Quantcast
Its Official: AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED & AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR official - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 1 of 3 1 2 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    255
    Rep Power
    0

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

    Last edited by Str1der; 02-08-2010 at 10:23 PM.
    I'd vote for him. America may have a black guy, but we'd have captain fucking Kirk.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Elbonia
    My Ride
    Jeep of Theseus
    Posts
    6,333
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    255
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
    Want the 24mm badly, but man is it going to be $$$$!
    No way man, think positive!
    I'd vote for him. America may have a black guy, but we'd have captain fucking Kirk.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    255
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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?
    I'd vote for him. America may have a black guy, but we'd have captain fucking Kirk.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    255
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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
    Last edited by Str1der; 02-08-2010 at 10:47 PM.
    I'd vote for him. America may have a black guy, but we'd have captain fucking Kirk.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Elbonia
    My Ride
    Jeep of Theseus
    Posts
    6,333
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    255
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    VR probably adds a decent chunk of weight.
    I'd vote for him. America may have a black guy, but we'd have captain fucking Kirk.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Elbonia
    My Ride
    Jeep of Theseus
    Posts
    6,333
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    255
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Probably doesn't factor into the weight much, but the 16-35mm also uses 3 Aspherical elements.
    I'd vote for him. America may have a black guy, but we'd have captain fucking Kirk.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    5,003
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    17 elements? fuck I'm gonna have to buy that one too...
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Elbonia
    My Ride
    Jeep of Theseus
    Posts
    6,333
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    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.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    255
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
    Well, so did the 17-35.
    You're right. The Nikon site shows it at zero for some reason.
    I'd vote for him. America may have a black guy, but we'd have captain fucking Kirk.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    255
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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
    I'd vote for him. America may have a black guy, but we'd have captain fucking Kirk.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    255
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I'd vote for him. America may have a black guy, but we'd have captain fucking Kirk.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Ordering both tomorrow =)

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    2017 Civic Hatch ST
    Posts
    9,685
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    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!
    Last edited by Mitsu3000gt; 02-09-2010 at 10:02 AM.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Its a bird, its a plane........its a flying donkey??

    By [email protected] in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 11
    Latest Threads: 07-22-2010, 01:17 PM
  2. FS: Nikon D300 Body + 35mm f1.8 Nikkor Lense

    By eposer in forum Cameras & Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Latest Threads: 02-12-2010, 05:17 PM
  3. WTB: Nikkor 24mm 2.8D

    By zarge in forum Cameras & Accessories
    Replies: 0
    Latest Threads: 08-13-2009, 07:37 PM
  4. Opinions - Canon 16-35mm vs 17-35mm f2.8L

    By EK9Hatch in forum Photographer's Corner
    Replies: 5
    Latest Threads: 01-22-2008, 12:21 PM
  5. Its a bird, its a plane, its.... WTF?

    By cycosis in forum General
    Replies: 23
    Latest Threads: 03-02-2007, 10:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •