PMA 2003: Nikon AF-S VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IE-ED
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
- Status
Originally posted by Avatar
Hopefully so, but I don't think it is going to be $700 - $800 but rather, a little over a thousand here.
The projected retail price for this lens here in the UK is £539.99. That makes it approx. S$1490.00 (2.81 exchange rate).
See this Nikon UK press Release, suppose to be available in March!
Orion_Hunter
Member
Sianz haha F75 has vertical shutter release whereas F80 does not have... kinda irritate me a little... but can live without it. :bsmilie:
Originally posted by Avatar
It may not be great to you but it does offer countless serious amateurs with an option to own a AF-S lens that has more than decent performance and speed. Sure, it ain't an AF-S 28-70 f/2.8 but comparatively, let's ask how much does it cost?
Like always, one may be a professional but please do expect everyone to be on the same level. Pro or amateur, everyone has to start somewhere, ain't it?
i think wat ys really meant was probably not to get too overly excited over AFS and VR
Afterall, wat u're referring to as a cheap low cost "option to own a AF-S lens" has been available to Canon users for nearly a decade in the form of cheap low cost USM / IS lenses. And not all of those USM / IS lenses have been good - the dogs are usually found among consumer lenses.
So in the end it might be better off paying less for lenses without those features. Like Nikkor lenses with proven track record or Nikkor primes (with all their associated advantages).
of course this lens may still turn out to be optically good (in which case u are free to point this out thread to me months from now to make me eat my words
), but the danger is that a lot of pple will flock to it simply because it has that "AF-S" tag which are normally only associated with Nikon top of the line pro lenses. Not to mention the "VR" tag..........
S
Sin
Guest
I notice your emphasis is on AF-S.
I think YS was trying to say that AF-S is not the deciding factor whether a lens is good or not.
Don't just buy into a lens because it has all the new spangled technology like D, ED, IF, etc etc...
Buy a lens for it's optics...
Everyone has to start somewhere, yes. But not everyone need to get an AF-S lens.
Knighthunter
Senior Member
Originally posted by Sin
I notice your emphasis is on AF-S.
I think YS was trying to say that AF-S is not the deciding factor whether a lens is good or not.
Don't just buy into a lens because it has all the new spangled technology like D, ED, IF, etc etc...
Buy a lens for it's optics...
Everyone has to start somewhere, yes. But not everyone need to get an AF-S lens.
Are you a Nikon user? Have ever play with AFS lens? ED (extra low dipersion) glass should give better result than normal glass. ED/IF/VR/AFS are not gimmicks.
AFS is big factor for Nikon user, is a big improvement from screw driven AF. AFS definetely is a major factor in deciding lens, ED or non ED is also a major factor, IF is is the best design for AF lens since the barell not rotating or extending/retracting during AF.
For example which one you chose Nikkor AF 28-105 or AFS 24-85 giving that you have limited budget? FYI AFS 24-85 is cheaper than AF 28-105. Nikon moves to introduce AFS and VR technology to consumer grade lenses is a benefit to user, especially for ppl like me who can't always afford to get f2.8/pro lenses.
You can always depend to the 3rd party review when buying lens but at the end you will stuck with what you can afford.
I just feel pity that older Nikon bodies can't enjoy these new features.
I have been a Nikon user for over 10 years. Sin is a Nikon user as well. AF-S, VR, ED does not garauntee good lenses. The 18-35 is ED, but isn't spectacular. So is the 24-85. If you ask me, I'd take 28-105 vs the AF-S 24-85 simply because the 28-105 has much less distortion.
True, the AF-S 24-85G and 24-120VR are both the cheap way to get into the AF-S and VR bandwagon, remember that it does not guarantee good results just becoz of AFS, VR and ED. If a lens design is no good to begin with, using ED and all does not make it better.
How would you like say a Nikon AF-S VR 28-300 f/4-5.6G ED-IF elements? It will still not be as good as the good old AF 28-85D without the ED elements.
Don't buy a lens just because it has the latest technology.
Regards
CK
Originally posted by Red Dawn
i think wat ys really meant was probably not to get too overly excited over AFS and VR
Afterall, wat u're referring to as a cheap low cost "option to own a AF-S lens" has been available to Canon users for nearly a decade in the form of cheap low cost USM / IS lenses. And not all of those USM / IS lenses have been good - the dogs are usually found among consumer lenses.
So in the end it might be better off paying less for lenses without those features. Like Nikkor lenses with proven track record or Nikkor primes (with all their associated advantages).
of course this lens may still turn out to be optically good (in which case u are free to point this out thread to me months from now to make me eat my words
Well, first off, I am not anywhere near excited here, just confident
I do not like to speculate anything out of specifications, that's my style. Though many said it may not be good, nobody can ascertain anything out of these numbers. Well, who knows that this may be a darkhorse that can ultimately be a good choice for serious amateurs, just like the earlier AF-S 24-85?
