BeefCoffee: Aps-c sensor with fixed lens in the Samsung fridge, for those theiving roommate gotchas!
yeah, roommates sharing a flat, that's the demographic for an expensive new high-tech fridge.
daddyo: It seems a bit odd that there is no mention of the Pany 100-400mm zoom. For m4/3's users that's probably on par with the Olympus debut. This is a photography site -- am I missing something?
yeah, I thought they'd mention the Panasonic lens in this "caption article" too.
Qwntm: Where's the lenses? 16 1.4? 23 1.4? 35 1.4? 56 1.2? 90 2.0? Nevermind...
ay caramba 'dougster'; a 10 year long discussion with about 200,000 posts. Must you distract from the excitement of this announcement?
10mm 2.8 DX prime, ... please
ohhhh, I see, drag and drop, how intuitive...
DPR, price on the front page description, for every new product announcement please...
not cheap, but I like to see progress, alternatives in the filter category
Francis Carver: "Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR"
Now, that's one catchy title for an article, DPR. Very poetic. :-)
But really, his point is well taken Barney Britton. You don't have to use the full official name in the title, just early on in the text.
Steve Bingham: I actually tested my copy of this lens at 10' using a 2' x 3' ISO 12233 chart and found it excellent at 80mm - where I will probably be using it the most. The CA can be instantly mitigated without losing resolution using ACR, but it is there to some extent. All-in-all, as good a DX lens as I have tested (probably 15 or so). And yes, this would include my Sigma 17-50 which I gave to my wife. Excellent lens, but not quite as good as the Nikon 16-80.
what lens? I thought you were talking about the 16-80 until the last line... (?)
Can DPR please just include the retail price of products posted on the front page? Annoying to have to dig for it.
iudex: One thing I noticed immediately is the weight of this lens: it is pretty lightweight given the FR and the luminosity: only 480g. The Pentax 16-85mm is 2/3 to 1 EV slower, but weighs even a bit more (488g). The Sigma 17-70mm is bit shorter on both ends, but weighs only a fraction less (465g). And most importantly this new Nikkor weighs even less than it´s much slower predecessor the 16-85mm/3,5-5,6. I remember people here arguing that the Pentax 16-85mm couldn´t have been faste since it would have been much bigger and heavier. Now it is clear it is possible to make a lens with similar FR, that is faster without being heavier. Good job Nikon.
iudex don't forget most Euro prices include about an 18% VAT. Sales tax is never part of a US list price.
Mike Cialowicz: It's nice to see that Nikon is giving the DX lens lineup a bit more love. This is the lens that I was waiting for back when I still used DX. However, as good as the optics will likely be, the price seems a bit crazy. I think Nikon took a hint from Sony with their expensive E-mount pricetags... this new 16-80mm f/2.8-4 is just a bit more expensive than the Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 OSS, and only ~$200 USD less than the equivalent FX lens (24-120mm f/4). Hmmm...
Agreed. Sony's strategy seems to be lure buyers with relatively inexpensive bodies, then make it all back on lenses. Nikon apparently likes this approach.
Yes, this is all correct. I love the idea of this lens. Just wish it was closer to $800 or so.
I'm really kind of waiting for total "convergence." Why should we have to choose between mirrorless and mirror? I'd like both in one camera - through the viewfinder.
List price and sensor size on the specs chart would be appreciated...
"It also offers a fully electronic silent shutter."
Then why do we need a mechanical shutter at all?
"Unlike some higher-end Nikons, the D7200 does not support face detection while shooting through the viewfinder (it does in live view)."
This is really what I want, and the lack of it stops me from upgrading at this point.
so it's smaller than X-T1. what else was cut from X-T1? Unhelpful...
I'd like to see a 2.8 version of this for APS-C.
h2k: The headline is about the new lens's price, but then in the teaser text you don't tell the price, the reader has to click onto the link.
I understand that websites want clicks, still i find it a bit funny - announcing a price information, which is a very tiny piece of information (not like a camera test conclusion) and then hiding that information from the introductory text.
Agree, I was annoyed too. Price mentioned in headline then not given in subhead forcing readers to open and hunt.
Hey DPR! Here's an idea: ALWAYS mention the retail price in EVERY product announcement on your front page.