nikon annnounces 3 new lens

Qarik

28-300mm FX
55-300mm DX
24-120mm FX f4
new 85mm 1.4 FX

http://www.dpreview.com/

edit: I mean 4 new lens!

Icebear

The 24-120 looks pretty sweet as a tourist/street/pj walk-around lens.

Qarik

Icebear wrote: »

The 24-120 looks pretty sweet as a tourist/street/pj walk-around lens.

yup..though I probably wouldn't buy one at this point..it is VERY welcome addition. Nikon seem to be a bit bipolar in its lens..super awesome and expensive or consumer grade and cheap. This is a great in betweener.

catspaw

Interesting (and surprising) review of the 28-300mm. I wouldn't expect quality from that sort of range. And the review (and price) is making me want it. DANG IT. Will obviously wait for more real reviews.

http://www.bobkrist.com/blog/samples-with-the-new-af-s-nikkor-28-300mm-f3-5-5-6g-ed-vr/

Matthew Saville

The DX 55-300 is nifty, basically it's the 80-400 VR for crop sensors, without the insanely heavy weight, and hopefully without the sluggish AF.

...I'm glad they've made this lens, but hopefully a replacement for the 80-400 VR is next. It surely is the one more sorely missed.



The 28-300 is inevitable, considering how many amateurs now have the D700 and are too lazy to switch lenses. :-P



Which brings me to the 24-120 and the counter-argument. Yes, I CAN understand not switching lenses. There are plenty of situations when this is just not convenient, or even possible. I shoot professionally in a couple of these environments on a regular basis.

But my point is this: Most consumers are not pushing the envelope that much. They'd be just fine with a D90 and a 16-85, and they'd save thousands with a system that is pounds lighter. And in most consumer conditions, I bet you'd never tell the difference between a D90 image and a D700 image.

Now again, I know that most of the people HERE are not the average photographer, and they know the value of a fast prime on a D700, etc. So the 24-120 or 28-300 will certainly be put to good use.

I just really hope that Nikon makes a 70-200 f/4 VR next. THAT is the f/4 zoom I'd be excited about.


Okay last, the 85 1.4. An understandable upgrade. I just wish Nikon had done the 35 1.4 first. Heck, the current 35 1.4 is still MANUAL FOCUS!!! The ONLY reason Nikon did the 85 (and 24) first is that they knew these lenses would sell more. Which I guess is a sound business decision. All I know is that Nikon had better make a 35 1.4 asap, as well as a new 85 1.8 and hopefully also a 135 f/2.

:-D

=Matt=

Icebear

What's stopping me right now from blowing $1300 on the 24-120 is that I am still in love with my 18-70 3.5-4.5 DX lens. OK, it only works on my D300, not my D700 but heck, I still love my D300! The 18-70 is (roughly) half the weight of the 24-120, and essentially the same speed. OK, it's not VR. Still, I just don't think I want to spend $1300 for VR and a teeny bit more reach, so I can use the D700.

Having both a D300 and a D700 does make me feel a bit schizoid at times.

angevin1

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The DX 55-300 is nifty, basically it's the 80-400 VR for crop sensors, without the insanely heavy weight, and hopefully without the sluggish AF.

...I'm glad they've made this lens, but hopefully a replacement for the 80-400 VR is next. It surely is the one more sorely missed.



The 28-300 is inevitable, considering how many amateurs now have the D700 and are too lazy to switch lenses. :-P



Which brings me to the 24-120 and the counter-argument. Yes, I CAN understand not switching lenses. There are plenty of situations when this is just not convenient, or even possible. I shoot professionally in a couple of these environments on a regular basis.

But my point is this: Most consumers are not pushing the envelope that much. They'd be just fine with a D90 and a 16-85, and they'd save thousands with a system that is pounds lighter. And in most consumer conditions, I bet you'd never tell the difference between a D90 image and a D700 image.

Now again, I know that most of the people HERE are not the average photographer, and they know the value of a fast prime on a D700, etc. So the 24-120 or 28-300 will certainly be put to good use.

I just really hope that Nikon makes a 70-200 f/4 VR next. THAT is the f/4 zoom I'd be excited about.


Okay last, the 85 1.4. An understandable upgrade. I just wish Nikon had done the 35 1.4 first. Heck, the current 35 1.4 is still MANUAL FOCUS!!! The ONLY reason Nikon did the 85 (and 24) first is that they knew these lenses would sell more. Which I guess is a sound business decision. All I know is that Nikon had better make a 35 1.4 asap, as well as a new 85 1.8 and hopefully also a 135 f/2.

