Wow the latest lens release really did zero for me, but aside from the the build up made it even worse.
I really should stay off this site.
Talk about a let down......where's the beef???
(9 posts) (8 voices)-
I have to agree with you on the letdown. The way things are right now I'd have a hard time telling a person they are better off joining the Nikon camp. Hopefully there will be something soon that can get the larger base of Nikon consumers more excited.
The last couple announcements have been for either DX users or pros who can somehow justify a D3X, D3S, or the 24 1.4. The 16-35 could end up being a huge flop... not fast enough for the D700 FXers and not wide enough for the DXers. And were there really people holding out from the 17-35 2.8 for a 16-35 4.0? That being said I'm sure the 16-35 is going to be great for what it is, just not the biggest market for it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
.............................. Still waiting for the SB700 and the new 300mm f/4.0 ...... waiting ..... waiting ..... waiting ....
Posted 3 years ago # -
I like the 24 1.4 lens, but that price tag is super big. Maybe one day I'll have lots of money to just get what I want.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Nikon promised us a surprise and they delivered ...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Aaron have to disagree with You on the new zoom, it offers this what was absent before in this qualty zooms - VR and use of filters. Almost perfect landsape lens.
Posted 3 years ago # -
mb said:
Nikon promised us a surprise and they delivered ...hahaha!
adamz said:
Aaron have to disagree with You on the new zoom, it offers this what was absent before in this qualty zooms - VR and use of filters. Almost perfect landsape lens.I agree, Adam. This lens is now #3 on my list of lenses to buy (#2 doesn't exist but will soon enough). It's funny because I stayed up to see the announcement and went to sleep thinking the prices were the other way round. I wasn't interested in either one at the switched prices, but I woke up and looked again and started wanting a 16-35. f/4 is fast enough for me at those focal lengths. Let's face it, I'll rarely go faster than 5.6 as I'd be using it mostly for landscapes. On a D700 replacement (its eventual home), it would work well even for inside shots because at ISO 3200/6400 I think I'd cope.
Posted 3 years ago # -
adamz said:
Aaron have to disagree with You on the new zoom, it offers this what was absent before in this qualty zooms - VR and use of filters. Almost perfect landsape lens.17-35 2.8 also accepts filters but I guess VR could be useful... Still too slow for my uses, not to mention the shallower depth of field at 2.8 relative to f4 for closer up applications is a big plus for me as well.
I'm also not a big fan of ISO 3200 or up on the D700 when I can avoid it. (I really need a D3S)
But I'm glad there are people who don't see this as a total whiff for Nikon the way I do. I am interested though to see how many of both of these lenses sell since that's the only measurement that counts.
Posted 3 years ago # -
As a Professional Photographer Why would I get the 16-35 f/4 when I can get the full frame non gelded way faster (f stop) 17-35 f/2.8 for cheaper... That 16mm range is already covered by the 14-24mm lens anyway... F/1:4 is CRAP!!!
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
