New Lenses (Nikon)

[Apple fanboy]

So our friends at Nikon have been busy lately haven't they? Anybody interested in any of the new line up?
The new 24-70 mm looks nice, but as an owner of the current 24-70 f2.8 I'm not sure the upgrade would be worth it. Especially as its heavier!
Now the 200-500 f5.6 looks tempting. Especially at the price point. £1179 at launch, but that could be a sub £1000 lens in a few months.
I've added a few of the other newer lenses, but they are well out of my price range!
So discuss!

 

[hltjr]

So our friends at Nikon have been busy lately haven't they? Anybody interested in any of the new line up?
The new 24-70 mm looks nice, but as an owner of the current 24-70 f2.8 I'm not sure the upgrade would be worth it. Especially as its heavier!
Now the 200-500 f5.6 looks tempting. Especially at the price point. £1179 at launch, but that could be a sub £1000 lens in a few months.
I've added a few of the other newer lenses, but they are well out of my price range!
So discuss!

I've been waiting for an updated 24-70 since I purchased my D800 years ago. I'm happy to see this new lens, even though the current lens is great. I'v rented it plenty of times, but now it's time to pull the trigger.

 

[JDDavis]

I'd love to be the owner of a 24-70 but that price is hard to justify at the moment. The 3rd party 24-70s are getting pretty compelling. I'll certainly watch the price of the now previous 24-70 to see if it comes down on the used market.

I agree that the 200-500 is very tempting. If I were living somewhere that I would do more wildlife photography then it would be on the list with the 150-600 offerings. Those aren't lenses I'm going to buy just to go on vacation with though.

I'm interested in the 24 f1.8 as well. Not going to run out and buy one I'd just like to find a wide prime that will significantly outperform my 24-85 f2.8. And I mean by a wide enough margin that I'm willing to shell out the bucks for it. I've rented a Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Distagon for an upcoming trip and I'm pretty excited to try it out.

 

[v3rlon]

I'd love to be the owner of a 24-70 but that price is hard to justify at the moment. The 3rd party 24-70s are getting pretty compelling. I'll certainly watch the price of the now previous 24-70 to see if it comes down on the used market.

I agree that the 200-500 is very tempting. If I were living somewhere that I would do more wildlife photography then it would be on the list with the 150-600 offerings. Those aren't lenses I'm going to buy just to go on vacation with though.

I'm interested in the 24 f1.8 as well. Not going to run out and buy one I'd just like to find a wide prime that will significantly outperform my 24-85 f2.8. And I mean by a wide enough margin that I'm willing to shell out the bucks for it. I've rented a Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Distagon for an upcoming trip and I'm pretty excited to try it out.

I have the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 with vibration reduction and am quite pleased with it. Reasonable weight and great performance. A couple of these look really interesting though.

 

[inplainview]

Not at all really impressed by the new 24-70mm. Yes the VR is good but usually at these focal lengths your subject is not moving around and if you are using say a D4, or D4S, or D810 (which I am using), higher ISO's will not be a problem to capture the action. What is really disappointing if the fact that the lens gained significant weight and size. It's larger than the new 300mm, PF, f/4 (I love this lens. Best purchase ever) and heavier. Also they jumped to 82mm diameter filter size. I have 77mm Lee's. I am sure it is a great lens but I can't see justifying the price just for VR that is in most cases not needed.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Tbh when I bought my lenses, I thought the older 24-70 mm would be my favourite. However unless I'm restricting myself to just one lens on a trip (and I rarely do), I find it's not wide enough (unlike my 14-24 mm) or long enough (like either my 70-300 or 70-200).

 

[Cheese&Apple]

Will I be buying a new Nikon lens? You'd have to ask Mrs. Cheese&Apple.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Will I be buying a new Nikon lens? You'd have to ask Mrs. Cheese&Apple.

Or as we refer to our wife's at work, the financial controller!

 

[Cheese&Apple]

Not at all really impressed by the new 24-70mm. Yes the VR is good but usually at these focal lengths your subject is not moving around and if you are using say a D4, or D4S, or D810 (which I am using), higher ISO's will not be a problem to capture the action. What is really disappointing if the fact that the lens gained significant weight and size. It's larger than the new 300mm, PF, f/4 (I love this lens. Best purchase ever) and heavier. Also they jumped to 82mm diameter filter size. I have 77mm Lee's. I am sure it is a great lens but I can't see justifying the price just for VR that is in most cases not needed.

