jmmgarza: They wouldn't dare make this better than the f/1.4 ...
I donno, their F/1.8 lens are pretty good. Look at the 35mm F/1.8 DX (thought simple optically). And I was lucky to win a 50mm F/1.8 and compared it to my existing F/1.4. My copy of the F/1.8 was sharper at F/1.8 and at F/2 then the F/1.4 so the F/1.4 was sold.
A lens I always hoped they'd make. Ideal travel prime. Will look to buy once price settles.
Lea5: Finally a 24-105 F4 for a Nikon too. That's great :) I expect a very good optical quality for my Nikon D4 and D800E. I don't care about the weight.
I brought the Nikon 24-120mm F/4 earlier this year and eventually sold my 24-70mm F/2.8. Was a very difficult decision knowing which one to part with. Both have adv and disadv.
The 24-70mm was near perfect but I rarely used it apart from for professional work (which I now no longer do). The extra zoom of the 24-120mm means it is on my camera most of the time now (where as the 24-70mm about 1/4 of the time) and I am frequently surprised at just how good it is. Fantastic walk around lens and as sharp as you want 85% of the time - its all I take on holidays with me. But at the same time I just don't trust it like I did my old 24-70mm - that just performed 100%, 100% of the time (at least that's how it felt).
Karl Summers: Please DPR, make this a testing priority. A test against the Canon f/4 24-105 and the f/2.8 24-70-II, as well as the Nikon equivalents. I don't expect the build quality to compare, but if the optical quality is like their 35mm ART lens then I would love to get this piece of glass.
I agree. I had the 85mm F/1.4 for a couple of years. Its build actually made my Nikon 24-70mm and 70-200mm feel a little cheap. Everything felt so substantial - the switches engage with a chunky and reassuring throw. Excellent lens - just wish I had not dropped it.
NickBPhotography: I'm actually looking to downgrade from a D800 to this, and swap my 24-70mm and 70-200mm F/2.8 for the 16-85mm VR and 70-200mm F4. People may question why but I'll put a considerable amount of cash back into my wallet, whilst saving almost 1.5kg in weight over my existing setup! That's quite a lot of weight/space!
Whatsmore, I no longer need a camera as good as the D800. I am always asking to borrow my GF's D90 when we go for walks/days out and am always impressed by how well it performs, how little it weights, and how I don't every think twice about taking the D90 for a day out/walk. I'd never take my D800 abroad with me as I'd have to babysit it all day and would not leave it in the hotel. I'd care less for something like this. What's more, I'll also make a massive saving on my insurance due later this year!
Thank you Plastek.
I did say earlier in my post that some may find it difficult to comprehend, but having had 4 years experience of DX, and 3 years experience of FX, with access to both formats as and when I see fit, I've thought very carefully about my decision.
Whilst I will not question the advantages of FX, the difference is that when I first moved to FX back in 2009, low light performance was my main consideration. I was doing a lot of wedding work, and back then the difference between FX and DX in low light was massive. However, in recent years the gap has narrowed, whilst I'm no longer taking photographs professional! These days I shoot for myself and don't need to be lugging around 5kg of camera equipment whilst not being paid!
But times have changed. I no longer need a camera as good as my D800, and would appreciate a lighter camera bag and lower insurance premium to boot! Though there will be compromises with the move, they outweigh the cons for me personally.
Heh, I'm being educated about the benefits of full-frame and fast aperture lenses. Wow I did not know that about 10 years ago.
I'm actually looking to downgrade from a D800 to this, and swap my 24-70mm and 70-200mm F/2.8 for the 16-85mm VR and 70-200mm F4. People may question why but I'll put a considerable amount of cash back into my wallet, whilst saving almost 1.5kg in weight over my existing setup! That's quite a lot of weight/space!
Great site - much better then the others I've seen in recent years. Shame there is not entry requirements prior to joining - lucky the various feeds sift the good from the bad quite easily.
Find people who frequent these sites are always too nervous to critique though which is a pity - photographs with massive technical flaws can do well which should not be the case (e.g. massive burnout for example in a nature/wildlife portrait = fail fail fail).
Based on that, I think I'll stick to replacing the grip on my cameras and that only :P.
Those who talk about weight should bear in mind that this is only a 200mm lens and the F/4 Aperture will means you could only mount a 1.4 teleconver tops (providing you can indeed mount a 1.4 teleconverter – if not looked into the specs). Though it will depend on your personal circumstances/working practices, I personally always find myself working nearer the 200mm end of my 70-200mm F/2.8 VRII. The 70-200mm F/2.8 VRII is both larger and heavier, but with a 2.0 Teleconverter III you can have a portrait/Sport lens and a wildlife lens in one (with no discernibly drop in image quality). This surely beats carrying two lenses around, even if it’s a much cheaper and lighter 70-300 VR.
Fotoman53: No way would I trade my 70-200 /2.8 VRII for this lens. Might have considered it if I was still using the Sigma I use to have or had neither. What I really want is an update of the 80-400 VR. Nikon is purposely dragging their feet on that one. Maybe it still sells well or they are afraid many pros would pass on their expensive 200-400 F4.
Have you tried the teleconverTER 2.0 III? Can't tell its mounted on my 70-200mm VRII except that it weights a little more, is a little longer, and my aperture reads F/5.6. Really is that good! Tried a Sigma 50-500mm OS, and the Teleconverter 1.7, but had I brought this first I'd have saved myself a lot of expensive trials (Sigma 120-300mm was tempting but its massive unsurprisingly).
No doubt this is just the introductory price and it will crumble quick if Cannon's is that much cheaper. Look what happened to the D600 prices! I know its a camera and not glass but I hope no unfortunate sole paid the £1950 predicted for launch.
djwuk: Had been thinking it would share d800 body but with 16-18mp for ultra high iOS. Have tried D7000 and didn't like it body too small with too many buttons stuck on too smaller body and lacking the solidity of my d200 and 300. So no thanks. Big issue with moving up to fx is the sheer cost of the glass - just the 16-35 and 24-70 would be around £2,2k, I also fear this means no d400,
I heard a D7000 replacement was due - I think that might be your D400.
NickBPhotography: I've placed my order. Its still not quite the camera my D700 was, but neither was the D800. Full viewfinder coverage, video, and 24mp are welcome additions. For me, the loss of fine adjustment of autofocus is a real backward move as that has proved invaluable on my 50mm F/1.4. Still, I've ordered it!
Oh does it? Cheers for the heads up. Nick
I've placed my order. Its still not quite the camera my D700 was, but neither was the D800. Full viewfinder coverage, video, and 24mp are welcome additions. For me, the loss of fine adjustment of autofocus is a real backward move as that has proved invaluable on my 50mm F/1.4. Still, I've ordered it!