yawn. . .

Sounds like nothing after all. Too bad, I was hoping for new lenses. A new body to think about would have been nice too. Oh well. When will the next rumor occur?

New full frame DSLR. Need to use my insurance money from a broken D700.

"As in Nikon announcing their future EVIL strategy so people won't go buy other EVIL cameras and just wait for Nikon's."

- I agree NikoDoby, it's likely to be "futures" and vaporware.

And I want to ride a real Unicorn :^)

Cmon I want a D700s AND D900!

Better not be a D700 replacement. Well I have 3 more weeks to return mine. ;)

Ha, don't worry hipmom. Even if a D700 replacement is announced, still doubtful, you'll have to wait even longer to get one. Seems like the witching sticks are pointing to a "special" COOLPIX announcement. As in Nikon announcing their future EVIL strategy so people won't go buy other EVIL cameras and just wait for Nikon's.

Ok I haven't opened up the D700- Now I am going to wait....Yikes...I can still return it!

So was I. As soon as I heard canon scheduling a press conference for the same day! To me there seems to be a lot of politics going on behind the scenes at PMA. First canon, leica, and pentax say they will not be attending(pentax waited until the day before PMA started to say that) Then canon and now Nikon schedule press conferences on the day PMA closes. Sony might make an announcement that day too. So it might seem like the manufactures are giving PMA a big middle finger.

Or they might just want to make a big bang announcement to close the show. Still seems kinda strange that these conferences are all scheduled for the same day and with very little notice. Perhaps they just want to avoid leaking out details as has always been the case with previous announcements?

You know I was waiting for this.

Oh boy here we go again! Nikon has scheduled a press conference the same day PMA closes and the same day canon is rumored to be announcing "something". I don't remember so many "ackward" press conferences being held so suddenly like this before? Might just be nothing but then again...

Let the speculating begin!

yeah pretty much the only differences between this and the 17-35 are the nano coating and VR. . . .and I really don't think those elements justify it's $1259, which isn't too bad, but would sell A LOT better at $999. . .I think it'll drop a little. .

kyoshinkon - c-z it gives You Nano coating and VR, and it's suitable for FX not DX... did I mentioned You can add filters to it.

I almost never shoot slower than a F/3.5 which brings on the question why the hell would I buy the 16-35 f/4 when the 17-35mm f/2.8 does what I want...

16-35 is actually very usable size, I would only prefer a larger aperture instead of VR.
As for new 24 I wonder how pleasing that blur characteristics really is to justify astronomical price

shivaswrath said:
Makes no sense, unless they start coupling it with the D700 in a kit, or introduce an entry level FX body (which is where I see it making sense).

It's priced over $1000 and has a pro metal finish and weather proofing. It will never be part of a kit. Especially on an entry level camera.

adamz said:
Niko, the new 300/2.8 VR is also labeled VR not VR II, my 105/2.8 micro also has VR label on it not VR II - for me it makes sense, as there is no need to complicate the labels - imagine VR XXX

Yes none of the lenses say VRII on the lens barrels but the 300/2.8 is listed as "AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II" while the 16-35 is listed as "AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR". They both are then said to have VRII in the press releases. Why not just be consistent?

shivaswrath said:
Makes no sense, unless they start coupling it with the D700 in a kit, or introduce an entry level FX body (which is where I see it making sense).

It's priced over $1000 and has a pro metal finish and weather proofing. It will never be part of a kit. Especially on an entry level camera.

I think the 16-35/4 is priced WAYYYY too high; I can get a 17-35 2.8 for $1700, why would I "save" $500 for a significantly slower lens? Makes no sense, unless they start coupling it with the D700 in a kit, or introduce an entry level FX body (which is where I see it making sense).

On DX it's useless.

The 24 1.4 looks great, esp the MTF's. . .but for the price, I'm not sure. . .they went in A LOT HIGHER, than I suspect, $400 more than the venerable 14-24 2.8. . .not sure how long/well this lens will sell/last. . .might end up like the 28 1.4 . . .I'll buy one in 5 years just before Nikon discontinues it, if not only to have a gem of a FX WA prime. . .for now, the 24 2.8 will suit, despite it's tendency to flare and ghost in low light (sigh), at $359 new (~$200-250 used), you get a great prime that works 90% of the time as well as the new one in well-lit conditions. . .

I am a big fan of zooms (after hating the original 80-200/4.5-AI New). I love the ability to compose exactly as I want in situations where my feet can't do the zooming. I also love not having to change lenses as frequently. On the other hand, I rarely shoot at any apertures faster than 5.6 and usually 8-11, so speed matters less than smaller size and portability.

Really excited about the 24mm f/1.4. I'm just waiting until I can justify the purchase for myself. I have an odd feeling that will be some time around March. The 16–35mm f/4 seems an odd beast. I don't see why I would take it over the f/2.8. I'm not a big fan of zooms in general, though.

If you're looking at the zeiss, might as well take a look at Nikon's MF 24mm f/2. It's a decent lens, and you can get it a hell of a lot cheaper. http://www.taishimizu.com/201/Nikkor-24mm-f-2-AIS-Review Those who remember my posts probably know I'm a bit biased towards old Nikkors though, I just love the quality and feel of using them.

and Leica would cost 3 times as much, not twice...

Re the VR on the 16-35, they indicate 4 stops, same as VR II.

kanuck said:
$2100 for a 24mm prime! haha if I wanted to pay that for a prime I'd go all out with Leica...

Good luck finding one with a F mount. :D

Yay! New lenses!

Crap! Can't afford 1/3 of the 16-35 F4...

And I agree, 16-35 on DX is just weird. Why not go with the 24-70? Faster, just about the same price.

Nah, the Leica would cost you twice as much.