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

[quazimoto]

See that's the one thing I don't get from going to Canon to Nikon is people are still saying just how great Canon lenses are compared to Nikon where as I have found that the Nikon lenses I have are actually better than the Canon.

When people say canon lenses are better are they just speaking in regards to selection or the fact canon has more to offer in the extended range like the 800mm and such?

I do plan on trying the 24mm F1.4 out though as I would love to buy that lens. I've been finding the Nikon F1.4 lenses to be very similar in quality to the Canon F1.2 lenses.

I think more than anything it's just hard to believe that it can be sharper than the 24-70 @ 24mm. It's very interesting to say the least and the samples I've found online so far are very nice.

[AccentAE86]

People say canon has better lenses because they offer many more choices than Nikon does.
Like:

24-105 f/4
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.2
200mm 2.8
400mm f/4
400mm f/5.6
800mm f/5.6
70-200mm f/4
17mm TS-E

and even the newer tilt shift nikkors do not allow completely independant tilt and shift adjustments like the canon design does.

and previously
17-40mm f/4
24mm f/1.4

though I would assume that Nikon is looking to fill that big prime hole. But they'll need to give us all ISO100 before we can use it effectively in more situations

[AccentAE86]

And I do agree, the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is great competition to the 85mm F/1.2, but there really is no contest between the canon 50 f/1.2 and the Nikon 50 f/1.4. Not even close. I'm really hoping that Nikon does come out with a drool worthy 50 1.2 because I'd love to have one.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by quazimoto
See that's the one thing I don't get from going to Canon to Nikon is people are still saying just how great Canon lenses are compared to Nikon where as I have found that the Nikon lenses I have are actually better than the Canon.

When people say canon lenses are better are they just speaking in regards to selection or the fact canon has more to offer in the extended range like the 800mm and such?

I do plan on trying the 24mm F1.4 out though as I would love to buy that lens. I've been finding the Nikon F1.4 lenses to be very similar in quality to the Canon F1.2 lenses.

I think more than anything it's just hard to believe that it can be sharper than the 24-70 @ 24mm. It's very interesting to say the least and the samples I've found online so far are very nice.

Have those people ever tried the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, or 200-400? I would bet they haven't. If they are talking about lens selection, what is best changes from person to person so I don't think either manufacturer can claim that just yet.

I've never heard/read of a single person or review who has actually tried the Nikon lenses (latest offerings), and preferred the Canon equivalents. Nor have I heard of anyone regretting the switch from Canon to Nikon on the basis of lens quality. People tend to defend what they own in order to justify their purchases even when something better comes out. Canon can't touch Nikon's zooms from 14 - 400mm right now, nor is their IS as good as what is on the new 70-200VR from what I understand. Also I believe Nikon's high end lenses hold their value a little better too.

As for lens selection, the 70-200/4 (and maybe the 50mm) is about the only thing I can think of that doesn't have at least a similar or better alternative on the Nikon side. Nikon has some lenses Canon doesn't make too, so lens selection superiority kind of needs to be looked at on an individual basis IMO.

When Canon updates it's entire pro lens line, I'll be interested to see where everything stands. If I'm not mistaken they have a new 24-70 and 70-200IS II in the works.

[Gibson]

Canon's 70-200 F/2.8 IS2 was announced last month. I've no idea if this version of IS is better than Nikons VRII though.

I'm PRETTY sure I need that 24mm F/1.4 in my life.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Gibson
Canon's 70-200 F/2.8 IS2 was announced last month. I've no idea if this version of IS is better than Nikons VRII though.

I'm PRETTY sure I need that 24mm F/1.4 in my life.

How did I miss that? lol. I'll have to check it out! Very curious to see how it stands up to the 70-200 VR II.

I'm still waiting for a Nikon 16-50 f2.8 or f4 or 16-85 F2.8 or F4 VRII with all the special treatments (Nanocoating, magnesium body, weather seal, etc) Anything roughly in that range with those specs would be my ideal lens. I'm all for the VR on the wide angles because I'm pretty sure Michael J Fox could hold a camera steadier than I can.

[AccentAE86]

curious, does the new VRII have the hybrid IS system like the new canon IS?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by AccentAE86
curious, does the new VRII have the hybrid IS system like the new canon IS?

VR compensates for both angular and shift movements, so it covers side-to-side, vertical, and diaognal/rotational movements as far as I know. They don't call it "Hybrid" or anything though, they just use more roman numerals haha. VR also has modes for general use and use from a moving vehicle, but I think Canon does the same thing with modes "1 & 2."

[ZeroGravity]

anyone find any pre-order / street price for the 16-35 f4 VR?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by ZeroGravity
anyone find any pre-order / street price for the 16-35 f4 VR?

