Why 18 35???

Can yoy help understand why nikon made the 18 35 when they already have the 16 35??? Do you think the differences are enought to gustify the existence of 2 sifferent lenses??

The 16-35mm isnt a cheap lens just as the 24-120mm isnt so offering a lower speced alternative obviously makes sense with the D600 looking to target a cheaper end of the market.

Nikon are also having to respond to the Canon 17-40mm offering a cheap UWA option.

Ok there is 3-400$ difference but do you the performances are gonna be that different??? If so then the 18 35 should perform pretty avarage and so be pretty expensive...

The weight! It's almost half the weight of the 16-35. Travel light, that's what many like!

And most new lenses from Nikon the in the past years has performed very well (even the consumer lenses). I do believe this one will too.

There's a $500 price diffrence. That's pretty significant.

When Nikon were getting ready to release the d600, they looked at their line-up and saw two gaping holes for the enthusiast: the mid-range zoom and the wide-angle zoom. They already had the solid 70-300 VR for the telephoto zoom, so that was covered. So first they updated the 24-85, and now they've updated the 18-35.

Makes perfect sense to me.

AS others have mentioned, Nikon's consumer lenses have been performing pretty well as of late. If it does anywhere near the 16-35 f/4, it will be a good offering.

Remember, the 16-35 f/4 is fixed aperture, Nano coated and has VR as weill as being about as sharp as it gets in most of it's range. Those features are worth the price of admission for many of us. For the others, this new lens may just hit the mark.

--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

It's smaller and cheaper than the 16-35/4.

People asked for something ​like that, to be available alongside the 14-24/2.8. Nikon originally missed the mark, giving them oversized and overpriced 16-35/4, they've figured it out now.

Yes...and 1/3 the weight of the 14-24mm. I just sold my 14-24. It was just to darned heavy. I never took it with me.

I was contemplating the 16-35mm, but I think I'll go for the new 18-35mm when it's available. Sure, I loose 14-17mm and a stop or so, but that doesn't do me any good when the lens is sitting in a bag at home.

Good question,

I heard about the lens last Autumn but nobody mentioned about the technical details.
Personally I expected it to be a lens more aimed at video (although the length is rather short) so that it would be equipped with VR and putting extra attention in manual focusing.

This looks like a nice kit lens.

Michel

--
- To observe without evaluation is the highest form of human intelligence -
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.fotopropaganda.com/blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9240992@N05

Actually, this is just an update to the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 D, which has been around at least 10 years.

I liked the range and size of the 18-35 I sold, but I kept the better performing Tokina 20-35.  Am hoping that this new one will trump the Tokina.

The lenses can be close in optical performance, but are very different in everything else.

--
Hynek

http://www.sunwaysite.com

My first DSLR kit was a Fuji S2, 18-35D and 28-105D. I too sold the 18-35, but for a Sigma 15-30mm, as I wanted something wider for the 1.5x crop factor. But with FX, 18-35 is a very versatile focal length.

a) Price

b) Size

c) Weight

--
http://gangrenousgreen.me
http://500px.com/GangrenousGreen

I consider the 16-35/4 with VR neither overpriced nor oversized.

--
http://gangrenousgreen.me
http://500px.com/GangrenousGreen

Sure, the 14-24 is a stellar lens, but as many stated before it is very big and heavy to carry around. I also very rarely need the 14mm, 17mm or 18mm will be fine!

From the MTF´s that lens seems to be not that weak, "better" (especially at WA, but that´s 16 vs 18) than the 16-35 which is also to big and heavy for my 20 WA shots a year.

I´m looking forward to this lens, will buy it for sure!

You're absolutely right. The 16-35 f/4 is a fairly lightweight, inexpensie lens for what you get with VR, Nano coatings and full weather sealing is a very sharp and contrasty lens.

--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

My guess is it'll be to the 16-35mm VR as the 24-85mm VR is to the 24-120mm VR, similar performance over the same range but that range is reduced, the appature's not fixed but slightly higher/lower, the sealing on a gasket, no nano and in this case no VR.

Unless you really need the size saving I'm not sure it looks like such a good deal to me though. For one thing its closer to 2/3rds the price of the 16-35mm where as the 24-85mm was less than half the price of the 24-120mm. For another the 24-85mm cutout the weakest part of the 24-120mm range which many didnt consider good enough for 24 or 36 MP sensors. The similar weakness to be cutout of the 16-35mm for me is the long end, a 16-28mm lens rather than an 18-35mm.

But you do know that suggested Retail Price is not what it will actually sell for after it is in stock everywhere?

The retail price is pretty close to street price these days with Nikon. Take a look at what things are selling for. There's not that much margin in glass anymore unless it's third party glass. Many Nikon lenses have been out for several years and still sell close to MSRP. You won't save much if anything waiting. Unless there's a rebate with a new camera purchase, it's close to retail.

--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile