Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR discuss

R

raider2727

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,108
Edit My Images
Yes
Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR, £1049, what are your thoughts, is f4 & VR a worthy trade off from f2.8, at least you can use a polarising filter on this or would you rather have the 14-24 ?????
Will the price of the 14-24 be coming down?
 
Great topic.

I was told today that it's out Friday. I'm interested in it but I'm beginning to wonder if I should just get another 14-24??
 
Lets wait and see what the prices will be once this lens will be avalible...
£1k is bit too much for F4 lens in my opinion...
if it goes down to 700-800 mark I will start thinking about it :) this and 85 1.4 and Im sorted for a while ;-)
 
My feelings are that if you;re contemplating spending £1,000 or more on a lens, you should know which one would be best suited to your photography.

The pixel peepers will want the 14-24mm f:2.8 no matter what but I see most people using this range for landscape work and for me the advantage VR gives you in conjunction with the high ISO performace of Nikon's FX sensors means that this type of photography is becoming less and less tripod dependant.
 
Very overpriced for an f/4 lens - f/4 is no big deal for a wide angle - witness Tamron 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4 or Nikon's 18-35 f/3.5 - f/4. We are being asked to pay a lot for a lens that is slower at its widest extent than other Nikkors. Constant f/4 isn't compelling when it makes it slower than many other lenses, and VR is pointless in such a wide angle. Anyone needing VR at 16mm probably need to spend the £1k on technique lessons, or drink less coffee.

At £650 without VR it becomes more interesting. Nikon needs to look at their pricing really.
 
NorthernNikon said:
My feelings are that if you;re contemplating spending £1,000 or more on a lens, you should know which one would be best suited to your photography.
Click to expand...

Why? One man's £1000 is another man's tenner. It's not how much your spending but which lens suits your needs. I agree with puddleduck that the price is OTT. C'mon Nikon - don't take the pee out of your loyal userbase.
 
I'm likely to buy one to replace the 14-24mm that I sold. BUT I'm in no hurry for this one, so I'll sit back and wait for reviews and prices to settle.
Being f4 shouldn't be a problem for the D3s. Just pump up the iso. It's happiest up there anyway!


Kev.
 
ryanyboy said:
Why? One man's £1000 is another man's tenner. It's not how much your spending but which lens suits your needs.
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with your disposable income, but everything to do with the type and quality of lenses which tend to carry a £1k plus price tag. If you have to ask, you don't know your own photography well enough to warrant buying one.
 
puddleduck said:
and VR is pointless in such a wide angle. Anyone needing VR at 16mm probably need to spend the £1k on technique lessons, or drink less coffee.
Click to expand...

Of course, all photographers have the ability to hold a camera steady don't they? You don't find many older photographers with tremours at all do you? Nor do you find any photographers who don't have the ability to slow their heart beats like biathlon athletes while hiking so that they can take a steady shot. And no traveller would ever want to take a shot while on a boat.

There are countless reasons why someone would want VR on a wideangle, and none of them have anything to do with either 'technique' or caffeine consumption.
 
To be honest I think Nikon are barmy for taking the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 off the market and replacing it with this!

It better have absolutely stunning optical performance otherwise its going to look totaly pointless.

Stuart
 
I think this is a quick fix for a 14-24 lens that nikon promsed would be fixed to be able to apply a Filter and from what i am told a vast number of 14-24's have had front element damage due to the front glass and built in hood.

I think this lens will replace the 17-35 and within 12 months Nikon will introduce the MKII 14-24 with filter thread and detachable hood.
 
GRECIAN said:
I think this is a quick fix for a 14-24 lens that nikon promsed would be fixed to be able to apply a Filter and from what i am told a vast number of 14-24's have had front element damage due to the front glass and built in hood.

I think this lens will replace the 17-35 and within 12 months Nikon will introduce the MKII 14-24 with filter thread and detachable hood.
Click to expand...

Where have you heard about these 'vast number' of 14-24mm's with front end damage? I've not heard of one. And when and where did Nikon promise to fix the filter problem? And why should they when Lee have introduced a filter kit especially for the 14-24mm?
 
Personally I see this lens as a shift away from f/2.8 for camera companies. Unless the depth of field faster than 2.8 is required, which in most cases a fast prime will suffice, with the current ISO performance of cameras, I think F/4 is the new 2.8. Certainly budget wise and I think that in reality most people who think about buying this lens may stop it down for landscape / pack shots - hence f4 being a more than acceptable opening gambit. I really like the look of this lens.
 
GRECIAN said:
I think this is a quick fix for a 14-24 lens that nikon promsed would be fixed to be able to apply a Filter and from what i am told a vast number of 14-24's have had front element damage due to the front glass and built in hood.
Click to expand...

First time I've heard of this "problem".
 
Don't we normally see the argument damning Nikon for only offering f2.8 as a constant aperture? People normally say "why can't they make f4 stuff like Canon do"

Clearly Nikon have listened to what the masses wanted.
 
desantnik said:
Don't we normally see the argument damning Nikon for only offering f2.8 as a constant aperture? People normally say "why can't they make f4 stuff like Canon do"

Clearly Nikon have listened to what the masses wanted.
Click to expand...

I think its more for a 24-105 f/4 IS or 70-200 f/4 IS equivalant?

F/4 isn't quick for a wide angle, so if peoole were asking for this, then Nikon were asking the wrong people... ;)
 
I think you'll find they just moaned generally.

Be careful what you wish for...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top