Is apparently on for tonight, midnight US Eastern time. Two new lenses for sure (16-35 f4 and 24 f1.4) but what else?
Nikon's Feb 9 2010 Announcement
(41 posts) (20 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
SB-700 :)
Doesn't seem like we'll get a camera body unless Nikon has gotten better about keeping such things on the DL.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Down low is what I'm hoping for but at this point seems very unlikely :^(
Unless this is the first "surprise" Nikon has for the year! :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
It would be great for them to announce a WHOLE line of primes. It would be unbelieveable 24 1.4,35 1.4, 50 1.2 and the 85 1.4 all at once with the wide zoom.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I want 300/4 VR or 400/4 VR
Posted 3 years ago # -
Me, too, Adamz. With a SB700 on the side.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I just want the D700x or whatever Nikon's answer is to the Canon 5D Mark II. I'm ready with all the glass I need.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm really clinging to the hope that they sneak a body (heck why not two) into this, although I doubt it.
although this:
"5:05 pm - Those are the full names of the two lenses for tonight: Nikkor AF-S 24 mm f/1.4 and Nikkor AF-S 16-35 mm f/4.0G ED VR. Nothing else will be released."
seems to say otherwise :(
I'm looking to upgrade and what I really need is something in the d90's price range but with the movie mode fully flushed out (such as the features just announced on canon's t2i) I guess I'll have to wait a while longer.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Officially official now
http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2184/AF-S-NIKKOR-24mm-f%252F1.4G-ED.html
Price: $2199.95
Price: $1259.95
Weather proof magnesium bodies! Sweet! Arm and leg price, boo!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Canadian links.
http://nikon.ca/en/Product.aspx?m=14145 24mm $2349.95
http://nikon.ca/en/Product.aspx?m=14357 16-35mm $1399.95
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yikes, prices are high, but I expected as much for the 24mm 1.4. The price of the 16-35mm makes sense as well, it would be hard to justify the $900-1000 price of the DX wide angel lenses if this lens had been any cheaper.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Why is the 24mm so expensive. The newer 50 1.4 was only around $500 and my older one was $300. I think that price tag is way to high for a 24mm 1.4
Posted 3 years ago # -
It does seem overly steep, I was expecting it to be around $1200-$1400.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Interesting to see what the new 24mm does to the used market for the 28mm 1.4. There's a few on Ebay, one with a bid already at $2500.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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...
Posted 3 years ago # -
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...
Posted 3 years ago # -
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
Posted 3 years ago # -
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
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Why the heck does the 16-35 "only" have VR 1?
Posted 3 years ago # -
What do you mean only VR I? The press release says it has VRII.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"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
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
