Thread: Nikon 16-35mm VR & 24mm 1.4G

I think I know | Nikon Rumors

24mm f/1.4 G
16-35mm f/4 VR

****, February could be very expensive for me if those are true.

Either.


Of..


Them...


/gearfoggotry

The 16-35 would be pretty freaking sweet, especially when paired with a D700. Hopefully it'll be cheaper than the 17-35 f/2.8.

That curve does not allow you to backpedal without the use of a flux capacitor.

$1k would be a rad price. Above canon's 17-40 but adds VR and goes to 16 (which I'll trade the 36~40 for any day). If it's ~$1k, that'd mean I could sell my 14-24 and get the 16-35mm AND another 12-24mm for when I NEED the crazy wide. Plus normal filters for landscaping. I'd loose 2.8 and wicked AF for Elias around the house though... That's fun, but doesn't make me any money....

Nice! I'm hoping they have the new TCs I'm in the market for a Nikon long tele lens and it looks like I'm leaning towards the 200-400 with a 1.4/1.7 combo...

you better come to the airshow/bbq this summer with whatever you get....

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

you better come to the airshow/bbq this summer with whatever you get....

If I'm around - absolutely!! I've heard about the legendary airshow/bbq fun!! Would NOT want to miss it! Right now leaning towards a Nikon 200-400 with 1.4II and a Wimberly Sidekick (already have a monopod).

^ nice, we'll set that up in the backyard for Elias/dog pics.

and the party will be less legendary this year with Kiki and Luca having a **** trophy now as well.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

^ nice, we'll set that up in the backyard for Elias/dog pics.

and the party will be less legendary this year with Kiki and Luca having a **** trophy now as well.

I will be using this lens a LOT once I buy it ...need to justify the cost somehow! BTW: this was Pete's idea to get the lens

I like Pete, can I marry him instead?

After I get the lens

100%! | Nikon Rumors

As reported last week, the new Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR and 24mm f/1.4 lenses will be released tomorrow. Now 100%. You better believe it!

so it looks like nikon rumors is confirming both lenses now?

oh hai matt!
Rumor: Nikkon AF-S 50mm f/1.2 | Nikon Rumors
There is a patent for a new Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.2G lens | Nikon Rumors

rumor has it tonight at 11pm~midnight there will be an announcement. the 24mm and 16-35mm are both very likely but some people have said there will be more than one fast prime:

8:40 am – The Japanese site dc.watch published an interview with Mr. Nobuaki Sasagaki, marketing chief for Nikon Imaging (English translation).

On the question about upcoming products:

“明るい単焦点レンズと高性能な小型ズームレンズを投入”

“We will have several large aperture prime lenses and light compact zoom lens this year”

several huh?

Details on DPReview now, Ben. Both confirmed.

pricing? Looks like I have boxes to take to work tomorrow...

Oh, snap... so Ben, you gonna ditch the 14-24 for the 16-35?

It will come down to pricing honestly. The bummer is both of these lenses are as big as the II versions of canon's Ls. I didn't like the 16-35mm because of it's size/weight and price. I don't like the 14-24mm for the same reason although it's rad optically. But Nikon's press release mentions affordable twice and they're chasing a $750 17-40L with less range but IS. If it's ~$1k I'll probably jump on it, but it will also come down to what 14-24mms get used these days. This will also come down to the price of the 24mm. If I could sell the 14-24mm, 24mm and 50mm and trade even I'll do it. But I'd bet with Nikon's pricing/tax one will be ~$1k or more and the other $1500 or more. So we'll see.

Anyone see any prices anywhere?

Nikon releases 24mm f/1.4 G ED fast wideangle lens: Digital Photography Review

24N: 83 x 88.5mm 620g
24L: 83.5 X 77.4mm 550g
24II: 83.5 X 86.9mm 650g
24S: 79 x 84mm 485g

Nikon 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR stabilized ultra-wide zoom: Digital Photography Review

16-35VR: 83 x 125mm 680g
17-40: 83.5 x 96.8mm 475g
16-35: 83.5 x 103mm 600g
16-35II: 88.5 x 112mm 640
14-24: 98 x 131mm 1000g

I can only afford to spend what I make selling my current lenses, so the pricing will be a huge factor for me. But the 14-24mm is optically fantastic, but can't take filters easily. It's wider for architecture and it works inside for shots of Elias, but it's got some barrel distortion that makes it less wide. You guys know me, I like to know by trying, so I'd love to get one and try it. I can always switch back if I don't like it... So if I can swing it I'd bet I grab them both and see.

