA.

      Regards

      Kon

      • Reck Konwell

        What?!

        Who gave you my spot?
        I’ve been sending chocolate bars and kittens to Nkon USA for months to secure that spot….

        Good thing I’ve kept the restraining order they put on me as proof! Ha!
        It’s mine.
        MINE I tell you!
        MINE!!!

    • Rocking Kenwell

      One more thing!

      I just want you guys to know, I had $2400 saved up but I *did not* go out and buy the new 24mm!

      Forget that crappy lens!

      I bought 6 D40s instead! The D40 can do everything the 24mm 1.4 can do and MORE. Most people don’t need a wide angle lens. Most people don’t need lenses at all! I just open the body cap on one my d40s and shove a second d40 in there!

      Works like a charm!

      See ya,
      Rocking Kenwell

      • Rock Kenwell

        Hm, not only are you impersonating me, you seem to be blatantly copying my Expert Pro Photography Approach; EPPA(tm)

        I always use six D40′s whenever I pretend to rent a H3D39. I have welded a special rig made out of my daughters braces (I paid for them with MY photography, so they are really mine!). I aim the all at the same spot, very quickly press all the shutters and then stich the lot togeher in MS Paint while ensuring the EXIF says H3D and CS3. No one ever notced the dfference.
        Mainly because I’ve never used this EPPA(tm) professionally, but I know it’ll work. After all, six times six is thirty six, interpolate to add three more MP and job done. It is not rocket suregry…

  • T140Rider

    For those on the eastern side of the Pond, Grays of Westminster has a pre-order list open.

  • Alain2x

    Again, what a great rumor, worth posting , to know that Adorama or B&H, or Amazon are taking pre-orders for these lenses !

    Who wouldn’t ?

    One more store, to create another rumor ?

    • Rock Kenwell

      You want rumours?

      Here’s a juicy one;
      The title of my third book will be:
      “Rock Kenwell – Master of the D40s and that’s why my pictures own yours”

      Struggling to have them ready for PMA to be honest so I may have to disappoint you if you visit me at the Nikon stand at PMA (Well, actually just behind it, between the toilets and the emergency exits)

      But there’ll be plenty of stock of the other two, I’m producing them as fast as my kids can type.
      Look for the discount code elsewhere on this site!

      Rock (I do!)

  • http://louisdallaraphotoblog.com Louis Dallara

    But will these lens work on my Nikon EVIL?

  • fixit

    i was way off on this one, my guess for the 24 1.4 was CAN $1,800. maybe after 2 yrs. used. i don’t really care for it. The zoom, however, seems practical. i have to get more overtime, skip beer, shoot more pets (photographically speaking, of course). then i can afford it , say before xmas. One more lens to hide from the wife!!! Thank you fella shooters for the intellectual comments ,I love this site — i’m a guy who just loves the hear my camera clicking…

  • dave

    Pre-order? Seriously? Give me time to make arrangements to sell a kidney first, then maybe we can talk pre-order.

  • ways

    pre-order?
    very interesting.
    please, come back to rumors.
    thanks

  • David

    My first reaction to the wedding-related questions: who is shooting portraits, especially wedding portraits, in 24mm? Perhaps some emotive shots with te low-light background, granted, but IMO no one (especially the bride) looks good on a 24mm lens. The 135mm f/2.0 is a terrific potrait lens and yes, the long focal length means you may need to crank up the ISO a bit if the light islow, but that’s ok, IMO. For posed shots where no one is moving, for weddings during the day, or where you can control lights better, a 70-200mm lens is my choice. 24mm just doesn’t isolate enough for wedding subject matter; unless you are super close in which case you’ve just given the bride a bad nose job. I had the 28mm f/1.8 loved it for street photography, but would never use it for weddings. My two cents.

    • David

      Sorry I meant the 28mm f/1.4, not f/1.8, of course.

    • Anonymous

      wedding just aren’t about portraits.. I agree 24 sucks for the bride but it would be great for candids, creative details, some group shots and reception coverage.

      I think having two bodies would help since a wedding shot almost entirely on it would look terrible and it is a pain to switch lenses all the time to make it work. I think it is the perfect compliment to the other lenses and the weight/size reduction is nice too.

      • David

        Yes there is definitely a place for wide angled lens for wedding coverage, like you said. However do you really need the f/1.4? If you are talking about group coverage, then I would think you should shoot at f/4.0 or above. If you are taking about creative details (again, isolation of some sort would be involved, presumably), then I would prefer the 50mm f/1.4 (at a much cheaper cost I might add). I think having two bodies are essential indeed. My standard would be one body with 24-70mm and one body with 70-200mm. I would still bring along a 50mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/2.0 if I wanted to get creative at some point.

  • http://www.d800.com The invisible man.

    I can tell you that there is already many people interested in the 13-35mm, it will be a winner !

  • Lisa Russell

    Cmon Nikon!!!!! Bring us an AF-S 70-200 f4 VR pleeeeeeeeeeease!

    i cant work for hours every week every wedding with a ton 2.8 tele and also heavy FX bodies. so please give me a chance!

    kisses for you guys

    • http://www.d800.com The invisible man.

      Why don’t you put a ND2 filter in front of the 70-200mm f/2.8 ?

      • David

        I think her point is she wants lighter AF-S lens, Invisible Man.

  • Ray

    Nikon should introduce a 35mm 1.4 just to see people whine :)

  • MrMoo

    I just pre-ordered my 16-35 from Amazon….8:35PM 2/11.

    WooHoo.

  • Darrell

    I get mine on the 16th Feb. I am selling my 14-24 in part exchange hope I doing the correct thing

    • MrMoo

      Darrell, did you order from Amazon?

  • Seppl

    Oh wait, I have to preorder the money for the D700 + 24 f/1.4 first. Ah, don’t hold your breath amazon!

  • Silvia

    I am always excited to visit this blog in the evenings.Please churning hold the contents. It is very entertaining.,

  • Back to top