Anyone know if this lens will actually come to fruition?
I know they had a patent for this at some point during 2012 but just wanting to know if there's been any more on it.
Thinking of getting the 5DIII instead of the D800 if this lens doesn't appear.
16-35 f/2.8 - If and or when?
(22 posts) (11 voices)-
Posted 7 months ago #
-
-
-
elbeasto said:
Anyone know if this lens will actually come to fruition?
I know they had a patent for this at some point during 2012 but just wanting to know if there's been any more on it.
Thinking of getting the 5DIII instead of the D800 if this lens doesn't appear.What's wrong with the existing 14-24 2.8 or 16-35f4?
Posted 7 months ago # -
Buy the 17-35mm F2.8, it's close enough.
Posted 7 months ago # -
I would think it highly unlikely Nikon would make this as the 16-35mmVR is such a nice lens, and if one wants the extra stop, as PB PM sates, the 17-35mm f/2.8 is close. And, both of the existing lenses are fairly heavy, large, i cannot imagine a 16-35mm f/2.8 VR...about 3.8 inches in diameter, 2 pounds in weight and $3,000 to purchase.....
Who knows...maybe someday in the future Canon will make a wide zoom, VR....ya' think?
Posted 7 months ago # -
Hi everyone,
I read about the rumors of a 16-35 f/2.8 lens from Nikon, which would be exactly the lens I'm looking for. There are numerous reasons for this, which I derive from my experience with using a 16-35 f/2.8 when I was still on a Canon 5D II (just switched to the marvellous D800). You don't need to read the following list, but just for those who want to know:
- I do need the 16 instead of 17mm, since that little extra does make a big difference in interior photography, which I sometimes need to do. (=> no 17-35 2.8)
- I do need the 35mm, since I want to be able to use the lens as a walkaround, for which this turned out to be an excellent focal length. I've always considered the wide-angle zoom an ok 35mm prime with the luxury of being able to spontaneously go to crazy wide angles fast and without hauling around a separate lens (=> no 14-24, no separate primes)
- I do need, or rather: want the 2.8, not for light, but for DOF-reduction. Call me stupid, but there have been situations where I really benefitted from the bokeh of the 2.8 aperture, of course more on the 35 side than the 16. (=> no 16-36 f/4)
- I don't have the cash to buy two of the available lenses, nor would I want to haul them around. (=> no "get two")
Hence my question: Is there anyone who can tell me about the chances that this 16-35mm f/2.8 lens is going to be released soon? Or rather: What are the "time slots" that Nikon releases new gear like this? Photokina is one of the events, right, then the show that was currently on, what else is there?
I saw in the table with the patent date vs. announcement/release date, that it usually takes approx. 2 years from the patent registration to market release, so that would make the 1st half of next year likely, right?
Yes I already did a search and my own research on this, but as I'm new to the Nikon world, I'm still not familiar with how it works. I saw in a couple of threads here that people had been waiting for the 70-200 f/4, for instance.Thanks for any info on this,
ChrisPosted 6 months ago # -
Well, to be honest, 16-35/2.8 seems a bit too close to what's already out. It doesn't seem like the 14-24 or 16-35/4 are going to be replaced any time soon, and there aren't really any strong rumors for it. If the 17-35/2.8 doesn't do what you want and you absolutely must have 16-35/2.8, then I'd either look at a combination of lenses (14-24 +24-70) or look at Canon.
It's possible that a Nikon will release it as sort of a surprise, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Posted 6 months ago # -
+1
I doubt that Nikon would release a lens would potentially cannibalize three models (2 relatively new and one fairly old). Just doesn't make good business sense.Posted 6 months ago # -
The difference in horizontal coverage between the 16mm and 17mm is 89° vs. 86° an almost insignificant amount. I have not found any architectural shot where 3° would make or break a shot. And if one meeds wider...14mm will go there with 95° horizontal... I use the 10.5mm on FX with the hood removed and get 180° horizontal angle of view..if one really wants wide! :-)
Posted 6 months ago # -
if you need a 16mm f 2.8, the fish eye is worth considering, distortion can "corrected" in Lightroom
Posted 6 months ago # -
jerl said:
Well, to be honest, 16-35/2.8 seems a bit too close to what's already out. It doesn't seem like the 14-24 or 16-35/4 are going to be replaced any time soon, and there aren't really any strong rumors for it.Well there is the "rumor", well... fact about the patent (in the copytext, not the title).
proudgeek said:
I doubt that Nikon would release a lens would potentially cannibalize three models (2 relatively new and one fairly old). Just doesn't make good business sense.I don't think it would be too close to what's already out, it would simply replace the (apparently excellent but) old 17-35 and be higher-priced than the 16-35 f/4. Why would Nikon otherwise release a 70-200 f/4 to accompany an existing 70-200 f/2.8?
msmoto said:
The difference in horizontal coverage between the 16mm and 17mm is 89° vs. 86° an almost insignificant amount. I have not found any architectural shot where 3° would make or break a shot.I think it would, or well, it did in the past for me. This might not be valid for a normal photo, but for documentary interior stuff, which I sometimes do as an add-on to other jobs, just to get over some low-income phases, or because a client that I'm doing portrait stuff for wants their interior photographed, too, it can be decisive for whether from the corner of a room you get a certain object on a wall into the picture or not.
