- Messages
- 3,156
- Name
- Simon Everett
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I bet I am miles behind on this, because I remember reading the speculation topic about whether these would materialise, several weeks ago.
Well, I have just had my Nikon Pro update with news of the new 16-35AFS f4 VR
and another one - 24mm but I didn't take any notice of it!
The 16-35 seems to have a nice spec, with nano coat etc - but it won't be making me change my 17-35 f2.8 I'm afraid. The only thing it really offers me is the nano coat at the expense of a stop. If I am stopped down enough, or the light is bad enough for me to be needing the VR - I'll be tripod mounted or jammed against a doorway or something anyway. Besides, the D3 at 1000 ISO is pretty decent.
It is lighter too - 685g they say. My little 17-35 is 815, with lens caps and hood attached. But as I am not a camel, I don't think the 200g will break my back!
There is life in the 17-35 yet.
Should have given angles of view too I suppose:
17-35 = 104 to 62
16-35 = 107 to 63
Close enough for me!
Well, I have just had my Nikon Pro update with news of the new 16-35AFS f4 VR
and another one - 24mm but I didn't take any notice of it!
The 16-35 seems to have a nice spec, with nano coat etc - but it won't be making me change my 17-35 f2.8 I'm afraid. The only thing it really offers me is the nano coat at the expense of a stop. If I am stopped down enough, or the light is bad enough for me to be needing the VR - I'll be tripod mounted or jammed against a doorway or something anyway. Besides, the D3 at 1000 ISO is pretty decent.
It is lighter too - 685g they say. My little 17-35 is 815, with lens caps and hood attached. But as I am not a camel, I don't think the 200g will break my back!
There is life in the 17-35 yet.
Should have given angles of view too I suppose:
17-35 = 104 to 62
16-35 = 107 to 63
Close enough for me!