I'm really surprised that nobody made a thread about...

[goodoneian]

Yeah I'm not sure what the deal is with the VR on the 16-35 as well. I guess it could be convenient for some circumstances, but I'd much prefer to not have it and knock off another hundred+ dollars instead. Oh well, still a pretty good price for what you get IMO

 

[TJ K]

Wish it would've been 2.8. 16-35 is a nice range but I would have much rather swapped VR for 2.8 any day.

 

[Derrel]

Wish it would've been 2.8. 16-35 is a nice range but I would have much rather swapped VR for 2.8 any day.

Didn't you get the memo TJK? F/2.8 has been made obsolete by Nikon's industry-leading High-ISO performance!

Seriously: many people need to stop and consider that the advances Nikon has made in High ISO performance since 2007 has seriously reduced the absolute "need" for pure, raw lens aperture width. It actually makes a lot more sense now to consider that buying a class-leading Nikon body is economically a much less-costly approach than paying many,many thousands of dollars for the fastest lenses in two or three classes.

The price of a single higher-end Nikon body now buys more than two stops' worth of additional low-light capabilities. It seems like many serious shooters have not yet realized that High ISO sensor bodies are "the new high-speed lens" replacements. A single D700 body is worth as much as $15,000 in high-speed, wide-aperture glass--it brings that much more capability to the table. For those who need and or want BOTH the best High-ISO bodies AND the class-leading wide-aperture lenses, the boundaries have been moved five to six or seven f/stops, just since 2007.

VR in the 16-35 f/4...a world's first...people love VR lenses. VR lenses help stop motion when you are out of breath, or when it is windy, or when shooting from moving platforms like boats, cars, helicopters, airplanes, or when shooting one-handed, or when forced to run-n-gun, or when you want to do slow-speed, hand-held, deep DOF stuff without a tripod. ALso, very handy for panning shots and for flash+ slow-speed TTL-BL background shots for wedding/event shooters who like to drag the shutter down in the 1/6 to 1/20 range. VR makes sense in many ways, primarily under conditions when you need to shoot photos and eliminate unwanted camera motion from multiple types of sources. Another big reason I think Nikon put VR in this lens is for the upcoming years with in-camera video users in mind: I think Nikon is looking at rounding out the lens lineup with the future in mind with the 16-35 VR; they already have the world's best wide-angle zoom in the 14-24 f/2.8; this new lens is in addition to that lens.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Than just get the 14-24, 17-35 or 20-35. all of which are f/2.8

 

[Montana]

Wish it would've been 2.8. 16-35 is a nice range but I would have much rather swapped VR for 2.8 any day.

Didn't you get the memo TJK? F/2.8 has been made obsolete by Nikon's industry-leading High-ISO performance!

Seriously: many people need to stop and consider that the advances Nikon has made in High ISO performance since 2007 has seriously reduced the absolute "need" for pure, raw lens aperture width. It actually makes a lot more sense now to consider that buying a class-leading Nikon body is economically a much less-costly approach than paying many,many thousands of dollars for the fastest lenses in two or three classes.

The price of a single higher-end Nikon body now buys more than two stops' worth of additional low-light capabilities. It seems like many serious shooters have not yet realized that High ISO sensor bodies are "the new high-speed lens" replacements. A single D700 body is worth as much as $15,000 in high-speed, wide-aperture glass--it brings that much more capability to the table. For those who need and or want BOTH the best High-ISO bodies AND the class-leading wide-aperture lenses, the boundaries have been moved five to six or seven f/stops, just since 2007.

VR in the 16-35 f/4...a world's first...people love VR lenses. VR lenses help stop motion when you are out of breath, or when it is windy, or when shooting from moving platforms like boats, cars, helicopters, airplanes, or when shooting one-handed, or when forced to run-n-gun, or when you want to do slow-speed, hand-held, deep DOF stuff without a tripod. ALso, very handy for panning shots and for flash+ slow-speed TTL-BL background shots for wedding/event shooters who like to drag the shutter down in the 1/6 to 1/20 range. VR makes sense in many ways, primarily under conditions when you need to shoot photos and eliminate unwanted camera motion from multiple types of sources. Another big reason I think Nikon put VR in this lens is for the upcoming years with in-camera video users in mind: I think Nikon is looking at rounding out the lens lineup with the future in mind with the 16-35 VR; they already have the world's best wide-angle zoom in the 14-24 f/2.8; this new lens is in addition to that lens.

I think they stepped on their nuts. You are joking in your post right? ISO capabilities have nothing to do with depth of field or motion stopping shutter speeds. Had they left out VR, they could have offered a much more affordable pro lens to the nikon masses. Sure there is an option to use the "very expensive" specialty lens....the 14-24 2.8. Unfortuneatly, it is not only very expensive, but also huge, heavy, short on range, and cannot accept filters. THus its limited to specialty use. Its too bad really that Nikon will not cater an affordable f/4 lens at roughly half the price of the bigger 2.8 counterparts. Canon offers both f/4 and f/2.8 version of wide, normal, and telephoto pro zoom lenses. Sure I could shoot the f/4 versions at 12,800 ISO if I wanted to, but hmmmmmm..........DOF?

