So I'm curious what do people think about the the new 16-35mm VR F4 and the 24mm 1.4 prime lenses to be released in the next two days? Anybody interested in these focal lengths? The new wide is extremely useful I think although it is not 2.8 like the legendary 17-35mm. I have heard that the 17-35mm is much better on film than it is on digital. It's new VR should be useful as I know it is going to be a big heavy lens. The new 24mm prime should be amazing at 1.4 and 24mm is a great focal lenght to have especially full frame. Any thoughts?
Nikon's New Lenses Tomorrow
(32 posts) (14 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Should be nice lenses if the rumors are true, just make sure you check the price before you slap down your credit card!
Posted 3 years ago # -
24 1.4 Im willing to try but I guess price will be a bit toooo much
16-35 - got no interest what so ever - unless it flys around and takes photos for u...
i want something more useful - why do they try to replace already good lenses (as kanuck said 17-35mm is pretty good and not $$$)
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm not sure I'll be getting the 16-35. The price has to be very low to get my attention. I really don't need a newer 24mm. Especially if the price is as high as I think it will be.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Great new products, not for me though i already have what I need at wide end.
16-35 should be very affordable (half the 14-24 price) and 24 f/1.4 is something many people are waiting for a very long time now.Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah the 16-35mm would be the 18-35mm replacement.
Posted 3 years ago # -
No interest.
If I shot FX, I'd get the 16-35/4 as my wide-zoom instead of the 14-24/2.8. Smaller, lighter, I don't care about the speed, will take filters and by zooming to 35mm can be used for street shooting.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Both of these lenses are appealing. The only problem is that the 24mm is going to be way too expensive and f4 is a little too slow (as is 2.8 often times) so the 16-35 loses some appeal with that. The good thing about the 16-35 will be that it should be a little smaller and cheaper than the 17-35 2.8, so it is worth considering.
Posted 3 years ago # -
as stated by a few people above, the price on the 16-35 would have to be pretty amazing to get my attention.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I agree with people the 24mm prime at 1.4 is going to be a staggering amount of money. I wouldn't be surprised if it was even in the neighbourhood of the 14-24mm! The legendary 28mm 1.4mm is probably the greatest lens Nikon has ever made, and it took awhile actually to become unafforable so I might be wrong about the 24mm 1.4 price.
I bought the 14-24mm just before Christmas otherwise I might have given the 16-35 a shot. The 17-35 is an amazing lens though so I'm wondering about the need for this new lens like nau said. The 17-35 can even be had for $800-$900 where I live used! Usually for a mint copy or new its $1400 though.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Im actually interested in the new 16-35 f/4. I want an FX lens to fill up the wide angle >24mm. Since i have coverage at 24-200. I would be interested in the 14-24 but that piece of glass makes me nervous handling. If i would get it, then i would be seeking to buy insurance just for it if it happens to get damaged. I would rather have the new 16-35 instead of going the route and buying a cheap offbrand FX wide angle.
Posted 3 years ago # -
i have a feeling the 16-35/4 will be price pretty high, like $899+.. . .
The 17-35 2.8 is about $1500-1700 or so, right? So I think they'll price it around what the 12-24/4 is priced at, $999-1099. . .
WAYYYY too high for me to even remotely consider. . .if I sold all my DX lenses and needed a "kit" lens for a D700/FX type body, I'd consider it, but right now, in THAT focal range, there are too many delicious DX-body options. . .(Tokina 11-16/Nikon 17-55 both 2.8 and probably cheaper used than this lens). . .
the 24 1.4 would be awesome, I won't lie, I want one, but I can't justify the price for a prime. . .it'll probably go down in history like the 28 1.4 . ..
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thom Hogan talked about the 24mm 1.4 being released, along with another wide angle lens with some accessories too.
What sort of accessories, I haven't a clue, but I'm interested to say the least!
Posted 3 years ago # -
NSXType-R said:
Thom Hogan talked about the 24mm 1.4 being released, along with another wide angle lens with some accessories too.What sort of accessories, I haven't a clue, but I'm interested to say the least!
Nikon gives NC filters along with hoods, straps and cases with the lenses lately.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hey NSXType-R, I hear the accessories could be some new teleconverters like the 1.4 and 1.7 type II to go along with the already released 2.0 II. I think the new 16-35 will actually cost more than the old 17-35mm because of the VR and just simply because "its new". This can be great though because now you can buy a cheaper 17-35mm which is bound to drop in price. I love when Nikon releases new gear as it drops prices on older nearly equal quality items. I did this with the 70-200mm VR I and then the D700 when the 70-200 VRII came out and the D3s were released prices in my area dropped $500 on the lens and $600 on the body. Let me tell you I've been seriously happy since! ^^
Posted 3 years ago # -
kanuck said:
Hey NSXType-R, I hear the accessories could be some new teleconverters like the 1.4 and 1.7 type II to go along with the already released 2.0 II. I think the new 16-35 will actually cost more than the old 17-35mm because of the VR and just simply because "its new". This can be great though because now you can buy a cheaper 17-35mm which is bound to drop in price. I love when Nikon releases new gear as it drops prices on older nearly equal quality items. I did this with the 70-200mm VR I and then the D700 when the 70-200 VRII came out and the D3s were released prices in my area dropped $500 on the lens and $600 on the body. Let me tell you I've been seriously happy since! ^^Quite possible. Nice you have the budget to afford good equipment, I don't. :(
But I am very satisfied with my 35mm 1.8, so it's all okay!