My thoughts exactly. I suspect few people will upgrade an existing 24 to 70 f/2.8. You may even see people buying the older version over the new just for the cost and weight saving. Can't blame Nikon for this though as so many people have been asking for a VR version of this lens years and they delivered.

~ Peter

 

[inplainview]

Tbh when I bought my lenses, I thought the older 24-70 mm would be my favourite. However unless I'm restricting myself to just one lens on a trip (and I rarely do), I find it's not wide enough (unlike my 14-24 mm) or long enough (like either my 70-300 or 70-200).

I got rid of the 14-24mm. Spectral lens but almost impractical to use except for the rare occasion. I picked up the new 20mm, and find it much more practical to use. Yes, you lose a bit over the 14mm, but the 20mm takes 77mm filters and you get that extra stop for low light.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I got rid of the 14-24mm. Spectral lens but almost impractical to use except for the rare occasion. I picked up the new 20mm, and find it much more practical to use. Yes, you lose a bit over the 14mm, but the 20mm takes 77mm filters and you get that extra stop for low light.

Probably the lens I use the most, followed by the 105 macro. Horses for courses and all that.

 

[swordio777]

I own the current 24-70 and, while VR would be nice, I definitely won't be upgrading. The current non-VR is still a spectacular piece of glass. The new one will have to be absolutely mind-blowing to justify the 33% 50% jump in price (£1245 for non-VR vs £1845 for VR).

 

[kenoh]

Will I be buying a new Nikon lens? You'd have to ask Mrs. Cheese&Apple.

I hear you on that one!

Answer to that question though is usually "you have got loads of lenses. What do you need another one for?"

 

[kenoh]

I own the current 24-70 and, while VR would be nice, I definitely won't be upgrading. The current non-VR is still a spectacular piece of glass. The new one will have to be absolutely mind-blowing to justify the 33% jump in price (£1245 for non-VR vs £1845 for VR).

See when I started out paying attention to photography 2-3 years ago, I thought £600 for a lens was offensive. Then I got into L series Canon glass. I then started thinking £1200 plus was offensive. Then came Leica and now my "you are having a laugh" threshold is too high... I need to dial it back this LensLust is going to kill me!

 

[swordio777]

See when I started out paying attention to photography 2-3 years ago, I thought £600 for a lens was offensive. Then I got into L series Canon glass. I then started thinking £1200 plus was offensive. Then came Leica and now my "you are having a laugh" threshold is too high... I need to dial it back this LensLust is going to kill me!

Yes - it's a slippery slope, but I think the reframing of "expensive" happens to all of us

Not saying £1850 is too much, I'm just not convinced the new one will be 50% better (I hope I'm right, otherwise I might feel compelled to upgrade )

 

[Cheese&Apple]

Answer to that question though is usually "you have got loads of lenses. What do you need another one for?"

Life and marriage is all about give and take Ken. I do find it helps just a bit if I try to resist from making comments like "you have got loads of shoes. What do you need another pair for?" However, this explains a footware collection that Imelda Marcos would be proud of.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Yes - it's a slippery slope, but I think the reframing of "expensive" happens to all of us

Not saying £1850 is too much, I'm just not convinced the new one will be 50% better (I hope I'm right, otherwise I might feel compelled to upgrade )

Is any lens really 50% better than an older or cheaper one? An even heavier 24-70 mm will still feel too short and not wide enough to me. Yes VR is nice, but you can push the ISO much higher on cameras like my D750, so it becomes less of an issue. Especially when you throw in DXO software.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Life and marriage is all about give and take Ken. I do find it helps just a bit if I try to resist from making comments like "you have got loads of shoes. What do you need another pair for?" However, this explains a footware collection that Imelda Marcos would be proud of.

Your on dangerous ground there mate. People have got divorced for less.

 

[Cheese&Apple]

Your on dangerous ground there mate. People have got divorced for less.

I would have room for more lenses.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I would have room for more lenses.

Yes but less money!

 

[Meister]

200-500mm constant aperture sounds fantastic!