|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
24mm f/1.4
Nikon has finally started to address their prime shortfall with the introduction of the 24mm f/1.4.
16-35 f/4 VR
This is a very interesting lens to me. Wouldn't it be great to see a Canon 17-40 f/4L IS? I think so. I'd order one right now.
Yes this is a Canon site.
Don't hate me for posting Nikon news, these are interesting lenses.
Read More @ Nikon Rumors
cr
frick.
I think part of the appeal of the 17-40 f/4L is the pricepoint & quality. One of the better regarded, and cheaper L lenses (my first lens actually).
IS would add some weight to this nice and light lens too; the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 would be the obvious candidate (mirroring the Nikon) plus it’s already in that upper price range where you could add IS for a marginal price increase.
Still, I think everyone’s still waiting for the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 with IS…
16-35 vr why?
24mm f1.4.
Wow!
One less reason to stay with Canon.
will nikon release 17-40 f/4 VR? LOL
or a 17-40 f/2.8 VR?
Don t get into criticism, Nikon has announced more pro lenses in the past three years than Canon in last 5 years …
It would have been nice to see other L stuff along with a xxxD Body … :S
500 F4 IS mk II ? 24-70 IS ? 180 hybrid IS macro ? competitor to the 14-24 ?
Come On !!!!!
And Nikon’s 16-35 f/4 VR will TRASH 17-40 f/4 for image quality
f/4. 680g. Fully weather sealed.
VR may not be necessary, but it doesn’t hurt.
Canon 17-40 f/4 is in the pits.
It’s great to know what “competition” do indeed.
So thanks for posting, we never hate anyone because of posting information about another brand.
That can give us more solid arguments, or simply a better perspective and then encourage people to switch to Nikon :)
Who knows? We use Nikon too.
CANON INC.: something is wrong with you.
We give Canon GREAT IDEAS that are mostly possible (Magic Lantern has proven that), FOR FREE, and Canon seems to ignore us, but took one of those ideas (Video Crop sensor, not ever mentioned before) and put it on the new EOS 550D…
We ask again: WHAT IS GOING ON CANON?
It looks like a game to them.
Canon is NOT treating professionally to thousands of professionals who invested $2,700 in a body-only camera (plus all the expensive lenses and gear), but instead are fascinated to bring entry-level cameras to the mass (which is great indeed, but ignoring those serious amateurs and professionals could be a big mistake) The more loyal customers are those who invested thousands of dollars, not the entry level ones…
So Canon is putting loyalty on risk once again.
1st: 6 months asking “Full Manual Control” in video mode. WHICH IN FACT it was ALREADY implemented in unofficial firmware since 2008 (NOT rumor, fact)
2nd: Lot more months asking 24/25 and “STANDARD” frame rates (for 24/25/30p modes)
Then “the announcement”: “on the 1st HALF of 2010” (1st “half”? Did they EVER take 6+ months to “develope” an enhanced firmware before?.. -But they already have it! -again, not rumor, fact)
Pure marketing strategy, and NO real communication with their so “valuable” customers at all. (what is “valuable”? or maybe we got typographical mistakes on our emails?)
3rd: … what’s next?
BETTER release the firmware update already announced, and ALSO ADD AT LEAST some of the improvements they CAN add.
5D Mark II customers/users are getting very upset with this unprofessional attitude.
We’re BORED of their “silence” and that same answer “we can not talk nor deny anything that might be or not in development”…
What kind of professionalism is that..
What development or secrets if we give you all the ideas, improvements and fixes needed to make more money?
GIVE US THE SOURCE CODE (or at least some help) AND WE DO THE JOB FOR YOU, so no need to spend resources on that.
agree
Now, Nikon is much ahead of Canon. Not ‘competition’
what’s wrong with Canon’s recent release of the 24 f1.4?
these days ordinary people are going for entry level DSLRs and that is why canon is focusing more on it. yes the bodies may be cheap but think of the volume. whats a thousand profesionals compared to millions of amateurs/hobbyist
$2000 for 24 f/1.4 LOL
probably will, though then again you can probably get 2 used 17-40s and a couple extra hundred to spare for 1 nikkor 16-35 f/4.
that’s usually how it is
Nikon has DX 35 f/1.8. A slew of DX zoom lenses.
Canon has no answer for these.
Canon’s is 1500 euro/2050 dollar in NL….
