TR Forums

The 24mm f/1.4 would be nice to have but a little pricey for it's intended purposes. The bokeh does look fantastic though.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imagi ... ample1.htm

Personally more interested in the 16-35mm f/4 VR. Looks like Nikon is finally jumping on the Canon bandwagon of releasing professional grade f/4 lenses. Wonder what else is in store for us Nikon users this year.

Good stuff to look forward to when I jump to FX, eventually, maybe years from now. I do like seeing Nikon refresh their primes; compared to Canon, Nikon's lens lineup looks far more scattershot, with random gaps at certain extremes (like wide angle/aperture primes).

As a DX shooter, however, this doesn't really grip me; the prices are still too out there and I wouldn't really benefit greatly versus some third-party options for much less money (and the recently announced 85mm macro isn't really in my shooting repertoire, neither). It does suggest to me that Nikon will probably have a DX lens or two, or at least something a little cheaper (updated flash, perhaps? SB-700?) in their next announcement. We'll see a few new ones this year.

I could have sworn I looked for a thread already before I posted mine...not hard enough I suppose...

If/when I go full frame the 16-35mm seems like a winner...assuming I don't go with a Canon/Sony body when I make that jump. I will probably look around at the end of the year, by then Nikon should have introduced the D700x to compete (resolution wise) with the 5DMKII and A900/A850. But, from what I've read, they still might charge upwards of $4,000 for the D700x, which would send me back over to Canon potentially. $2,500 vs $4,000 for similar specs is a big gap...

***All speculation, of coarse***

Just reading that the 16-35 f/4 is almost the same size as the older 17-35 f/2.8. so f/4 doesn't really give you a size, weight improvement, but then again, it could be the VR adding to the bulk of the weight.

Also shooting DX at the moment, and from a quality perspective, I don't really find too much on offer from the higher end FX cameras other than the outrageous high ISO quality and the better quality of lenses available on the wide end. A 14-24mm/16-35mm beats the quality of a 10/12-24 hands down at the extreme wide end.

When I can get FX at sub $2k prices, I'll bite, as I don't have any FX wide angle lenses at the moment. 12MP is also good enough for me, looking at how Canon has started pumping 18MP into their consumer range. Shooting a few hundred photos on RAW at 12MP eats up space really quickly, not to mention the processing power/memory I need to just run through the photos. The money I save on the camera will have to go to a computer upgrade.

etilena wrote:

Just reading that the 16-35 f/4 is almost the same size as the older 17-35 f/2.8. so f/4 doesn't really give you a size, weight improvement, but then again, it could be the VR adding to the bulk of the weight.

Also shooting DX at the moment, and from a quality perspective, I don't really find too much on offer from the higher end FX cameras other than the outrageous high ISO quality and the better quality of lenses available on the wide end. A 14-24mm/16-35mm beats the quality of a 10/12-24 hands down at the extreme wide end.

When I can get FX at sub $2k prices, I'll bite, as I don't have any FX wide angle lenses at the moment. 12MP is also good enough for me, looking at how Canon has started pumping 18MP into their consumer range. Shooting a few hundred photos on RAW at 12MP eats up space really quickly, not to mention the processing power/memory I need to just run through the photos. The money I save on the camera will have to go to a computer upgrade.

You also have to take into account the huge finders on FX cameras.

Also, if you're in to ultra-ultra-mega-super-ultra wide lenses, you need FX.

When I can get FX at sub $2k prices, I'll bite

Don't forget the original 5D. It lacks the awesome screen or crazy ISOs of its successor, and there's no video mode, but you should be able to find one for under $2K, and the photos it can take are still amazing by contemporary standards. But I think I know what you mean; I, too, am waiting for the puncturing of that $2K barrier for new FX bodies, because once that happens - like when Canon broke $1K with its Digireb - it'll start the flow of full frame into the teens, and THAT will just push every other category down a skosh.

I'm in no hurry to go full frame, though; but I'm pretty dedicated to remaining a hobbyist, and I doubt anybody can convince me I can't take good pictures with a DX camera.