[fureshi]

The 16-35mm still seems somewhat expensive for a f/4, which is supposed to be a budget lens. Yes it has VR but at $1260 it's still a bit pricey.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Even on DX the focal length is useful, but it'd be a real waste of $2200 to buy the lens without a full-frame camera (film or otherwise).

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fureshi /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 16-35mm still seems somewhat expensive for a f/4, which is supposed to be a budget lens. Yes it has VR but at $1260 it's still a bit pricey.

I'd actually argue that the 16-35mm is priced relatively fairly - at least in comparison to Nikon's other products. Consider that, when new, the 12-24 f/4 DX sold for nearly $900 and covered neither a full frame sensor nor the focal length range of this new lens. I find the $300 premium, taken in the context of Nikon's current product line, therefore not completely unreasonable.

Still, it's important to remember that Canon's 16-35 f/2.8 sells for $1500 and offers a stop extra over Nikon's new offering. At the end of the day, I'd always rather have a larger aperture than VR, especially in a wide-angle lens where VR is of questionable necessity and value.

 

[dj_mocok]

I also think that the 16-35mm f/4 VR is fairly priced, especially considering that you can get it a bit less than the actual RRP. I am not sure what it's made of. But as long as the barrel is not plastic, I think the price is okay.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

The 16-35's MSRP is certainly more than I'd want to pay. I'd just save up a bit more and get the world-beater 14-24. But if street price ends up sub-$1k, it would be more reasonable.

When the 16-35 was rumored, I was hoping it would be a bit smaller than it turned out to be. It would still make for a nice combo with the 70-300vr for tripodless hiking shots.

I don't know that I'd want to give up both my (wider, lighter) Sigma 12-24 and (faster, lighter) Tokina 20-35 f/2.8 for it though. Maybe, if the 16-35 performs like the 14-24 does.

The 24 1.4 is certainly a showpiece. Nothing I see myself owning any time remotely soon. I wonder how sharp the corners will be at say f/2-2.8, enough to put it significantly ahead of the 14-24 or 24-70? Or is this lens all about the bokeh?

 

[xkRoWx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY /img/forum/go_quote.gif At the end of the day, I'd always rather have a larger aperture than VR, especially in a wide-angle lens where VR is of questionable necessity and value.

At first I didn't quite understand why Nikon would stick VR into such a wide lens. I, too would like to see f/2.8 instead of f/4 with VR.

Thom Hogan explained the "1/focal length exposure rule" and I understood why Nikon stuck a VR in the lens. Shooting at 1/16 or 1/30 at handheld will almost always result in a blurry image, even with f/1.8. Nikon even promised up to four stops faster with their VR2 technology, theoretically speaking the 16-35/4VR should be faster (and maybe just as sharp) than its f/2.8 counterpart.

The 16-35/4VR presumed to have similar optical quality of the 14-24/2.8. For MRSP of $1250, it's not so bad.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xkRoWx /img/forum/go_quote.gif At first I didn't quite understand why Nikon would stick VR into such a wide lens. I, too would like to see f/2.8 instead of f/4 with VR. Thom Hogan explained the "1/focal length exposure rule" and I understood why Nikon stuck a VR in the lens. Shooting at 1/16 or 1/30 at handheld will almost always result in a blurry image, even with f/1.8. Nikon even promised up to four stops faster with their VR2 technology, theoretically speaking the 16-35/4VR should be faster (and maybe just as sharp) than its f/2.8 counterpart. The 16-35/4VR presumed to have similar optical quality of the 14-24/2.8. For MRSP of $1250, it's not so bad.

To be honest though, I've found the 1/focal length "rule" more of a suggestion than an absolute. I can handhold my 12-24mm on the wider end at 1/2 to even a full second, and I've shot 200mm at 1/60-1/30. The issue with VR is subject motion - something that a larger aperture can often help remedy. But, yes, for static scenes, image stabilization will no doubt be useful, so long as it allows for consistently long shutter speeds to be used.

 

[xkRoWx]

f/4 is only one full stop slower than f/2.8, with the recent introduction of high ISO capability cameras (like the FX D700 or D3), a bump in ISO won't even hurt the image quality.

 

[goffer]

My 85mm f1.4 AIS just arrived a few days ago

 

[dj_mocok]

Congrats! That's one of my very favourite lenses!
Make sure you post some canned baked beans pictures with it!

 

[goffer]

I'm really digging it so far... it's a beast of a lens, though it feels nice on the d700

Now I can finally let my CV SLII 58mm 1.4 rest... being that it used to be my longest lens.

 

[Deep Funk]

Some day I'll enjoy my F90X or F100 again. There's something magical about film.

 

[Joshatdot]

W00T YES!!

I finally got me a DSLR..cheep to! Brand new, on Clearance for %30 off lowest price of $479.97 USD, for a final Clearance price of $335.98 USD.

TBH I think the sales girl did the math wrong on her calc, because 30% off $479.97 should be $369.20. Her percent off is something like 42.9%, which comes to $335.88.

With 8.2% tax it came to $363.53 USD

















I present you with my Nikon D40:

 

[Zodduska]

Awesome deal Joshatdot, congrats!

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Cool, enjoy the D40! It seems to be debated quite often whether it or the D50 is the preferred option of Nikon's 6MP cameras.