AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED & AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR official

First report on the new lenses from Bob Krist. Check it out (yes the copter shot is there).

AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR:

  • Price: $1259.95
  • Available in late February 2010
  • Ultra wide-angle zoom lens that covers focal lengths from 16mm to 35mm
  • Vibration Reduction (VR II) enables sharper pictures while shooting at shutter speeds up to four stops* slower than would otherwise be possible
    *As determined in Nikon performance tests.
  • The adoption of Nano Crystal Coat effectively reduces ghost and flare
  • An ultra wide-angle zoom lens that, while offering a wide angle view of 107°, is compatible with 77mm screw-on filters
  • Fixed maximum aperture of f/4
  • ED glass and aspherical lens elements are utilized for a new optical design that achieves high resolution
  • Quiet focusing with built-in Silent Wave Motor (SWM)
  • Two focus modes selectable - M/A and M
Focal length 16-35mm
Maximum aperture f/4
Minimum aperture f/22
Lens construction 17 elements in 12 groups (with two ED glass and three aspherical lens elements, and Nano Crystal Coat)
Angle of view 107° - 60° (83° - 44° with Nikon DX format)
Closest focusing distance 0.29 m (1.0 ft.) at a focal length of 16mm or 35mm, 0.28 m (0.9 ft.) at a focal length between 20mm and 28mm
Maximum reproduction ratio 0.25x
No. of diaphragm blades 9 (rounded)
Filter/attachment size 77mm
Diameter x length
(extension from the camera’s lens-mount flange)
Approximately 82.5 x 125 mm
Weight Approximately 680 g/24.0 oz.
Supplied accessories 77mm Snap-on Front Lens Cap LC-77, Rear Lens Cap LF-1, Bayonet Hood HB-23, Flexible Lens Pouch CL-11

Product brochure

AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED:

Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4G ED:

  • Available in late March 2010
  • A fast, wide-angle lens with a fixed focal length of 24mm at the maximum aperture of f/1.4
  • Fast lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.4 that allows users to capture images with beautiful blur characteristics
  • ED glass and aspherical lens elements are utilized for a new optical design that achieves high resolution and good balance in terms of aberration for pleasing blur characteristics
  • The adoption of Nano Crystal Coat effectively reduces ghost and flare
  • Quiet focusing with built-in Silent Wave Motor (SWM)
  • Two focus modes selectable - M/A and M
Focal length 24mm
Maximum aperture f/1.4
Minimum aperture f/16
Lens construction 12 elements in 10 groups (with two ED glass and two aspherical lens elements, and Nano Crystal Coat)
Angle of view 84° (61° with Nikon DX format)
Closest focusing distance 0.25 m/0.82 ft.
Maximum reproduction ratio 0.18x
No. of diaphragm blades 9 (rounded)
Filter/attachment size 77mm
Diameter x length (extension from the camera’s lens-mount flange) Approximately 83 x 88.5 mm
Weight Approximately 620 g/21.9 oz.
Supplied accessories 77mm Snap-on Front Lens Cap LC-77, Rear Lens Cap LF-1, Bayonet Hood HB-51, Flexible Lens Pouch CL-1118

Product brochure

Full press release after the break:

The Ultra-Wide 16-35mm f/4 VR and Ultra-Fast 24mm f/1.4 Lenses Provide Photographers With New Perspectives and Creative Versatility

MELVILLE, N.Y. (Feb. 8, 2010) – Nikon Inc. today announced two new lenses for professional and enthusiast photographers that epitomize NIKKOR leadership in optical excellence. The highly anticipated AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED lens is engineered to meet the demand for an ultra-fast professional lens for wide angle applications, while the AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR offers Nikon’s widest FX-format focal range with VR, offering additional versatility to a broad range of photographers.

“The 16-35mm f/4 VR and 24mm f/1.4 are two new lenses designed to address the needs of an ever-expanding number of Nikon FX-format photographers, delivering dramatic perspectives, amazing clarity, contrast and color when capturing stills or HD video,” said Edward Fasano, general manager for marketing, SLR Systems Products at Nikon Inc. “Customers that choose these new lenses will experience excellent image quality and sturdy handling, which is made possible through our commitment to excellence and expert NIKKOR engineering.”

