Weekly Nikon news flash #333

Sigma 24-35mm f:2 DG HSM Art lens 2
→ The Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art lens is now in stock at almost all major retailers (B&H, AdoramaAmazon USAmazon UKAmazon Germany and Amazon France).

Sample photos taken with the new Zeiss Milvus lenses. See also Ming Thein's thoughts on the Milvus line.

→ The latest Nikon deals:

→ Nikon Behind The Scenes: Get closer with macro lenses.

→ Nikon Asia posted several videos on Mongolia from their Exploring Nikkor Lenses series. Here are few more videos on the different lenses used in the video:

This entry was posted in Weekly Nikon News Flash. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • T.I.M

    The 24-120mm f/4 VR at $500 is a steal, if I had extra money I would buy an other one, just in case I break mine.
    Again, it’s a great zoom lens, sharp all the way !

    • Spy Black

      You’re not related to Andrew, are you?

      • Eric Calabros

        No, but Andrewism is spreading

        • mikeswitz

          Wait….I thought I was the bully.

      • T.I.M

        as my mother in law you should now….

        • Spy Black

          Oh, that’s right, I forgot you two were separated at birth…

    • Though the 24-120mm is a great lens. I just don’t get why are you so into it like you are advertising it.
      And IMHO, I still prefer the 24-70 2.8G (I’ve read your love for the lens already, I just wanted to say)

      • T.I.M

        I had 2 of the 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S but I like the 24-120mm f/4 VR better (D800 + ISO 400)

        • fanboy fagz

          you had 2 x 24-70 AFS 2.8 lenses and you prefer the 24-120? on a D800? somethings very off with that? the 24-120 is not exactly a stellar performer. the sigma 24-105 ART is much sharper. why do you prefer the 24-120? curious.

          • T.I.M

            well mine is VERY sharp, not as sharp as a Nikon f/1.4 prime, but very close.
            If I had to choose one zoom lens in Nikon’s collection, I keep the 24-120mm f/4 VR (note that the older versions were BAD)
            Here is how I would rate my Nikon primes:
            #1: AF-S 200mm f/2 VR
            #2: AF-S 35mm f/1.4
            #3: AF-I 400mm f/2.8
            #4: AF-D 50mm f/1.4
            #5: AF-S 85mm f/1.4
            #6: AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR micro
            #7: PC-E 24mm f/3.5E
            #8: AF-D 18mm f/2.8
            #9: AI-s 55mm f/2.8 micro
            #10: AF-S x1.4 II
            #11: AF-S x1.7 II

            • nwcs

              Lol, no way is the 50 1.4D sharper than the 85 1.4G. The last two make no sense at all. They aren’t primes.

            • T.I.M

              They are all sharp and very close, or they won’t be in my camera bag.
              Teleconverters are for prime lenses, I tried the AF-S x2.0 III but it was a little too soft.

            • nwcs

              No way. I have the 85 and had the 50. No comparison. Teleconverters are for zooms and primes but are not appropriate for a list of sharp primes.

            • fanboy fagz

              Now I dont believe you for a millisecond. Ive used the 200F/2 and its an amazingly sharp. so is the 85 1.4G. once you use these lenses, anything less is just a piece a garbage. so when you tell me you prefer the 24-120 ( a pretty shitty performer) over the 24-70G, not for a millisecond do I believe your post. all 24-120 are shit. the newest one is less so, but still shit. and if you tell me because of weight then youre a liar. weight! hahaha, said the main who uses heavy primes. and @nwcs:disqus is absolutely right, the 50 1.4d is not a better performer than the 85 1.4g AND the 105VR AND the 55 2.8 micro which are all amazingly sharp. so I call bs. big stinky smelly BS

            • T.I.M

              did you take your pills ?

            • fanboy fagz

              ah, crap, forgot. thanks for the reminder.

