New Nikon Lenses Announced

[Stuart Richardson]

Looking at the MTF, you are right, it falls off sharply in the corner at f/1.4, but that is not so unusual for a lens like this. The 50/1.4 AFD was like this at f/1.4, but by f/1.8 or f/2, it was already a lot sharper in the corners. Hopefully this will be sharp on center wide open, and then sharpen up very quickly across the field. I would also like to see the distortion specs, as that is something where a prime should offer quite an advantage over a zoom.

 

[DougDolde]

With the Zeiss ZF lenses available, I don't see why anyone would buy a Nikon made lens at all.

 

[ptomsu]

These 2 lenses were LONG overdue!

If they would have appeared a year ago I would have kept my Nikon but so I meanwhile am a happy Sony Alpha shooter

Nikon took way too much time for the 24 and there are other new fast primes missing - 35, 85, 135, 16 or 18 or similar ....

But it is a good start!

 

[tjv]

With the Zeiss ZF lenses available, I don't see why anyone would buy a Nikon made lens at all.

Because Zeiss don't make a 24mm f1.4, let alone a Nikon mount lens with autofocus?

I love my ZF 35mm, but if Nikon brings out a 35mm f1.4 AFS lens I can't see myself keeping it for long after unless Nikons offering is a dog with fleas.

 

[Corlan F.]

With the Zeiss ZF lenses available, I don't see why anyone would buy a Nikon made lens at all.

AF ? VR ? Zoom ? Metering feautures ? Price ?
(that said, i'm a strong Zeiss supporter and owner)

Because Zeiss don't make a 24mm f1.4, let alone a Nikon mount lens with autofocus?

I love my ZF 35mm, but if Nikon brings out a 35mm f1.4 AFS lens I can't see myself keeping it for long after unless Nikons offering is a dog with fleas.

OTOH ain't you got the 50mm 1.4 from Zeiss when there was not one but two offerings from Nikon ?
(D & G), both good.

I know i know, been there, done that myself... :deadhorse:

 

[tjv]

OTOH ain't you got the 50mm 1.4 from Zeiss when there was not one but two offerings from Nikon ?
(D & G), both good.

I know i know, been there, done that myself... :deadhorse:

Yeah, I know. I kept picking up the Nikon AFS 50mm, shooting a few frames then giving it back. As far as AF goes, it was slow (compared to the older D lens,) and I didn't like the feel of it. Seems a stupid thing to say considering I said I'd get a Nikkor 35mm f1.4 over my ZF 35mm, but I usually like taking my time when shooting and laboring over focus keeps me honest! That said, for some reason I find the ZF 35mm hard to focus on off center subjects at mid distances when near wide open. I miss a heck of a lot of shots and I can't work out why, hence my interest in an AFS 35mm f1.4. :deadhorse:

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I would be more interested in Nikon manual focus lenses if they focused the right way. Seriously, I just can't get around it....every other camera I have ever used...Leica, Canon, Rollei, Hasselblad, Olympus, Mamiya, Konica...they all focus in the other direction. I just cannot get used to the Nikon focusing direction, it is such a pain. The mounting is bad enough...
So I stick with AF lenses or Leica R lenses in Leitax mount. I know the ZF lenses are good, but if I needed to shoot Zeiss lenses on 35mm I would shoot the Sony Alpha.

 

[Corlan F.]

I would be more interested in Nikon manual focus lenses if they focused the right way. Seriously, I just can't get around it....every other camera I have ever used...Leica, Canon, Rollei, Hasselblad, Olympus, Mamiya, Konica...they all focus in the other direction. I just cannot get used to the Nikon focusing direction, it is such a pain. The mounting is bad enough...
So I stick with AF lenses or Leica R lenses in Leitax mount. I know the ZF lenses are good, but if I needed to shoot Zeiss lenses on 35mm I would shoot the Sony Alpha.

You mean, just a matter of CW instead of CCW?

