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.

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

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

I guess it could be, but note that on all the VR I lenses "VR" is marked in red, while all VR II lenses the "VR" is Gold.

The 70-200 VRII and 300mm F2.8 VRII are second generation lenses, not first. If Nikon revised the 16-35mm at some point I'm willing to be it would be called VRII as well.

"Nikon UK today announces the AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR"
On Nikon's website it is labeled as VR in the title but in the specs it says VRII. While the new 70-200 and 300mm have VRII in the specs but on the barrel they all only say VR? Don't you think that's confusing?

http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/index.page

What do you mean only VR I? The press release says it has VRII.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp

Why the heck does the 16-35 "only" have VR 1?

I'm going to disagree, seems like a rather poor lens to use an a DX body. 1. It isn't very wide, and second, not very long. There are far better, lighter weight, and importantly, lower cost options for DX users.

just checked the parameters, and I'm impressed - was convinced that the 16-35/4 vr was a dx lens, and it's FX - I think we have a bestseller here - also it's a great lens for DX - 24-52.5 and takes filters

I'm surprised with the price tag of 24/1.4 - for $1k less You can get the zeiss 28/2, sure it's slower and not as wide, but still zeiss - nevertheless I'll probably go with it sooner than later

The 16-35/4 makes FX much more desirable for me. I also like the 77mm filter thread. I could never live with the 14-24's lack of filters. I use polarizering filters too often, plus I tend to be paranoid about coastal hiking without some lens protection. This would also be a pretty good street lens.

Makes me a bit more interested in a small body FX.

Now what about the longer lenses? 100-500/4-5.6 VR, 300/4 VR...

jonnyapple said:
Welcome to the forum, foofie. I think the D90 replacement will come out soon, and I think it would be a mistake for Nikon not to include 1080p at 24, 25, and 30fps if only to match the specs of the canons.

Totally agree with this...550D is out and iam still waiting for some kind of reaction from Nikon.I hope they r listening. Give us something...

Yeah, I bet some people are going to feel mighty silly, unless they still use old film SLRs that cannot use G lenses. That being said, I often see items going for more than retail price on eBay so it isn't the best gage anyway.