4 stop VR on the 16-35mm is pretty rad though. That makes it 3 stops faster than a 2.8 zoom if you're not stopping motion. That's rad for landscapes/travel shooting honestly, like REALLY awesome, but I use a tripod a lot and VR won't help with Elias....

I wonder when they'll be available too? I don't want to not have the 14-24 for a long time.

ugh, looking at prices, it looks like the only way I can do this is if I go all in...
The 50 is $430 these days, the 24mm is $450 and the 14-24mm $1825.
So I might get ~$2300 for all three?

If I do, and the 16-35mm is ~$1k, then the 24 will have to be <$1300 to work.

so yeah, it'll all come down to pricing...

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...=7-10048-10488

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 www.nikonusa.com.

the sad part is, my knee jerk reaction to those prices is wondering about selling the 24-70G and getting some other mid range zoom (or keeping the 50G).

Anddddd the D700* lust comes back with a fury of 1000 suns...


But damn that 24 is pricey. MORE than the 14-24? Wtf?

Fast, Wide, and Handsome Photo Traveler

ugh, the problem is I want the 24 more than anything else at this point. I've been hating the siggy more and more every time I use it. It's OK optically, but the build is just terrible. The clutch just robs it of that nice stiff prime feeling. I desperately miss my 24L... So we'll see. I'll probably wait a bit now just to see where the prices really land as both are so expensive they're not going to cause a flood of other lenses for sale IMHO. Maybe street prices will settle in at a bit more reasonable price. If I put the 24-70G in play it works out, but I've been liking that lens far more than my primes on the D700, but I have crappy primes.



****ing Nikon tax.

I just want a D700 and 16-35. You can take the rest.

>$2k?? WTF? Way behind on this kind of lens, and then introducing it at a pretty non-competitive price? (yes, I'm sure it will be awesome). Ugh, this is a big reason I switched, and the same reason I don't have a Leica.

Not hating on Nikon, just a little perplexed and empathizing with the Noinks who won't be able to get that fine piece of glass.

Ben, I don't know what I'd do if I were you. Ugh.

yeah, I've been running every option I can think of through my head. The only way I can get the 24mm is if I sell my 24-70G as well, or save for a long long time. Not sure what I want to do as that WAS my favorite lens on my canon, but since I've switched I've been using 2.8s more with Elias (the ISOs are just enough cleaner it's an option, but NOT a great one) and I've also been shooting the 50mm a bit more. Not my favorite FL, but I like the lens better than the sigma. It's weird, when I had the siggy 20 and 24L I didn't mind the siggy that much. I actually considered selling the 24L and just keeping the 20. Now with a very similar 24mm, I HATE it. A bit part of that though is the aperture ring, something I HATE on older Nikon lenses. The lens has some play in it basically. The 20 was the same when I had it for a week so I know it's normal. But the 24L was just SOLID....



I'm wondering if the price will come down over time? ugh. I mean christ, it's MORE EXPENSIVE than the already expensive 24-70G... What the **** is that? I figured ~$1800 was going to be the worst case, this is 25% above that. I could sell the 24-70G for it, then I'd need a midrange zoom. But I only use my midrange for studio right now and the odd portrait shoot with Nikki/Elias only because I don't love the primes I have right now.

I'm even on the fence about the 16-35 honestly. The 14-24mm box did come to work today, but still. Part of it is not knowing when the 16-35mm will be available. I have 2 shoots on the schedule that are architecture and I don't want to have to rent if I can avoid it. But I also wonder about losing the width @ 14mm for architecture as well as 2.8 for Elias around the house. Is it worth it to save ~$400 tops? I get my 10 stop on wide angles back though, and double stacked filters. Had this and the 24mm been less expensive, so selling the 14-24, 24 and 50 to fund the 16-35mm and 24mm, it would have been a no brainer, but the fact that I'd just "downgrade" (more of a side step really) the 14-24mm w/o pimping the prime makes it much less appealing.

In the end I KNOW I'll own that 24mm. It's just a question of what will I have to do to get it, and how long will that take. That's why I'm considering selling the 24-70 for it. Not because I don't like the 24-70, but because I'd rather have the 24 now and be saving towards the 24-70. I'd get some normal mid range zoom to hold it's place while I saved towards it but have my ideal prime that I miss so much right now.

Seeing those prices, I just can't believe that people bitch about the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 being $400.

