AFS 24mm 1.4 and 16-35 F4 VR

Denyerec said:
Perhaps it was done to avoid detraction from the "Only f4" crowd?
Click to expand...

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 :wacky:
 
I looked on Ken Rockwell's site - I was surprised he hasn't written a review yet
 
Denyerec said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Raymond Lin said:
That is a waste and in advertently encourage bad techniques.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
Wail said:
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 ££££!
Click to expand...

This is Nikon!

Wail said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Would like to see a comparrison of the 16-35 wide open compared to the 17-35 at F4
 
Mud said:
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.
Click to expand...

:D (y)
 
Samples are good!!

sample1_l.jpg


sample2_l.jpg
 
Unacceptable curvature at the end of that soprano sax.
 
Those prices are a bit nuts, but I'm quite curious to see the comparisons to the 14-24mm.
 
I would like it for my kit bag but theres more that I want ahead of a 24 prime.
Shame its so expensive
 
Mud said:
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.
Click to expand...

err...Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 made of plastic? Mine isn't... heavy as funk and practically all ED glass...
Why do you think they're so sought-after?
 
Arkady said:
err...Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 made of plastic? Mine isn't... heavy as funk and practically all ED glass...
Why do you think they're so sought-after?
Click to expand...

Lol
I think it was a tongue in cheek comment about the 16-35 ;)
 
Why couldn't it a be a 16-35 2.8? :cautious:

Had a 17-35mm for a while, brilliant bit of glass! Was solidly built imo!

Ed :)
 
SussexBlue said:
you getting to much sun Rob ?
Click to expand...

Ha! I wish - thunderstorms, rain and cold - occasionally bright and clear - biting wind.
Media Ops tent in Bastion flooded at the weekend after a 30 minute downpour...lol
The USMC camp over in Leatherneck is an inland sea interspersed with sad canvas ruins perched on islands of mud...they didn't dig drainage ditches like we did - silly boys!
 
Arkady said:
Ha! I wish - thunderstorms, rain and cold - occasionally bright and clear - biting wind.
Media Ops tent in Bastion flooded at the weekend after a 30 minute downpour...lol
The USMC camp over in Leatherneck is an inland sea interspersed with sad canvas ruins perched on islands of mud...they didn't dig drainage ditches like we did - silly boys!
Click to expand...




Oops! :bonk: :LOL:

I do wish Nikon would stop producing new gear. :bang:

Kev.
 
Me too - the Post-Tour shopping list is burgeoning exponentially...
 
Apparently the release date for the 16-35 is next Friday.

And the 14mm is 19th March.
 
I don't get the 16-35 VR pricing at all.

More expensive than Nikon's own 17-35 f/2.8, about the same as the Carl Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 and more than the Canon f/2.8.

Seem to be paying a lot for VR and 1mm more...?

The Tamron 17-35 manages f/2.8 to f/4 in the same range so constant f/4 isn't even that stunning either...?!
 
puddleduck said:
I don't get the 16-35 VR pricing at all.

More expensive than Nikon's own 17-35 f/2.8, about the same as the Carl Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 and more than the Canon f/2.8.
Click to expand...
the msrp for the 16-35/2.8 ZA is £1700 which is significantly more.
street price isn't that of course but then again I don't expect the Nikon to sell at msrp either ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top