Nikon: What the hell?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by El Cabong, Feb 9, 2010.

  1. El Cabong macrumors 6502a

    Dec 1, 2008
    Nikon just announced a new 24mm f/1.4 lens for an MSRP of $2200.

    As a person who has been waiting for a while to see some new FX primes, I hate Nikon right now.

    How does anyone else feel?
  2. flosseR macrumors 6502a


    Jan 1, 2009
    the cold dark north
    Well what primes were you looking for? I fail to see any primes that need desperate updates from Nikon.

    I think th 16-35mm VR is a great addition, something that Canon really is missing. I cant justify the 24mm price but I am pretty sure its worth it :D
  3. Grimace macrumors 68040


    Feb 17, 2003
    with Hamburglar.
    Canon's MSRP for the same lens is $1800 with a street price of $1700.

    That's definitely a tough price difference to swallow (from Nikon's 24mm) but I think the people that the company is targeting are professionals who have a full Nikon rig and would rather cough up the extra $400 than consider switching.
  4. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Nov 19, 2007
    Portland, OR
    That and the new lens is nano coated, which no other lens out there in this focal length can offer (except some Nikon Zooms I suppose, but they can't open to f/1.4). This has the makings of a special lens, the old 24 f/1.4 has already been commanding similar prices and is one of Nikon's most coveted lenses as is...

    I think the price is justifiable, and completely expected, I wasn't surprised at all.

    Now the 16-35 on the other hand, I don't quite know what to think. Sure it's a landscaper's dream zoom (not that landscapers use a lot of zooms), but so is the 14-24 really, and this one doesn't open past f/4. Now I know most landscapes are shot at say f/8 or so, but Nikon has made an identity of offering constant f/2.8 zooms of extreme quality in their professional line. I can't say that I wouldn't rather take a 14-24 f/2.8 for a few hundred more, than buy this lens (and yes I am in the market for a nice ultrawide zoom). I'd probably even rather buy a 17-35 f/2.8 than this lens. The VR is a neat feature, but not really that useful for the applications a lens like this is most often used for.

    Either way, I have no doubt that both lenses will have superb IQ etc upon release to the public.

  5. wheelhot macrumors 68020

    Nov 23, 2007
    Why? cuz u cant own it?

    Seriously, I see nothing wrong with Nikon pricing. Sure they are expensive but if you think about it, even Canon fastest prime at a certain length is expensive.

    If you think its worth it, you will save it and not complain bout the price. Seriously, I nvr expected Nikon to add N coating to it.
  6. Westside guy macrumors 603

    Westside guy

    Oct 15, 2003
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    I liked what Thom Hogan said about this lens...

    In any case, a nano-coated, AF-S 24mm f/1.4 looks pretty sweet. Out of my price range, but still sweet! :p
  7. El Cabong thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Dec 1, 2008
    Pretty much ;)

    It's one of those things that make me wonder how much I really need two whole kidneys.
  8. OrangeCuse44 macrumors 65816


    Oct 25, 2006
    Long Island, NY
  9. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Jun 9, 2009
    Reading the comments in the NR blog was funny. The whining is almost as bad as it is here about the iPad. Everybody expected a cheap laptop in the iPad, and got a specialty device. Here, everyone wanted an unsustainably cheap 1.4 prime, but got a true professional lens (no-compromises design with consequent price).

    It seems that Nikon's top tier lenses have traditionally bested Canon's offerings in terms of quality, but come at a premium. This has been the case for a while, and therefore it should be no surprise to anyone.

    Nikon has in the past released a wide f4 pro (gold ring) zoom. The 12-24DX. I don't know why a landscaper wouldn't use a zoom, especially once you stop down to f/8 where even the kit lenses are competing with the high end glass in terms of quality.

    Anyways, indeed for landscapers it is a great lens. Not only is it smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the 14-24- the f2.8 is not needed for most landscapes. It also takes filters, something that is critically lacking on the 14-24mm as far as landscape shots go. I think the addition of VR is nice as it enables you to get shots in the same low light conditions as the 14-24 (potentially even more, considering that VR can consistently give 2-3 stops improvement) so the lens is not relegated to pure tripod use when it gets dark.


Share This Page