// The first reported lucky owner is from France. B&H is also now taking pre-orders, which is a clear indication that shipment will start in the next few days (B&H doesn't put items for pre-order unless they know a shipment is coming). Related posts: Zeiss Distagon T 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2 Lens (Nikon F Mount) to start [...]"/>

Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED lens now shipping

By [NR] admin | Published: February 19, 2010

The first reported lucky owner is from France.

B&H is also now taking pre-orders, which is a clear indication that shipment will start in the next few days (B&H doesn't put items for pre-order unless they know a shipment is coming).

Related posts:

  1. Zeiss Distagon T 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2 Lens (Nikon F Mount) to start shipping in few days
  2. Nikon 35mm f/1.4 and SB-700 get shipping dates from Amazon
  3. Nikon 35mm DX lens now shipping
  4. Some of the new Nikon lenses will start shipping “in the next few business days”
  5. Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G lens now shipping in the US
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • ednafzger

    his is realy fast transport nikon

  • ednafzger

    Viva la france

    • Banned

      That would be “VIVE” la France, since they speak french there not spanish.

      • Global Guy

        What do you have against Spaniards traveling in Paris? :-P

        • kim

          actually, folks, the spaniard “travelling” rather than “traveling” in paris would refer to Francia, not France :-)

  • Darrell

    Just turned Mine down tried it out in the shop somebody else can have it Keeping 14-24 and waiting or 24-120

    • f/2.8

      It’s in the shop already?

    • Henry Nikon Fan

      What was the problem with it?

      • PHB

        The 16-35 is $1250 plus tax
        The 14-24 is selling second hand for $1500-$1650 on Ebay $1750 plus tax new.

        I can see buying the 16-35 instead of the 14-24, but unless you are really missing the 24-35 range, I can’t see selling a 14-24 to buy the 16-35 for a net gain of a few hundred bucks makes a lot of sense.

  • Bluecow

    I want to see reviews of this lens. I wish it was f/2.8, but if the image quality is all there, then it might be very tempting.

    • lorenzo

      Well, a 16-35/2.8 VR would have been big and much more expensive. I prefer it this way, as I do not use w.a. lenses wide open very often…

      • Bluecow

        What about the 17-35mm f/2.8? Aren’t they pretty similar in size? That lens is over 10 years old now, I would have thought it would have had a proper update by now.

  • photogradstudent

    I think I’m going to go with the 14-24 instead. I just prefer the faster lens and the VR doesn’t sell me past the f/4

  • shivas

    well, this lens offers 2 advantages over the 14-24:
    size/weight
    filters

    Most landscape shooters (Ansel Adams types) are shooting f/8-13 WITH ND/Polarizing/etc filters. . .this lens fits that need for sure.

    For the event photographer, 14-24 makes sense on FX, but SO HEAVY.

    These FX offerings are cool. . .

  • Anonymous

    Its commin’ on tuesday.

  • MrMoo

    Hope Amazon gets their allocation soon….got mine on next day deliv with Amazon Prime. Sounds like a good excuse for a day off from work next week.

  • Tiago

    The things i would really really like to see would be: 50mm and 85mm f1.2G at “reasonable prices”, and an 16-55 or 17-55 2.8G with VR. Who is with me?

    • santela

      no thx.
      nikon cannot make a 85/1.2, but even if they did, it’ll be twice as expensive as the1.4, i’d rather hv 1.4 at $1200 than 1.2 at $2200-2400.

      • PHB

        Never say ‘can’t’.

        An 85 f/1 is not a lot more difficult to make than a 200 f/2. So an 85 f/1.2 is completely possible. It is just likely to cost in the $3000+ range, that’s all.

        Canon’s marketing FUD about the F-mount lens is based on the fact that Nikon’s previous f-mount f/1.2 lenses had huge rear elements that make no room for the standard contact ring. That does not mean that is the only way to build an f/1.2 lens and in fact some people have modified the existing lenses to add contacts.

        The real problem is that at f/1.2 the depth of field is so shallow that conventional autofocus does not cut it. And that shows on the Canon lenses. Shallow depth of field is useless if you are out of focus.

    • Mike

      The 85 1.8 is $450 Cdn. The 1.4 version is $1200 Cdn. A 1.2 version I imagine would be reasonably priced over $2K I’m sure. Even approaching $3k. That’s a lot of glass and alot of light bending correction going on.

  • M!

    i’m happy with my 17-35 2.8D. no VR, but it’s okay.

  • Steve

    Very cool! I ordered mine from amazon so hopefully we’ll see ‘em soon!

  • Banned

    Is 16mm really different than 14mm?? Just wondering…

  • ray

    Gotta wait until the price settles down a little. then ill go for the bite.

  • fixit

    pray for good weather, no hurricane, no tsunami — otherwise, the coast will be lined with rotting dead nikon lenses –

    • ArtTwisted

      Ive brought my plastic D90 and two plastic lenses into the poring rain and sub neg 35 celsius weather multiple times and never had a problem. The funny thing is the really expensive stuff that is meant to take that kind of abuse people are often too scared to risk and the cheap stuff people dont risk because it “wasent made for that”. I say bring the cheap platic zooms in the shitty weather.

  • Jason Andersen

    Pete – where’s my 24mm 1.4?

    Adorama has my pre-order

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      The 24mm 1.4 will be available at the end of March, 2010

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/wspekner Wolfgang

    I had the chance to make a couple of photos with the 16-35/4 VR yesterday at my local camera store and it seems – without having done anything scientific – an amazingly sharp and brilliant lens. It balances very well on my D700, is lighter than you would imagine and I fell in love with it right away. I wished I could afford it. When you guys get a chance, take a close look at it. You can see some full res pics from LR here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wspekner/sets/72157623343805413/

  • erich
    • Davo

      Is it just me or does barrel distortion at 16mm seem quite high. Vignettes too.
      At the longer end it looks quite nice though.

    • fixit

      holee guacamolee! — the 24 1.4 dwarfed the already humongous 85 1.4 — it looks like a medium format lens! you’ll hear people praise its performance and then whine about a back ache or a sprained shoulder — good luck taking it for a long walk. if you can afford it, you can afford to hire a caddy! happy trails!

  • Giordi

    Hi!
    I bought the 16-35mm today in Switzerland and compared it with the 14-24mm.
    Sharpness, contrast, colour saturation are of course much better with 14-24. These two lenses just belong to two different lens classes. Nevertheless, all in all the new 16-35 performs well, it is sharp and colours are more vivid if compared to my old 28-105mm (!!!) at 28mm. The bokeh is not good with the new lens. VR seems to work well.

  • http://www.benjamingolub.com/ Benjamin Golub
  • http://www.fritzimages.com Ed

    Received lens yesterday, have put up some comments vs Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED. Will be posting some images shortly.
    http://fritzimages.com/blog/?p=2078

  • Back to top