3 New Nikon Lenses! 24-70 VR, 24 1.8G & 200-500 5.6 VR

[nerwin]

What do you all think about Nikon's recently announced lenses?

The new 24-70 2.8E VR is interesting indeed, but at $2400 is a bit crazy. If I needed VR, I'd honestly just get the Tamron 24-70 VC. But I'm plenty happy with my $250 24-85 VR. LOL.

The 200-500 5.6E VR is priced more reasonably and I think it would be a great lens for wildlife photography.

I like the 24 1.8G, but $800 seems a bit steep for me. At that price, I'd get the 20 1.8G.

Check them out!

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f 2.8E ED VR Lens 20052 B H Photo - $2396

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f 5.6E ED VR Lens 20058 B H Photo - $1396

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f 1.8G ED Lens 20057 B H Photo Video - $746

Happy Tuesday!

 

[Braineack]

yeah i was curious about the 24mm 1.8G... is it replacing the 20mm?? If not I don't quite see the point.

If the 58mm 1.4G was $800 I'd buy one today.

 

[nerwin]

Yeah I don't get it, the 20 1.8G makes more sense to me. But maybe its for the ones that just love the 24mm focal length. I dunno.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah I don't get it, the 20 1.8G makes more sense to me. But maybe its for the ones that just love the 24mm focal length. I dunno.

Well, 20mm is either right on the border of what used to be called ultra-wide, or is the first of the several lenses that make up the ultra-wide spectrum (this is sort of a matter of personal opinion and one's age and era). A 20mm wide-angle produces quite a bit of visible distortion of the objects located near and in the frame's corners, and also markedly distorts the spatial relationships between near and far items in the picture area. A 24mm lens is significantly less prone to distorting the objects in the corners of the frame, and creates less-pronounced near/far size and spatial distortions of "reality". The two lenses are actually quite significantly different on full frame 24x36 cameras. Same with the 24 vs 28mm distinction. Although the difference in millimeters is very small, the angular view AND the size and spatial distortion differences between the 20 and 24mm lenses are very pronounced.

As you can see from this chart provided by B&H Photo http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/Angles-02z.jpg the 20mm has a 99-degree angular view; the 24mm length has an 84-degree angular view; 28mm lens is 74 degrees, and the 35mm lens is 62 degrees, while the 50mm normal lens has a 46-degree angular view. So, the 20mm and 24mm lenses are REALLY quite a bit different.

 

[nerwin]

Isn't 13mm on DX equipment to 20mm on FX? When I shot crop, I had the 12-24 and I shot a lot around 12-16mm. Miss that field of view since I moved to full frame. Good ultra wides for full frame are so dang expensive.

 

[Braineack]

when i shoot wide, I tend to crop 50% of the pixels so what do i know...

 

[astroNikon]

when i shoot wide, I tend to crop 50% of the pixels so what do i know...

I'll second that ... what do you know !!


I think Nikon is jumping on the bandwagon of 1.8 apertures on lenses as a trend.
If you think about it, the 24 is also on the 24-70 and a multitude of other lenses.
So another update to keep people upgrading and keep their engineering and manufacturing busy. The aperture is handy if you do night time landscapes though. Sometimes I wish my 50/1.4 was wider.

 

[Braineack]

They offer a lot of primes below 50mm.

there's the 35mm 1.8 and 1.4, the 28mm 2.8 and 1.8, the 24mm 2.8 and 1.4 [and now 1.8], and 20mm 2.8 and 1.8--as well as the 16mm and 14mm.

The price of the 1.4s just seems so disproportionate. But I'd be happy if they end up doing a 58mm 1.8G....so long as it renders similarly to the 1.4G.

 

[crimbfighter]

I was patiently waiting for the refresh of the 24-70 ever since the first rumors started leaking out. I was also hoping it wouldn't be $2400... At that price, I'll be making a hard pass and going with my backup plan of waiting for the price of used 24-70's fall a couple hundred bucks once people start offloading them to upgrade.

The 200-500 looks intriguing. I'm interested to read some reviews once they start shipping. Especially comparing it to some of the comparable third party zooms.

Of course I'm still holding out for the inevitable 1-1000mm f/0.9 that's the size of my 50mm I might need to be cryogenicly frozen to see it I'm my lifetime, but there's always hope!

 

[Derrel]

SIZE is an issue with the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor. It's soooooo big and sore-thumb-like a lens for its short focal lengths. I predict that when the next big thing in Nikon cameras hits the market (54MP sensors???), there will suddenly be loads of higher-end glass for sale. I was at a local store's website yesterday, and their used department is CHOCK-FULL of used Canon lenses, with two and even three individual samples of multiple lenses being offered for sale; They have THREE 400/5.6 lenses for example three 10-22 EF-S, 180/3.5 macro, some TS stuff, and other high dollar yet seldom used kinda' lenses...all being driven by Canon's two, new 50-MP bodies. I've been shopping at this store for 25 years, and have seen this before on multiple occasions.

Whenever the next big thing in camera bodies hits the market, that almost always is a great time to pick up good deals on used lenses.

 

[hamlet]

The 24-70 VR ED i predicted and was waiting for for so long. I really love my current art lenses, not sure i'm going to sell any of them.

 

[PaulWog]

Too big. Too expensive. Too pro-level. Although, I wasn't waiting for a new 24-70 f2.8 VR by Nikon. I wouldn't mind being given one! I bet whatever 24-70 Sigma releases will be at nearly half the price, hopefully it won't have any focusing issues though.

The 200-500 seems really cool.

It is odd though... Nikon has avoided releasing certain lenses that Sigma and Tamron have stepped up to get out there, but they come out with a 28mm 1.8, 20mm 1.8, and 24mm 1.8 in quick succession.

 

[nerwin]

You know. I haven't seen a pancake lens by Nikon yet. I don't see why they can't.

 

[Derrel]

You know. I haven't seen a pancake lens by Nikon yet. I don't see why they can't.

The f/2.8 45-P Nikkor is considered a pancake. It's one of my favorite landscape primes. It's manual focus, but has a built-in CPU. I consider it their best MF pancake ever. Here is a flatbed scan of the 45-P lens, its 52mm fit lens cap, and the special 52mm thread-in HN-35 "bowl" lens shade it was sold with, in the chrome color model.

The earlier 50mm 1.8 Series E is also considered a pancake by many people. Same with the 50/1.8 Nikkor compact. The 1960's era 45 GN (Guide Number) could be considered a pancake also.

 

[astroNikon]

You know. I haven't seen a pancake lens by Nikon yet. I don't see why they can't.

at the size of all the modern AF-S G lenses, the older 24, 28, 35mm AF-D lenses are pancake by comparison. LOL