Its been pretty well leaked that these lenses were coming. Canon usually follows up with their own version, but not always. I’d prefer a 24-70 F:/2.8 IS first.
The canon prime prices are similar. The image quality from the the 24mm is incredible though. Nice sample shot…
http://j2k.naver.com/j2k_frame.php/korean/www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/fx/singlefocal/img/af-s_24mmf14g_ed/sample2.htm
I personally think if Canon spent less time focusing on adding video to the DSLRS they might be able to come up with cameras that are better than Nikon bodies.
There is also no doubt that the 16-35 will trump the 17-40 but the price is also $400 or so higher. Then again why is everyone still shooting canon? Is it the fact people think 18mp is better than 12mp or something?
So for the canon press announcements Tuesday, I’m going to suspect a 35mm 1.4 II prime out of the lens wishlist below.
What L lenses canon needs:
EF 14-24 f/2.8
EF 16-35 f/4
EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS II
EF 35mm f/1.4 II
EF 135mm f/1.8
EF 100-400 or 70-400 or 200-400/500 f/4-5.6
EF 180mm f/3.5 II (macro)
What non-L lenses canon needs:
EF 50mm f/1.4 II
What ef-s lenses canon needs:
EF-S fisheye?
EF-S 30mm f/1.4
EF-S 55-250 f/2.8 IS
Nothing, he just likes to troll.
oh probably because the canon one is 500 bucks too cheap for his tastes.
“Don t get into criticism, Nikon has announced more pro lenses in the past three years than Canon in last 5 years”
Can I see the complete listings to verify veracity of this claim?
Wow and you know it for a fact already, I am impressed.
It’s not about Canon’s 24mm, it’s about Nikon offering the same. Many photographers (including myself at the moment) are staying with Canon only because of their lenses. Now that Nikon is catching up.. yeah, one more reason to switch.
Sad, isn’t it?
Hey, where is the 24-70 F2.8 IS? I forsake 7D because of expectation of this lens and 5D Mk III
It was $1418 a couple of times in the US.. yes 24L II..take that Nikon LOL
that’s because nikon just lunch their FF bodies. what lenses your suppose to use in your nikon FF if they don’t release new lenses?
I have pits on my face….yes I have pizza face LOL
I’m staying because of the canon wide angle tilt shift offerings. But that nikkor 16-35 got me coming close.
> but it doesn’t hurt.
VR adds another 1/2 lb or so and, as a landscape guy, I’d have this on a tripod 99% of the time, where VR could actually hurt if I forget to turn it off.
Still, Nikon’s track record with recent lenses has been great, and I’ll bet this one follows suit.
Wow, nice photos. Any idea which body was used?
I agree about the video part. Some of us just want a camera to be a camera.
Not sure if you guys looked at all the detailed specs of the Nikon 24mm yet, but they seem to have capped it at f16. The Canon 24mm L II can go as far as f22. To some, that may not seem like a big deal, but for landscape photographers, and long-exposure photographers who want the extra stop, it’s an important difference.
Great lens for the Nikonians who are looking for a wide aperture, but nothing that Canon doesn’t already offer.
the 16-35 VR is very light. I like that.
whats wrong with the old 135mm L ?
It is f2, not f1.8.
Funny how nikon users are complaining about not having newer camera bodies while receiving many new lenses, and canon users are always complaining about the need for newer updated lenses while receiving what seems a new dslr body every 4-5 months or so.
it’ll make your wallet much lighter too!
For Nikon
2010 – 16-35 VR, 24
2009 – 70-200 VR, 300 f2.8
2008 – 24 PC-E, 45 PC-E, 85 PC-E, 60 Macro
2007 (till august) – 14-24, 24-70
Count for 3 years: 10
For Canon
2010 – 70-200 IS
2009 – 100 IS Macro, 24 TS-E, 17 TS-E
2008 – 24
2007 – 14
2006 – 70-200 f4 IS, 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2, 17-55 IS
2005 – 24-105 IS
Count for 5 years: 11
Canon has released more professional lenses (I am generalizing all professional lenses as top build quality) then Nikon but took 2 more years to do it.
You could cut it down to everyday lenses and it would be down to 4 for Nikon (14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 16-35) and 4 for Canon (17-55, 24-105, 70-200f4, 70-200f2.8) but down to 1 if you make it equal and only compare the last 3 years (70-200 2.8).
