Nikon Announces 3 New Lenses

[spxxxx]

This is the AGE old question Canon Shooters has had for years and years and years and years.

Just do a poll and ask wedding togs what they would choose, 24-70 or 24-105. I bet my bottom dollar that the 24-70 will come out in the majority. Why? Because it can be pushed further than the 24-105.

And you may be actually wrong .... many Canon wedding shooters I know and respect choose the 24-105 OVER the 24-70l

Again I do find it amusing that there are many comments from people denouncing f/4 who are relatively new to business and perhaps should look at how best to use a lens for any given situation rather than blindly relying on the widest aperture

No two people shoot the same .... no two people can successfully handhold at the same low speeds .... some don't want to use tripods and monopods. The difference between bokah on f/4 and f/2.8 is marginal at best and depends on quality of construction ..... and if it was a big issue you would be shooting f/1.4 primes

Now if it is a dog in real testing fair enough .... but if it is sharp then from a person that has used both in business I will be getting one.

 

[Raymond Lin]

And you may be actually wrong .... many Canon wedding shooters I know and respect choose the 24-105 OVER the 24-70l

Again I do find it amusing that there are many comments from people denouncing f/4 who are relatively new to business and perhaps should look at how best to use a lens for any given situation rather than blindly relying on the widest aperture

No two people shoot the same .... no two people can successfully handhold at the same low speeds .... some don't want to use tripods and monopods. The difference between bokah on f/4 and f/2.8 is marginal at best and depends on quality of construction ..... and if it was a big issue you would be shooting f/1.4 primes

Now if it is a dog in real testing fair enough .... but if it is sharp then from a person that has used both in business I will be getting one.

Simoni agree with what you are saying. I am also in agreement that there are many Canon wedding togs who embrace the 24-105 more than the 24-70. But you missed my point about if you do a poll across the board and see which one is the majority.

I am putting my bets on the 24-70, as a rough guess, all you need to do is take at look at the sig in Potn forum and see what lenses people have.

 

[ryanyboy]

And you may be actually wrong .... many Canon wedding shooters I know and respect choose the 24-105 OVER the 24-70l

Again I do find it amusing that there are many comments from people denouncing f/4 who are relatively new to business and perhaps should look at how best to use a lens for any given situation rather than blindly relying on the widest aperture
No two people shoot the same .... no two people can successfully handhold at the same low speeds .... some don't want to use tripods and monopods. The difference between bokah on f/4 and f/2.8 is marginal at best and depends on quality of construction ..... and if it was a big issue you would be shooting f/1.4 primes

Now if it is a dog in real testing fair enough .... but if it is sharp then from a person that has used both in business I will be getting one.

Seeings as you made the point I've highlighted I'm assuming (correct me if I'm being overly sensitive) that you were referring to me.

Firstly - being new to business is irrelevent. New to photography maybe, but new to business is a ridiculous argument. You either know how to use a lens or you don't.

Secondly - I have used the Canon 24-105 F4 IS in church and I have used the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 in church. The more useful was the faster lens. When the 24-70 isn't long enough the 70-200 is within easy reach.

Thirdly - I do use primes; when the time is right. Generally not during a church service (when the fast apperture would be ideal) because it's harder to "zoom with your feet" in church and therefore a zoom lens is the far more sensible option.

I don't want to fall out over such a silly issue but please don't patronise Simon.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Btw, i am not WRONG, you cant say that with no evidence. Unless you have taken a realistic number sample of enough percentage of canon wedding togs across the planet of the earth, I am not wrong. I am merely saying my opinion and what i am betting on. You can't base on what your friends use as fact, as inadvertently, one could argue that they see your work and know your gear and influenced by it in their decision making. Therefore That is not even a fair sample, it is also too small as a sample. Taking a random look at people's sig on POTN is more accurate and fair.

Please note, i am BETTING, not stating it as fact.

 

[Radiohead]

You'll get 35% more sex with the 24-70mm.

That's a FACT.

 

[spxxxx]

Seeings as you made the point I've highlighted I'm assuming (correct me if I'm being overly sensitive) that you were referring to me.