 

[Mozbee]

BTW for 24mm, a good alternative might be the "soon" to be available Zeiss ZF.2. Zeiss is presently redesigning the lens. If they improve the field curvature on it, it might be a strong contender for IQ, and maybe a better option for my needs!

 

[Stuart Richardson]

You mean, just a matter of CW instead of CCW?

Yes, I would not have thought that it would have been a big deal, but my brain is so programmed to go the other way that I have a real difficulty in photographing anything dynamic with nikon MF lenses.

 

[tjv]

Yes, I would not have thought that it would have been a big deal, but my brain is so programmed to go the other way that I have a real difficulty in photographing anything dynamic with nikon MF lenses.

Me too, actually. I'm so used to my Leica and Mamiya 7 kits that jumping to the Nikon and it's reverse everything gets a bit mind bending! At least I could "reverse" the light meter in the custom settings... :cussing:

 

[GrahamWelland]

This can't be good news for guys hoping to sell their 28 1.4 at $3k plus. Nice to see Nikon spending some R&D giving folks what they've been asking for.

I bought one pretty recently. Folks wanting $3k+ are being way optimistic because they can be bought in great condition for considerably less. That I can state as a fact as mine was in excellent condition, serviced prior to sale by Nikon and a reasonable deal (comparatively).

It'll be interesting to hear more about the 24/1.4. Personally I'd have rather seen a 35/1.4.

The 16-35 VR seems to be an interesting low light hand held travel lens. It seems to be targeted at the D700 size of camera. If I were a DX shooter then the 24-53 FL equivalent with VR looks like it would be a handy stabilized walkabout mid range zoom for a D300s too.

 

[clay stewart]

I bought one pretty recently. Folks wanting $3k+ are being way optimistic because they can be bought in great condition for considerably less. That I can state as a fact as mine was in excellent condition, serviced prior to sale by Nikon and a reasonable deal (comparatively).

It'll be interesting to hear more about the 24/1.4. Personally I'd have rather seen a 35/1.4.

The 16-35 VR seems to be an interesting low light hand held travel lens. It seems to be targeted at the D700 size of camera. If I were a DX shooter then the 24-53 FL equivalent with VR looks like it would be a handy stabilized walkabout mid range zoom for a D300s too.

That would be a good walk around range, for DX, but I see that it's about seven inches long(with hood) and weighs a pound and a half and it's only F4. Not exactly a lightweight, discreet sort of walk around lens.

 

[Hacker]

I'm told the 16-35 will hit the shops later today. Will try to pick a copy up.

 

[Jonathon Delacour]

I would be more interested in Nikon manual focus lenses if they focused the right way. Seriously, I just can't get around it....every other camera I have ever used...Leica, Canon, Rollei, Hasselblad, Olympus, Mamiya, Konica...they all focus in the other direction. I just cannot get used to the Nikon focusing direction, it is such a pain. The mounting is bad enough...
So I stick with AF lenses or Leica R lenses in Leitax mount. I know the ZF lenses are good, but if I needed to shoot Zeiss lenses on 35mm I would shoot the Sony Alpha.

What a relief to learn that someone else finds this an issue! I've been wondering whether I was crazy or neurotic (or both) about this. I purchased a Panasonic G1 as a small, supplementary camera to my D300 and D700. Then I bought a few Pen F, Rokkor, and Hexanon MF lenses to use on the G1 and found their focusing and aperture rings all rotated in the same direction, which was the opposite to the Nikon direction. I was using mainly MF (Cosina Voigtlander and Zeiss) lenses on the Nikons and the different aperture/focusing direction drove me nuts.

I really like the ergonomics and build quality of Nikon cameras but I like the consistent ergonomics of Pen F, Rokkor, Hexanon, Leica R, and Zeiss C/Y lenses a lot more. (Not that I have any Leica R or Zeiss C/Y lenses but it's nice to know that the potential exists.) I don't care for either the 24mm or 35mm focal length so the new AF lenses hold little appeal (there seems little doubt they'll release an AF-S 35/1.4).