Im sure Nikon Rumor will not post Canon annoucment so why bother?
That is bad. Nikon is still behind Canon in lens technology. Notice the shape of the new Nikon lens looks very much like the new Canon lens.
Make that 13 for Nikon
in August 2007 they also released the 400mm 2.8, 500mm and 600mm
I love the Canon 24mm.
It’s one of the lenses that keeps me shooting Canon.
However I really love the Nikon bodies of late, so since Nikon now have a 24mm f1.4 it removes one of the things that keep me shooting Canon.
Yeah, this is what I was meaning.
You said it better than me.
It’s 500$ more expensive and MTF chart looks quite similar to 17-40L. Nikkor 24/1.4 is over 700$ more expensive than Canon 24/1.4L II and MTF looks even worse than Canon. So I would chill down and wait until it’s on the market…
“…where VR could actually hurt if I forget to turn it off.”
Not if the VR was designed right…
It’d be interesting to see Thom or someone similar compare the N 14-24mm f/2.8 with the new N 24mm f/1.4.
I totally wish all L lenses were weather+dust proof especially considering its price point. (although I love them even without those features)
Since you know nothing about this new lens this is at least premature. Also it does not give you one reason less to stay with Canon but one more reason to switch to Nikon. There is a big difference – the first option is negative (you leave because a certain brand does not offer something), the second one is positive (you switch to another option because of a new offering). Just because Nikon offers a new lens does not make the original Canon offering any less interesting.
hmm, isn’t at f/22 diffraction starts to kick in?
First of all you cannot include 2010 since it’s not over yet and you don’t know what will be released in the future so if you want to compare five years versus three you should consider periods of 2005-09 and 07-09. Now, even if such comparison was in any way meaningful your numbers are off, at least for Canon, you are missing at least (from memory, I could be missing some as well):
*EF-S 15-85mm (2009)
*EF-S 18-135mm (2009)
*EF-S 18-200mm
*EF-S 55-250mm
*EF-S 60mm
Potentially a few more. I don’t quite see how meaningful the comparison of numbers of lenses released could possibly be, your numbers are significantly incorrect anyway.
f22 is way beyond diffraction limit of even 5D or 1Ds. Of course diffraction is not such a bad animal as some make it as it is only visible in the biggest of printouts but it’s not a practical aperture for controlling DOF. On a 28mm lens (don’t have a 24mm one but its DOF will be even greater) f16 gives you DOF extending from 0.8m to infinity – more than enough for landscape photography.
And for controlling long exposures one tends to use ND filters anyway. Lack of f22 in the Nikon lens is really not a problem absolutely whatsoever.
He spoke about professional lenses.
As we wrote posts before: Canon is far ahead Nikon in Video.
I know I left out those lenses and comparable Nikon ones, he was talking about pro lenses and I did not consider variable aperture, and lots of plastic to be of the same level.
I think including 2010 is fair, although not over i would expect to see another announcement until the summer (Nikon announced their stuff today, canon yesterday they just didn’t release a lens).
To put the matter to rest, all lenses from Jan 05- Dec 09.
Canon
09 – 15-85, 18-135, 100 Macro, 17 TS-E, 24 TS-E (5)
08 – 24, 18-200 (2)
07 – 14, 18-55 IS, 55-250 (3)
06 – 50 f1.2, 70-200 f4, 17-55, 85 f1.2 (4)
05 – 24-105, 70-300, 60 Macro (3)
Count: 17
Nikon
09 – 300, 85 Micro, 70-200, 18-200, 10-24, 35 f1.8 (6)
08 – 50 f1.4, 18-108, 24/45/85PC-E, 60 micro, 16-85(7)
07 – 18-55, 14-24, 24-70, 400, 500, 600, 55-200 (7)
06 – 70-300, 18-135, 105 Micro (3)
05 – All lenses have been updated (18-55/200, 55-200)
Count: 23
Nikon’s count could be 27 if you include the older versions of the 18-55×2, 55-200, 18-200
A straight 5 year comparison Nikon has released 6 more lenses and the 3 to 5 year comparison Nikon has still released 3 more lenses.
As I said – comparison of number of lenses released is pretty meaningless but when you think about it there is a very good reason why Nikon HAD to release more lenses – they were missing from their line up and Canon had them already.