Firstly - being new to business is irrelevent. New to photography maybe, but new to business is a ridiculous argument. You either know how to use a lens or you don't.

Secondly - I have used the Canon 24-105 F4 IS in church and I have used the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 in church. The more useful was the faster lens. When the 24-70 isn't long enough the 70-200 is within easy reach.

Thirdly - I do use primes; when the time is right. Generally not during a church service (when the fast apperture would be ideal) because it's harder to "zoom with your feet" in church and therefore a zoom lens is the far more sensible option.

I don't want to fall out over such a silly issue but please don't patronise Simon.

Ryan - please amend your tone as it just makes you look a little paranoid .... you are trying to enforce YOUR shooting preferences on others who do things differently.

Being new to the business isn't ridiculous as it takes time to learn all the different factors that affect you doing a good job - and therefore time to learn all the different ways to achieve said good result.

There is no right and wrong way of getting the end result. If you have used both at multiple weddings in all different situations then fair enough - I have and know which works best for me.

I have a real issue with your tone trying to drown out others opinions as your statements are put over as fact - when infact they are just Ryan's facts as he sees it - the same as mine are as I see it

 

[spxxxx]

Btw, i am not WRONG, you cant say that with no evidence. Unless you have taken a realistic number sample of enough percentage of canon wedding togs across the planet of the earth, I am not wrong. I am merely saying my opinion and what i am betting on. You can't base on what your friends use as fact, as inadvertently, one could argue that they see your work and know your gear and influenced by it in their decision making. Therefore That is not even a fair sample, it is also too small as a sample. Taking a random look at people's sig on POTN is more accurate and fair.

Please note, i am BETTING, not stating it as fact.

You may be right Raymond - and I wasn't having a dig at you .... just trying to get over there is more than one way to skin a cat - AND get the same result

 

[ryanyboy]

I was certainly not trying to drown out others Simon. It's not my style, and I think if you re-read my comments on this subject you will see that I was simply stating from experience I've found the fast lens more useful than the one with VR. I hardly think that makes anything I've said fact, or otherwise.

 

[boyfalldown]

You'll get 35% more sex with the 24-70mm.

That's a FACT.

I told my wife that -she just laughed and said I'd need to work alot harder for 35% more sex

 

[DigitalDepot]

Taking pre orders now,Good TP Prices as always

 

[wilsnunn]

Taking pre orders now,Good TP Prices as always

Name some prices?

Daniel

 

[MartinH32]

And you may be actually wrong .... many Canon wedding shooters I know and respect choose the 24-105 OVER the 24-70l

Again I do find it amusing that there are many comments from people denouncing f/4 who are relatively new to business and perhaps should look at how best to use a lens for any given situation rather than blindly relying on the widest aperture

No two people shoot the same .... no two people can successfully handhold at the same low speeds .... some don't want to use tripods and monopods. The difference between bokah on f/4 and f/2.8 is marginal at best and depends on quality of construction ..... and if it was a big issue you would be shooting f/1.4 primes

Now if it is a dog in real testing fair enough .... but if it is sharp then from a person that has used both in business I will be getting one.

Simon, you speak sense as always

 

[loplyg]

I think the 24-120mm might make some 24-70 owners think about selling if it comes even close to the same IQ.

If this is as soft as the 16-35 f4 VR, i cant see many takers.

The 16-35 is widely reported to be sharper than the 14-24 and the 24-70. It's definately the sharpest wide zoom on the planet.

Furthermore it's low light capabilities are a stop or two better than the 17-35 due to the outrageously good VR.

Not sure what you mean by that comment.

An f/4 zoom with VR is arguably more useful than an f/2.8 zoom with no VR. It will certainly take pictures in darker conditions, as the VR is worth 2 or 3 stops whereas the 2.8 lens is only 1 stop faster.

No use for stopping motion, but who's doing that at 24mm?

 

[ryanyboy]

I wondered how long it would take for the sycophants to crawl out of the wood work.

