AFS 24mm 1.4 and 16-35 F4 VR - Page 2

bastic · 09-02-2010, 08:09

hehehe I think for me 35 f2 will have to do for a while

rdh · 09-02-2010, 08:47

24/1.4 - prayers answered :¬)

Radiohead · 09-02-2010, 09:19

UK MSRP:

24mm f1.4 - £1949 (Canon is £2010)
16-35mm f4 VR - £1049 (Canon 17-40 is £949)

icecavern · 09-02-2010, 09:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radiohead

UK MSRP:

24mm f1.4 - £1949 (Canon is £2010)
16-35mm f4 VR - £1049 (Canon 17-40 is £949)

Maybe people can stop moaning about how exspensive it is now... But I doubt it!

I think one of those 24's will find it's way into my bag

Pete

ryanyboy · 09-02-2010, 09:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radiohead

UK MSRP:

24mm f1.4 - £1949 (Canon is £2010)
16-35mm f4 VR - £1049 (Canon 17-40 is £949)

Perhaps I'm getting old but those prices really do seem rediculous.

Having said that, a quick check reveals that the actual street price of the Canon 17-40 is £560 ish. So hopefully the 16-35 will be nearer the £800 mark come release.

And the 24mm Canon seems to go for just over £1300. So hopefully £1500 will be nearer the mark come release.

Most of my lens buying was done just before the price hikes of last winter. Now that new lenses are hitting the market I'm really noticing just how expensive these things have become.

Denyerec · 09-02-2010, 09:42

I have to say, the image samples from the 24/1.4 look lovely but, really, £1950 RRP ? That seems like a very high ask for such a lens, £1,499 might have made it appear a little more palatable, though maybe that's just wishful thinking on my behalf?

boyfalldown · 09-02-2010, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denyerec

I have to say, the image samples from the 24/1.4 look lovely but, really, £1950 RRP ? That seems like a very high ask for such a lens, £1,499 might have made it appear a little more palatable, though maybe that's just wishful thinking on my behalf?

I'd be very surprised if the street price doesn't drop to the £1,500 mark from the rrp after its been on the market for three or four months. Thats what normally happens he says wishfully

SussexBlue · 09-02-2010, 10:21

Got to wait to see what the street prices settle at but the rrp price of the 16-35 seems especially extreme to me, I've been waiting to see this lense appear but I think I'll see if a used 17-35 comes up

Mud · 09-02-2010, 10:50

I assume Nikon are going to stick VR on every zoom from here on out...hell of a precedent sticking VR on a lens as short as 16-35...

Denyerec · 09-02-2010, 11:00

Perhaps it was done to avoid detraction from the "Only f4" crowd?

Mud · 09-02-2010, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denyerec

Perhaps it was done to avoid detraction from the "Only f4" crowd?

Maybe, though there're plenty clamouring for good quality, slower lenses like Canon's. In any case, hopefully they haven't had to compromise on the optical formula to force VR where it doesn't belong

ryanyboy · 09-02-2010, 11:21

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-...-lens/p1519460

or

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-...-lens/p1519459

boyfalldown · 09-02-2010, 11:31

I looked on Ken Rockwell's site - I was surprised he hasn't written a review yet

Simonhi · 09-02-2010, 11:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by boyfalldown

I looked on Ken Rockwell's site - I was surprised he hasn't written a review yet

That made me chuckle ...

rdh · 09-02-2010, 11:45

Also hoping it will drop to £1.5K mark after initial release. RRP of £2K is a hell of a lot for a prime, I'll be expecting magical autofocus and corner to corner FF sharpness for that kind of cash.

Raymond Lin · 09-02-2010, 11:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mud

I assume Nikon are going to stick VR on every zoom from here on out...hell of a precedent sticking VR on a lens as short as 16-35...

That is a waste and in advertently encourage bad techniques.

icecavern · 09-02-2010, 12:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denyerec

I have to say, the image samples from the 24/1.4 look lovely but, really, £1950 RRP ? That seems like a very high ask for such a lens, £1,499 might have made it appear a little more palatable, though maybe that's just wishful thinking on my behalf?