  • br0xibear

    Nikon 24mm F1.8G Unboxing (and “Sniff Test” if that’s your thing, lol)


    • not again 🙂

      • br0xibear

        Lol, there’s nothing else to post. No one seems to be talking, hinting or leaking anything ?, new equipment fatigue.
        Must be due to that asteroid that’s supposed to hit earth next week ?

        • Yes, it is very slow and I don’t expect this to change until 2016.

    • EnPassant

      If Jared only once had inhaled the exquisite scent from the ever-ready case for my old Exakta camera he would not do these silly sniff tests.

      • br0xibear

        Yeah, reminds me of being in darkrooms and saying to anyone new “smell this, it’s really nice”, and handing them a bottle of stop bath.

  • As an aside to the moderator — the ad blocker I’m now using on iOS makes this site unreadable (as in nothing appears). If this is deliberate then you might want to at least indicate as much. (I have multiple browsers on my devices, so I can switch browsers to view a specific site.) If it’s not deliberate, you probably want to know!

    • I was not aware of that and I am not sure I can do anything about it – I think you should contact the ad blocker company. I use a mobile theme and I think your app is blocking the theme.

      • I’m using Crystal — one of the more popular (non-free) iOS Content Blockers. So far I’ve experienced no negative impact anywhere else (apparently cnet complains, but who needs cnet?). Using Safari’s developer mode to impersonate an iPhone, it looks to me like you’re loading fonts, etc., from a foreign domain that is also injecting snooper code (“csi”) into the page (which probably gets those blocked).

        • I really have no idea where this is coming from – it could be from the ads, from the Facebook/Twitter buttons, from the mobile theme. Can you see the domain name? Let’s put it this way – I have not changed anything in the past few days, I assume the problem started after you upgraded to iOS 9? I have a bunch of apps that are also crashing with iOS 9.

          • Graham Sumner

            Hi NR – it’s been a problem for me for a couple of weeks. I think that your site is hanging on the Twitter link but I’m not sure. It’s very annoying and sometimes is permanent, requiring a shutdown/restart of Chrome.

          • Oh yes it’s definitely caused by ad blockers in iOS9. My point is simply that your site is not going to work well for visitors using iOS9 with (some) ad-blockers switched on.

    • nwcs

      Crystal didn’t work for me but Blockr works great.

    • spicynujac

      I think this is iOS9 related, not ad block related. I use router-based ad blocker software on open tomato (ie every device on my network has ads blocked in hardware) and the site works fine here.

      • I think so too, see my other comment. Apple did change the default fonts in iOS 9, so this is probably related.

      • Nope it’s ad-block related. And, incidentally, nikonrumors loads a ludicrous amount of horrible stuff.

        • not sure what you mean with “horrible stuff”

          • neversink

            He means posts from Tonio Loewald…..

          • 51 javascript files…

    • Wade Marks

      Here’s a tip: on iOS 9 Safari, if you are using an ad blocker and want to disable it for that site, press and hold on the refresh symbol in the address bar, and you will get an option to turn off the ad blocker for that site.

  • spicynujac

    The 14-24 for less than $1,400 is very tempting–never seen a deal on this lens. However, after a lot of reading, I am hesitant when one compares to the 16-35mm. You lose the 14-16mm range, but in return get a ~30% lighter lens, smaller, with VR, takes filters and at least $400 cheaper (16-35 currently < $1,000 on ebay). I would be ultra paranoid about the lack of a clear UV filter protecting my 14-24 lens, plus I think it an ultra wide would be most fun when traveling, where the smaller weight and size of the 16 give it the advantage.

    The 16-35 is a stop slower, but I never find I'm needing a ton of light with UWA lenses. Photography Life, cameralabs, KR all give it high marks. I read some user reviews of people who quit using the 14-24 for the lighter 16-35 as it performs almost the same in real world usage. The main drawback of the 16-35 seems to be the FX corners are not that sharp (but I think that's only in comparison to the almost perfect 14-24). Anyway, either would be an improvement over my Sigma 10-20 DX.

