where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
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.
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
$2100 for a 24mm prime! haha if I wanted to pay that for a prime I'd go all out with Leica...
Nah, the Leica would cost you twice as much.
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.
Re the VR on the 16-35, they indicate 4 stops, same as VR II.
and Leica would cost 3 times as much, not twice...
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.
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.
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. . .
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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. .
You must log in to post.