World renowned NIKKOR technologies play an essential role in the design of these two new lenses, and both feature Nikon’s exclusive Silent Wave Motor (SWM) technology for quiet, fast and accurate autofocus performance. The optical construction of both lenses also utilizes precision Nikon ED glass elements along with multiple aspherical elements to suppress chromatic aberrations resulting in sharp, high contrast images. Additionally, Nikon’s proprietary Nano-Crystal Coat minimizes instances of internal “ghosting” and flaring, further ensuring exceptional image integrity.

The 24mm f/1.4G ED Lens

Perhaps one of the most hotly anticipated lenses in recent memory, the new AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED lens blends a natural yet versatile 24mm perspective with an ultra-fast f/1.4 aperture to expand an existing collection of well over 60 NIKKOR interchangeable lenses. The f/1.4 maximum aperture allows photographers to shoot handheld in low light and provides dramatic separation between subject and a softened background. In a wide variety of photographic situations, both FX and DX-format shooters will enjoy the benefits of extra-bright f/1.4 viewing, superb image quality and the dramatic perspectives afforded by a picture angle of 84 degrees (61 degrees when mounted on a DX-format body).

The 16-35mm f/4 VR Lens Brings a New Perspective to VR

The new AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR lens is an ideal lens for enthusiasts and professionals craving a constant maximum aperture and ultra-wide angle zoom versatility with the benefits of Nikon’s Vibration Reduction (VR) II image stabilization. As the widest FX-format NIKKOR zoom lens with VR, users can realize the ability to shoot up to four shutter speeds slower than otherwise possible, expanding low light shooting opportunities and contributing to dramatically sharper handheld photography and video capture. Nikon VR II image stabilization technology is engineered specifically for and optimized to function most effectively for each lens, ensuring optimum performance. Whether joining the growing ranks of FX-format photographers or using the Nikon DX-format, photographers will appreciate the perspectives possible when shooting architecture, interiors, landscapes and more.

Pricing and Availability

The versatile, wide angle AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR is scheduled to be available in late February 2010 at Nikon Authorized Dealers with an estimated selling price of $1259.95*. The ultra-fast AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4 G ED lens will be available in late March 2010 for estimated selling price of $2199.95*. For more information, please visit

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • jon

    16-35VR 4.0, does that mean a companion 35-150VR 4.0??? That would make a nice travel kit. Then add a D700, a 50 1.4AFS and a SB900 with off camera cord and I’d be set for a round-the-world trip. Oh yeah – add memory and batts.

    • sflxn

      I was thinking along the same line. If true, I will have my travel kit lenses. Travel is a hobby I take very seriously, and that 16-35VR gets more compelling the more I think about it. Unfortunately, I’m off on a trip next month, and they don’t have companion lens.

      • PHB

        This is the wide end launch. The f/4 telephoto zoom will probably launch with the 85mm f/1.4 prime.

      • Bob

        a good travel lens would be 16-200 VR 2.8

        • sflxn

          Nah, I don’t need a 6lbs lens in front of my camera. I’ll settle for 16-35VR + telephoto zoom + a 1.4 prime.

        • Desinderlase

          For that money better go to the moon and take pictures with your iphone 🙂

  • Martin

    The 16-36 will also appeal to the DX crowd…much like the 17-40 on the Canon side of the fence.

    Ok, on to the next rumors. What’s next admin 🙂

    BTW, as always, good work.

  • aetas

    I have no use for a prime. besides mu 50mm and 105m but I would deal with the weight for a 24-70 with vr2 price and weight no matter

  • C Benson

    If this is Nikon’s big announcements, I would have to say they are way off the mark when it comes to improving their cameras.

    • low

      i think youre right, cause these are lenses not cameras. 😉

  • Gvu


  • nau

    ye ye ye show is over whats next Nikon ?

  • Bob


  • my prayer is answer LOL! now what…..waiting for the 85mm f1.4 AFS

    • C Benson

      You wanted a lens, I wanted a new body. Looks like both of use were disappointed in Nikon. Right now all I can do is shake my head in disbelief.

