Nikon 16-35mm f/2.8 ED ASPH Lens in 2013-14 !!

[Cheesecake]

FINALLY!!!

But it is just a patent... haiz...

many things patented, not out yet...

50/1.2G
17 PC-E
etc etc etc etc

17 PC-E sounds really interesting. ;p

 

[daredevil123]

its ok. i'm please with the 16-35 f4.

Loving mine too.

 

[Cowseye]

17 PC-E sounds really interesting. ;p

It's a catchup game bro, just look at canon's arsenal.

 

[Kit]

Canon has had the head start where T/S lenses are concerned. Their 1st generation of TS-E lenses were around for almost 20 years before the PC-E lenses were made available. I will probably turn blue waiting for the PC-E 17mm but who knows.......

 

[Cheesecake]

It's a catchup game bro, just look at canon's arsenal.

Oic, but stil let us wait n see la.

 

[Jeremy1]

But do u need at F2.8 for a WA lens ? :embrass:

Maybe just hope for distortion level will be much better...................

 

[Cheesecake]

But do u need at F2.8 for a WA lens ? :embrass:

Maybe just hope for distortion level will be much better...................

event coverage mah.

maybe need the fast speed and the low DOF.

not me la. so the f4 VR is good for unker with wobbly hands like mine. :bsmilie:

 

[lenslust]

event coverage mah.

maybe need the fast speed and the low DOF.

not me la. so the f4 VR is good for unker with wobbly hands like mine. :bsmilie:

Unker still like f/2.8. *cough cough*.

 

[Cheesecake]

Unker still like f/2.8. *cough cough*.

think the f2.8 no VR. unker prefer stability in case 'shake' too much. hurhurhur

 

[ortega]

I also love my 16-35 f4 with vr, I just make use of the distortion in my compositions or correct them via software. For me lighter with iq is more important

 

[lenslust]

think the f2.8 no VR. unker prefer stability in case 'shake' too much. hurhurhur

I'm fine without VR, won't shake so bad with ISO12,800 anyway.

 

[Cheesecake]

I'm fine without VR, won't shake so bad with ISO12,800 anyway.

U strong n steady mah! Wahahaha

Haf, gd. Dun haf, nvm.

Since ive the f4 vr, probably won't be looking to upgrade.

 

[John Mama]

I'm jumping all over this lens if it's not vapourware.......I love my 14-24, but for travel, the range is somewhat limiting. I don't care about the lack of filters or the front element, it's the range that makes me pack an extra lens...

The 17-35mm just doesn't cut it anymore on a D800....heck, even on a D700, its weaknesses were beginning to show. As for the 16-35 F4, I think it's sharp but the colours are awfully dull, or at least seem that way compared to the 14-24. It's that special quality of the 14-24 that just cannot be reproduced in post-processing.

If the 16-35 2.8 is real, and approaches the quality of the 14-24, I'll be first in line ha ha....but I doubt Nikon would cannibalise their sales of their premium wide angle lens that way.

 

[Dfive]

I'm jumping all over this lens if it's not vapourware.......I love my 14-24, but for travel, the range is somewhat limiting. I don't care about the lack of filters or the front element, it's the range that makes me pack an extra lens...

The 17-35mm just doesn't cut it anymore on a D800....heck, even on a D700, its weaknesses were beginning to show. As for the 16-35 F4, I think it's sharp but the colours are awfully dull, or at least seem that way compared to the 14-24. It's that special quality of the 14-24 that just cannot be reproduced in post-processing.

If the 16-35 2.8 is real, and approaches the quality of the 14-24, I'll be first in line ha ha....but I doubt Nikon would cannibalise their sales of their premium wide angle lens that way.

I think many pro's would consider these lenses very diff..... the first half this year you'll see Canons 14-24 f2.8 released also.