Opticallimits

Full Version: New Nikon lenses including 16-80/2.8-4.0 DX
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
New Nikon gear is rumored: 500/4 E FL VR, 600/4 E FL VR, and 16-80/2.8-4.0 E DX VR. Of course, only the latter is of any interest to us, and it's rumored to cost $900. Availability July 16th (in Japan). Good that Nikon finally took notice of the Sony DT 16-80/3.5-4.5 and decided to do something similar - and better - instead of the mundane 3.5-5.6 version.

Any thoughts?

 

[Image: 2.jpg]

(compared to the existing 16-85/3.5-5.6)

Well, things are getting more complicated the faster you make them.

So it'll be interesting whether they can keep the quality.

It'll be interesting to see how this compares to the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 Contemporary. A little bit less range vs a bit more customization - for those willing to spend some time with the USB-dock.

 

Fluorine coating, Nano crystal, electromagnetic diaphragm on Nikon side, minimal distance 22 cm on Sigma side and at half the price...

$1,069.95. Weighs 480 grams. 72mm filter thread. 17 elements in 13 groups.


24-120mm f4.2-6 full frame equivalent.


The AF-S 24-120mm f4 VR for FF costs $1299.95, weighs 710 grams, has a 77mm filter thread and also 17 elements in 13 groups.


All in all, to me the price seems a tad elevated.

16-80mm f2.8-4 DX:

[Image: 20055_Lens_Construction_en.jpg]

AF-S 24-120mm f4:

[Image: 24_120_ED_VR_const2_i.jpg]

Yeah, pretty similar construction overall (except the layout of the seven elements towards the rear). But fast APS-C zooms have always been pretty expensive, think the 17-55. The 24-120 didn't seem that great on the long end per Markus's review anyways.

Quote:Yeah, pretty similar construction overall (except the layout of the seven elements towards the rear). But fast APS-C zooms have always been pretty expensive, think the 17-55. The 24-120 didn't seem that great on the long end per Markus's review anyways.
A constant aperture lens is a bit more expensive to design.

Weight is to a certain extent a good measure for price. The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 weighs 645 grams. The Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 weighs 755 grams. With 480 grams the new lens is a light weight in comparison...
At max. aperture it is slightly worse than the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6. However, I reckon that it is better at comparable apertures.

Do you plan to review the new Contemporary version of the already reviewed 17-70/2.8-4 macro OS some day or are the differences just too small to justify another test procedure? The optical quality appears to be close to the Nikkor 16-85

Quote:Do you plan to review the new Contemporary version of the already reviewed 17-70/2.8-4 macro OS some day or are the differences just too small to justify another test procedure? The optical quality appears to be close to the Nikkor 16-85
The optics are a new design. 

Old 17-70mm OS:

[Image: lens_structure.gif][Image: lens_aspherical.gif] [Image: lens_eld.gif]

New 17-70mm OS "C":

[Image: construction_thumb.gif][Image: construction_pink.gif] [Image: construction_orange.gif] [Image: construction_blue.gif]

 

So, the differences are not small.
Quote:Do you plan to review the new Contemporary version of the already reviewed 17-70/2.8-4 macro OS some day
Done already Wink

http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikk...a1770284os

-- Markus
Pages: 1 2