    • Don’t belive all that the reviews say. If you care about distortion, coma, astigmatism, and edge sharpness wide open, then you might want to steer clear of 16-35. It is an overhyped and overvalued lens. And I have this lens.Highly dissatisfied and thinking of selling it off.

    • fanboy fagz

      take a look at the tamron 15-30 2.8 VC.

      both dpreview and nasim from photographylife said its stellar. my friend has this AND the 14-24 (which stopped working) and he was shocked how little distortion there is. I have a to get a video showing his gear. he has amazing gear and has now stopped buying nikon lenses altogether. ill get a video soon. he has two 70-200 VR2 lenses 1 has VR issues after 5 years of use. the other 1.5 years of use and the rubber is off and the focus is slipping proper locking. he has the tamron 70-200 VC he bought and uses that with both D4s. nikon would love to see this. he also bought the sigma 24-35 ART just two weeks ago and said hes done with nikon. I will get a video soon.

      “Lastly, at $1200 MSRP, the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC presents amazing value when compared to the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G, which retails for $700 more and offers less. Based on all this, it is hard to continue to recommend the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G to our readers anymore, as the Tamron holds better overall value…”

      its $1400 grey but not full warranty. only 1 year vs 6 of the tamron

      • spicynujac

        Thanks. Looks interesting; however, with the current deal, they are almost the same price (Tamron $1,200 and Nikon $1,350). Considering you still can’t put a protective filter on the Tamron, and they are both incredibly heavy, is it still competitive when it costs roughly the same as the Nikon?
        I’ve been buying 3rd party for years, but I always thought if money was no object Nikon lenses were better.. Perhaps not? Only 4 reviews for the Tamron on B&H versus 565 for the Nikon. A lot of people refuse to consider 3rd party. But still I’m not sure on this one… Where exactly does the Tamron beat the Nikon?

        • fanboy fagz

          depends on you. if you dont feel comfortable buying 3rd party, I can understand. the 16-35 has the plus of using a filter. I dont think distortion is an issue really.

          thats dpreview


          and photographylife


          he says there is no comparison between the 16-35 vs the tamron. if IQ is what you need then the tamron is the winner, if you need filters, then theres no better option. you can use filters with the tamron. its just that they sell them at ripoff prices. Im surprised no one made a 3d template model so people can send them to labs to get them made on a 3d printer.

    • neversink

      I have both, plus the 17-35. I love the 14-24, but it is a heavy beast. Certainly the sharpest of the three. However, the 16-35 isn’t bad, but the 17-35 is better. The only problem with the 17-35 if/2.8 is that mine has been to Nikon three times and still the same problem. The diaphragm gets stuck wide open and won’t shut down!!!!

  • Is it just me or do others think the word “wild” used in a video about zoo animals is a bit ………………… I don’t the know the word.

    • TheInfinityPoint


      • Lettie Moore

        my associate’s stride close friends makes $98 an hour on the portable workstation……….Afterg an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 97 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online.….. Weekly paycheck… Bonus opportunities…earn upto $16k to $19k /a month… Just few hours of your free time, any kind of computer, elementary understanding of web and stable connection is what is required…….HERE I STARTED…look over here
        ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ===================== www.CashNet50.Com

        ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉.

  • SamsungR&D

    We provide sensor tech to Sony, they resell it to Nikon. Already 2 gens behind the upcoming NX2.

  • spicynujac

    Those reviews have convinced me to wait for the next Tamron rebate and buy the 15-30mm lens. Without a rebate, I’d probably pay the $150 and get the Nikon which goes 1mm wider (4 degrees FOV) and is 100g lighter, but I am surprised to see that the Tamron actually outperforms the Nikon in sharpness. Thanks for sharing this.

  • onthedot

    Boy, that Sigma 24-35mm is sure a short zoom. I wonder if people would be that into it. For that range, you can practically step forward o backward a few steps..

  • Back to top