New Nikon Lenses Announced

[Stuart Richardson]

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!

 

[Lars]

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!

But, if the zoom range is 1x, wouldn't the zoom ring become meaningless? Heck, it could even be omitted to make the lens even more compact.

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.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

That's a very good point Lars! Or maybe they could use that extra ring to control the aperture on old fashioned cameras?

 

[Lars]

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.

 

[bcf]

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.

Probably true. But this also means that current full frame DSLRs will rejoin MF territory - and somehow quit the domain of news, travel, reporting. Many people are not interested in this direction, and in the behemoths these cameras, and especially lenses, are becoming.

 

[Lars]

Probably true. But this also means that current full frame DSLRs will rejoin MF territory - and somehow quit the domain of news, travel, reporting. Many people are not interested in this direction, and in the behemoths these cameras, and especially lenses, are becoming.

Yep. Nikon's take on that is that if you want compact, go for DX. FX pro lenses are for pros (meanings PJs). This might not be what you or I want to hear, but everything Nikon does indicates this.

 

[bcf]

Yep. Nikon's take on that is that if you want compact, go for DX. FX pro lenses are for pros (meanings PJs).

Well I think one could easily refute this identification with "pro" - let's say "a certain category of pros".

 

[biglouis]

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.

LouisB

 

[GrahamWelland]

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.

 

[tjv]

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...

 

[Lars]

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...

At 3x the asking price, don't you think a comparison is a bit pointless? Otherwise you'll have to get into what the definition of "better" is, as well as a definition of "value for money". Finally finding people in the process of deciding whether to buy a Nikon or Leica 24/1.4 would probably be even more difficult.

I mean, my Saab priced new was 1/3 the price of a new Porsche but comparison was a bit pointless there too.

 

[tjv]

At 3x the asking price, don't you think a comparison is a bit pointless? Otherwise you'll have to get into what the definition of "better" is, as well as a definition of "value for money". Finally finding people in the process of deciding whether to buy a Nikon or Leica 24/1.4 would probably be even more difficult.

I mean, my Saab priced new was 1/3 the price of a new Porsche but comparison was a bit pointless there too.

What's wrong with comparing the performance of two lenses of the same focal length and speed? If I still shot Leica then the Nikon lens wouldn't be any good to me regardless and visa versa but without these comparisons companies like Leica, or Nikon for that matter, could claim what they want and charge what they want without fair proof their product was "worth it." I put that in quotation marks because I guess that's your point, to whom is something worth it and on what level. I'd sure prefer holding the Leica lens in my hand so I guess that counts for something!

 

[Lars]

What's wrong with comparing the performance of two lenses of the same focal length and speed? If I still shot Leica then the Nikon lens wouldn't be any good to me regardless and visa versa but without these comparisons companies like Leica, or Nikon for that matter, could claim what they want and charge what they want without fair proof their product was "worth it." I put that in quotation marks because I guess that's your point, to whom is something worth it and on what level. I'd sure prefer holding the Leica lens in my hand so I guess that counts for something!

If you put it that way, sure. But it's still difficult (impossible?) to define an objectively sensible measurement that relates a lens' performance to its price. All you can say is "it's better". From that standpoint, a comparison with the Canon 24/1.4L would be far more relevant, as that's obviously the real competition in the marketplace.

 

[GrahamWelland]

To be honest I find even the comparisons between Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, & Olympus glass somewhat a waste of time too. I'm fully paid up as a Nikon system shooter so the chances of swapping systems on the basis of one lens is minimal to non existent. I suspect the same is true of those folks shooting the other systems too.

A Nikon to Leica comparison is certainly academically interesting but ultimately unless it can be mounted on my D3x as an AF lens then it's somewhat moot to me. The only thing it could serve to do for me personally would be to upset me if I were to find out that it out performed my Leica glass. (Or provide internet fora bragging rights for Leica folks).

Now the reviews I'd love to see would be comparison between the old 28/1.4 and the new 24/1.4. That's the kind of thing that'll get more Nikon folks interested I'm sure. (I LOVE my 28/1.4 but suspect that it'll get trounced in a direct comparison given 16+ years of refinement).

Dear Nikon: how about that 35/2 replacement? :toocool:

 

[tjv]

How about a modern AF 34 f1.4 replacement while they're at it!
I've been shooting Zeiss and my eyes are not up to the task any more to manual focus so a good, fast Nikon 35mm prime would be what I'd love to see.

 

[ptomsu]

Must also say that I find lens comparisons - especially if one compares rather the high end glass of different vendors - pretty useless. They are all on a very equal level if you look at the complete picture.

I find it more important how a complete system compares to another system - handling, resolution, high ISO, availability of special parts which one might need, AF capabilities and easy to use of the system (camera). This makes the real daily big difference, not if the 1.4/24 from vendor A, B or C is better in some areas or similar the 2.8/300 or 2.8/70-200 etc. etc.

What also is more important is how innovative a vendor is WRT new lenses, new glass types, new technologies (sensor, etc) because this will offer totally new possibilities with a given system.

I must say I find myself somehow locked with Sony in this regards - Canon as well as Nikon are a bit more active there!

 

[Stuart Richardson]

That's interesting...I feel the complete opposite. For me, the lenses are the most important part of the photographic equipment hierarchy (at least for anything other than large format film), so I am always interested to see how they compare.

 

[ptomsu]

That's interesting...I feel the complete opposite. For me, the lenses are the most important part of the photographic equipment hierarchy (at least for anything other than large format film), so I am always interested to see how they compare.

Issue is that high end lenses from each vendor are all pretty close.

Sometimes I am not even sure if they develop and produce not for each other.

 

[Lars]

Yep and the closer to perfection you get the lesser the differences so eventually the differences get irrelevant. when it comes to measurable quantities such as resolution etc, that is. There are of course some subjective qualities that cannot be objectively measured.

 

[woodyspedden]

Yep and the closer to perfection you get the lesser the differences so eventually the differences get irrelevant. when it comes to measurable quantities such as resolution etc, that is. There are of course some subjective qualities that cannot be objectively measured.

I think this hits the nail on the head. No matter the objective criteria for a moment, all these lenses have a look of their own. The old Nikon 28 1.4 had a decidedly different look from, say, the Leica. In fact that lens didn't look like most Nikon lenses either. However people loved its look and paid a lot of money to get it! Bokeh, color, rendition etc gives each lens a character of its own so most folks, I believe, buy what looks best for their purposes

JMHO

Woody