Switch back to Canon?

j/k

Originally Posted by Idjiit

Seeing those prices, I just can't believe that people bitch about the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 being $400.

but it's not sealed and doesn't have a distance markings!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Occytron

Switch back to Canon?

that thought had briefly crossed my mind. I just love the D700 though, it's only missing video in terms of being perfect for me, but FPS and FF combined is just awesome. I'll have to be patient to be able to afford this 24mm, but the price is the ONLY issue I have with my potential lineup right now, that and deciding between the 16-35mm and 14-24mm as they both have unique abilities and I use (or would) them both....

The pricing on the 24 f/1.4 doesn't surprise me, to be honest, as that's in line with what the old one cost. It's still absurdly expensive, but it will probably be epic.

I was hoping the 16-35 would've been cheaper, but at least it's $500 less than the old 17-35.

but canon's 24LII is $1700. That's a $500 or almost 1/3 difference? Nikon's own overpriced 24-70mm is ~$400 less.
and I'm bitching because I know I'll eventually choke that down and own one... I'm just bummed at the time frame before eventually gets here.

and yes, I also hoped the 16-35II would have been ~$1k. That at $1k and the 24 @ $~$1799 would have meant I'd be able to buy both right away...

and the 28mm aspect almost pisses me off more. It's ~$4k and considered "worth it"? Nikon discontinued it for god knows what reason, but sold just enough to make them fetch waaaaaay too much online used (probably not anymore). But that issue will feed into people snatching up the 24mm even if they're not sure it's for them I'm sure. There's a thread on dpreview about it questioning the FL and why they'd pick that, but then a bunch of guys jump in defending it. I just hope they don't stop making these.

who do they think they are though, leica? (I'm hoping their design team does!)

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

who do they think they are though, leica? (I'm hoping their design team does!)

Well, devil's advocate here, but... have you actually looked up the price for the Leica 24/1.4? It's $7,000, manual focus and isn't weather sealed.

no, I'm afraid to look at leica gear, online or in person.

Look at it. Look at it.

bob posted about the 16-35mm VR now too: Fast, Wide, and Handsome II Photo Traveler

pocast with bob christ about the 2 new lenses:
http://blog.nikonians.org/archives/2..._the_imag.html

24mm samples on dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/re...ples/slideshow

nice, both look shorter (compared to their thickness at least) in dpreview's shots:

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

24mm samples on dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/re...ples/slideshow

The last shot is wide open, too. Be sure to view it at full res! It's INSANE for f/1.4.

yeah, I did.

I just can't wait for the 16-35mm to ship so I can sell the rest of the crap I need to to order up the 24mm.....

apparently 16-35mms are available!?!

the shipper just called, mine arrive today. Surprises from China are one thing, but a surprise lens from NYC?! My lightbox at work has been dismantled though (they put a door in where it was last night? ) so no pics of it today. Nice size to it though. A lot bigger than a 17-40L unfortunately but a LOT smaller than the 14-24mm which will be nice. Feels a lot lighter too even though it's only a little.

this is more for my reference, but these are the 3 16-35mm threads I'm following:
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/sho....php?p=3032344
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=34623749
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/869507/3

not sure how I feel now....

worst case scenario:


fixed with 6.6 worth of PS correction (the 14-24 only ever needed 5 max, usually 4):


cropped:


granted I don't have a 14-24mm here to test.

in a practical real world shoot it's not terrible:


this is the 7-14mm on the GF1, not sure how good the lens is, but the GF1 corrects for distortions when it knows the lens so the pair is amazing (better than the 14-24mm):

hmm, the real world example isn't terrible at all - you could probably correct it less than 6.6 or whatever and have it be really not noticeable.

The tile was is just

Whoooooooa. Dude, I hate to say it but I think I'd be keeping the 7-14mm.

nah, I won't keep the 7-14mm. I can't use it around clients really, and even in processing these really quick the difference in files is very easy to see. To me the GF1 is an amazing P&S, but I can't take it to jobs where people are paying me $100+/hour to shoot for them. I'd go back to the 14-24mm before I used the 7-14 on the clock honestly.

Now I need to find a nice big house with straight walls and shoot it. Maybe my parents house Sunday morning....

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

nah, I won't keep the 7-14mm. I can't use it around clients really, and even in processing these really quick the difference in files is very easy to see. To me the GF1 is an amazing P&S, but I can't take it to jobs where people are paying me $100+/hour to shoot for them. I'd go back to the 14-24mm before I used the 7-14 on the clock honestly.

Now I need to find a nice big house with straight walls and shoot it. Maybe my parents house Sunday morning....

Shoot with the 7-14 while they're not looking, and the 14-24 when they are?

that was honestly a though, bring both, fake it with the D700 if they say anything.


****, what to do, what to do....

Personally I'd be more concerned with the light modification someone brings to an interior shoot than the camera they bring, but that's another thread.