  • ryba

    Well, nothing what I expected at all… don’t get me wrong – I’d love to own this 24mm lens, I’ve been awaiting it since rumor #1 on it, but even if it is worth its price, it’s far out of my reach. In other words, this lens doesn’t exist for me, at least for now. Like someone else before me – I deflated…

    Which takes me to my other thought. I’ve been an amateur Nikon fan for a while, DX only so far, four lenses, some extra stuff. I’ve spent around $4K+ for my hear altogether to start wondering if Nikon was the right choice, especially when I look at what range of lenses Canon offers for its wider mount… If it takes so much money to bring 1.4 good fast lens by Nikon, then I only expect much better (cheaper) from Canon (and I do realize that many Canon lenses are also expensive)… Isn’t that a last call to switch before spending really big money for the lenses? Wouldn’t that be a smart decision?

    Another question, which I sincerely don’t know the answer to: is it really impossible to produce a satisfactory-quality consumer-level equivalent of this lens at a price range similar to the one of 50mm 1.4G? Will that be that bad or maybe almost equally good? Or isn’t that because Nikon is afraid that the cheaper choice would satisfy 90%+ people and leave this expensive 24mm to real professionals? Because if it is impossible, then decision to switch will be even faster… 😉

    Very glad this lens is out, but this revolution doesn’t apply to me. Well, Nikon, you have 10 more months to come up with something attractive for non-professional users.

    • Anonymous

      Neither can Canon produce a 24/1.4 at the price you want.

      • ryba

        Well, halfway would be fine, $1200 I would be glad to pay, even though it’s big money where I live…

        • Anonymous

          btw, seach youtube for videos on lens manufacturing. i have seen both canon and nikon videos, quite informative. And certainly, still labor intensive.

    • Mark

      The Canon 24 F/1.4L is a $1,700 lens. Yes it’s cheaper, but if a $2K lens is out of your price range, would a $1,700 lens be acceptable? Doesn’t seem to me that the price is too mismatched. Given today’s sensors, a 24 F/1.4 is a highly specialized lens appealing to a very niche market. It’s cool to say that Nikon has one, but like it’s Canon equivalent and the low-selling 28 F/1.4D that preceded it, this lens isn’t part of a main-stream high-end line-up. It’s a tool geared for a specific type of photography — much like the super-telephotos at the other end of the focal length spectrum. For those that need it, the price won’t be an issue.

      Trust me, you’re rant about holes in Nikon’s lens line-up have nothing to do with the technical possibilities or impossibilities of Nikon’s lens mount. It doesn’t matter if it’s Nikon, Canon, or Sony — fast wide glass with dozens of enhanced and corrective elements is expensive to make. Considering that such glass is going into a lens with small market appeal, I think the price is justified.

  • Anonymous

    $2,000 for the 24mm f/1.4, let the whining begin!

    lucky me i still got the good 28mm f/1.4.

  • erich

    so the lost lens number, 2182 and 2184.

    #2181 – AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED (announced April, 2009)
    #2182 – ??? 16-35F4
    #2183 – AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G (announced February, 2009)
    #2184 – ??? 24 F1.4
    #2185 – AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II (announced July, 2009)

  • Gordon

    Just comparing the MTF charts between the 17-35mm f/2.8 and the new 16-35mm f/4 it seems the new lens is only slighly better at the wide end. Doesn’t seem to be as good as the 14-24mm as I was expecting.

  • Could this be the start of a new Nikon trinity of lenses? …16-35…35-105…105-300… all at f/4 … nah

  • Ben

    Well I was hoping for an update to the 17-35 f/2.8. The 16-35 f/4 isn’t exactly that, but it has me thinking about it anyway. I’ll be curious to see review on it. I’ve become accustomed to (spoiled by) f/2.8 lenses though. I guess the VR helps in low light though. Hmmmm

  • ducstar

    That’s it???? No D700 update? 🙁

    • low

      no we’re not gonna see that guy for a while.

  • I like the 24mm and may get it at some point. I am struggling to figure out the intent of the 16-35.

  • longtimenikonshooter

    $2200 is cheap considering old 28mm f/1.4 is over $4500 on ebay. Where can I order it?

  • Alex

    Woah $2500cad, I might as well get the 70-200/2.8VR2….

    • Blah

      If you can’t decide whether you want a 24mm prime or a 70-200 zoom, then you’re probably not in the target market for either. Send me your money instead.

