Nikon: What the hell?

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

  1. El Cabong macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    #1
    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

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #2
    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

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #3
    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

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #4
    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.

    SLC
     
  5. wheelhot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #5
    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 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #6
    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

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    #7
    Pretty much ;)

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

    OrangeCuse44

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    #8
    HAHAHA
     
  9. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #9
    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.

    Ruahrc
     

Share This Page