I don’t understand. Nikon’s body is MUCH better than Canon’s Body.
14-24? Yes please.
16-35 f4? do we really need another lens like these?
17-40 f4
16-35 f2.8
ya right, maybe axe the 17-40 and replace it with 16-40
24-70 f/2.8 IS II? sure, but it won’t be a MkII, and add the 70-200 f2.8 that’s at least as sharp as the f4.
The primes(180 macro like 100L) can do with an update like the 24LII
100-400 or 70-400 or 200-400/500 f/4-5.6? still waiting…
50 1.4 I’d like to see it become an L
EF-s? until Canon produce an EF-s with L quality I’ll never take the line seriously.
Even with more volume of sales on entry-level DSLRs, a firmware update that takes advantage of the inner huge capabilities of the 5D Mark II will reflect in more sales on that camera (and then more sales on big & expensive full frame lenses which cost thousand or thousandS dollars each).
That means SEVERAL thousands dollars in Canon gear compared to EOS 550D ~$800 (or less) + cheap zoom lens (~$1,150 in total).
The 5D Mark II is already in production since long ago, so there is no need to redesign at all. It’s a mass serial production. It only needs an enhanced firmware.
So the equation is not that simple and linear.
Even many Canon Representatives ARE using MAGIC LANTERN…
Check THE HIDDEN POTENTIAL OF 5D MARK II:
http://5dmark2.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/the-hidden-potential-of-5d-mark-ii/
Would be also Mr. Masaya Maeda using Magic Lantern firmware add-on?
hmmm, don’t think so…. he’s not a filmmaker and probably doesn’t understand this at all, nor even the business they have in their hands…
Canon CLEARLY shows a disconnection between the photography and the video departments.
But there’s also clear that photography and video (specifically Cinematography) have merged since more than one year…
.
And Nikon’s is 2000 euro in NL, your point being?
Only one stop beyond diffraction limit (which is what, f/6.8, in the 7D and about f/10 in 5D mark II) I can already see the softening in 12x18in print. I’d say that at aperture as small as f/22 the diffraction would be clearly visible even at 8x10in.
Of course the issue is not so pronounced with most Nikon bodies, since they generally tend to have less megapixels, therefore allow for smaller apertures without losing image quality due to diffraction.
With that in mind, I wouldn’t use f/22 very often, but every now and then it would be nice to have that option.
The NikonRumors admin also hosts a PhotoRumors and LeicaRumors and Canon announcements are readily made available on PhotoRumors.
Ok, i totally understand the need for a nikkor 24mm f1.4, i have the Canon mk II version and its excellent. Its odd that its taken over 12 years for Nikon to finally plug this gap in their lens range.
But i really dont understand the 16-35/f4 VR.
Does it have VR because its only f4? At 16mm, ypu can already hand hold this to 1/15th sec and a 4 stop IS gets less efficient at slower shutter speeds. Its like nikon thought…hmmm we really like the Canon 16-35 and the 17-40….lets merge the worst of both and add IS to make up for it.
In any case, a bit of pressure on Canon to update or release new professional lenses can only be good for us.
– If the old version is/was good enough for you, you profit because second hand prices will drop
– If it didn’t exist or was not good enough, well, then there will be a lens you can buy.
So bring them on, Nikon! And Canon, don’t just sit there watching ;-)
Yeah, except the occasional blunder like the 70-200 Mk2 which is actually a 70-135mm. Btw, the MTF chart of the new 24mm looks slightly worse than Canon’s 24mm, but I suppose you guys could live with that, it’s the photographer not the gear, right?
Yeah, but generally that’s true only if you currently own Canon equipment and your photos are crap.
+1
If you really really need to control DOF, then you use a tilt/shift lens.
“which is what, f/6.8, in the 7D and about f/10 in 5D mark II”
I call your bluff – if you don’t know what the DL is how can you say that you see softening one stop past DL? I think if you at those print sizes see softening one stop past DL you are looking too hard and see something that is not there.
guess u have to wait for the 5dmIII then. the way i see it, if they would deliver a “perfect” camera then there wont be any reason to upgrade anymore.
OK, what’s wrong with the 10-22 f 3.5-4.5, which thoroughly beats the 16-35Mk I, and comes close to the 16-35 MkII, and the 17-55 f2.8?