The 16-35 is not widely reported to be anything of the sort. "Sharpest wide zoom on the planet". Which planet exactly??

"Who's shooting motion at 24mm"? Try wedding photographers (first dance for one), street photographers, sports photographers - how do they take those behind-the-goal images I wonder......

Come on guys - let's stop being silly shall we.

 

[spxxxx]

I wondered how long it would take for the sycophants to crawl out of the wood work.

Please try and be an adult Ryan ... there are two sides to every coin

 

[Matt]

I wondered how long it would take for the sycophants to crawl out of the wood work.

thats out of order Ryan, I suggest you take a quite stroll or something. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, if we can all share them while keeping trousers ON..thanks

 

[Radiohead]

No use for stopping motion, but who's doing that at 24mm?

Me, about an hour ago.

 

[grotty]

All this macho *******s over the release of a lens is quite something.

 

[straycat]

I wondered how long it would take for the sycophants to crawl out of the wood work.

The 16-35 is not widely reported to be anything of the sort. "Sharpest wide zoom on the planet". Which planet exactly??

"Who's shooting motion at 24mm"? Try wedding photographers (first dance for one), street photographers, sports photographers - how do they take those behind-the-goal images I wonder......

Come on guys - let's stop being silly shall we.

er,i think ryan speaks as i can understand.i dont find him rude etc.

nothing beats a fast lens when its dark,i often find my 28-70 f2.8 isnt fast enough and slapping on a fast prime is the ONLY solution.
at a guess 90% of my images are moving subjects it would be different if it was landscapes or walls
vr isnt going to be any help with moving objects is it now?

whatever at least we have a choice,i would like the f4 zoom for outdoor daylight but not gigs or churches.

it allways gets to arguments when anything to do with weddings is mentioned....:bonk:

 

[Matt]

people can speak as they find and argue their case, but calling people sycophants crossed the line.

this thread is an interesting debate, keep at as an interesting debate and leave the egos, posturing and silly waving at the door and it will be all fine.

 

[straycat]

well ive been called far worse than that [havent we all] its hardley an insult more identifying whos on whos side.

i thought ryan was very reasoned and polite.

as i said its that darn dark world of weddings again

anyway this tread has made me get out my 85mm f1.4 and marvel at just how good it is i dont need nor want the new one

 

[Naboo32]

Andy no, those MTFs are just for sharpness - percentage contrast up the left, as it drops off across the frame to the right (shown as mm from the centre). Edge of a full frame sensor is 18mm from the centre and you can see how the designers have tried to hold good sharpness to that point then let it drop off in the corners - commonly practise really, one of the trade-offs.

The two colours are 10 cycles per mm and 30cpmm, which they publish for mainly historical reasons I think (and because it makes the lenses look better - Canon and Sigma do the same ). But current sensors go much higher than that and if you take pixel count as relevant here then many crop format sensors can theoretically resolve more than three time that level of detail - over 100cpmm.

So while those graphs only show the contrast performance at a quite modest level of resolution (actually a much more important level for everyday subjects than pixel peeping minutiae) you can easily see how the trend of contrast dropping consistently as resolution increases. Therefore it's not unreasonable to project that high contrast at low resolution will be held to deliver relatively high contrast at high resolution also. So on that basis, those graphs look promising

On the distortion thing, I expect that to be pretty poor at the wide end, ditto the Canon 24-105L 4. I think manufacturers now take the view that folks with this level of kit will have access to post processing where it's a doddle to correct distortion, whereas it's a right pain to do optically with both a wide angle and high ratio zoom. Another compromise decision.

Just on that, I think Nikon already have both limited CA and vignetting correction in-camera. This trend is certain to continue, where it is easier to do things in software rather than by optical design. The pay off for us is better, lighter, cheaper lenses - at least in theory.

Good info - thanks Richard !

Actually, I'm trying hard not to want any more lenses, so I'm kind of hoping that these two new zooms will turn out to be dogs .

 

[desantnik]

I think what the discussion actually proves is that there are lots of different types of photography and some of those have different technical demands from the kit.