Sure, there are 14mm, 15mm primes and the 14-24 and fisheyes and so on, but I want to be able to cover this occasional stuff with a wide angle zoom I already have. (It might sound ridiculous to some of you, but in the past, I've had this set of a 16-35 zoom, 50mm and 85mm prime that I always had with me, it's light, fits in a small bag, and I was always able to spontaneously do *anything* I wanted in high quality, and sometimes this saved my a**. Sure, everyone has different preferences, but this one proved to be my perfect setup, and I checked out quite a bit.)
But thanks for your feedback on the likelyhood of a soonish release, then.
Hm, a little bit unsure what to do then... Does anyone who owns the 16-35 f/4 have an image at hand where one can see the bokeh? With the reviews online, I just found one sample for this.
Thanks in advance and thanks for your responses so far,
ChrisPosted 6 months ago # -
chris_weinert said:
Why would Nikon otherwise release a 70-200 f/4 to accompany an existing 70-200 f/2.8?
...
Hm, a little bit unsure what to do then... Does anyone who owns the 16-35 f/4 have an image at hand where one can see the bokeh? With the reviews online, I just found one sample for this.Thanks in advance and thanks for your responses so far,
ChrisWell the 70-200 is a whole different kind of beast, most ppl don't look for very fast speed in their wide angle lenses, other qualities are more important.
About the bokeh, it's pretty decent for a Nikon WA lens.
This shot is for you to see the bokeh, it's not sharp because I had only 1/50 while shivering out in the cold. (this is on a d7000, on an FX it will appear even better)Posted 6 months ago # -
Well, here is a snapshot of a couple friends...16-35mm f/4 VR, wide open at f/4, 1/40 sec, ISO 10,000. It demonstrates some bokeh of the 35mm length wide open.
In the next few days I will be shooting the 16-35mm in the paddock area of a car race....will try to do some close ups and get more bokeh.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Gabbb said:
It's not sharp because I had only 1/50 while shivering out in the cold.:-) Haha, that's nice, thanks very much.
msmoto said:
Well, here is a snapshot of a couple friends...16-35mm f/4 VR, wide open at f/4, 1/40 sec, ISO 10,000. It demonstrates some bokeh of the 35mm length wide open.In the next few days I will be shooting the 16-35mm in the paddock area of a car race....will try to do some close ups and get more bokeh.
Ah yes, that would be awesome! Thanks to you, too!
Posted 6 months ago # -
@msmoto: I just ordered a 16-35, but more because it was rather cheap (equal to 1200 US$) and last time a lens had a price drop, I was too slow and then was mad at myself for not ordering it.
So, I can soon check it out myself, but anyway, if you find the time, it'd be still nice if you posted one or two bokeh examples.
Thanks and a good week,
ChrisPosted 6 months ago # -
So the lens arrived and I had the chance to briefly shoot it a bit, everything that's said in all 1658 reviews is true, it:
• is very long and bulky
• feels heavier then it is
• has lots of distortion on the wide end
• build quality is tougher than the affordable primes but not as sturdy as the more expensive zooms
• pretty sharp, also at f/4
• has VR, which I've never had on any lens and I must say, it's a very useful featureBut, the bokeh is pretty much not there. I currently can't afford to order the 17-35 2.8 without first sending back this one, so I can't compare directly, but on any other lens I've ever tried, the difference from 2.8 to 4.0 was the decisive step for visible background blur or not. Unless you shoot really close (macro), the background will definitely not blur out properly, even if it's far away. msmoto's shot above is a good example for this. One full stop more open would do the job. Hm. Dunno what to do.
For people who don't need/want this and don't mind the fact that it's as long as a tele, this is a great lens.
Posted 6 months ago # -
chris_weinert said:
So the lens arrived and I had the chance to briefly shoot it a bit, everything that's said in all 1658 reviews is true, it:
• is very long and bulky
• feels heavier then it is
• has lots of distortion on the wide end
• build quality is tougher than the affordable primes but not as sturdy as the more expensive zooms
• pretty sharp, also at f/4
• has VR, which I've never had on any lens and I must say, it's a very useful featureHow does the corners perform in your opinion, would you mind doing some test shots?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Don't have the time right now, but a while ago, I read this review, and the optical performance pretty much matches exactly what I have found so far, too:
(Click on the link in the article that takes you to all the comparison test shots.
Posted 6 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
