Art and Photography

Nikon announces 16-35mm f/4 ED VR and 24mm f/1.4 G ED

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 11th, 2010 3:50 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
May 20, 2008
1301 posts
71 upvotes
Toronto
VR can't replace DOF, in case you forgot ;) (not that it's integral since it's a UWA, but dof is dof :D )

MSRP of the 24 1.4 is 2350 cdn.
Banned
User avatar
Oct 28, 2003
1741 posts
2 upvotes
Winnipeg, Mb
I would have got rid of the VR to reduce the price piont. I have the 17-35 so it doesn't matter to me much anyways.

24 1.4 is wow. Most likely wont' be able to afford it ever.. but one can dream!


samples of the 24 1.4 here and here

Wowzahs!!!!!
beep beep bop beep bup
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 7, 2003
19008 posts
455 upvotes
Shanghai, China
Winkle wrote:
Feb 9th, 2010 8:14 am


They are both Nano-Coated lenses, wonder if that jacked up the price any too. And yeah... $2200 USD for the 24 1.4 o_0

Geeze. It's gotta be made in Japan and probably more metal-construction then plastic too judging by the size and weights.
I think your concerns are unwarranted here. Nikon's pro-grade lenses are all well made including the lens hood. I mean, the lens hood uses metal while Canon lens hood uses plastic. Sure it makes it more expensive, but imo, you do get what you paid for. I'm sure it'll be as heavy as my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, but it won't be a big deal for me as I'm already use to the weight.
Deal Addict
Sep 3, 2005
2912 posts
559 upvotes
Vaughan
Anybody thinking about buying one of these lenses? I want the 24mm, but its way out of my price range.
For Sale

Nothing at the moment
Deal Fanatic
Apr 15, 2004
5264 posts
125 upvotes
Nepean
16-35 f/4 VR... tasty
24 f/1.4... tastier

Im starting a fund... who wants to sponsor my gear whoring?
heatware available upon request
Newbie
Sep 2, 2008
8 posts
toronto
phuviano wrote:
Feb 9th, 2010 11:56 pm
Anybody thinking about buying one of these lenses? I want the 24mm, but its way out of my price range.
I can only dream about buying this lens. But I already have the 24-70 so I am happy for now!

The cheapest alternative would be to borrow from a friend!
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 7, 2003
19008 posts
455 upvotes
Shanghai, China
phuviano wrote:
Feb 9th, 2010 11:56 pm
Anybody thinking about buying one of these lenses? I want the 24mm, but its way out of my price range.
If the 16-36mm f/4 VR lens gets good reviews, I would say there's a good chance I'll get one before 2010 is over.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 25, 2009
7958 posts
1048 upvotes
Sgt_Strider wrote:
Feb 9th, 2010 9:11 pm
Adorama in the US has listed the 16-36mm f/4 VR lens for US$1259.95

http://www.adorama.com/NK1635U.html?sid ... 7795399098

Assuming that it's not a typo, then this lens is a lot more affordable than I had thought.
That should be correct, that's the MSRP listed by Nikonrumours for that lens when they posted the announcement.

Also, not worried about construction quality of these lenses, I know that most of the $1K+ Nikkor's are built solidly especially the pro-stuff, I have the 17-55 2.8 DX and that thing could easily crack a skull or two :D
"God's in His heaven. All's right with the world." - Robert Browning (1812-1889)
Deal Fanatic
Apr 15, 2004
5264 posts
125 upvotes
Nepean
tiijei wrote:
Feb 8th, 2010 11:41 pm
The 24/1.4 is around $2,200. :cheesygri

The problem with the 16-35/4 is that its DAMN EXPENSIVE(and as heavy as the 17-35/2.8) $1,260, remove the damn VR and sell it for less than 1k, match it with Canon's 17-40/4.

:cry: :cry:
The point is to one up the competition...
VR is the "1 up"
16mm is the "1 up"

Hopefully this 16-35 f/4 VR will be sharp across the frame, in which case it'll also '1 up' the 17-40 f4L canon.

I really want this new Wide angle!!!!
heatware available upon request
Member
Aug 27, 2009
319 posts
3 upvotes
TO
bpopd wrote:
Feb 10th, 2010 11:23 am
The point is to one up the competition...
VR is the "1 up"
16mm is the "1 up"

Hopefully this 16-35 f/4 VR will be sharp across the frame, in which case it'll also '1 up' the 17-40 f4L canon.

I really want this new Wide angle!!!!
Well comparing to the canon 17-40/4 which is the some sort of replacement for canon 16-35/2.8. which the nikon looks like its a replacement or a lower replacement (kinda like the 80-200/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 both seems to be still available)

the price is 1 big down (poison mushroom) lol :cheesygri
the size and weight is 1 down

Isn't the point of a f4 lens to be less inexpensive (note: did not use cheaper LOL), lighter and smaller.

I was hoping for an affordable (using the term loosely, in this case my affordable is closer to the canon pricing but a little bit more since its new) f4 wide angle lens. I'll probably end up picking one, if I ever switch to full frame.
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 7, 2003
19008 posts
455 upvotes
Shanghai, China
Winkle wrote:
Feb 10th, 2010 9:01 am
That should be correct, that's the MSRP listed by Nikonrumours for that lens when they posted the announcement.

Also, not worried about construction quality of these lenses, I know that most of the $1K+ Nikkor's are built solidly especially the pro-stuff, I have the 17-55 2.8 DX and that thing could easily crack a skull or two :D
I'm not worried because I already have the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. I know what pro-grade stuff is like. :)
Deal Addict
Jan 11, 2007
1248 posts
177 upvotes
Edmonton
a newbie question please,

how does the 16-85 compare to the new 16-35?

Thanks,
Member
Aug 27, 2009
319 posts
3 upvotes
TO
uglyguy wrote:
Feb 11th, 2010 12:10 pm
a newbie question please,

how does the 16-85 compare to the new 16-35?

Thanks,
Different lens, they really don't compare. 16-85 is a DX lens (cropped frame) and the 16-35 is a FX lens. The 16-35 has a fixed aperture while the other does not.

Top