My take is, tt doesn't have to have stellar performance like the professional level AF-S 28-70, what it need is to be a good performer priced correctly to intercept the market. It seems to me that Nikon is finally waking up to its idea after a long sleep.
As for the AF-S or VR tag, well, to me, they are proven technologies that works to provide swift AF and reliable handheld operation, something that is missing from the Nikon cohort for far too long, IMHO that is. Don't get me wrong, I know that these are not sure signs of a good lens but they are surely positive strides in the right directionfor Nikon, as a company, in time to come. With improved sales and more money for R&D, I reckon there will be even more implementations for even better lenses in the future, ain't it?
While some old time Nikon users may not feel it, one can see that Canon is leeching away quite a lot of market share from it just because they are able to provide USM and IS in many of their consumer grade lenses. I seen and use a handful of these, they are not excellent lenses IMO but in a way, they do sometimes feel more "worth-the-moola", this is something that may be of utmost importance to a first time buyer of either system. For me, I choose Nikon because I like their optics and system ergonomics better, but I cannot say the same for all.
Knighthunter
Senior Member
AF 18-35ED is a good lens but distortion is quite noticeable, I had this lens before. This lens' price is only a fraction of AFS 17-35 f2.8, AF 18-35ED is value for the money since this lens retail price is below 1k.
I understand that you will choose the ol' trusty AF 28-105, in my case I still suck up to AFS/VR/ED. Those AFS/VR/ED are not marketing insignia to a technical guy like my, I believe the technology behind it.
Originally posted by Sin
I notice your emphasis is on AF-S.
I think YS was trying to say that AF-S is not the deciding factor whether a lens is good or not.
Don't just buy into a lens because it has all the new spangled technology like D, ED, IF, etc etc...
Buy a lens for it's optics...
Everyone has to start somewhere, yes. But not everyone need to get an AF-S lens.
Sin, I agree but I don't see why we should put down a new product just because its number is derived from a so-so lens. There is nothing to see yet, so I am keeping my remarks till I actually get to feel it
As for needing an AF-S lens, well, we may feel this way but for new adopters to this system, it may be a "downside". Nikon is just moving a step in the right direction as a profitable company, IMO
Originally posted by Avatar
Well, first off, I am not anywhere near excited here, just confident
I do not like to speculate anything out of specifications, that's my style. Though many said it may not be good, nobody can ascertain anything out of these numbers. Well, who knows that this may be a darkhorse that can ultimately be a good choice for serious amateurs, just like the earlier AF-S 24-85?
My take is, tt doesn't have to have stellar performance like the professional level AF-S 28-70, what it need is to be a good performer priced correctly to intercept the market. It seems to me that Nikon is finally waking up to its idea after a long sleep.
As for the AF-S or VR tag, well, to me, they are proven technologies that works to provide swift AF and reliable handheld operation, something that is missing from the Nikon cohort for far too long, IMHO that is. Don't get me wrong, I know that these are not sure signs of a good lens but they are surely positive strides in the right directionfor Nikon, as a company, in time to come. With improved sales and more money for R&D, I reckon there will be even more implementations for even better lenses in the future, ain't it?
While some old time Nikon users may not feel it, one can see that Canon is leeching away quite a lot of market share from it just because they are able to provide USM and IS in many of their consumer grade lenses. I seen and use a handful of these, they are not excellent lenses IMO but in a way, they do sometimes feel more "worth-the-moola", this is something that may be of utmost importance to a first time buyer of either system. For me, I choose Nikon because I like their optics and system ergonomics better, but I cannot say the same for all.
It sure is a correct move to introduce AF-S and VR into more lenses but I'd rather they do it on their better consumer lenses like the old 28-85, the 28-105, etc rather than the crappy 24-120. I don't know about you, but I'd take a good lens without ED/AFS/VR over a not-so-good one with all that nomenclature. All that is not going to make your pictures better. For what I do, the max aperture of f/5.6 is rather limiting as well. Sure, the VR is going to let you handhold 120mm at down to say, 1/30 or even 1/15s, but if you have a moving subject, too bad.
Can the Leica and Contax people have all been shooting without these technologies for ages, and still produce great pictures. And the Nikonians have been shooting for so long without them, and yet produce great pictures as well.
Really, all these new lenses are not exciting at all, it's something I can do without. Nevermind if the prices are going to be good or not. It's not worth it.
What I really want to see is a new DSLR from Nikon, like a "D2" or "D200" which has most if not all of the current quirks ironed out.
Regards
CK
Originally posted by Avatar
Well, first off, I am not anywhere near excited here, just confident
I do not like to speculate anything out of specifications, that's my style. Though many said it may not be good, nobody can ascertain anything out of these numbers. Well, who knows that this may be a darkhorse that can ultimately be a good choice for serious amateurs, just like the earlier AF-S 24-85?
My take is, tt doesn't have to have stellar performance like the professional level AF-S 28-70, what it need is to be a good performer priced correctly to intercept the market. It seems to me that Nikon is finally waking up to its idea after a long sleep.
As for the AF-S or VR tag, well, to me, they are proven technologies that works to provide swift AF and reliable handheld operation, something that is missing from the Nikon cohort for far too long, IMHO that is. Don't get me wrong, I know that these are not sure signs of a good lens but they are surely positive strides in the right directionfor Nikon, as a company, in time to come. With improved sales and more money for R&D, I reckon there will be even more implementations for even better lenses in the future, ain't it?
While some old time Nikon users may not feel it, one can see that Canon is leeching away quite a lot of market share from it just because they are able to provide USM and IS in many of their consumer grade lenses. I seen and use a handful of these, they are not excellent lenses IMO but in a way, they do sometimes feel more "worth-the-moola", this is something that may be of utmost importance to a first time buyer of either system. For me, I choose Nikon because I like their optics and system ergonomics better, but I cannot say the same for all.
Clap! Clap! Clap!
Totally Agree......Like me still using 80-200 Non D version & MF lens.....still can alive.....
Knighthunter
Senior Member
Leica is very conservative design only appeal to certain people only, example no sport photographer will use Leica M6 to take, say, soccer match. Hard to say this, some people buy Leica only for display at their home or as a social status insignia, although I also still see active photographer using Leica.
Contax is moving to modern design by Introducing AF range finder and AF SLR Contax N1. Unfortunately the lens selection is very limited and the price is sky high.
Anyway, I will follow the advancement in tech and design. At the end what is important is the marketing and innovation in technology for a company to thrive in the today's market.
Ansel Adam is using totally manual LF he gets greatest picture, but also don't forget new bread of photographer who takes great pictures with the latest technology, such as Steve McCurry. Good equipment does not make good photographer.
At the end of the day, all boils down to how much money you willing to burn for your equipment. Nowaday money talks........
True, Leica and Contax may not appeal to all, but those who use the 1950s systems still get pretty good shots. Look at the works of Henry Cartier Bresson, Robert Doisneau, Marc Riboud, etc. All taken with entirely mechanical cameras without frills. How many of us with all the latest and greatest cameras with super fast and silent AF, VR/IS and all that can take spontaneous street photos, like they do?
Steve McCurry uses a F100 and 3 primes, 24, 50 and 85 if I am not wrong. All are non ED, non-AFS, non-VR. His works are still pretty good.
I know a sports photographer who shoot sports and has pictures published in the papers, uses Nikon superteles without all the VR/IS technogies, and at a point of time even using a MF(!) AI-S 400mm f/2.8 Nikkor.
Technology does not improve the picture. The photographer does. No point sucking up to all the latest technologies. At the end of the day, if your technique is no good, you can have a D1x or 1Ds with all the "very long name" lenses and still shoot pictures that cannot beat someone using a FM2 and a AI-S 28-85 or even a prime.
Save the money. After all, like they said, times are bad.
Regards
CK
S
Sin
Guest
Originally posted by Avatar
Sin, I agree but I don't see why we should put down a new product just because its number is derived from a so-so lens. There is nothing to see yet, so I am keeping my remarks till I actually get to feel it
As for needing an AF-S lens, well, we may feel this way but for new adopters to this system, it may be a "downside". Nikon is just moving a step in the right direction as a profitable company, IMO
Agree, as to the value of the lens, we should first see it then make decision. My only point is not to be clouded in judgement just because it's AF-S. You agree too with my view, judging from you posts. AF-S or not, it's the quality that counts.
S
Sin
Guest
Frankly speaking, and no offense, but if you are as you said: " believe the technology behind it", why didn't you buy into Canon in the beginning?
AFS/VR has been Canon consumer lenses for a way long time before Nikon. Why did u buy into Nikon and not Canon? what makes you chose Nikon at the beginning? (No sarcasm, no offense, jus wanna understand your logic better).
I'm not dissing the AFS or VR, in fact, if they put it on some of the good lens, I might buy them. The focus here is the lens as a whole, not the individual technologies in the lens. Gimme a lens with two great technology but crap optics, how cheap also not my taste...
- Status