See post 33, it's CHEAPER than the Canon equivalent... You can't compare the MSRP to the street price and say it's expensive. Give it a few months for the pre-orders to get out of the way and the price will drop. If you don't beleive me check the price of the 70-200vr2

Mud · 09-02-2010, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond Lin

That is a waste and in advertently encourage bad techniques.

I agree, needless expense and potential compromise to the optical formula. Even if it allowed you to handhold a 1 second exposure at 16mm (unlikely), what'd be the point? At that point if you're doing things properly either use a flash (people) or tripod (scenery). I'll concede the tripod can be a pain.

Wail · 09-02-2010, 12:24

Am I the only one here to get a hernia from these prices? Not that they won't be worth every penny, but that's a lot of ££££!

Interesting read, the other thread is, I didn't know the 17-35 AF-S was reintroduced. With that in the market, I can't understand why the 16-35? I will wait to see how much it goes for here before I can make a real price comparison. Just for those who may be jumping around this part of the world, the 17-35 AF-S sells, new, for under £900!

Mud · 09-02-2010, 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wail

Am I the only one here to get a hernia from these prices? Not that they won't be worth every penny, but that's a lot of ££££!

This is Nikon!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wail

The odd thing, the 17-35 AF-S f/2.8 can be bought for less than the 16-35 f/4! VR and an extra 1mm .. I hope there's more to it than just that!

Err, it's made of plastic...and err, they took away that nasty aperture ring...and it weighs all of 65g less...and is 19mm longer...

...of course I know nothing of their relative performance.

SussexBlue · 09-02-2010, 12:31

Would like to see a comparrison of the 16-35 wide open compared to the 17-35 at F4

SussexBlue · 09-02-2010, 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mud

This is Nikon!

Err, it's made of plastic...and err, they took away that nasty aperture ring...and it weighs all of 65g less...and is 19mm longer...

...of course I know nothing of their relative performance.

dong_allen · 09-02-2010, 12:55

Samples are good!!

photon · 09-02-2010, 13:04

Unacceptable curvature at the end of that soprano sax.

straycat · 09-02-2010, 13:08

this says the price,sad i cant afford the 24mm

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...kon24mmf14.asp

straycat · 09-02-2010, 13:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

Unacceptable curvature at the end of that soprano sax.

thats a bad photo for an example to much distortion your correct

King_Boru · 09-02-2010, 13:23

.

King_Boru · 09-02-2010, 13:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by dong_allen

Samples are good!!

Yeah but the image quality screams baby butt smooth, I really don't like it. It would have been nice to see some samples used with the still in production F6 too.

rdh · 09-02-2010, 15:16

Need full size unprocessed samples to make any real judgement!

ryanyboy · 09-02-2010, 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdh

Need full size unprocessed samples to make any real judgement!

I agree - the two images don't tell us much imo.

09-02-2010, 09:19	#33
Radiohead Mine sucks Real name : Guy Location: Oakley, Hampshire Posts: 1,717 Camera: Nikon D3 iTrader: (4)	UK MSRP: 24mm f1.4 - £1949 (Canon is £2010) 16-35mm f4 VR - £1049 (Canon 17-40 is £949) __________________ ISPWP & WPJA member

09-02-2010, 09:42	#36
Denyerec Been here a while Real name : Denyer Location: Leicestershire Posts: 397 Camera: Fuji S5 iTrader: (0)	I have to say, the image samples from the 24/1.4 look lovely but, really, £1950 RRP ? That seems like a very high ask for such a lens, £1,499 might have made it appear a little more palatable, though maybe that's just wishful thinking on my behalf? __________________ Technical is trivial, it's the art part I don't get... http://www.flickr.com/denyerec http://gallery.denyerec.co.uk

09-02-2010, 10:50	#39
Mud Been here a while Location: Bristol Posts: 451 Camera: Nikon D700 iTrader: (17)	I assume Nikon are going to stick VR on every zoom from here on out...hell of a precedent sticking VR on a lens as short as 16-35... __________________ My Flickr