Just call The Camera Store, if they can order it already they will tell you what the price is, and it won't be MSRP. They might not have info on it yet though.

[mboldt]

Talked to store owner today, should have mine by end of the month, he's pulling some strings =D I cannot wait!!!

[blitz]

Lucky bastard.

There's a $2800 premium for me, since I'd have to buy a D700 first.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Since this is a Nikon lens thread I figured this would be a reasonable place to post this as it doesn't deserve its own thread. I've been extremely sick/bored lately so bare with me lol. Yes, I have too much time on my hands, and no, I didn't have anything better to do. I thought I would test a couple of things.

First, I was curious to see if a Nikon NC filter had any effect on the 70-200 VR II's image quality. Lots of people ask this question so perhaps it will help some make up their minds. Secondly, I tried to see how slow I could get a decently sharp picture with VR at 200mm (300mm on my D300) for fun. Don't mind the subject matter, I had nothing more interesting around my condo to take pictures of, and I was just trying to pass the time lol.

First some shots with and without the Nikon NC protective filter. I used 100% and 200% crops - clearly, nobody needs to evaluate sharpness at such ridiculous levels, but it just goes to show that if you can't tell a difference in IQ at these levels, it has no real world impact, and certainly not in a print. I've labeled each one "ON" if I had the NC filter on, and "Off" for when it was off. Left 2 images are at f2.8, right 2 are at f5.6.

100%


200%


And some VR tests, just for fun. I have very shaky hands, if anyone is wondering. I didn't use BIMG tags for ease of comparison. I tried to focus on the "70-200" letters. All taken at 200mm (300mm equivalent).

1/15 sec


1/10 sec


1/5 sec


1/4 sec


1/2 sec

[Go4Long]

lol...your 1/5 shot appears to be sharper than your 1/10 shot :P

mind you it's 4:30 in the morning and I could be seeing things.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Go4Long
lol...your 1/5 shot appears to be sharper than your 1/10 shot :P

mind you it's 4:30 in the morning and I could be seeing things.

Could very well be! I really do have quite shaky hands, so the results will vary a bit. Had I shot several frames continuously at each shutter speed and grabbed the sharpest one each time, I suspect the results would be significantly better yet. I'm feeling much better today though, so hopefully this weekend I can get out and shoot something worthwhile!

[Go4Long]

I got the call today that my new 2.0 TC came in...and spent the day looking at samples with the 300 2.8 and the new TCIII. I think I'm going to end up keepin the 300...with my collection of teleconverters I'll have a 300 2.8, a 420 4.0, a 500 4.8(the 1.7 teleconverter is actually 1.666667), and a 600 5.6.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Go4Long
I got the call today that my new 2.0 TC came in...and spent the day looking at samples with the 300 2.8 and the new TCIII. I think I'm going to end up keepin the 300...with my collection of teleconverters I'll have a 300 2.8, a 420 4.0, a 500 4.8(the 1.7 teleconverter is actually 1.666667), and a 600 5.6.

I've seen some large sample pics with that TC that look barely any different than the naked lens to my eyes. I think you're going to enjoy that one.

Here's what you can do with it and the 300/4:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=34370159

The old one (II) was no slouch either on the 300/4:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...twg+600mm&qf=m


They are as good or better on the 300/2.8 and you get another stop of speed - should be good!

Good thing with Nikon you can easily AF at F8 .

[blitz]

Stack them all up and you'll get a 1400mm 13.0

Should be able to get some good moon shots with that.

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt

They are as good or better on the 300/2.8 and you get another stop of speed - should be good!

Good thing with Nikon you can easily AF at F8 .

The AF speed on an F4 lens with the 2.0 TC(becomes F8 max aperture) is apparently very badly affected. From what I've seen it will work, but for shooting sports it's just not an option.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Go4Long


The AF speed on an F4 lens with the 2.0 TC(becomes F8 max aperture) is apparently very badly affected. From what I've seen it will work, but for shooting sports it's just not an option.

Every post I have read so far says in good light AF is no problem at all at F8 using the 300/4 on a decent body. If people are getting good BIF pictures with it, I would think sports is no problem either.

I've seen several threads with people using them on the big 500's and 600's with excellent results.

The guy who posted those pics in those threads even commented on how bad the lighting was, and he was using a D90 - he said AF was just fine.

So, from everything I've seen/read, it would suggest there is more a problem with the photographer than the equipment if you can't get good AF in good lighting at F8. I can't say for sure though until I try one myself.

I have a 300/4, so if you want to lend me your TC 2 III I'd be happy to provide a full report on F8 AF