New Nikkor lenses - 16-35mm f/4 VR and 24mm f/1.4!

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

I don't get the zoom.

If you are a DX shooter, you can get the 17-55mm 2.8 for $100 more than the new zoom. While it won't have VR, how useful is VR at 17mm anyway? That extra stop of light would probably negate most of the VR and it isn't like you can (or would want to) shoot a ton of stuff hand held at less than 1/20th s. VR isn't going to stop motion blur with people.


If you aren't a DX shooter, you are probably going to save up to shell out for the 14-24.

While it may be hard for some to believe, not every new lens is targeted at PJ/event photographers. Nikon already makes the 14-24 for that crowd. The 16-35 is for people who were wanting an update to the older 17-35 AF-S.

I think the f/4 VR does make some sense. For one thing, it gives Nikon a well-rounded lineup alongside the 14-24, because now the 16-35 hits a different price point. And the f/4 aperture makes it easier to keep the 77mm filter threads without compromising image quality. Canon had to move to 82mm threads on their updated 16-35, which may not seem like a big deal but is pretty annoying if you've got a considerable investment in 77mm filters.

I can think of situations where f/4 VR makes more sense than f/2.8, such as churches, museums, and other locations where tripods are not allowed. If you're not shooting people or movement, the 3-4 stop advantage of VR is much better than the 1-stop advantage of an f/2.8 lens. A lot of people have also speculated that the VR will be useful for video. I mostly don't care about VR, but the other aspects of this lens make it more appealing than the 14-24 for me (assuming it delivers on image quality).

As for the 17-55 DX, it was never a very good lens for landscape due to the field curvature. Plus I have to think sales of that lens have dropped dramatically once Nikon started shipping full-frame cameras. People just aren't willing to spend $1350 on a lens that is rapidly becoming obsolete.

[Wil_Bloodworth]

NOTE: Jeff and I were obviously posting at the same time... I haven't read his post yet but if anything I saw below contradicts his in anyway... ignore mine!

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

I don't get the zoom.

If you are a DX shooter, you can get the 17-55mm 2.8 for $100 more than the new zoom. While it won't have VR, how useful is VR at 17mm anyway? That extra stop of light would probably negate most of the VR and it isn't like you can (or would want to) shoot a ton of stuff hand held at less than 1/20th s. VR isn't going to stop motion blur with people.


If you aren't a DX shooter, you are probably going to save up to shell out for the 14-24.

Thomas,

I guess until you've used the 14-24mm on FF it's easy "to not get it". The 14-24mm has an aspherical front lens element so you can't put any filters on it... without spending $600+ for a special (huge) filter holder. Yes, it is 1-stop faster but, for (35mm) nature and landscape photographers, that is not important at all as they're going to be shooting between F5.6 and F13-ish. The ability to use ND, graduated, and polarizing filters is a huge bonus.

I love the 14-24mm on my FF body but I definitely would like the ability to use filters and the extra stop could not be less important. Like was mentioned earlier, the two lenses really have a different target usage.

- Wil