:-D

=Matt=

1. Agreed with you on the D90/700 and I am not at all certain we could tell the diff., esp. in capable hands.

2. You don't think much of the 35 f/1.8?

3. Why a 70-200 f/4Vr versus present offerings?

cheers,

angevin1

Icebear wrote: »

What's stopping me right now from blowing $1300 on the 24-120 is that I am still in love with my 18-70 3.5-4.5 DX lens. OK, it only works on my D300, not my D700 but heck, I still love my D300! The 18-70 is (roughly) half the weight of the 24-120, and essentially the same speed. OK, it's not VR. Still, I just don't think I want to spend $1300 for VR and a teeny bit more reach, so I can use the D700.

Having both a D300 and a D700 does make me feel a bit schizoid at times.

If you never push the ISO envelope, there is no reason to bother upgrading. That lens, the 18-70mm is so very nice. But when you push the ISO, it will show a difference even in a twenty year-old pro lens comparison with the 18-70..it just cannot provide the clean resolution.

And besides, it will work on your d700, ya know?

Icebear

angevin1 wrote: »

If you never push the ISO envelope,
And besides, it will work on your d700, ya know?

Yeah, I know it'll work, but not so well. And if I'm "pushing the envelope" I'll have the 16-35 or 24-70 mounted on the D700 anyway, right? The point of my post was that with the 18-70 mounted on the D300, I've got a damned fine walk-around kit. With the 24-70 mounted on the D700, I've got a "finer" but not as versatile walk-around kit. I'm not donating either one!!

angevin1

Icebear wrote: »

Yeah, I know it'll work, but not so well. And if I'm "pushing the envelope" I'll have the 16-35 or 24-70 mounted on the D700 anyway, right? The point of my post was that with the 18-70 mounted on the D300, I've got a damned fine walk-around kit. With the 24-70 mounted on the D700, I've got a "finer" but not as versatile walk-around kit. I'm not donating either one!!

Yep! You're right it is the finest walk-around kit I could imagine! I loved that lens!

gowiththeflow

angevin1 wrote: »

2. You don't think much of the 35 f/1.8?

From someone who owns both the 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4 AF-S lenses... I'm actually kind of disappointed with the 35mm. It's great for the price, but it's a bummer it's not built better (more like the 50mm), and that they went to all the trouble of making a new, fast prime, but made it a DX lens. Sure, it's the DX equivalent of a 50mm, but 35mm is also a popular focal length for FX/film. I would've gladly paid ~$300-350 for a 35mm f/1.8 full-frame, rather than $200 for a DX lens, and I'm sure many other would too.

This may be partially because the 50mm quickly became my favorite lens (even on the D90), and we just picked up an F100 to try film. It would be great to be able to use either lens on either camera.

Mitchell

I'm in for the new 85mm, f1.4 with the AF-S and the yummy nanocrystal coating. It's about time!

DonRicklin

Icebear wrote: »

The 24-120 looks pretty sweet as a tourist/street/pj walk-around lens.

I had a Sigma 24-135 mm ƒ/2.8 -4.5 ASPH IF lens that wa my absolute fave walk around lens until my camera bag rolled off my desk at work and broke the lens at the mont.

Sent it off for repairs. Sigma was all out of spare parts, un repairable..... they no longer sell that modle. I use a 17-70mm version, now..... alsmot as sweet. I am always too late to get one through KEH when I see it in a catalog of theirs... Hot item!

Don

Icebear

DonRicklin wrote: »

Sent it off for repairs. Sigma was all out of spare parts, un repairable..... they no longer sell that modle.

Wow, that bites. When I find a new pair of shoes that fits like buttah I buy two pair. One pair gets worn very seldom. Wish I was feelthy steenkin rich enuf to do that with lenses!

cab.in.boston

gowiththeflow wrote: »

I would've gladly paid ~$300-350 for a 35mm f/1.8 full-frame, rather than $200 for a DX lens, and I'm sure many other would too.

And others wouldn't. I am a DX shooter, have no plans or even desires to go FX, and while I was (relatively) happy to spend $200 on the 35 f/1.8, use it a lot, and love it, I would not have considered buying it at $350.

For your purposes, the 35 f/2D FX lens at $360 or so seems like exactly what you want.

gowiththeflow

cab.in.boston wrote: »

And others wouldn't. I am a DX shooter, have no plans or even desires to go FX, and while I was (relatively) happy to spend $200 on the 35 f/1.8, use it a lot, and love it, I would not have considered buying it at $350.

For your purposes, the 35 f/2D FX lens at $360 or so seems like exactly what you want.