Not everything is weddings or studio work - there are other subjects that are equally demanding, if in a different way.

 

[straycat]

I think what the discussion actually proves is that there are lots of different types of photography and some of those have different technical demands from the kit.

Not everything is weddings or studio work - there are other subjects that are equally demanding, if in a different way.

agreed i often have a 50mm prime on my camera when those around me shooting have a 70-200 zoom,we can tackle it as we like and perhaps get different results.
i think the 24-120mm f/4G ED VR is the lens i will be looking at when it comes out.i just hope the street price is less....

 

[puddleduck]

I think what the discussion actually proves is that there are lots of different types of photography and some of those have different technical demands from the kit.

Not everything is weddings or studio work - there are other subjects that are equally demanding, if in a different way.

That's a good point.. however playing devil's advocat here.. how have people coped prior to this lens? I mean Nikon already has several lens that more or less cover the range.... ie the 28-105mm for starter which is only 15mm shorter, and only f/4.5 vs f/4. Also the excellent 28-200 AF-G which is around f/4 at 120mm anyway..! So why the sudden excitement for a £1k+ lens. I still don't get it. Especially both of the lens I just mentioned are very good and way way way way cheaper!

Seems to me no matter how it's diced this new lens IS very expensive for constant f/4 with VR.

My impression was that Nikon shooters wanted a constant f/4 line-up that was cheaper, and lighter, and it doesn't really seem to be pushing the "cheaper" buttons at all. I think folks are getting "bumped" into settling for f/4 (which is a lot cheaper to make than f/2.8 lens) but not seeing it back in £££..

 

[HoppyUK]

Good info - thanks Richard !

Actually, I'm trying hard not to want any more lenses, so I'm kind of hoping that these two new zooms will turn out to be dogs .

They will be fab. Resistance is futile

I think what the discussion actually proves is that there are lots of different types of photography and some of those have different technical demands from the kit.

Not everything is weddings or studio work - there are other subjects that are equally demanding, if in a different way.

Quite.

And all this flippin acrimonious argument is over one effing f/stop!

 

[Arkady]

...My impression was that Nikon shooters wanted a constant f/4 line-up that was cheaper, and lighter, and it doesn't really seem to be pushing the "cheaper" buttons at all. I think folks are getting "bumped" into settling for f/4 (which is a lot cheaper to make than f/2.8 lens) but not seeing it back in £££..

That's my take on things as well, broadly put...

If this lens in particular drops to the £900 mark then it becomes a viable alternative IMO, but at the projected price?
I can see both sides of the argument, but any percieved advantage in terms of weight, range etc. are more than outweighed by the price-tag, regardless of the max f-stop...

Plus the only reason I can think of to upgrade my current 85mm f/1.4 would be if they'd managed to half the minimum focus-distance... The circumstances I tend to use it in wouldn't really benefit from the NC coating...
But again, especially not at that price...maybe in a couple of years when they're knocking around the 2nd-hand markets at £600 or so...after everyone who rushes out and buys them now them realises they're not that much better and needs the money for food instead...

 

[cambsno]

My impression was that Nikon shooters wanted a constant f/4 line-up that was cheaper, and lighter, and it doesn't really seem to be pushing the "cheaper" buttons at all. I think folks are getting "bumped" into settling for f/4 (which is a lot cheaper to make than f/2.8 lens) but not seeing it back in £££..

Agree. IMO you have your kit lenses, then your better lenses used by more serious amateurs then your 'pro' lenses like the 70-200 or 24-70. An f/4 lens like this should be in a different price band to the f/2.8 ones, not just a couple of hundred less. Even at £900 I still feel it's too much, unless it really does match or exceed the iq of the beast.

 

[HoppyUK]

That's my take on things as well, broadly put...

If this lens in particular drops to the £900 mark then it becomes a viable alternative IMO, but at the projected price?
I can see both sides of the argument, but any percieved advantage in terms of weight, range etc. are more than outweighed by the price-tag, regardless of the max f-stop...

