Nikon Announces 3 New Lenses

If it had been f/2.8 it may well have taken some 24-70 customers, but i'm sure alot of them wouldn't want to lose the extra stops.
 
texfoto said:
I think the 24-120mm might make some 24-70 owners think about selling if it comes even close to the same IQ.

If this is as soft as the 16-35 f4 VR, i cant see many takers.

I think the 28-300 will appeal to lots of D90 owners, all in one walk about lens add a Tamron 17-35 and you have all you need if your not looking for Pro type optics.
Click to expand...
 
Any idea when pricing is likely to be released ?
 
A 24-120 is the walk around FX Nikon lens everyone has been looking for. F/4 isn't going to stop anyone from getting some reach on FX. I suspect the overlap will cause some to sell their 24-70.....if the IQ is there. Nikon forums are full of takers already waiting for the IQ tests. The 24-70 will then only be for those wanting the unltimate IQ in that range without going prime. I hate that mine only goes to 70. I came from DX before this though so I'm a little spoiled in the reach department.

The 28-300 should be better than the DX 18-200 but I think many FX owners will go for a 24-120 before a 28-300. The trouble is I already have a 70-300 AF-S and I'm not sure how any of these lenses stack up.

24-120 pricing is here: http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Ni...F4G-ED-VR.html. Dpreview pricing shows $1049 which I like better.
 
Last edited:
texfoto said:
A 24-120 is the walk around FX Nikon lens everyone has been looking for.
Click to expand...

The Tamron ƒ/3.5-5.6 24-135mm (now discontinued) is an alternative. Great walkabout, and for when you know you'll be using flash.
 
flow said:
Any idea when pricing is likely to be released ?
Click to expand...

Sales start date: 22nd September 2010
UK pricing: £1049.99

Is it just me or is that VERY expensive for a slow f/4 lens?

When you can get the f/2.8 24-70.. its a head scratcher!

Feel like it needs to be a £700 lens, not £1k+?
 
Puddleduck,
It's the range with VRII and F/4 that brings the price up. 70 is sooooo short sometimes. Nikon knows the range is what is wanted. This lens doesn't extend either, it zooms internally. Big plus.

FLOW,
55-300 is cheaper because it is a DX lens.
 
Last edited:
photon said:
The Tamron ƒ/3.5-5.6 24-135mm (now discontinued) is an alternative. Great walkabout, and for when you know you'll be using flash.
Click to expand...

That's great but it's a Tamron. I was referring to the Nikon lens everyone has been looking for.

GRECIAN said:
If this is as soft as the 16-35 f4 VR, i cant see many takers.
Click to expand...
Now this is a first. Compared to what?

cuthbert said:
the new 85mm f1.4 looks pretty damn good, the samples on the nikon site are very nice indeed:

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/i...lefocal/normal/af-s_nikkor85mmf_14g/index.htm

it's expensive, but i guess it is in line with canon equivalent.
Click to expand...

I think you get nano coat magic dust but other than that, it is pricey. Then again, the 85'ers love their 85's. It's a really great portrait lens. The price won't slow sales down on this one.
 
Last edited:
texfoto said:
Puddleduck,
It's the range with VRII and F/4 that brings the price up. 70 is sooooo short sometimes. Nikon knows the range is what is wanted.
Click to expand...

Still don't get it the price.

The reason for f/4 lenses was smaller, lighter cheaper vs f/2.8.

The 16-35 f/4 is pricey, and not much lighter than the 17-35 f/2.8.

The new f/4 also seems to be more close in price to the f/2.8 24-70.

I can't see why anyone would choose it at over £1k+ when you can get the 24-70...
 
puddleduck said:
Still don't get it the price.

The reason for f/4 lenses was smaller, lighter cheaper vs f/2.8.

The 16-35 f/4 is pricey, and not much lighter than the 17-35 f/2.8.

The new f/4 also seems to be more close in price to the f/2.8 24-70.

I can't see why anyone would choose it at over £1k+ when you can get the 24-70...
Click to expand...

They are lighter. VRII has negated the price of "cheaper" f/4 lenses.

The 16-35 is sharper than the 17-35 and a more updated lens. That is of value to some people. Many folks can go out and buy used 17-35's as they pop up on various forums or you can buy new but they buy the 16-35 over the 14-24 because of the use of filters and reach.

