Quote:http://petapixel.com/2015/07/29/nikon-le...ore-174031
24-70mm f2.8 VR
24mm f1.8
200-500mm f5.6 VR
The last one has a very nice price according to that article, which seems a little odd?
I does seem a very decent price, perhaps they are trying to compete with the Sigma/Tamron 150-600s!
Over at Nikon rumors the telezoom makes the biggest impact according to post numbers. So, there's a demand and an interest in that lens. Nikon's strategy of putting a 2.5×* zoom against 3 Tamron / Sigmas 4× zooms will please the "strictly Nikon and nothing else" group. I don't reckon a better performance than the 3rd party lenses, but I also was amazed about the price - because the 24-70/2.8E VR follows the current trend of bringing lenses with less resolution but lightweight design / fluorite coating / fresnel elements / electronic aperture and VR for a huge bite more bucks. A 24-70/2.8 for app. 2200 $? Good luck with that, Nikon. ^_^
* if 2.5× at all. I guess, in closer distances it will be less FL-range because of it's fixed length barrel design.
I welcome those choices, we really can choose more excellent glass than we could use at a time. So, Nikon does it's traditional marketing thing and leaves the more exotic stuff like 18-35/1.8 or 24-35/2 or 15-30/4 to others, manufactures most new lenses in China (I still remember the agony when we learnt, a batch of Zeiss lenses will be made by Yashica in Japan, but "up to Zeiss standards" and not many people believed that).
Since I just start collecting experience with long lenses, I learnt it can be a good thing carrying a very lightweight 300/4 and a very less lightweight 150-600/5-6.3 (except the carrying bit
) but I'm afraid it won't happen very often. So, I'm curious about the weight of this 200-500. To me, it appears to be another lightweight lens.
And the 24/1.8? Another piece for the "only Nikon glass in front of a Nikon body" -at the same price I can get a Sigma 24/1.4 Art I don't see much reason not going for an extra ½ f-stop. But they will love it and I'm sure it's at least as good as the 24/1.4 G Nikkor, if not better.
I'm here... and as excited about these lenses as you are
-- Markus
Quote:A 24-70/2.8 for app. 2200 $? Good luck with that, Nikon.
Well, to be fair: that's not far away from the EF 24-70L II initial MSRP, which was $2299... now down to $1899. And it seems they sold a few of that one... even though it doesn't have IS
But I agree with you... in general Nikkor prices increased a bit too muc for my taste, too. That's why my expectations regarding the 200-500VR, given its rather low price in comparison, aren't too high, yet.
-- Markus
Oh, and one more thing: I'm quite relieved that obviously Nikon didn't change the zoom design on the 24-70 VR. Unlike the EF 24-70 II, the Nikkor's inner tube still moves within the hood (at least it seems to me from the images published so far).
Personally, I always preferred this over the "Hood on front lens" design (which the 24-70 II now has).
-- Markus
Markus is with us again! Care to share some of your plans with us? (if any)
Lots of plans, actually
Lots of things have turned upside down for me, but at least regarding photozone I'm on track to return to where I left quite a while ago.
-- Markus