New Nikon Lenses: 16-35 f/4 VRII and 24mm f/1.4

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,615
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp

2 lenses I really, really want.


And both are useful for DX and FX bodies. Both are nice and wide on FX, and on DX the 16-35 becomes 24-52, which is an excellent wide to normal range which is great for a walk around lens for people like me who shoot landscapes, architecture, street views. The 24mm is 36mm on DX, which is a really handy focal lengths for street photography.

The 24 1.4 is probably way out of my price league (£1400 would be my guess), but the 16-35 should be affordable.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Sep 2005
Posts
10,001
Location
Scottish Highlands
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp

2 lenses I really, really want.


And both are useful for DX and FX bodies. Both are nice and wide on FX, and on DX the 16-35 becomes 24-52, which is an excellent wide to normal range which is great for a walk around lens for people like me who shoot landscapes, architecture, street views. The 24mm is 36mm on DX, which is a really handy focal lengths for street photography.

The 24 1.4 is probably way out of my price league (£1400 would be my guess), but the 16-35 should be affordable.

The lens will come with a recommended selling price of $2199.95/€2149.00/£1949.99.
I knew it would be expensive, but.... gulp! Still tempting though, lol.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
74,024
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
The 16-35 is a strange choice....I assume its not there to take the sales away from the 14-24 and i guess it can also take filters. Nikon already has the 17-35 2.8, i guess this is the answer to Canon's version of 17-40L.

The 24/1.4 should be interesting, i know someone has been DYING to get this lens even since he jumped to Nikon 2 years ago.
 

Mud

Mud

Soldato
Joined
13 Dec 2004
Posts
3,186
Location
Bristol
I'm addicted to bright viewfinders and think VR on such a short lens is pointless, so the 16-35/4 is out for me. The 24/1.4 appeals in a big way, though I'll wait for a 2nd hand one for £1k.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,615
The 16-35 is a strange choice....I assume its not there to take the sales away from the 14-24 and i guess it can also take filters. Nikon already has the 17-35 2.8, i guess this is the answer to Canon's version of 17-40L.

The 24/1.4 should be interesting, i know someone has been DYING to get this lens even since he jumped to Nikon 2 years ago.

The 17-35 2.8 is discontinued.

Nikon gives pro users 2 options:
14-24 2.8, no filters
16-35 4.0, can take filters.

As a landscape lens, f/4 is fine and the ability to take filters a bonus.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,615

Yeah, I've seen lots of home made versions. For a ND/ND grad you just buy the big 130mm filters and have some arrangement to hold it in front.

No polarizer, but polarizer this wide are often useless outdoors with a blue sky.

And Graduated filter you would want as a square filter and not a circular screw in.

But some screw in filters do make life easy.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
74,024
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
The 17-35 2.8 is discontinued.

Nikon gives pro users 2 options:
14-24 2.8, no filters
16-35 4.0, can take filters.

As a landscape lens, f/4 is fine and the ability to take filters a bonus.

I don't even like Canon's 17-40L because it is F/4.

Ignoring the 14-24, getting rid of the 17-35/2.8 and replacing it with a 16-35 F/4 and throw in VR in it for such focal length seems bizarre and a backward step to me.

I much rather have 2.8 than VR, specially for this focal length.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,615
I don't even like Canon's 17-40L because it is F/4.

Ignoring the 14-24, getting rid of the 17-35/2.8 and replacing it with a 16-35 F/4 and throw in VR in it for such focal length seems bizarre and a backward step to me.

I much rather have 2.8 than VR, specially for this focal length.

The VR is a throw away feature for me on this kind of lens.


For what Is shoot, I don't need 2.8 on a lens this wide, so F/4 is fine.

The 14-24 replaces the 17-35, so its not really needed.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
16,522
Location
London
Ignoring the 14-24, getting rid of the 17-35/2.8 and replacing it with a 16-35 F/4 and throw in VR in it for such focal length seems bizarre and a backward step to me.

Yeah, it's a very odd choice IMO. They took out an essential element of a complete wide-angle line-up: with the 14-24 f/2.8, the 17-35 f/2.8, the 16-35 f/4 VR, and the 10-24 DX they had a pretty great selection, and now there's an obvious gap for a pro-quality, just-about-ultra-wide-to-wide range, constant f/2.8 lens which is a pretty useful thing to have.

Perhaps a replacement for the 17-35 is in the works? Though there wasn't exactly much wrong with the old iteration, on FX or DX!

edit: Not that I'm against a range of constant f/4, pro-quality lenses, though! Canon's 17-40 f/4, 24-105 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/4s are all excellent and really sorely lacking in Nikon's range IMO. Hopefully this is the first announcement of several in that area.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
23 May 2006
Posts
2,883
Location
Glasgow
getting rid of the 17-35/2.8 and replacing it with a 16-35 F/4 and throw in VR in it for such focal length seems bizarre and a backward step to me.

I much rather have 2.8 than VR, specially for this focal length.
get a Sony & have both - a stabilised 16-35/2.8 Zeiss. :rolleyes:
Admittedly that currently retails for quite a bit more - it will be interesting to see if Sony reacts to this appearing from Nikon & adjusts the price at all (I suspect not).
 
Back
Top Bottom