What do you think of the NEW Nikon AF-S 14-24 mm and 24-70 mm F2.8G ED?

[XC Pictorial]

the motivations for D3 and D300 were understood, but these 2 lenses... erm... hard to rationalise when considering the existing lenses they seem to replace (17-35 and 28-70), as well as the tons of other lenses that need updating or do not even exist. oh well, can't expect nikon to get everything right, can we?

yeah.. they should probably direct resources to making some lens like 35f1.4, 50f1.2 in AF versions instead.

 

[satan_18349]

when i see the 24-70 f2.8 lens come out, the first thing i thought to my mind is "isnt this lens already in the market for nikon?? isnt it already one of the holy trinities?? is there any announcement mistake by Nikon??? Only on closer look at the 24-70 then i realise its, chey, only 4mm wider" This lens never made me jump out from my seat.... and btw, the lens look uglier than the 28-70mm

Next i move on to the next glass, 14-24mm, then the first thing to come to my mind is "isnt there already a 12-24mm??? isnt 14-24 a downgrade???? then i look closer again, ah... its a f2.8, ok f2.8 is something major over the f4. so this one is remarkable. Ok this lens looks dam nice and dam agressive, if i have the spare cash lying around, i may consider this :thumbsup:

Well the 12-24 is a DX...

 

[Scaglietti]

Well the 12-24 is a DX...

precisely... 14mm on FX is real w.....i.....d.....e!

BC

 

[ortega]

4 lens setup

14-24mm
24-70mm
70-200mm
200-400mm

notice that there is no overlap?
and a trolly to move everything around

 

[sammedia]

yeah.. they should probably direct resources to making some lens like 35f1.4, 50f1.2 in AF versions instead.

Maybe the market for such 1.2 prime is too small. Frankly speaking, how many will pay 2.5K over for a 50 F1.2 or 85 1.2? If the high ISO noise can be well control, you can shoot at a 1 stop higher ISO to make up for the different for the F1.4.

For me, I am more keen on the new 14-24 F2.8. If it perform better than the Old 17-35 F2.8(which is already very good), it will be great. As for the 24-70, if budget is tight, the old 28-70 F2.8 will be a good choice. I wonder will Nikon discontinue it?

 

[mpenza]

best thing is the 14-24 is f2.8 significantly faster than it's competitor, sigma 12-24.

 

[zac08]

when i see the 24-70 f2.8 lens come out, the first thing i thought to my mind is "isnt this lens already in the market for nikon?? isnt it already one of the holy trinities?? is there any announcement mistake by Nikon??? Only on closer look at the 24-70 then i realise its, chey, only 4mm wider" This lens never made me jump out from my seat.... and btw, the lens look uglier than the 28-70mm

Next i move on to the next glass, 14-24mm, then the first thing to come to my mind is "isnt there already a 12-24mm??? isnt 14-24 a downgrade???? then i look closer again, ah... its a f2.8, ok f2.8 is something major over the f4. so this one is remarkable. Ok this lens looks dam nice and dam agressive, if i have the spare cash lying around, i may consider this :thumbsup:

Well, the 24mm is meant to be for the Wider part for the FX format and if they can come up with these 2, these will take the place for the new trinity... 14mm all the way to 200 at f2.8... no gaps, no overlap....

 

[ExplorerZ]

when i see the 24-70 f2.8 lens come out, the first thing i thought to my mind is "isnt this lens already in the market for nikon?? isnt it already one of the holy trinities?? is there any announcement mistake by Nikon??? Only on closer look at the 24-70 then i realise its, chey, only 4mm wider" This lens never made me jump out from my seat.... and btw, the lens look uglier than the 28-70mm

Next i move on to the next glass, 14-24mm, then the first thing to come to my mind is "isnt there already a 12-24mm??? isnt 14-24 a downgrade???? then i look closer again, ah... its a f2.8, ok f2.8 is something major over the f4. so this one is remarkable. Ok this lens looks dam nice and dam agressive, if i have the spare cash lying around, i may consider this :thumbsup:

if you have not realise it, the 14-24 is not just f2.8, its a non-DX as well.

 

[sammedia]

Everyone love new technology... Curious if it's can deliver IMPACT result, like it's arrival...

time for you to jump back to Nikon? ;p:bsmilie:

 

[hongjone]

yeah.. they should probably direct resources to making some lens like 35f1.4, 50f1.2 in AF versions instead.

:thumbsup: Yeah! I second your suggestion, but I probably still cannot afford these too... 85f1.2:bsmilie:

 

[huggable]

And no, Nikon doesn't make "holy trinities".

when i see the 24-70 f2.8 lens come out, the first thing i thought to my mind is "isnt this lens already in the market for nikon?? isnt it already one of the holy trinities?? is there any announcement mistake by Nikon??? Only on closer look at the 24-70 then i realise its, chey, only 4mm wider" This lens never made me jump out from my seat.... and btw, the lens look uglier than the 28-70mm

Next i move on to the next glass, 14-24mm, then the first thing to come to my mind is "isnt there already a 12-24mm??? isnt 14-24 a downgrade???? then i look closer again, ah... its a f2.8, ok f2.8 is something major over the f4. so this one is remarkable. Ok this lens looks dam nice and dam agressive, if i have the spare cash lying around, i may consider this :thumbsup:

 

[AJ23]

And no, Nikon doesn't make "holy trinities".

Simi is "holy trinities"? :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

To start with, it's TRINITY, and the Nikon zoom trinities originated from www.nikonians.org, a forum in the land of US of A.

 

[2.8photography]

Simi is "holy trinities"? :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

To start with, it's TRINITY, and the Nikon zoom trinities originated from www.nikonians.org, a forum in the land of US of A.

True... true...;p

 

[STEV]

time for you to jump back to Nikon? ;p:bsmilie:

Nope, not for short stay at the other side. Hopefully Nikon can strike back w these 2 new bodies n lens.

 

[longkangman]

STEV, you will be back after you see the img out from the D3/D300.

 

[lsisaxon]

best thing is the 14-24 is f2.8 significantly faster than it's competitor, sigma 12-24.

$#!+ No $$$ to buy them all!!

 

[xtemujin]

All these are great lenses but the prices are not for the average Joe.:sweat:

 

[2.8photography]

All these are great lenses but the prices are not for the average Joe.:sweat:

definitely not! im sure theyll cost a few $k, they both are f/2.8, and they will surely be more expensive than the 12-24 (f/4) and 28-70 f/2.8 for the better apertures and focal lengths respectively

 

[Kit]

best thing is the 14-24 is f2.8 significantly faster than it's competitor, sigma 12-24.

I'm just dying to see the first threads bitching about...

"ohh..... back focus..."
"ohh..... front focus..."
"ohh..... too wide, i don't know how to use it..."
"ohh..... too much distortion..."

when its really "ohh..... you can't use the lens even if your life depends on it".

 

[dni423]

ok guys, tell me wats the big deal with the 24-70mm lens???? There's already the freaking 28-70mm out there !!!! its just a peanuts 4mm and so many ppl are excited over it???

some people were saying that the 28-70 might have problems with a full frame sensor. yes i know it is for a full frame film body but some were saying that it might have problems with a FF sensor. the light that hits the sensor might not be enough at the edges. that might be the reason why they made the 24-70, specifically for a FF digital sensor.