  • Cash

    they do not have much to show, I would say. This is kind of crappy announcement from Nikon. Well but as we all know they are bit slow lately. Service and websites are bad too. So on the other hand Hurray NIKON!!!!! That you managed to get this 2000 USD? thanks for nothing, Nikon is NUTS 😉

    • f/2.8

      These lenses are obviously out of your league in more ways than one. That doesn’t make this a crappy announcements.

  • Dweeb

    Finally something worth looking at. Glad to see the 16-35 is not a toy. Should put the pola and grad people back in the game. Might be time to sell my old 12-24 workhorse. That would require a D700 replacement though. Next up? Remember 12MP is now the new 6MP. Let’s see how this performs at 24MP when it’s available.

  • Joseph

    Okay, both of those lenses look incredible, but can anyone tell me why they are each about $500 more than their Canon equivalents?

    I would like to invest in pro lenses, but I feel like I’ll be out several thousand dollars if I stick with Nikon.

    • ozawa

      Nikkor lenses tend to get more favorable reviews than the Canon equivalents and they know it well. So they charge about 1.2 times more. The same can be said about cameras, too. Compare the price of D3X and 1Ds Mark III.

  • sflxn

    Hmm… So this is NAS. At first, I was, “meh, I already have 14-24.” Then I thought about the weight savings and the VR and the 77mm thread, and now I’m almost at “I’ve gots to have it, my precious.”

  • WAS W8n4D900

    This sucks. Hello Canon D5MkII

  • Seriy

    And the angry Hitler video is coming in 3… 2…

  • Instigator

    It looks like there are a lot of disappointed people here.

    Please, please do make the switch to Canon, GF-1, …

    So that I can benefit from the 2nd hand market.
    And when Nikon noticed the trend and they revise their price down, I will benefit again.

    Please, please make the switch! I am counting on you! Thanks!

    • Chas

      Already made the switch to the GF1 with the 20mm pancake lens. Sold my D700. Good riddance.

  • bendover

    Im so happy Nikon has a fast wide prime with AFS.
    Been waiting years and years patiently for this specific FL (24mm 1.4).
    24mm is my favorite wide angle FL. 2.8 is too slow, and 1.4 is perfect!~

    Have been tempted by Canons 24mm 1.4L Ver I for $1200 at the time.
    Lost some interest w/ Canons 24mm 1.4L Ver II for $1700 price.

    Then Feared Nikon would charge $1800 for their 24mm 1.4.
    But at $2,200… the gravity of this new reality has sobered my intentions/dreams.

    Maybee its the yen, mabyee its supply/demand. Maybee it seems like prices are getting stupid crazy.
    Maybee I need a stiff drink and downgrade to a Holga.

    • Pat

      get on with it, pal, the new Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS macro cost $1000, almost $100 higher than Nikon’s 105mm f/2.8VR. The latest Canon pro lenses (like 17mm T/S ) are not cheap at all…

      • bendover

        No worries Pat. I’ll just buy the $3,000 Nikon 85mm 1.4 when it comes out. 😉

        • sflxn

          85/1.4 won’t cost $3,500. Wide angle primes are more expensive than their mid-tele counterparts. However, expect it to be $1400-1600.

          • f/2.8

            Shows how diddly people know about the difference between a fast wide prime and a med. telephoto.

          • bendover

            The current Nikon 85mm 1.4 is a good value. Thats why I own one. However, you shouldn’t expect the next 85/1.4 by Nikon to be $1600, when the Canon ver is $2k.

            Regardless, Nikon made what seems to be a fantastic 24mm 1.4 lens. However the tradeoff is paying for that craftsmanship. No complaints or crying here. However, At this point in time, Im not worthy.

  • Seriy

    I cannot believe this:
    You can get a 70-200 f/2.8 for $2,329, and 14-24mm f/2.8 for $1,825, but the 24 f/1.4 is $2,200. This lens is clearly overpriced.

  • grumps

    I’m estatic about the 24mm f/1.4G but very disappointed in the 16-35mm that it couldn’t be a f/2.8. One stop, but I personally I hope Nikon will still bring something faster, very disappointed.

  • Bob

    It has begun again–the WHINING, the incessant WHINING, about Nikon’s high prices. Just sad to hear so many grown people cry and moan about something they’ll never purchase, and never intended to purchase in the first place. Probably same crybabies that complain that a Porshe 911 is too expensive, as if they were going to actually purchase one.