I was a DX shooter without serious intentions (i.e. lacking the $$$$) to go FX, until I bought this film camera. IMO, I'd rather have the ability and not need it than the other way around. I'm sure they could have made it work on FX for far less than $350, it was just an example. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled with it, considering I paid <$200 for it, but I would've scraped pennies together for an even more versatile lens at a still-low price.

I looked at the 35mm f/2D, but I'm a sucker for AF-S (even though both my cameras have focusing motors) and internal focusing. Just seems odd that they chose not to update/replace the f/2D with a lens that could do everything the old one could and then some. But hey, considering how long the 35mm AF-S took to be in stock at most places, it obviously worked out well for Nikon. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Matthew Saville

angevin1 wrote: »

1. Agreed with you on the D90/700 and I am not at all certain we could tell the diff., esp. in capable hands.

2. You don't think much of the 35 f/1.8?

3. Why a 70-200 f/4Vr versus present offerings?

cheers,

The 35 1.8 is DX, and not professional. I remember when Nikon announced the 35 DX, they totally hinted that "an FX professional 35 1.4 would be much more expensive". ...They might as well have come right out and told us they were developing a professional FX 35 1.4, if you ask me. I'm betting we'll see it Jan / Feb next year.

The current 70-200 2.8 is way too beastly. It's the same reason that a PROFESSIONAL (and some amateurs) would buy the 16-35 instead of the 14-24, or the 24-120 instead of the 24-70. There are plenty of situations where you need professional build quality AND professional image quality, ...yet you do NOT need f/2.8.

Just consider the Canon 70-200 f/4 L versus f/2.8 L - the f/4 is about a pound lighter, much smaller and cheaper, and ironically *sharper* than the 2.8 stopped down to f/4. THAT is the lens I want Nikon to make.

=Matt=

Ozzwald

i'd be excited about a 70-200mm F/4 also...i hope thats in the works...

The lens that sounds most interesting is the 24-120...but i think i'd buy it used, i think i would pay a little extra cash to get the 24-70. F/4 with Vr should preform okay in low light on a DX, i would love that lens with a D700.

Even though the new 85mm looks sexy, i think im content with the previous generation of 85mm,

cab.in.boston

gowiththeflow wrote: »

I was a DX shooter without serious intentions (i.e. lacking the $$$$) to go FX, until I bought this film camera. IMO, I'd rather have the ability and not need it than the other way around. I'm sure they could have made it work on FX for far less than $350, it was just an example. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled with it, considering I paid <$200 for it, but I would've scraped pennies together for an even more versatile lens at a still-low price.

I looked at the 35mm f/2D, but I'm a sucker for AF-S (even though both my cameras have focusing motors) and internal focusing. Just seems odd that they chose not to update/replace the f/2D with a lens that could do everything the old one could and then some. But hey, considering how long the 35mm AF-S took to be in stock at most places, it obviously worked out well for Nikon. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

I know a guy who shoots with a 35 f/1.8 DX on a D700. I think he has to do a little vignette correction in post, but he has no problems using it. I have no personal experience with FX, so I can only comment third-hand, so to speak.

My lack of FX intentions isn't (only) b/c of lack of funds. I would have to spend some time with a D700 to really understand the lust. Yes, I've seen gorgeous stuff shot on FX, but I've also seen awesome DX work. I just don't see the benefit for my photography. I know in my case, I'll need a few decades of experience before I can pull all the quality out of DX, let alone need the extra benefit of FX. That's all I'm saying.

NikonsandVstroms

Qarik wrote: »

yup..though I probably wouldn't buy one at this point..it is VERY welcome addition. Nikon seem to be a bit bipolar in its lens..super awesome and expensive or consumer grade and cheap. This is a great in betweener.

Too rich for my blood though at 1,300 :eek1

500-1,000 is more along the lines of a proper mid-range at least in my view. At 1,300 I think oh I'll just save a little longer and get the 24-70, or live with a little less range but faster lens with a 28-75 Tamron for less than 1/3 the cost.

I do like the range and my recent experience with the 70-210 F4 Nikkor has me excited about these offerings but there still seems to still be a huge hole in Nikon's line for those who want a good zoom but not to pay an arm and a leg. Even a slightly variable lens like Olympus does to fill the gap would be great.

catspaw

Some new shots taken with the 4 new lenses:

http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/?p=16729

ziggy53

catspaw wrote: »

Some new shots taken with the 4 new lenses:

http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/?p=16729

Good catch.

borrowlenses.com

If anyone is interested we've pre-ordered all of them