Nikon Announces 3 New Lenses

With the release of the 24-120mm f/4 would it signal Nikon releasing a 70-200 f/4 VR to copy Canon?
 
loplyg said:
...

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.

....
Click to expand...


:bang: No, :bang: no, :bang: no, :bang: , no :bang: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

F/4 is not 'faster' than f/2.8 - it's one stop slower. 'Fast' and 'slow' refer to shutter speeds.

VR allows you to hand hold slower shutter speeds better - that's all! If you're subjects moving, you'll get (roughly) twice the subject motion blur at f/4 than you'll get at f/2.8.
 
Well having sold the so called Holy trinity.Nikon AFS 14-24/24-70/70-200 2.8s.
I find my self using some of my old and trusted lenses.
Nikon 24-120mm VR 3.5/5.6 (The one that some reviewers have slated:LOL:)
Nikon 80-400mm VR 4.5/5.6 (another that has met with mixed reviews).
along with a number of old primes both MF & AF.
Personally for me VR is rather a important factor due to my nerves not being what they were in my youth.
I see the new lenses purely as a update to the current line up of Nikon lens range.
with the exception of the new AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR.
Which I think has been long over due for FX cameras.
Being a Nikon user for a number of decades I have seen the MF range updated several times up to the Ais P then the same with AF Lens range the outstanding AF 50mm f1.8 can be found in 3 guises alone.
Nikon is in business to make money :) NO surprise there eh? as is most manufacturing companies.
If they gave you everything in one go where would it leave them?
You may well find the next generation of lenses will be AFS-VR all f1:1.2 or f 1:1.4 apertures oh and all ultra compact zooms:) lols
Well we can all dream can't we I guess.
Why compare 24-70mm 2.8 with the new 24-120mm?
Should it not be the older AFS 24-120 3.5/5.6 VR ?
And the 24-70mm compared to thee AFS 28-70mm f2.8
Im sure everyone here knows the newly announced lenses will drop in price as most have in the past.
Look at the DX 18-200 VR when first released it was selling well above its RRP on ebay @ over£1k.
Manufacturers rely on people wanting and buying the latest gear to boost there profits :) regardless of if its going to make you a better photographer or make life easier for you.
We have all got drawn into this desire and need to own the latest and the best available..myself included:LOL:
But has it made a life changing difference to you and your photography???
 
HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

And thats before we've talked about the superwide aperture derived super creamy bokeh getting bent over and shafted by crazy VR crap.

No point in vape'ing the backgrounds only to have it replaced with a crazy paving effect.
 
desantnik said:
And thats before we've talked about the superwide aperture derived super creamy bokeh getting bent over and shafted by crazy VR crap.

No point in vape'ing the backgrounds only to have it replaced with a crazy paving effect.
Click to expand...

Nikon users seem to have a downer on VR, with complaints about it affecting sharpness at high shutter speeds and dodgy bokeh. Where is the evidence for this? Why should there be any crazy paving effect? I've never seen or read anything credible. If there was any truth in it, Nikon and Canon would be mad to fit it to some of their absolutely best lenses.

Here's a quote from a good review of the closest lens I can think of off the top of my head - Canon's 100L 2.8 with their new Hybrid IS. From The-Digital-Picture http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

"Color and contrast are great. Bokeh is excellent - the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens creates a very high quality foreground/background blur. OOF (Out of Focus) highlights are rendered very smoothly. The original EF 100mm Macro Lens also had good bokeh, but the 100 IS L has an even stronger foreground/background blur as can be seen in the f/8 comparison below."
 
I find that using my own home-made version of VR works well at low shutter speeds when the situation allows:

It's called a tripod.
 
Arkady said:
I find that using my own home-made version of VR works well at low shutter speeds when the situation allows:

It's called a tripod.
Click to expand...

Home made tripod... :thinking:
 
Naboo32 said:
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 :D.
Click to expand...

Likewise.........:D
 
Reading the comments on flickr of the purple flowers echos my own first impressions - what happened to the bokeh!!??

Not good.
 
Buy the overall creamyness of the bokeh isn't there compared to the current model.
 
Arkady said:
Must be a filter problem...:LOL:
Click to expand...

Haha! :)

Guys, we've been here only a couple of days ago. I even posted comparison pics.

The odd bokeh in that tulip pic is nothing to do with the lens, it's the out of focus stalks behind creating patterns in the out of focus areas behind them (if you follow!).