I bought one pretty recently. Folks wanting $3k+ are being way optimistic because they can be bought in great condition for considerably less. That I can state as a fact as mine was in excellent condition, serviced prior to sale by Nikon and a reasonable deal (comparatively).

I put my Nikkor 28/1.4 up for sale as soon as rumors about the Nikon AF-S 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 started circulating and received well over $3K (having bought it for much less than $3K). One didn't have to be a genius to figure out that prices for the 28/1.4 would plummet (nor that Nikon would want to match the Canon offerings rather than update the 28/1.4).

 

[GrahamWelland]

I put my Nikkor 28/1.4 up for sale as soon as rumors about the Nikon AF-S 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 started circulating and received well over $3K (having bought it for much less than $3K). One didn't have to be a genius to figure out that prices for the 28/1.4 would plummet (nor that Nikon would want to match the Canon offerings rather than update the 28/1.4).

I don't think that the 28/1.4 prices will plummet necessarily but certainly the high premium (I'd personally call it stupid pricing) will disappear. However you look at it, the 28/1.4 still holds a special place as a hand made classic, but I would expect prices to be a LOT closer to the new price of the 24/1.4 than where they have been. I prefer the slightly longer reach than a 24, (it's more like a 30 than a 28), but a 35/1.4 would be the one I'd really like.

 

[bcf]

I think something like a 17-40, 20-40 or even 24-40/4 would have been much more useful (at least for me), and as small as possible (even without VR if this would have allowed to make it smaller): an ideal lens for street and travel, from wide angle to "normal" (40 is much more useful and less specialized to me than 35).

Even a zoom with variable aperture would have been great, to keep the size low - like the Olympus 11-22/2.8-3.5 (equivalent to 22-44mm), one of my favorite lenses when I had an Oly DSLR.

 

[clay stewart]

I think something like a 17-40, 20-40 or even 24-40/4 would have been much more useful (at least for me), and as small as possible (even without VR if this would have allowed to make it smaller): an ideal lens for street and travel, from wide angle to "normal" (40 is much more useful and less specialized to me than 35).

Even a zoom with variable aperture would have been great, to keep the size low - like the Olympus 11-22/2.8-3.5 (equivalent to 22-44mm), one of my favorite lenses when I had an Oly DSLR.

Yup, I agree, 11-22, was my all time favorite zoom. I guess most people like big zoom lenses or ones with fisheye front elements that don't take filters these days, according to Nikon. Unfortunately, apparently, I'm not like most people and would rather have a small prime, than a huge bulbous zoom. I would have welcomed something of high quality in a size that was similar to the 18-35 3.5-4.5 though.

 

[Lars]

I think something like a 17-40, 20-40 or even 24-40/4 would have been much more useful (at least for me), and as small as possible (even without VR if this would have allowed to make it smaller): an ideal lens for street and travel, from wide angle to "normal" (40 is much more useful and less specialized to me than 35).

Even a zoom with variable aperture would have been great, to keep the size low - like the Olympus 11-22/2.8-3.5 (equivalent to 22-44mm), one of my favorite lenses when I had an Oly DSLR.

Nikon already has the 10-24 and 12-24 for DX shooters. You want one more?

Both the 16-35 and the 24 are primarily targeted for fullframe shooters. It's pretty clear by now that Nikon sees fullframe as its high-end, which is also clear in the pricing of these two releases.

 

[bcf]

Nikon already has the 10-24 and 12-24 for DX shooters. You want one more?

I was not clear I guess... I am a full frame shooter (D700), I am interested in a 20-40mm/4 or 2.8-3.5 equivalent lens for street shooting.

Both the 16-35 and the 24 are primarily targeted for fullframe shooters. It's pretty clear by now that Nikon sees fullframe as its high-end, which is also clear in the pricing of these two releases.

I am not so much disapointed in the price (OK for me) as in (1) the size of the 16-35 (absolutely unacceptable for my use) and (2) the fact that it stops at 35 and not 40.