Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

[Vulpix0r]

From some calls I made, the price hovers around 1850-1950.

 

[noob sniper]

Wait when 17-40 L IS come out, it's ur turn :bsmilie:

wahaha... u :devil: leh bro :sweat:

 

[Numnumball]

From some calls I made, the price hovers around 1850-1950.

i paid slightly lesser than ur lowest price

 

[Numnumball]

No time play, pass to me, I help you play..:bsmilie::bsmilie:

:bsmilie: okokokok, i start the molest session 1st (1 to 1, charges negotiable ), cum cum :lovegrin:

 

[Vulpix0r]

i paid slightly lesser than ur lowest price

Good for you I guess? I don't have any top sekret lobangs or anything... Just used phone and call...

 

[Numnumball]

Good for you I guess? I don't have any top sekret lobangs or anything... Just used phone and call...

Me too.. Call, reserved and get. i dun quite believe some really quote that high.. Anyway the one i bot from is a reputable shop in orchard (which i think everyone knows).

 

[luntut]

lovely body shape, fugly hood.

fastest hand fastest leg award goes to you, mr numnumball! =D =D

 

[Jeremy1]

Very tempted but the F4 is the one that hold me back. :think:

 

[fevernova]

:bsmilie: okokokok, i start the molest session 1st (1 to 1, charges negotiable ), cum cum :lovegrin:

So 14-24 or 16-35?:bsmilie::bsmilie::dunno:

 

[DrSpock]

So 14-24 or 16-35?:bsmilie::dunno:

It's like Beauty:lovegrin: vs Beast so wic one you like? I reckon if you do not take that 14mm so oft you shd go for the 16-35(2.19x) which is more of a 'walkabout lens' IMO:devil:

 

[Vulpix0r]

Cathay and the other popular stores still don't have stock yet...

 

[Numnumball]

lovely body shape, fugly hood.

fastest hand fastest leg award goes to you, mr numnumball! =D =D

Lovely shape indeed (looks quite like the 24-70) & uses the same hood as DX 12-24 f4; 18-35 f3.5-4.5; 17-35 f2.8..fugly indeed.. :bsmilie:

Wahphiang this kinda award i dunwan leh...

 

[Numnumball]

So 14-24 or 16-35?:bsmilie::bsmilie::dunno:

U meant to say u are caught between this 2?
I think each have its own uses/purposes.. But i m diehard fan of creative filters so 14-24 i wll pass for now..;p

 

[Numnumball]

Very tempted but the F4 is the one that hold me back. :think:

On FF (where high ISO prevails) imo i think f4 is gd enuff, furthermore at shorter focal length , we all know we can manage a decent shot handheld at 1/16 or even 1/10 of a second.

The VR is a plus for low light handheld shooting as well.. IMHO is a bit better than my trusty 17-35f2.8.. Though still 1 class down from the Big sister 14-24 f2.8

 

[Kit]

At the moment, I'm rather reluctant to bring out both the 14-24mm and 24-70mm together. I just don't want that kind of weight unless it is absolutely necessary or when I am unfamiliar with the what to expect during the shoot. So am considering the 16-35, just wished that it didn't have the VR to keep the cost down.

 

[fevernova]

On FF (where high ISO prevails) imo i think f4 is gd enuff, furthermore at shorter focal length , we all know we can manage a decent shot handheld at 1/16 or even 1/10 of a second.

The VR is a plus for low light handheld shooting as well.. IMHO is a bit better than my trusty 17-35f2.8.. Though still 1 class down from the Big sister 14-24 f2.8

I find myself needing to shoot at wider angles and 50mm is more or less is my walkabout lens. So kinda hard to decide between big sister 14-24 or the smaller 16-35....

 

[DrSpock]

I think VR/VC/IS/OS/ are the signs of things to come for all lenses regardless of short focal length. Canon started putting in their 17-55 first, then Tamron 17-50VC, now Nikon 16-35VR & I heard now Sigma 17-50 OS also. Can't escape the technology but I reckon it'l get cheaper once it's an industry norm

 

[Numnumball]

I find myself needing to shoot at wider angles and 50mm is more or less is my walkabout lens. So kinda hard to decide between big sister 14-24 or the smaller 16-35....

Hope this helps

16-35 VR
Announced 2010 Feb
Max. Aperture f/4
Can take Filters? 77mm
Zoom Practicability Utra wide to short mid range
Length 125mm
Sharpness Excellent
Distortion amount moderate
Added VR Yes
Weight 680g
Price (2/2010) Ard $ 1850


14-24/2.8
Announced 2007 Aug
Max. Aperture f/2.8
Can take Filters? none
Zoom Practicability Ultra wide to wide
Length 132mm
Sharpness Excellent
Distortion amount moderate
Added VR No
Weight 1,000g
Price (2/2010) Ard $ 2750

 

[DrSpock]

Hope this helps

16-35 VR
Announced 2010 Feb
Max. Aperture f/4
Can take Filters? 77mm
Zoom Practicability Utra wide to short mid range
Length 125mm
Sharpness Excellent
Distortion amount moderate
Added VR Yes
Weight 680g
Price (2/2010) Ard $ 1850


14-24/2.8
Announced 2007 Aug
Max. Aperture f/2.8
Can take Filters? none
Zoom Practicability Ultra wide to wide
Length 132mm
Sharpness Excellent
Distortion amount moderate
Added VR No
Weight 1,000g
Price (2/2010) Ard $ 2750

Wah, bro, you are spreading the poison wide & high, I'm trying very hard to duck your poison arrows...:sweatsm:

 

[acidic]

bros... i own the 14-24 but i feel its too heavy as a walk-about lens. do you think i should sell it and get 16-35? Also can the new 24/f1.4 be of any use for walk-about/street?

Need some expert views ....