Redundancy between the lenses? Yeah, there is that but you also gain useful flexibility. There has been many times when I wished my 24-70 was a tad bit longer but then again whatever zoom lens I have it's almost always a tad bit too short. That would be true even if I was shooting with the 28-300. I think the real question here is "is this new trinity set really worth the price Nikon put on it?"

If we pair the f/4 set along with the D600 then we get:

D600 $2000
16-35 $1400
24-120 $1300
70-200 $1400
Total $6100

Compare this with the f/2.8 set paired with the D800:

D800 $3000
14-24 $2000
24-70 $1890
70-200 $2400
Total $9290 - $400 (if you buy 24-70 & 70-200 at same time with body)

The difference comes to $3190. And if we take the camera bodies out of the equation and just compare the lenses then the margin becomes even smaller; f/2.8 set at $6290 - f/4 set at $4100 = $2190. So the question now becomes is the compromise worth that price difference? And is the f/4 set a good value for its price?

I can see D600 users going for F/4 lenses tho... I tried one yesterday and was very disappointed to find that it was slightly worse than my D7000. Also it seems as if carrying a 28-120mm and a 70-200mm is a bit redundant only 80mm worth of extra reach. The 28-300mm seems a bit more practical for reach at a f/4-f/5.6 or a mid range prime...

My grab and go bag is,

17-35 f2.8 - on D3s camera
50mm AFd 1.4
70-200 f2.8 VR

framer

I don't think I would be happy with only 3 lenses all with maximum aperture of f 4

add a f 1.4 prime into the mix, then yes I would be happy

otherwise I think you need one of the f 2.8s ( I have the 70-200 f 2.8 + the other 2 f4s)

I often wonder about changing my grab-n-go "kit" to 3 lenses:

16-35mm f/4
50mm f/1.4 (I have the Sigma EX DG HSM)
70-200mm f/4

Those lenses along with the D800's ability for 1.2 and 1.5 crop should provide lots of versatility. I'm just too much in love with my 14-24mm and 24-70mm to part with them.

Good point....and the 16-35mm f/4.0 VR is one of the sharpest lenses......The 24-120mm is also sharp, but falls off near the edges. I do not have the new 70-200mm f/4.

I like the 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2.0 for the street shooting. The 50mm is in some cases a bit short on full frame as street people need a bit of space around them to be comfortable.

But, your point of the economics of the D600 + f/4 "kit" being about $6,000 instead of $9,000 for the f/2.8 lenses + D800 makes a lot of sense.

At the risk of going against my principles but also in keeping with this forum's time honored tradition of reviving ancient threads ;p I'm bringing this thread back to life to talk about Nikon's newest trinity on the block.

Now with the addition of the new 70-200 f/4 to the existing 16-35 f/4 and 24-120 f/4, Nikon's newest f/4 trinity is finally complete. And if we couple this set with the D600 once the dust fully settles down (yeah, all pun intended of course! ;p) then it makes for one sweet set-up. Compared to the D800 and the current f/2.8 trinity, the price difference is almost $3000.

I especially like that the focal lengths of the f/4 set actually do overlap with each other to create more flexibility with each lens and minimize the need for switching lenses unlike the f/2.8 set. Of course image IQ will be an entirely different story. I don't own any of the f/4 lenses so I can't attest to them but I do own the 24-70. I also used to have the 70-200 f/2.8 VRI. While it did give me some absolutely amazing shots, I did find it to be of limited use plus the weight and size of just didn't encourage me to use it enough to justify keeping it so I sold it. The 24-70 OTOH is almost like a jack (and a master) of all (most) trades. I use it for my landscape shots as well as for general portraits and street shots and it is nothing short of amazing. That one, the 105 micro and, to some lesser extent, the 85 f/1.8 are my favorite go to lenses.

If I do decide to spring for the f/4 lenses, then I'll probably end up keeping the 24-70 and just get the 16-35 and the 70-200 f/4 and forget about the 24-120. In all honesty, I probably don't need it as much as I think and say I do but I just can't see myself parting with it! ;p

Anyway Niko: I was just comparing to the size of the Canon 24-105 F4 and I would think that the new Nikon 24-120 F4 would build like that one, which follows the way the new 16-35 F4 is build

Anyway, like mentioned before I used to have a Pentax 28-70 F4 and it was a very compact lens, and I would think that a 24-70 F4 could be build close to the same size

Pete

So far none of Nikon's f4 lenses will be small or cheap. I'm not sure of what the advantage is over an f2.8 lens? Why do you think a 24-70 f4 would be smaller or cheaper than a "plastic" telescoping 24-105 f4?

NikoDoby said:
Wow, looks like a 24-120 f4 is coming!
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/18/nikkor-24-120-f4-vr-will-be-released-this-year.aspx

This New Nikon lens will not be compact or cheap. It will be app same size and cost compared to the 24-70 F2.8 just look at size/cost of the Canon 24-105 F4 lens

No Nikon need to make a 24-70 F4 VR, it will be smaller, cost less and could be made very sharp and very suitable for a smaller FX DSLR

Pete

I understand your uses. However, when I go hiking, I always bring a tripod (the lightest I can get at 2 pounds, including ball head with quick release) and shoot at ISO 200, 1/2-1/30 at f8-16. A brighter viewfinder is always better, but I'd rather reduce the weight of what I carry. When cell phones came out, everyone paid more for smaller.

I second you desire for an affordable full frame camera, I'm also happy they're making a smaller set of lenses. All my macro lenses and old slow AIS primes are full frame, so the only thing I've wanted in FX is a replacement for my DX 16-85 and 10-24.

I think I might just be too old to carry f2.8 zooms.

True ted but I still prefer the brighter viewfinder with faster glass. The only reason I'd buy an f4 lens is if it was a much lower price than brighter glass or if it came in a kit with an "affordable" full frame camera! :^D

I think the need for fast lenses is being reduced by the far better ISO performance of recent camera bodies. If you at the leading edge, you want all the speed you can get, but on the other hand, if you can get two more stops of ISO performance, plus VR, do you need the speed. I tend to shoot at f8 to f16 for DOF, so I've never been willing to pay for or carry larger, faster lenses. If the optical performance of this new trilogy is at the level of Nikon's best, this should be a big success.

I like the idea of it! I would still shoot for the stars though and get the 2.8 line, but the f/4 versions do sound very alluring. (Although, I think for a midrange zoom like 24-70mm it's often very important to have a wide aperture. F/3.5 just doesn't cut it on my 18-55mm.)

NikoDoby said:
Wow, looks like a 24-120 f4 is coming!
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/18/nikkor-24-120-f4-vr-will-be-released-this-year.aspx

Wow!

Just in time too. Nice wide angle, nice long end.

Wow, looks like a 24-120 f4 is coming!
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/18/nikkor-24-120-f4-vr-will-be-released-this-year.aspx

I think they would need a 24-70 F4 the most to have high quality compact zoom for a future smaller FX DSLR. I used to have a compact Pentax 28-70 F4 and it small and sharp

Pete

That would be cool but the new F4 16-35 isn't smaller and lighter nor is it cheaper :^(

Nikon doesn't like to differential it's lenses like canon does with it's "base" glass and "pro" L line. Nikon wants us to think that all of their lenses are very capable.

Maybe they have one in the works?

Nikon makes three absolutely magnificent lenses, the 14-24 f2.8, the 24-70 f2.8, and the 70-200 f2.8. Wouldn't it be logical to produce a duplicate series but all at f4? Lighter and less expensive. I would expect they would be hugely successful.