Plus the only reason I can think of to upgrade my current 85mm f/1.4 would be if they'd managed to half the minimum focus-distance... The circumstances I tend to use it in wouldn't really benefit from the NC coating...
But again, especially not at that price...maybe in a couple of years when they're knocking around the 2nd-hand markets at £600 or so...after everyone who rushes out and buys them now them realises they're not that much better and needs the money for food instead...

Nikon lenses tend to be a bit more than some other equivalents, but why are people talking about RRP when we all know it will be down to the market rate within three months? :shrug:

And since when did a couple of hundred quid stop anybody serious getting the lens they really want? They might do it through gritted teeth, but they still do it. And if you want cheaper, then cheaper is also on offer as Pudders says. Nikon is riding high ATM, not making many marketing mistakes.

Bunch of ungrateful cynical tight-wads if you ask me!

 

[cowasaki]

That's my take on things as well, broadly put...

If this lens in particular drops to the £900 mark then it becomes a viable alternative IMO, but at the projected price?
I can see both sides of the argument, but any percieved advantage in terms of weight, range etc. are more than outweighed by the price-tag, regardless of the max f-stop...

Plus the only reason I can think of to upgrade my current 85mm f/1.4 would be if they'd managed to half the minimum focus-distance... The circumstances I tend to use it in wouldn't really benefit from the NC coating...
But again, especially not at that price...maybe in a couple of years when they're knocking around the 2nd-hand markets at £600 or so...after everyone who rushes out and buys them now them realises they're not that much better and needs the money for food instead...

£900 rrp street price £750 sounds about right for me. It really does need to be a half way house between the kit/replacement type variable aperture types and the serious pro money no object lenses. When you can get a 24-70 f2.8 for £1200 it makes sense. I would like to see a 120-300 f4 too.

The 85mm f1.4 price just looks ridiculous! When I was looking at the D models either f1.8 or f1.4 a few years ago I was seriously thinking of getting the 1.4 but as the price went up it was getting less likely. With this lens replacing the 1.4D the price has just gone STUPID. The older model also has the aperture ring which is helpful when you have older cameras!

 

[loplyg]

Anybody else a bit disappointed that the 85 1.4 doesn't have VR?

I was looking forward to that. Shooting it at 1/30th or 1/45th handheld at 1.4 with high ISO would've been awesome.

Now I really have no reason to upgrade, since the existing one is pretty much fine.

It sometimes bugs me when Nikon leaves VR out of certain lenses for seemingly no reason - I don't understand why it's missing on the 50mm 1.4 AF-S, the 24-70 2.8 and now the 85 1.4.

All of these lenses would benefit from VR and the latter are certainly expensive enough that they've got no excuses.

 

[puddleduck]

Anybody else a bit disappointed that the 85 1.4 doesn't have VR?

I was looking forward to that. Shooting it at 1/30th or 1/45th handheld at 1.4 with high ISO would've been awesome.

Hmmm... at that speed you will probably get subject motion blur...?

There is a good reason it doesn't have VR - anyone looking to spend that sort of money knows how to hold a camera properly IMHO and doesn't need it. Plus VR also has a detrimental effect on bokeh.. not what you are looking for at all with a portrait lens.

 

[loplyg]

I wondered how long it would take for the sycophants to crawl out of the wood work.

The 16-35 is not widely reported to be anything of the sort. "Sharpest wide zoom on the planet". Which planet exactly??

"Who's shooting motion at 24mm"? Try wedding photographers (first dance for one), street photographers, sports photographers - how do they take those behind-the-goal images I wonder......

Come on guys - let's stop being silly shall we.

Not looking for an argument, but here are excerpts from the first 3 hits when Googling for 16-35 review. There are more pages of this kind of talk if you want it...

"Can I call this lens a breakthrough? Absolutely! Not only does it beat the legendary Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D in performance, it also rips my favorite Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G apart, especially in the corners. The 17-35mm and the 24-70mm lenses have been known as some of the best Nikon zoom lenses ever produced and the new lightweight Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR beats them both wide open at f/4.0. As can be seen from my Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G Review, the Nikon 16-35mm is as sharp in the center and only weaker in the corners. But if you are landscape photographer, why would you look at the 14-24mm that cannot even accept filters anyway?"