The reasons people sell the 24-70 is due to size, weight, and the lack of reach. The 24-120 gets you most everything except the unknown right now, IQ and 2.8. In this range of 24-whatever, I'll give up 2.8. I already have a 70-200 VRII and a 50 1.4.

jpw said:
It might focus internally, but there's no way it's going to zoom internally as well ...
Click to expand...

Correct, I mispoke. But I doubt it will extend very far out.
 
texfoto said:
In this range of 24-whatever, I'll give up 2.8. I already have a 70-200 VRII and a 50 1.4.
Click to expand...

Surely in this case it would be better to carry a 2nd body with the 70-200 on ,and one with the 24-70, rather than having to change lens to get an extra 80mm out if the 24-120, and you'd keep f/2.8 througout the range?
 
swordjo said:
Surely in this case it would be better to carry a 2nd body with the 70-200 on ,and one with the 24-70, rather than having to change lens to get an extra 80mm out if the 24-120, and you'd keep f/2.8 througout the range?
Click to expand...

Definitely. If I had a second body. haha :D I know what you are saying though, a 2nd body sounds like what I need more than a 24-120.

What I'd like right now is a 17-35 or 14-24 and a D700. I can't afford all of that and would have to sell the 24-70 to help fund this. F/4 and VRII could be very useful for most situations but the reach would serve me better as a walk around lens on a D700. Otherwise I have a rare need for 2.8 in this range. I'll admit though that the 24-70 takes some very nice pictures and I have a feeling that the 24-120 won't come close in IQ.
 
Last edited:
The 24-120 VR is the equivalent of the Canon 24-105 IS.

That is a lens that press togs have wanted for some time. The Canon version is not stellar but its good enough for newspaper reporting, light enough, flexible enough and combined with a decent flash is bang on the money for newspaper work.

That is why Nikon have released this and I await the chance to eval it eagerly!
 
So Nikon shooters finally get the "problem" of choosing between a 24-70 and a 24-120 (or 24-105), same thing really and same answer. 2.8 wins everytime for all purpose unless you shoot a LOT of outdoor stuff. That's where the line is, They can market the 24-120 to be all purpose but it is not, really, go shoot a wedding with it and soon as the sun goes, it doesn't serve its purpose.

As for the 85, I know a LOT of people will be happy about this !
 
Raymond - I defy you to tell the difference at 72ppi and on toilet paper.
 
desantnik said:
Raymond - I defy you to tell the difference at 72ppi and on toilet paper.
Click to expand...


Difference in between shooting a 2.8 and 4.0?

You mean an extra stop of light, 1/30th or 1/60th? With people moving? Blur people are blur people. 1000dpi or 72dpi
 
Let alone the very valid point of spotting the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 on 72 dpi toilet paper...

Is anyone remembering the silly high ISO numbers modern D-SLR's are capable of?

Have we forgotten all of the film era rules of photography???

If I can get decent results at 6400 ISO I will definitely be happy with an f/4 lens if it is optically good!:geek:
 
Does this mean that the d version copies of this lens will now be up for grabs at lower prices???:nuts:
 
jpw said:
It might focus internally, but there's no way it's going to zoom internally as well ...
Click to expand...
??? The 80-200 f/2.8 AFD (and old one) zooms internally - why is that "no way" for 24-120?
 
photon said:
Maybe read this before making your choice?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have made it more clear maybe...:bonk:

There is only one lens there...the other 2 are zooms.:thumbsdown::p

So it is the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D I was hoping would now become available at a cheaper price.

:thumbs:
 
dalex_257 said:
??? The 80-200 f/2.8 AFD (and old one) zooms internally - why is that "no way" for 24-120?
Click to expand...

80-200 is only a 2.5x zoom, this is 5x and I can't think of any 5x zooms that zoom internally, can you? It's a similar size to the old 24-120 and that extends quite a bit.
 
I think the 24-120 4 is the killer lens. If it's as good as the Canon 24-105L 4 (which is very sharp and flare free in my experience, but with a fair dose of distortion) then that will become the workshorse lens for a whole raft of potentially new people.

