New Nikon Lenses Announced

[sinwen]

click for larger size



With this one we are back to what Nikon lenses have always produced... burried shadows, unless you post processed it on purpose.

Michel​

 

[Steen]

In that case I guess I'm the one to be held responsible. I cannot imagine it's the lens.
At least I have never before heard about this being a specific Nikon lens characteristic ... but I would like to learn more
I can send you the RAW file if you like, just let me know your e-mail address.

 

[RRRoger]

I agree that a new 24 f/1.4 fits a more needed lens gap.

but, what about the AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 VRII?

I just bought one and tested it against an "old" 17-35 and a 28-70. The image quality was so close at 30mm that I could not tell them apart. The VRII works exceptionally well. The 16-35 is lighter but longer.

For me, the best thing about this new lens is that it caused a glut of used 17-35 Nikkors on the Market.
I picked up a "mint" used one for $800 and returned the 16-35.

Conclusion: F/2.8 is more important to me than VRII.

 

[ptomsu]

I agree that a new 24 f/1.4 fits a more needed lens gap.

but, what about the AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 VRII?

I just bought one and tested it against an "old" 17-35 and a 28-70. The image quality was so close at 30mm that I could not tell them apart. The VRII works exceptionally well. The 16-35 is lighter but longer.

For me, the best thing about this new lens is that it caused a glut of used 17-35 Nikkors on the Market.
I picked up a "mint" used one for $800 and returned the 16-35.

Conclusion: F/2.8 is more important to me than VRII.

I must say that I never liked my 17-35. Mine did not produce enough and satisfying contrast and was pretty soft. Maybe a bad sample? Sold it a year ago.

Looking forward to the new 16-35!