09-02-2010, 11:45	#45
rdh Forum Regular Location: Norwich, UK Posts: 864 Camera: Nikon D3 & D700 iTrader: (0)	Also hoping it will drop to £1.5K mark after initial release. RRP of £2K is a hell of a lot for a prime, I'll be expecting magical autofocus and corner to corner FF sharpness for that kind of cash. __________________ Ross Harvey Photography \| flickr

09-02-2010, 12:24	#49
Wail Loves the place Real name : Wail Location: Saudi Arabia Posts: 4,395 Camera: Nikon iTrader: (24)	Am I the only one here to get a hernia from these prices? Not that they won't be worth every penny, but that's a lot of ££££! Interesting read, the other thread is, I didn't know the 17-35 AF-S was reintroduced. With that in the market, I can't understand why the 16-35? I will wait to see how much it goes for here before I can make a real price comparison. Just for those who may be jumping around this part of the world, the 17-35 AF-S sells, new, for under £900! __________________ I do not intend to tip-toe through life only to arrive safely at death. "The welfare of the subject is more important than the photograph." Last edited by Wail; 09-02-2010 at 12:26.

09-02-2010, 08:09	#31
bastic Forum Regular Real name : Lukas Location: London Posts: 1,225 Camera: D7x iTrader: (13)	hehehe I think for me 35 f2 will have to do for a while

09-02-2010, 08:47	#32
rdh Forum Regular Location: Norwich, UK Posts: 864 Camera: Nikon D3 & D700 iTrader: (0)	24/1.4 - prayers answered :¬)

09-02-2010, 10:21	#38
SussexBlue Been here a while Real name : John Location: W. Sussex Posts: 333 Camera: Nikon D3 iTrader: (10)	Got to wait to see what the street prices settle at but the rrp price of the 16-35 seems especially extreme to me, I've been waiting to see this lense appear but I think I'll see if a used 17-35 comes up

09-02-2010, 11:00	#40
Denyerec Been here a while Real name : Denyer Location: Leicestershire Posts: 397 Camera: Fuji S5 iTrader: (0)	Perhaps it was done to avoid detraction from the "Only f4" crowd?

09-02-2010, 11:21	#42
ryanyboy Feet under the table Real name : Ryan Location: Cambs Posts: 1,670 Camera: D3s & D700 iTrader: (9)	http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-...-lens/p1519460 or http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-...-lens/p1519459

09-02-2010, 11:31	#43
boyfalldown Feet under the table Real name : Hugh Location: Twickenham Posts: 2,925 Camera: D700 iTrader: (15)	I looked on Ken Rockwell's site - I was surprised he hasn't written a review yet

09-02-2010, 12:31	#51
SussexBlue Been here a while Real name : John Location: W. Sussex Posts: 333 Camera: Nikon D3 iTrader: (10)	Would like to see a comparrison of the 16-35 wide open compared to the 17-35 at F4

09-02-2010, 12:55	#53
dong_allen Getting Comfy Location: London Posts: 170 iTrader: (4)	Samples are good!!

09-02-2010, 13:04	#54
photon Feet under the table Location: ǝʌɐɔ ʇɐq ǝɥʇ Posts: 2,378 Camera: Koni-Omegaflex (well, it's the heaviest) iTrader: (5)	Unacceptable curvature at the end of that soprano sax.

09-02-2010, 13:08	#55
straycat Forum Regular Location: England Posts: 716 iTrader: (31)	this says the price,sad i cant afford the 24mm http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...kon24mmf14.asp

09-02-2010, 13:23	#57
King_Boru Feet under the table Posts: 2,159 iTrader: (0)	. Last edited by King_Boru; 09-02-2010 at 13:25.

09-02-2010, 15:16	#59
rdh Forum Regular Location: Norwich, UK Posts: 864 Camera: Nikon D3 & D700 iTrader: (0)	Need full size unprocessed samples to make any real judgement!