Edit to add~ I can respect a lot of information you have to offer Derrel, but your last post is just too far out there into fan boy(ism) LOL Nikon is doing great things, but I really feel for those who cannot afford to shoot with some of their awesome glass. They offer no alternative really.

 

[Derrel]

Short on range? That's hilarious!

The Nikon 14-24mm encompasses a number of the recognized, traditional wide-angle lens lengths,specifically 14mm,15mm,16mm,17mm,18mm,20mm,21mm,and 24mm.

So, this short on range ultra-wide lens encompasses EIGHT, specific prime lens focal lengths for full-frame users.

The 14mm encompasses a whopping 114 degree diagonal field of view, down to an 84mm diagonal FOV. It's a better lens than most Canon primes, including the 24mm f/1.4-L Canon, even cherry-picked samples. Nikon's 14-24 is such a good lens that professional Canon shooters have been buying expensive adapters to use it on their anon 1Ds Mark III bodies...it is in a word, the "best" single wide-angle lens ever built... 16:9 | Photographic Resources & Lens Tests

I love the top photo: "A NEW BENCHMARK FOR ULTRAWIDES: Nikon's reference-grade zoom. Canon 1Ds III plus Nikon 14-24mm G: the best ever dslr rig for landscape and architecture. Unique tests here."

Check the samples, and see how the 14-24 blows away Canon's 14mm-L prime

Nikon 14-24mm G Test v Canon 14mm L II

I love their review summary, "For sheer resolution, contrast and colouring – all the important elements of 'drawing style', tested in the fiercest crucible yet devised, the 14-24mm G is a long, long way ahead of anything below 21mm. Even if it covered 14-20mm and cost $4000 it would be the best possible ultrawide for a 1Ds III – but it doesn't: it costs less than half that, and it goes to 24mm, where it comes into conflict with the mighty Distagon . . . coming soon!"

So,there you have it from the most hard-core, high-resolution landscape testers on the planet--the best lens for a Canon 1Ds Mark III full-frame is a Nikkor lens mounted on a Canon with a lens adapter....

And no, I wasn't joking. If Nikon can "step on their nuts", they must have some pretty big nuts, huh? maybe some day Canon will be able to add a world-class wide-angle lens to their lineup, but so far, Nikon and Zeiss have got their number, quite solidly. What is shocking is how badly the 14-24mm Nikkor zoom thrashes the Canon 24mm f/1.4L prime: take a look at this f/5.6 corner photo, shot with a Nikon 14-24 on a Canon body on the left, and the Canon 24mm f/1.4-L on the right (the blurry image,bottom of page).
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

And please, keep in mind that the folks at 16.9 net have tested ONE,random 14-24 Nikon against multiple "cherry-picked" Canon and Zeiss lenses. These guys are sharpness and detail freaks--like most hard-core landscape shooters.

Of course, the 14-24 is one of Nikon's professionally-priced lenses, which are not made cheaply. Yeah, the 14-24 has no filter threads, but then most digital shooters today say,over and over that they prefer to do their filtration in Photoshop. If you really WANT filters though, you use an external filter holder, like one from Lee, or Singh-Ray, or Lindhal, and use professional-grade square slip-in filters on a lens of this quality. Some day, that other camera maker might catch up, but Nikon, Zeiss, and Leica pretty much currently rule the wide-angle focal lengths, and have for many years.

 

[itznfb]

Now we just need a 70-200 f/4

So, when I got home I was browsing around a bit and checked Nikon Rumors and what is the most recent post... a Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR rumor that has since been busted. I almost had a heart attack.

 

[Montana]

Now according to Derrel, Nikon only needs f/8 lenses because you can just use a higher ISO.

 

[Mike_E]

Got the message but missed the point.

Yes a low aperture is needful at times but not for low light situations any longer with some of the newer bodies. DOF? Sure. Catching a flower girl running down an isle? In focus? nope

It's a new day, have some coffee.

 

[Derrel]

Now according to Derrel, Nikon only needs f/8 lenses because you can just use a higher ISO.

Well, here's an article that basically is proving my point: it's not about megapixels--it's about BETTER quality images, at higher and higher ISO values.

Giz Explains: Why ISO Is the New Megapixel - Digital Cameras - Gizmodo

Read the conclusion. Seems like my point is well-accepted by those in the imaging industry...

I have been shooting digital SLR cameras since 2001, back when ISO 200 was "fast". Go ahead and laugh. I've been at it long enough to have experience enough to know what it was like to shoot a d-slr and have to pay $500 for a 1-gigbyte IBM microdrive and $400 for RAW conversion software from Nikon--because Canon didn't even HAVE a d-slr on the market, and Adobe software could not open Nikon .NEF files. Yeah, go ahead and laugh.

 

[MrLogic]

Nikkor 16-35 f/4 VR vs. 17-35 f/2.8 comparison:

SLR?? ?? ??? ?? ???