What's the meaning with that 16-35? Suppose it's a fullframe wide angle, but... Why 16-35? 14-35 f/4, hell yeah, cheaper version of the current 14-24 f/2.8, but... 16-35? Besides, I find it to make little or no sense to release it with another wide lens. The 24 is a hell of alot more atractive if you ask me. 16-35... They try to copy Canon now? pff...
It's good to see Nikon entering the fray with a fast 24mm prime. The Canon 24/1.4 is a stunner, and I have to believe that the Nikon glass will compare well with that lens. If so, it will be a great tool for Nikonians.
Would be fun to test it on a Canon body, but given it's a "G" lens with no aperture ring, that would be a little bit of a challenge (but not insurmountable).
ooo... The 16-35 sure looks nice though... Suppose it will be quite valuable on an FX camera (close to useless on a DX I guess). Hoping there will be some heavy testing of it, compared to the 14-24 and such. It looks sweet. Big pro is that it takes filters, opposed to the 14-24 where you constanly is worying about the front glass and curses that it would be sweet with an ND filter on those waterfalls
What's the meaning with that 16-35? Suppose it's a fullframe wide angle, but... Why 16-35? 14-35 f/4, hell yeah, cheaper version of the current 14-24 f/2.8, but... 16-35? Besides, I find it to make little or no sense to release it with another wide lens. The 24 is a hell of alot more atractive if you ask me. 16-35... They try to copy Canon now? pff...
First I was like "Whoa!"
... then I was like "huh?..."
I kind of agree with you on the "huh?" on the 16-35... if it were f/2.8, that would be one thing, but f/4 is quite another... I guess it's more of a competitor to the Canon 17-40, but with VR. Honestly, I really do not see the use of VR on something that wide anyway.
What's the meaning with that 16-35? Suppose it's a fullframe wide angle, but... Why 16-35? 14-35 f/4, hell yeah, cheaper version of the current 14-24 f/2.8, but... 16-35? Besides, I find it to make little or no sense to release it with another wide lens. The 24 is a hell of alot more atractive if you ask me. 16-35... They try to copy Canon now? pff...
First I was like "Whoa!"
... then I was like "huh?..."
I kind of agree with you on the "huh?" on the 16-35... if it were f/2.8, that would be one thing, but f/4 is quite another... I guess it's more of a competitor to the Canon 17-40, but with VR. Honestly, I really do not see the use of VR on something that wide anyway.
Many Nikon shooters have been clamoring for years for Nikon to make a cheaper f/4 wide angle lens as well as a cheaper f/4 70-200 like Canon offers. Myself personally, I have no interest in f/4 max aperture lenses unless it's a, 800mm.
Many Nikon shooters have been clamoring for years for Nikon to make a cheaper f/4 wide angle lens
True, and rightly so. If the 16-35/4 VR is their response, then I'm really confused as to why they hobbled it with the additional cost of VR. The Caon 17-40 is a much better value, and the absence of IS does not diminish that one bit. IS/VR is only marginally useful at those focal lengths.
It's aiming to a completly diferent market compared to the 14-24.
if you're a full time pro 500$ it's not a big deal and you'll probably will want the extra stop in speed.
If you're shooting landscapes probably you wount mind about f2.8 anyway.
For me as a wedding photographer and an ocasional landscape for fun photographer I would much apreciate the extra stop, but probably I can sacrifice the 2mm wide for the extra zooming to 35mm. It will keep me from changing lenses so often. I think the VR will do no difference in a real life situation unless for fun effects.
I have to stop comparing this lens to the 14-24mm, but what's the price difference? 400$? I would much rather use the extra 400 bucks to get the 14-24. As an upgrade from the 17-35, sure, but the pricetag doesn't quite seem worth it when you can get the most awesome wide angle lens up to date for 400$ more. The 14-24 also seem to fit some DX bodies brilliantly, mine sure as hell does, so you can have it multitask a bit. The 16-35 is a stripped down 17-55 with an extra mm on the wide side countering the loss od 20mm on the other side, or something like that.
Had Nikon cut the VR, swallowed their pride for a second and released it for around 1100, if not less, and they would have had an extremely atractive lens. It better be optically perfect.
It's aiming to a completly diferent market compared to the 14-24.
if you're a full time pro 500$ it's not a big deal and you'll probably will want the extra stop in speed.
If you're shooting landscapes probably you wount mind about f2.8 anyway.
For me as a wedding photographer and an ocasional landscape for fun photographer I would much apreciate the extra stop, but probably I can sacrifice the 2mm wide for the extra zooming to 35mm. It will keep me from changing lenses so often. I think the VR will do no difference in a real life situation unless for fun effects.