And BTW that Moustached Moose does not have a clue what he's talking about. On anything.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Haha! :)

Guys, we've been here only a couple of days ago. I even posted comparison pics.

The odd bokeh in that tulip pic is nothing to do with the lens, it's the out of focus stalks behind creating the patterns.

And BTW that Moustached Moose does not have a clue what he's talking about. On anything.
Click to expand...

A Nikon Legend Behind the Lens, Lexar Elite Photographer, recipient of the John Muir Conservation Award, Research Associate with the Endangered Species Recovery Program, published in over 130 magazines worldwide, author of 23 books and lecturing across the country to thousands upon thousands of photographers barely covers the work and goals of wildlife photographer Moose Peterson. One of the original Nikon shooters to receive the D1 in 1999, Moose embraced this new technology becoming the only wildlife photographer in the world to shoot strictly digital in the early years.
:thinking:
 
Radiohead said:
A Nikon Legend Behind the Lens, Lexar Elite Photographer, recipient of the John Muir Conservation Award, Research Associate with the Endangered Species Recovery Program, published in over 130 magazines worldwide, author of 23 books and lecturing across the country to thousands upon thousands of photographers barely covers the work and goals of wildlife photographer Moose Peterson. One of the original Nikon shooters to receive the D1 in 1999, Moose embraced this new technology becoming the only wildlife photographer in the world to shoot strictly digital in the early years.
:thinking:
Click to expand...

In all of his little technical/technique videos I've seen, he either misses the point or gets his facts wrong. He should stick to talking pictures.
 
Radiohead said:
A Nikon Legend Behind the Lens, Lexar Elite Photographer, recipient of the John Muir Conservation Award, Research Associate with the Endangered Species Recovery Program, published in over 130 magazines worldwide, author of 23 books and lecturing across the country to thousands upon thousands of photographers barely covers the work and goals of wildlife photographer Moose Peterson. One of the original Nikon shooters to receive the D1 in 1999, Moose embraced this new technology becoming the only wildlife photographer in the world to shoot strictly digital in the early years.
:thinking:
Click to expand...

So...?
...he's a schill for Nikon...point please?

I love most Nikon products, but if they're no good I say so - like the DX 17-55 I trialled which was rubbish compared to the older 17-35...

...or this 85mm which looks to be a brilliant lens (except when photographing grass), but a bit overpriced compared to its predecessor...
 
Arkady said:
So...?
...he's a schill for Nikon...point please?

I love most Nikon products, but if they're no good I say so - like the DX 17-55 I trialled which was rubbish compared to the older 17-35...

...or this 85mm lens which looks to be a brilliant lens (except when photographing grass), but a bit overpriced compared to its predecessor...
Click to expand...

My point was HoppyUK saying this:

'And BTW that Moustached Moose does not have a clue what he's talking about. On anything.'

Not needed IMO. Easy to say though, and it's controversial which Hoppy seems to like. So that's ok then.
 
Hoppy does like to have fun, it's true - there are some days I'd like to nail his pelvis to a fire-hydrant, but he's seldom actually wrong...

Sad and misguided, maybe, but not actually wrong...lol
 
Radiohead said:
My point was HoppyUK saying this:

'And BTW that Moustached Moose does not have a clue what he's talking about. On anything.'

Not needed IMO. Easy to say though, and it's controversial which Hoppy seems to like. So that's ok then.
Click to expand...

You're no stranger to controversy yourself Guy ;) Which is fine, if you can back it up. Yes, easy to say but also true. When you present yourself as an authority on 'Moose TV" you should at least get your facts right.

Check out what he says about using teleconverters and their effect on focal length and depth of field. Wrong. Then there's a link up there now on his front page about using tilt & shift lenses where he talks about correcting converging verticals, which is fine but you can do that (arguably) better in post processing, then he completely dismisses their usefulness for controlling depth of field which is a great feature unique to them and the main reason most people buy them. :shrug:

I won't go on. Clearly he's a talented photographer, so maybe not wrong wrong on everything ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
You're no stranger to controversy yourself Guy ;) Which is fine, if you can back it up. Yes, easy to say but also true.
Click to expand...

I am? That's news to me.

HoppyUK said:
When you present yourself as an authority on 'Moose TV" you should at least get your facts right.
Click to expand...

