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

[Str1der]

Cool!

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/08/af...-official.aspx



http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Ni...2F1.4G-ED.html





http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Ni...F4G-ED-VR.html




Wonder what the heck prices will come in at.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Want the 24mm badly, but man is it going to be $$$$!

[quazimoto]

I think the 16-35 was in the $1399 range and the 24 was in the $2199 range. Also an interested side note when I was reading through some of the info on the 16-35 but for some reason Nikon made some wierd statement regarding how this lens would be well balanced with compact FX format "cameras". It sounds to me like they are acknowledging a D700 replacement in the near future.

Now I just want to see the quality of that lens. I'm hoping the price isn't what it appears to be though. If its $1399 it's still way too high. I mean I know Nikon glass is kick ass but at that rate its easily $600 more than the 17-40mm F4 from Canon.

By the sounds of it though the lens will be quite good for an F4 lens. It weighs just slightly less than the 17-35 and the overall dimensions are very similar as well.

[Str1der]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Want the 24mm badly, but man is it going to be $$$$!

No way man, think positive!

[Str1der]

Originally posted by quazimoto
Now I just want to see the quality of that lens. I'm hoping the price isn't what it appears to be though. If its $1399 it's still way too high. I mean I know Nikon glass is kick ass but at that rate its easily $600 more than the 17-40mm F4 from Canon.

But does the Canon 17-40mm have nano coating (or similar) and VR?

[quazimoto]

Honestly VR on those small lenses really isn't even a necessity. I often wonder if they do it just as a sales ploy or something. The coating on the canon lens is very similar, they just use different terminology. The Canon F4 lens just isn't overly sharp until you hit F5.6 or so. If this lens is sharp throughout it would be very nice. But the $1399 price is wacko.

The $2200 for the 24mm is going to be hard for 99% of people to swallow. I don't doubt the lens will be incredibly sharp but sheesh they are milking it.

[Str1der]

Edit for prices.

24mm f/1.4 samples pictures:

http://j2k.naver.com/j2k_frame.php/k...ed/sample1.htm

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.

http://press.nikonusa.com/2010/02/ni...ighly_anti.php

[quazimoto]

I've only seen Japanese prices which always tend to be stupidly high. Something like 200,000 yen and 125,000 yen. I do find the prices a little hard to believe since when you look at the prices for the other F1.4 primes they aren't nearly that high.

If they price it higher than the Canon 85mm F1.2L they are absolutely bonkers since that is optically one of the best lenses you can find and it weighs as much as a lead brick from all the glass.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The prices are pretty much as expected. $1400 for a N-series VR pro-class wide zoom that isn't the 14-24 is about right. Comparing it to the 17-40L is nonsensical as the 17-40 is pretty old, non-VR and isn't a stellar performer compared to the more modern designs. Also keep in mind that when it debuted, the 17-40 had a MSRP of 120,000 yen - that's ~$1400.

$2200 for the 24mm is only $300 more than the Canon 24II and comes at a launch premium. We'll see it come down a bit and probably hover around $150 more than the Canon eventually.

[quazimoto]

That shot of the guy play that instrument is very impressive. I was seriously contemplating buying this lens but now it makes me take that one step back to think about it. I was hoping the price would be sub 2000 in our monopoly dollars.

Either way it's great to see Nikon finally starting to push F4 lenses more. Im still kinda confused how the lens is similar in weight and dimensions to the F2.8 though.

[Str1der]

VR probably adds a decent chunk of weight.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by quazimoto
Im still kinda confused how the lens is similar in weight and dimensions to the F2.8 though.

17-35: 13 elements, 10 groups

16-35: 17 elements, 12 groups.


It's a lot of glass.

[Str1der]

Probably doesn't factor into the weight much, but the 16-35mm also uses 3 Aspherical elements.

[Go4Long]

17 elements? fuck I'm gonna have to buy that one too...

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Str1der
Probably doesn't factor into the weight much, but the 16-35mm also uses 3 Aspherical elements.

Well, so did the 17-35.

[Str1der]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Well, so did the 17-35.

You're right. The Nikon site shows it at zero for some reason.

[Str1der]

16-35mm samples:


Shutter speed: 1/8 second
Aperture: f/4
Focal length: 19mm



Shutter speed: 1.5 second
Aperture: f/9.5
Focal length: 16mm

[Str1der]

Check these samples out:

http://www.bobkrist.com/blog/fast-wi...ome/#more-3588

Crazy

[mboldt]

Ordering both tomorrow =)

[Mitsu3000gt]

Once again Nikon's announcement had no real surprises at all, but everything looks very good. If they put their latest magic into those lenses as they have in their latest offerings, those should be nothing short of spectacular.

I'm glad they put VR on the 16-35, and expect it to do very well as they design/optimize VR specifically for each individual lens. It is sure to be a welcome feature any place you can't (or don't want to) bring a tripod, such as a crowded museum or something. This is one lens I will probably buy but not right away.

The 24/1.4 looks great too - based on how many people I've heard wanting one it should be very successful as well. Other than being 1.4, I will be curious to see how it compares to the 24-70 at 24mm as those lenses have often been credited for being as sharp as any prime in that range.

Both lenses have a magnesium body and are weather sealed which is a nice bonus.

Prices should be less than Canadian MSRP. Just as an example, the 70-200 VR II MSRP is $2399, it's brand new, and it's being sold for $2248.

I suspect the 16-35 will land somewhere between $1150-$1250 based on it's MSRP. Same for the 24/1.4, somewhere between 5 and 10% less than MSRP. Not sure how this may affect the 17-35/2.8 used price, might bring it down a bit but it is 2.8 so it may keep its value.

Both lenses should be well worth the premium if comparing to Canon counterparts, assuming they are making them the same way as the rest of their recent lenses (such as the 70-200).

I'm curious to see some more samples/tests!