    Fast glass has always been expensive. Nothing has changed in the past 30+ years. If you want cheap, there’s Quantaray or some other crap.

  • disco

    damned if you do, damned if you

    don’t. bunch of whiners.

  • Jørgen

    Great work NR. We absolutely read it first here!

  • Bob

    To all the whiners complaining about Nikon’s high prices, here’s the perfect camera with lens for you, at a great price:

    • Anonymous

      i so want that camera.

    • Anonymous

      Some of us just can’t afford glass that cost more than our bodies.

      No one is saying awesome glass that’s difficult to engineer and manufacture should be cheap.

      We just get super bummed when we can’t afford it. The 35 1.8 DX, fast, awesome glass, cheap. We like that. Even the new AFS 50 1.4 is reasonably priced.

      Can’t we hope out loud that a real nice 24 1.4 would be affordable ?

      • Dr SCSI

        Yes you can, “hope out loud that a real nice 24 1.4 would be affordable”, just like I can hope out loud that the Corvette ZR1 with 625HP wil soon replace my Ford Focus for the same amount of money! 🙂
        A friend of mine had a saying, “Champaign tastes on a beer budget!”.

        I can’t afford the ZR1, well actually I probably could, but at the cost of a divorce; however, I can sneak great Nikon glass in the house without having to consult a lawyer first. 😉

        • aetas

          I guess if we were on a car rumor website the idea would make since. But this is “Nikon Rumors” a camera site. So when something comes out that we see as overpriced then we are going to mention it. Just like if a new audi came out and the audi guys said it was over priced.

  • i am now more keen to make the switch!…

    where is the new DSLR ?

  • Chris P

    Had to visit this morning, if I could have placed a bet on the comments that I was sure I would see on the new lenses I would have won a fortune.

    “They are far too expensive” “The Canon version is so much cheaper” “Nikon is ripping us off” etc, etc, etc.

    A lot of people still do not seem to realise that there is nothing truer than the old British saying that “You cannot buy a Rolls Royce for Ford prices”. The other thing is that at release the prices quoted are the list prices which will soon drop. The 70-200 f2.8 was available for pre order at £2,000, now it can be bought for £1,700 a reduction of 15%, so take 15% off the list prices and that’s what it will be selling at by the summer.

    Now for the next bet, how long will it be before the first idiot points a high powered torch into the lens and declares that it’s got ‘speckles’ or some other defect. They of course will not have taken any photos with it as they never actually use there cameras for photography.

    • Dr SCSI

      +1 ROFLMFAO!!

      “how long will it be before the first idiot points a high powered torch into the lens and declares that it’s got ’speckles’ or some other defect”

      It is all about the end game, in the END, Nikon’s got GAME!

  • this has been said many times, but i felt this was necessary to say again.

    as a professional Photographer, especially one who shoots alot of Night Clubs so speed and wide angle are important to me, i held Very high hopes for the 24 1.4, and truthfully felt that it would be justified with a higher than average price tag. but $2200 is WAY more than Higher than Average! That is a simple Gauge of the consumer! $1000-$1300 would have been an acceptable Price tag for this lens, and it would have sold in high quantities at that price i believe. but at $2200, ill be lucky if i can afford to rent it now and then… suffice it to say i am immensely dissapointed, and sincerely hope that Nikon reads this.

    • sflxn

      Nikon, Canon, and Zeiss are all laughing at your proposed price.

    • Char

      Did you check the price of the Canon 24/1.4? Probably not.

      • Yes, the Canon 24mm F/1.4L II that runs $1,699 on B&H. I am perfectly aware of this as my wife shoots Canon and has wanted that lens for the same purpose for some time. Last night when i posted that original post I admit that i spoke irrationally out of an ill-concieved hope that this lens might open up the avaliablility for a shooter like myself to use. But you are still looking at at least a $500 price gap between “equivalent” products. Besides which, i dont know how many of you shoot professionally or what you shoot professionally, but i make my living of nightclubs and simple portraits. The portraits are occasionally at best and the nightclubs i get just $100 for the night, and i have to fight for that because there are so many people who call themselves professionals but will do it for free! how am i supposed to compete when my expences cant even be covered, let alone get ahead enough to afford top of the line equiptment!

