16-35 f4 with VR II
16-35 f4 with VR II
24 f/1.4: About. Damn. Time.
The 16-35 is again a biggie. Not for me, except perhaps for events. Surely not for travel or street. Bigger and heavier than Canon's 17-40mm f/4, the same approximate size as Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8. I think I'm done with Nikon.
Yikes! 2k for a nikon prime? I wonder how good that 24/1.4 really is..
Yeah pricing seems a bit through the roof for the 24. How much is the competition?
The 16-35 is a VR so no surprise that it's bigger.
Think this stuff is expensive, try buying the same f1.4 24mm in Leica M... B&H price: $6,495.00... Different mount and size, but in terms of performance I seriously doubt it's 3x better, let alone superior at all in real world use to this new Nikkor. Time will tell. If it's as good as my 24-70 G then it'll be a winner.
I thought the whole reason why one might choose an f/4 lens (besides the obvious price difference from an f/2.8) was for size. Now to me this 16-35 seems to be quite big..kinda defeats the purpose of an f/4 lens..
As for mechanical build quality, that's part of what you pay for with a Leica lens.
I really would like to see the results from it. If it is good wide open, it would be the perfect aurora lens for me. Now I make do with the Voigtlander 40/2 at f/2.8, or the 17-35mm at f/4. If the 24/1.4 is good at 1.4 or f/2, it will make a huge difference for the type of photography I do in the winter....
The price though is quite high. But if it is a quality lens, I would go for it. But Canon's version retails for 1700, and it has been around for 20 years, so I am not surprised the Nikon one is coming out at a higher price.
Maybe we'll see street prices in the US at below $2K for the 24.
It better be stellar wide open, otherwise what's the point might as well use the old 24/2.8.
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.
Now, that would be nice, Lars !
I already have the AF-S 1.4/50 G and I do think it is nice, but I expect a new AF-S 1.2/50 would be in a totally different league with ED (Extra low Dispersion) and aspherical lens elements, nanocoating and the whole orchestra. And of course specifically optimized for beautiful dreamy bokeh at wide open aperture
Here's an example of what the existing AF-S f/1.4 G version does at f/1.4 - not bad at all imho.
click for larger size
Nikon D300 • Nikkor AF-S 1.4/50mm G • 1/320 sec. at f/1.4 ISO 200 • Capture NX
And a capture at f/5.6 (i have also just showed this shot in the Nikon image fun thread)
Being a modern design with all that that means in terms of CAD/CAM and materials, I'd expect it to match or beat anything else on the market WRT image quality.
I just got a 'blad-Nikon adapter and those old Zeiss lenses, designed with paper, pencil and a slide-rule are amazing.
+ 1mm on wide end
aperture: - 1 stop
price: at least -22.5% (based on MSRP and B&H for 17-35)
We can expect a larger price range with a lower street price on the new lens.
It depends where is the priority of the buyer! We need to wait and see how the corner to corner IQ is, where a smaller largest aperture lens may win.
Nikon has found similar to Leica ..that for the very best lenses..photographers will pay quite a premium. The key is that the lens really has to perform in a meaningful way. For someone that uses fast wide angle primes ..the 24/1.4 could be THE must have lens.
Nikon is betting on a major drive into available light photography . When the D3S sensor trickles down into a smaller FX body ...then Nikon will have a clear advantage for available (low) light photography.
This is the lens I have been waiting for .
Not as impressed with the zoom as it seems they just got the size too big..again. Although I do prefer the form to the 14-24/2.8 which I have found unusable for street and travel photography.
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.
With the Zeiss ZF lenses available, I don't see why anyone would buy a Nikon made lens at all.
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!
Life is an ever changing journey
(that said, i'm a strong Zeiss supporter and owner)
(D & G), both good.
I know i know, been there, done that myself...
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.
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.
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!
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.
I'm told the 16-35 will hit the shops later today. Will try to pick a copy up.
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 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.
I wish instead of the 16-35 they would have just smooshed all the glass together to make a shorter zoom range, say 35-35mm, and used the smaller focal length range to increase the speed...say to 1.4? Then it would be a 35-35mm f/1.4 AFS VR zoom. It would be a Nikon world first -- the fastest zoom ever, with a constant f/1.4, Nikon could still release a new zoom lens, which is all they care about, and photographers who have been screaming for a 35mm f/1.4 for years will actually get one. Everyone's happy!
Seriously though, f/1.4 wideangle lenses are difficult to design and build. You can't just take a f/2 design and make the glass elements bigger. you get all kinds of artefacts like coma and tons of CA. Look at the 24/1.4 design - a dozen elements, compare to a 50/1.4 with maybe seven elements. Quite a difference.
Last edited by Lars; 22nd February 2010 at 01:08.
That's a very good point Lars! Or maybe they could use that extra ring to control the aperture on old fashioned cameras?
Another probable design criteria that is easy to overlook when considering these (arguably) pro lenses is resolution - these designs will have to perform well up to at least 30-40 MP fullframe or 15-18MP DX - my own estimate as I think that's what we'll see in terms of DSLR sensors over the next 3-4 years. Nikon might not push as hard as Canon in this direction, but I think we'll definitely see more than the 25/12 MP we have in Nikon bodies today.
The 24/1.4 announcement is interesting to me as a Leica M8 owner because (a) the upgrade to the M9 is at price point that makes me seriously consider what my future with Leica will be and (b) the price of the equivalent Leica lux-24/1.4 is a similar very big decision.
I decided to download the samples from the Nikon 24/1.4 at Dpreview and compare them to samples I took with a loaner D700 and the Nikon 24/2.8 that I took last year - when I last was deciding on my future with Leica!
At that time (gasp) my Leica 28/2.8-asph on the M8 produced better micro-contrast in distant objects than the D700 24/2.8 combination. But by not a lot. Just enough to make me pleased I own the Leica kit but not enough to make me buy the same Leica kit again (if I was placed in a time warp and went back a year or so). In other words, the D700 plus the existing 24/2.8 is a seriously nice piece of landscape photography kit.
So, I decided to compare the samples at Dpreview with my D700 samples. My subjective view is that there is not a lot in it between the new 24/1.4 lens and the older 24/2.8. I expected to see significant improvements in sharpness and contrast in the corners but the samples I've seen are not that better (actually, I can't see any improvement but assume my eyes aren't what they used to be). It could be that they are jpegs and I prefer to shoot in RAW so I can have control over the post processing. It could also be that... shucks... they are pretty awful subjects for a sample compared to the much more thought out content of my shots with the D700.
I'm not trolling here. I doff my hat to Nikon for introducing such a high quality prime and look forward to seeing a lot more samples and hearing user experience with this new lens. And considering a D700 and the 24/1.4 can be had for the cost of an M9 body alone (and change, in fact approximately GBP 1000 cheaper) - this really puts a lot more pressure on me to consider what I'll do the day my M8 loses the will to live (knock on wood).
Now if they can only produce a high quality Nikon 35/1.4, that would almost seal my fate.
I thought that the samples on dpreview were pretty poor. I wouldn't want to make many assumptions about the 24/1.4 based on those images.
Dpreview's samples are always poor. I very much look forward to reading a comparison of this new Nikon f1.4 with the Leica. I'm willing to bet there isn't much in it but I'd be lying if I didn't think the Leica would be better...