I'm not presenting myself as any sort of expert. My point is that when someone has earnt his spurs over the period of time that he has, then he's entitled to be heard. Dismissing everything he says as wrong is just, well, daft. He's given a lot to Nikon wildlife shooters (not that I am one).

HoppyUK said:
Check out what he says about using teleconverters and their effect on focal length and depth of field. Wrong. Then there's a link up there now on his front page about using tilt & shift lenses where he talks about correcting converging verticals, which is fine but you can do that (arguably) better in post processing, then he completely dismisses their usefulness for controlling depth of field which is a great feature unique to them and the main reason most people buy them. :shrug:

I won't go on. Clearly he's a talented photographer, so maybe not wrong wrong on everything ;)
Click to expand...

The last sentence is the clue here - and no-one is right on everything. Not even you ;)
 
Arkady said:
Hoppy does like to have fun, it's true - there are some days I'd like to nail his pelvis to a fire-hydrant, but he's seldom actually wrong...

Sad and misguided, maybe, but not actually wrong...lol
Click to expand...

:love:
 
Radiohead said:
I am? That's news to me.
Click to expand...

You are. And as I recall I usually agre with you. But many don't.

I'm not presenting myself as any sort of expert. My point is that when someone has earnt his spurs over the period of time that he has, then he's entitled to be heard. Dismissing everything he says as wrong is just, well, daft. He's given a lot to Nikon wildlife shooters (not that I am one).
Click to expand...

It's Moose who's presenting himself as an expert. The fact that he's a respected wildlife photographer does indeed give him the right to be heard. It also gives him the responsibility to carry his credentials into other areas, where unfortunately he falls short.

The last sentence is the clue here - and no-one is right on everything. Not even you ;)
Click to expand...

No, of course I'm not right on everything. But when I am not, I own up and apologise. And I don't have any problem with that at all. Moose is not wrong on everything, of course he's not. And I apologise to Moose fans who took that comment literally. But on many things which he really ought to know about and people will believe what he says, he is not. That may be controversial, but it is also true.
 
HoppyUK said:
But on many things which he really ought to know about and people will believe what he says, he is not. That may be controversial, but it is also true.
Click to expand...

This could also be said of Ken Rockwell and what a legend-in-his-own-lunch-hour is he?:puke:



:p
 
antonroland said:
This could also be said of Ken Rockwell and what a legend-in-his-own-lunch-hour is he?:puke:



:p
Click to expand...

But hardly anyone takes him seriously anyway, he doesn't even take himself seriously.

He gets people talking about him though, so (y) to him for that.
 
antonroland said:
This could also be said of Ken Rockwell and what a legend-in-his-own-lunch-hour is he?:puke:

:p
Click to expand...

I have been compared to Ken before. Which he should take as a compliment :D

Ken is unique though I think. He most certainly knows what he's talking about and I enjoy reding him, but he often mixes facts with outrageous opinion and it's sometimes hard to spot which is which.

For example, he's a Leica fan (which is almost a definition of irrational in itself) and says they have great autofocus!! What he means is, the rangefinder focusing is so easy it's like having autofocus, except that it is not easy for most people and it's nothing like autofocus :eek: :shrug:

Radiohead said:
That genuinely puzzles me - never thought of myself as controversial.

I kinda like it :D
Click to expand...

Haha! :)

Controversial is fine by me, if you can back it up. Don't expect everyone to love you for it though.
 
Radiohead said:
Mmmm. I can rarely back things up.

Rockwell's an idiot. And a rubbish photographer.
Click to expand...

I suspect the irony was deliberate, but "Dismissing everything he says as wrong is just, well, daft."
 
I've got more than a passing interest in the new zoom 28-300. I shoot a lot of show jumping using the 70-200 2.8. In the summer and outdoors I don't need f2.8. Usually around f5.6.
After a long day the weight can be very noticeable.
liking the range of the new one, liking the weight. It's 23 ozs lighter. Maybe I'll have to consider it for outdoor gigs next year, hopefully be more affordable by then.
Can't wait for the independent reviews.
 
Well, it's been an education. Reading through this it's clear that I have a lot to learn.

All those years when I used an f/4 lens at 400 iso on a Bronica were such a missed opportunity. I wonder how I possibly managed.

And as for VR on my 70-200 VR2 ruining the bokeh! And I didn't realise that VR was not for serious photographers. Best I get it on e-bay straightaway.

Oh well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top