    • Dr SCSI

      As a professional, I am certain you like to get PAID for the photographs you make. Nikon likes to get PAID for the lenses they make…take a closer look at the specifications on this lens and you will find that on paper it should be one hell of a performer. For $2200, I will wait for the reviews to confirm what the paper is claiming. But if I know Nikon, their $2200 price tag is justified for their top notch work. A $1000-$1300 24mm f/1.4 would only be a decent to good performer at best, for a decent to good photographer asking average prices for his average work. Where do you fit Doug?

  • Segura

    I have a 14-24mm f/2.8 and am considering parting ways with it for the 16-35mm f/4. Anyone else in the same situation? I just bought a Lee Filter Kit and now I can use it on this lens when using some ND Grads.
    Second, the limited range of the 14-24mm. Beautiful, but I found myself changing lenses a lot to the 24-70mm f/2.8.
    I can live with losing a stop, as long as the D700 replacement gets me 2 stops better performance.
    Who else is parting with their 14-24mm? Am I making a mistake? I already posted it on FredMiranda . . . and will sleep on it.

    • santela

      I don’t have a 14-24… but if I were in the market for one, I would also reconsider and get the 16-35 instead. It’s lighter, more range, takes filters, and a whole lot cheaper. The only thing to lose is the one stop, which isn’t a big deal anyway on ultra-wides.

      • PHB

        You also lose 2mm off the wide end.

        That corresponds to 114-84 vs 107-63 degrees.

        If you wait a short while the price will come down and you may find you can keep both.

      • Dweeb

        So far no one has been talking distortion. We’ll see how the 2 compare. If this was released first I wouldn’t have bought the 14-24 and lose filtration and protection. Considering the lengths people will go to to put a grad on the 14-24 and loose half the length, the 16-35 fits the bill and gives you a lot extra out to 35mm plus VRII. Have to wait for the pundits to weigh in.

    • Ben

      I’m in the same boat except I don’t own the 14-24. I’ve been heavily considering it for a long time though, but this 16-35mm makes me reconsider. I like that it can take filters and I would be less worried about damaging the glass. I just have to get comfortable with the idea of f/4 instead of f/2.8 and I will want to see how well the 16-35mm performs. I don’t expect it to beat the 14-24mm in terms of distortion, but I hope it’s very close.

    • Dr SCSI


      My gut says, “Keep the 14-24, it is a GREAT lens and will continue to be a GREAT lens.” But to give decent advice, I have to know what you plan on shooting with your gear. It sounds like you are a street shooter, or vacation shooter, setting out for a day of shooting, but not sure what your after until you see it. If this is the case, get a second camera body and carry two cameras with the lenses you most use for the focal lengths you most shoot. My problem is deciding what gear to take when I set out for the unknown; that’s when I usually just take it all. 🙁 I have a decent selection of glass, both zooms and primes, but since I like low light photography, I am leaning towards more fast primes. If you don’t know what your preference is in gear, go back and look at the EXIF data of all your pictures, especially the ones you like; look at the focal lengths and the f stop. This should help you decide…


  • Jason

    All this talk about prices and whether a pro would buy these lenses misses what for me is the real point here, which is:

    Doesn’t the 16-35mm/f4 look long and thin for a wide-angle lens?

    I mean seriously, I expect a WA to be short and fat, or have a weird bug-eye front element. Truly I know nothing whatsoever about optics

    • nobody

      It only looks thin because it is so long!!!

  • Char

    Hmmm. I would have liked it much better if the 16-35 had come without VR but for 200$ less instead. The lens will be spending quite some time on a tripod anyways. Shutter speeds between 1s and 1/50s are pretty rare for me on a wide angle. During daytime, I get faster speeds than 1/50s at ISO 100 and f/8, more so when using an FX body with a base ISO of 200. During dusk / dawn and night I would pretty much always use a tripod anyways (in quite some cases, I would use a tripod also during daytime).

    So, what the hell shall I do with VR on such a lens? Rather useless feature, at least for me.

    • PHB

      Nikon already has a two non-VR lenses in this range – the 14-24 and 17-35.

      Given that VR adds weight and introduces a significant design constraint, it makes sense to offer a choice of lenses with and without VR. The 14-24 is big enough and heavy enough as is.