Some people say the autofocus isn't all that quick, and I would say it's very good. One needs to remember at 1.8, the depth of field is pretty shallow.
mb said:
Nikon gives NC filters along with hoods, straps and cases with the lenses lately.They didn't give me those when I bought my 35mm 1.8. :D
Maybe I'm not high profile enough.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I rather invest in the 14-24 2.8 than the 16-35 f4.
The 24 f1.4, that would be sweet but am very happy with my 24 2.8.
Perfect for my me as I try to keep my bg a little sharper than having it mushy soft. just my creative choice with the wider lenses.there seems to be a greater push for the faster lenses and everyones caught onto the chase but If I stand to think over it, I realise the textural value that a greater depth of field presents is far more infinite than having your shot look like they could be anywhere. But thats a creative choice and this thread is just running down the barrel of new vs the new NEW.
Posted 3 years ago # -
NSXType-R actually I am quite cheap and always on the hunt for good deals haha living near a such a world class camera district I can go daily and look. There is always a lot of cool things on display that you can try out or trade in for and I've never had to worry about quality. I'd love to get into Leica gear this year but its VERY $$$ as everyone knows..
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
It must be new practice, or it could depend on the country. I didn't get any NC filers with any Nikon lenses I've bought regardless of price range.
Posted 3 years ago # -
kanuck said:
NSXType-R actually I am quite cheap and always on the hunt for good deals haha living near a such a world class camera district I can go daily and look. There is always a lot of cool things on display that you can try out or trade in for and I've never had to worry about quality. I'd love to get into Leica gear this year but its VERY $$$ as everyone knows..Haha, I was just kidding as well.
I'm a college student, how rich could I be? If not for my parents, I wouldn't even be here.
I'm massively cheap as well, that's why I got the 35mm 1.8. Best bang for the buck in my opinion.
mb said:
For that price you are lucky to get a Nikon lens ;)Haha, yeah. Other than the 50mm 1.8, I don't think there's a cheaper lens. Maybe the old 70-300 non VR version. That one's so old and dumpy no one wants it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The 18-55mm kit lenses are also under $200.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yes the 35mm range is great especially for people who know and love that focal length. Some people love it so much they actually keep the one prime on at all times and never change. This amazes me, but thats a real photographer to me they know what works for them. NSXType-R did you ever consider the legendary nikkor 1.4 ais 35mm? Its cheaper and very difficult to find, but it has to be on the top 5 list of best nikon lenses ever made. I've seen lots of the F2 lenses but not interested.
I have a cheaper lens for ya! The kickass little 28-80 G lens! I got mine for $75 in mint condition for a nice cheap midrange FX zoom on my D700. 24-70 not in my plans after I ate macoroni and cheese for two months to save up for my 14-24mm hahaha ^_____^ not really but it sure felt like a long time....
Oh, and I always get a UV filter tossed into any lens purchase I make. Sometimes throw in a few extra $10-30 for a B+W.
Posted 3 years ago # -
kanuck said:
Yes the 35mm range is great especially for people who know and love that focal length. Some people love it so much they actually keep the one prime on at all times and never change. This amazes me, but thats a real photographer to me they know what works for them. NSXType-R did you ever consider the legendary nikkor 1.4 ais 35mm? Its cheaper and very difficult to find, but it has to be on the top 5 list of best nikon lenses ever made. I've seen lots of the F2 lenses but not interested.I have a cheaper lens for ya! The kickass little 28-80 G lens! I got mine for $75 in mint condition for a nice cheap midrange FX zoom on my D700. 24-70 not in my plans after I ate macoroni and cheese for two months to save up for my 14-24mm hahaha ^_____^ not really but it sure felt like a long time....
Oh, and I always get a UV filter tossed into any lens purchase I make. Sometimes throw in a few extra $10-30 for a B+W.
It really is that cheap? I gotta look at it then. Too bad I have a D40, and after AlphaNikonRex nearly destroyed his D70's AF clip thingy by mounting a 50mm 1.2, I'm wary of that.
I may just get just in case I go FX though. Haha.
Plus there's the FM2.
Posted 3 years ago # -
well the 28-80's slow as all hell. . .3.5 to 5.6, so that's why it's on the "cheaper" side, but I've heard positive things (something like an 18-55 VR for DX). . .I'd wait to see what the 16-35 prices out at, might drive down mid-range zoom prices. . .on the used market. . .
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