"This said, for most of us reading this, this 16-35mm is the sharpest and best-handling ultrawide zoom ever made. Get the 17-35mm f/2.8 if you need solid metal or f/2.8, otherwise, I'm going to grab this 16-35mm long before I'd use the heavier 17-35mm again."

"However, for many it might nonetheless be the more attractive lens compared to the Nikon AF-S 14-24, since it has also a few strong selling points. First of all, it has a front filter thread and that feature alone will make it more appealing to anyone intending to use ND, IR or CPL filters on a regular basis. VR will also be more useful than a large aperture for those who need to shoot stopped down to increase depth of field in low light. Last but not least, the lens is not completely free of flare, but it takes strong contra light with the sun either inside or just outside of the frame to produce visible flare. No comparison to the AF-S 14-24 in this regard, which seems to bend the sunlight from almost anywhere to produce flare spots."

The 16-35 VR can shoot in lower light than the 2.8 equivelant because of the VR, that's definitely a fact, it's 2-3 stops faster, and it'll be sharper whilst doing it.

Only if stopping motion is a major issue would the 2.8 be advantageous. And that assumes a flash can't be used.

 

[loplyg]

Hmmm... at that speed you will probably get subject motion blur...?

There is a good reason it doesn't have VR - anyone looking to spend that sort of money knows how to hold a camera properly IMHO and doesn't need it. Plus VR also has a detrimental effect on bokeh.. not what you are looking for at all with a portrait lens.

You can hold the lens properly all you want but you won't be able to shoot reliably at 1/30th or 1/45th. Some of Nikons most expensive lenses have VR, the whole 'pros dont need it' argument is bogus.

The bokeh on the 70-200 2.8 VR is okay

You can definately shoot posing people without fear of blur at 1/30th and 1/45th, but you can't do that reliably without VR on an 85mm lens... Unless you're leaning against something, but you don't always have that option.

 

[puddleduck]

From that hyperbole you must be quoting Ken Rockwell.

'Nuff said.

 

[puddleduck]

you can't do that reliably without VR on an 85mm lens... Unless you're leaning against something, but you don't always have that option.

YOU may not be able to.

I can assure you most people are quite capable of holding an 85mm lens on a full frame body. On a low res body like a D700, I reckon that most folks could do it at 1/45 no problem. And I think think your subject will move more than you think.

VR is not a pancaea for lack of photographic understanding or technique, and its not a magic bullet.

 

[HoppyUK]

Anybody else a bit disappointed that the 85 1.4 doesn't have VR?

<snip>

I think it's technically difficult with those massive chunks of glass they need to jiggle around with great precision and speed. On the big primes with VR/IS, the mechanism is fitted close to the body where the glass is smaller and more manageable. At f/1.4, f/1.2 etc, the glass is big and heavy right up to the exit pupil.

Plus I think the purists just prefer it without, even though it would obviously enhance the capability in some (relatively few) situations. I guess that the ultimate reason is that probably nobody interested in this lens will not buy it because it doesn't have VR.

 

[HoppyUK]

Not looking for an argument, but here are excerpts from the first 3 hits when Googling for 16-35 review. There are more pages of this kind of talk if you want it...

<snip>

Just a point of etiquette Rich, you should always credit the source and post a link to it

YOU may not be able to.

I can assure you most people are quite capable of holding an 85mm lens on a full frame body. On a low res body like a D700, I reckon that most folks could do it at 1/45 no problem. And I think think your subject will move more than you think.

VR is not a pancaea for lack of photographic understanding or technique, and its not a magic bullet.

VR is as close to a magic bullet as I've ever seen. Amazing invention.

 

[cambsno]

I never shoot people below 1/60 and would not want to try 1/30, too much subject blur. Personally vr on anything Less than 150 ish mm does not matter to me.

 

[cowasaki]

I would agree, my AFS 105mm f2.8 has VR and it is about the shortest lens that really needs it for me.