      Expecting Nikon to produce cheap FX lenses is like expecting Jaguar to sell a bargain basement version of their XJ8 limo.

  • Chris P

    The fact that the 16-35 has VR and is long and slim shows just how much the very active, as in a few people shouting loudly from the rooftops, video shooters are having.

    • disco


  • Jørgen

    In Norway the 24 will have a pricetag of 19500 NOK = $3300!! OUCH!!

  • Slashcode

    someone are disappointed about the sharpness of the 16 35. Look at the published MTFs, it’s as sharp as the 14-24, only a very little worse in 1 mm at the corner. Let’s wait for the real performance to prove this.

    • Gordon

      You are right, now that I’ve gotten home from work and reviewed the MTF charts more it does seem much sharper then the 17-35mm, however edge sharpness still seems to take a dive compared to the 14-24mm.

  • Anonymous

    This is Landscape without tripod exactly what I wanted thanks Nikon you the BEST!!!!!!

    • DC

      Glad you’re happy, Ken.

  • Torben

    I like the price of the 24mm, that’s only a few hours of work for me and it will keep the stupid poor people away.

    • b

      two days for me…

      • PHB

        Or an hour and ten minutes for Elliot Spitzer’s ‘girlfriend’.

    • daniel

      1,5 months for me u_u

  • The lenses may sen very good but we are waiting for a new camera body has been somewhat disappointing.
    All of us have great profesioneles but not money to buy the D3X, and do some advertising, we are crying out for a camera of at least 16 mp or more. We will continue waiting.
    Congratulations on the blog.
    Desde Argamasilla de Alba. Spain.

  • Daf

    I wants the precious!!

    Wonder what kind of price it will actually sell for.
    According to Google:
    2 199.95 U.S. dollars = 1 406.61765 British pounds

    More likely to go for the D700 1st

  • zen-tao

    I can’t believe it. A lens, no matter how many technologies are involved in, cost no less than 1200 USD with the astonishing aperture of f:4. Where are the people claiming for the virtues of a f.1,4 wide angle ? . “laugh out loud”.
    Besides I have to read the commentary that NR makes who says:… new optical design that achieves high resolution and …good balance!… in terms of aberration for pleasing blur characteristics…” Come on guys if you wan to make publicity you should be more enthusiastic.
    2200 USD wow! I have a 24mm f:2,8 manual I’ll keep it like gold dust. However If any one wants to buy it I sell it for 1995 USD (Or Euros, Cheer up!) I’m learning Nikon’s marketing techniques.

  • Marcel

    Finally, but 2200 USD or Euro’s … are they nuts? Similar lens at the Canon camp cost half as much … lnag anticipated, will anticipate a little more …

  • I am definitely getting the 16-35, just because of how often I use my 24-70 over my 14-24mm for landscapes just to be able to use my filters. It’ll be great to be able to use filters at 16mm. And at $1300, that’s cheaper than I was expecting, honestly.

    And I wasn’t gonna be interested in the 24mm f/1.4, because I figured, “eh, at the focal length the bokeh won’t be that great.” But after seeing those sample images, that 24mm would be an amazing portrait lens for the style of portraits I’m most interested in doing (wide, environmental portraits.) But, I don’t think that I’ll have the money for that just yet. Gonna have to save up for that one.

    Very nice night for me, that’s for sure.

    Great coverage, admin.

  • RumpelHund

    Looking at the 16-35’s MTF it clearly shows to be in the pro league:
    It has the larger high performance area, nearly as good as 14-24 and 24-70 except for the outmost edges and outperforms resolutionwise the 17-35 and 18-35 easily.


    The only issue I could see is that the distortion as seen in
    gives elements off the center some 2d-look for which I disliked&sold my 12-24 in DX times. The 14-24 shows no such uglyness as far as I’ve witnessed yet, neither did the 17-35 when I owned it in film times.

    Anyone with an idea if same angle lenses can really give different appearance of the motive bejond pure DOF and FOV?

  • Nikonmonster

    Leica 24 1.4 is $6500 so stop it.

    • zen-tao

      We are not Brunei’s Sultans. If you can afford that may be better changing to Hasselblad equipment. It would be likely a very good lens but not as much to justify such a price. Sensors doesn’t reach as much sharpness like that lens and it’s likely they wouldn’t.

  • Back to top