Nikon just needs the pro-spec 70-200 4 (to go with the 16-35 4) to complete the trilogy and they could pull a lot of business away from Canon.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Difference in between shooting a 2.8 and 4.0?

You mean an extra stop of light, 1/30th or 1/60th? With people moving? Blur people are blur people. 1000dpi or 72dpi
Click to expand...

Newspaper reporting photography isn't pretty. You just throw loads of direct bare flash at the subject and crank the ISO. Noise is not a problem.

I'd agree that for nice and pretty magazine shoots or wedding stuff you'd want something else, but pap'ing it up, this will do because I can carry it all day (ok, so currently I carry a 24/70 or 70-200 all day with flash but lighter is better in the long run).

With the nano coating like the holy trinity, this promises to be rather nice
 
I could be interested in the 24-120 as an everyday lens, but not at the price mentioned. While I dont shoot much at 2.8, it is good to have, plus it wont be much difference price wise to the legendary 24-70, and I cant see how it can be better. Maybe I am wrong too, but lenses are not at their best wide open, so a 2.8 lens will be better at f4 than an f4 lens... in theory anyway?

See no need at all for the 55-300... the 55-200 is a good low cost lens, they 70-300 is a very good lens for the money and not hugely expensive, unless Nikon feel they are losing sales to likes of Tamron.

Can the 85mm 1.4 be bettered? Hard to think it can by anything noticeable to the eye...
 
To me a £1k lens isn't an "everyday" lens.

I wonder if we have all got so used to soaring lens prices that we need to remember who this is aimed at...?

I know the Canon version could be had in kit for with a 5D MKII for around the £600 mark last time i looked.
 
puddleduck said:
To me a £1k lens isn't an "everyday" lens.

I wonder if we have all got so used to soaring lens prices that we need to remember who this is aimed at...?

I know the Canon version could be had in kit for with a 5D MKII for around the £600 mark last time i looked.
Click to expand...

The Canon 24 - 105 f4 is £928 at WEX, lowest price £800 from Martins, WEX are listing the Nikkor 24-120 f4 at £1049.

I would imagine that the street price will settle to around the Canon's price level after a couple of months.

As a one lens solution for when I go on holiday, the spec and range are ideal, unfortunately the price is ridiculous, I shall be sticking with my bargain bucket 28-105 f3.5 - f4.5 for the foreseeable future :D
 
I may be repeating myself here but is there a release date for this new stuff?
 
ryanyboy said:
I may be repeating myself here but is there a release date for this new stuff?
Click to expand...

22nd September according to Puddleduck earlier.

This announcement was the nail in the coffin for my wallet today, I finally went out and got the 24-70 2.8. I wasn't expecting much to rival it to be honest, but there's nothing worse than buying something and then getting a nasty surprise a few days later. The 85 is the lens I'll be looking at, but will more than likely buy the current model which will hopefully go down in price when the dust settles on these new ones.
 
Good for you getting the 24-70 :) It's the best zoom in that focal length and an F4 won't challeng that imo.

Ta for the date too. Although I don't know why I'm getting excited I can't see the new 85 being FAR better then the excellent current version. I think I'd get the 24 1.4 before considering changing the 85 1.4D.
 
In a similar position to you Dman, had the 24-120 been a lot cheaper it may have suited me, but looking like a 24-70 purchase is on the cards now!
 
Martyn... said:
the price is ridiculous, I shall be sticking with my bargain bucket 28-105 f3.5 - f4.5 for the foreseeable future :D
Click to expand...

Indeed - and ironically the 28mm is faster at 28mm than this new lens (f/3.5 vs f/4) - progress eh?!
 
I don't expect the 24-120 to be the same as the 24-70 but with 50mm extra length...

Just because something has a similar focal length doesn't make it the same at all.

I do expect it to offer greater flexibility and a quality good enough for newspaper and a weight thats light enough to carry all day...
 
Nothing very enticing for me. i can see why they did the 24 - 120, but, for my tatses, the f4 OOF area will not look as good as at 2.8.
Can't see any reason why they made a new 85mm, unless it focuses a lot closer, in which case I may be tempted. :shrug:
But as I've said before the existing 85mm 1.4, IS sex in a barrel :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top