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.
lorenzo de medici: It's an incremental upgrade from the D7100, which I owned and then sold. Aptly named, and the improved buffer and low light focusing will be appreciated, I'm sure. DX Nikons just don't have any place in my camera bag any longer. Wildlife shooters who need 750mm equivalent focal lengths will enjoy this camera quite a bit, no doubt. Sorry but I don't care what claims they make or what DPR says, since it has just become a marketing arm of Amazon. DX sensors can't get the job done when it comes to the edge of the performance envelope. Buy a D750. If you dig down to the bottom line of DX advocates, no matter what they claim, the bottom line is they can't afford FX bodies or FX lenses. Cameras with little sensors are just a cheaper alternative to the real thing. Period. In ten years we'll all be shooting mirrorless full frame cameras, and DX cameras will still be what they are now - consumer grade equipment.
I stay with DX in the hope that ever smaller lighter lenses will be available for travel. While Nikon seems uninterested in a small FX equivalent “holy trinity” DX zoom set, it’s almost available now anyway with the Nikon DX 18-50 2.8 and the recently announced Tokina 11-20 2.8, but we’re still missing a small, light 50-150 2.8. (Sigma’s is too big.) Samsung’s is a good size; they should sell it in different mounts. Also, a smaller 100D size, D7200 class body would be great for light, backpack travelers.
I cannot seem to find the general Sigma stand report from the show... ?
Agree 100% with this article. APS-C should offer a size/weight advantage over FF. To take it a step further, Nikon/Canon should be offering APS-C sized "holy trinity" 2.8 lenses.
See this thread:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54414060
Don't get it. As I understand it, about 90% of Nikon's DSLR sales are DX, yet all the announcements are for FX products. Oh, except Sigma will offer a new 18- whatever zoom lens. Great.
Personally, I'd like an APS-C-only 10mm 2.8 prime.
Nikon and Canon should be using their APS-C lines to bury M4/3. (Not that I have anything against any M4/3 camera, just talking marketing strategy.)
robjons: Interesting project, so so photos. This reminds me of how little progress has been made in air travel. Same tiring travel times for 44 years now. Sure Concorde, but the airlines gave up on it for, I don’t know, greed? Branson, step up!
As I understand it, the airlines concluded it was easier (cheaper) to make money selling first class tickets than to invest in new technology. Money, not the technology itself, killed progress. Maybe it was a sound business decision, but I wish there were a faster alternative sometimes.