This is a direct effect of the competition ! I am so glad these lenses are out, because it will force canon to update it’s competitor EF 17-40 F4L, who has poor resolution in the corners wide open. But since it’s the only cheap wide angle zoom with good quality, people still buy it. It’s a very good lense but the design is dating from 2001 and need optical upgrade…Nikon just helped us, but adding competition ! Thanks Nikon ! (Weird reaction from an ancient Canonist with lot of glass…but…). The VR is so usefull for the handeld shots ! Every people stating that at this focal, IS or VR is useless is wrong ! Shooting handeld at night or achieving perfect landscape or photojournalism shots with difficult lighting condition is so useful…and while hiking….you can enjoy landscape shots with minimal preparation and whithout bringing over heavy tripods ! Yeah !
I was waiting for an update of the 17-40 L…I hope Canon will buff this update up ! Adding IS would be so cool.
More than that, Nikon is attacking Canon on one of it’s capital customer keeping advantages : Lenses…the F4 lense range was seen as a very good thing by Nikonists…and the 70-200 F4 IS is a terrific lense (relatively cheap) that many Nikonists longed for…I am sure this is the start of a F4 range in Nikon lenses.
And I call yours! :) How can you say I don’t know the DLA when I mentioned it in my post above? And just so we don’t have to pursue this matter further, I’ll explain in more detail:
Aperture of f/6.8 is the value at which the image starts to soften visibly at pixel level. This number goes for the 7D, other cameras can go wider before reaching the DLA. I didn’t come up with this particular number, but my own findings are very close to it. At f/8 I see softening when pixel peeping (yes, guilty as charged) but this softness doesn’t make it to the print. At f/11, however, the softness is visible even when printed.
Very nice stuff Nikon!
Now I’m tempted to get a D700 and 24 1.4 to use as my landscape setup.
Nothing wrong with being a dual systems user!
“Only one stop beyond diffraction limit I can already see the softening in 12×18in print” – “At f/8 I see softening when pixel peeping (yes, guilty as charged) but this softness doesn’t make it to the print. At f/11, however, the softness is visible even when printed.”
So which one is it – do you see softening in print one stop beyond the theoretical DL limit or not? I honestly doubt you can see it in a print that size even two stops down – as I said, at this print size you are looking for something that’s not there and that’s why you find it.
a 5d2 + 24mm II tilt shift would be a far superior set up for landscapes and cost relatively the same
If landscape…just wait for the cheap High res body they will release, D700x? who knows.
This is when you realize Canon rules with his Cheap 21Mp…for landscape and portrait lover…this is the Master under 3k$…after you can have D3x, but only for a minimal increase in quality, and…three time the price (roughly) of 5d2…
Yes sometime, having big pixel helps ! (In fact a lot of times…). When we do big printing, I stop complaining the D700 is a better body than 5D2…the 5D2 with EF 24 L F 1.4, is a monster combination for resolution.
This is why we are waiting for a real competitor of the superb 14-24 lense from Nikon. The EF 16-35 II, the 17-40, even the EF-14mmL and EF 24mm are good lenses (the 16-35II is clearly the most disappointing of all), but they suck in comparison of the 14-24 (especially in the corners)…Again thanks Nikon for making the demonstration that such a level of performance is achievable with a Wide angle zoom design.
Good going Nikon! (Hey no flak… I’ve been using Canon since AE-1 and EOS 630.) Now perhaps we can get an upgrade on the 17-40 f4L with IS. Like CR guy said, I’ll order one now!
Some dimwit at R&D must have thought wides don’t need IS.
Not to mention the new efs 15-85 @ 800 bucks and produces great results.
J-man, have you ever used the 17-55 or 10-22? 10-22 much better than the 17-40 f4L in image quality. It just doesn’t have a red ring or weather sealing.
It is meaningless I was just providing the information to support the other claim. Nikon does have an incomplete lens line up mostly in the ultra fast primes (35 f1.4, 85 f1.4). Canon could also use some more zooms (14-24, 200-400 are the most obvious). I would say that is Canons biggest plus in my opinion is the availability of pretty much any lens you need at a pretty reasonable price.
If you want to nitpick, you caught me in flagrante delicto. I deliberately interpolated the DLA of f/6.8 to f/8. Oh my god..
Some of us print very large, up to 60 inches and more, and as such we are quite demanding when it comes to image quality. At least I know I am. And to answer your question, yes I can see it in a print of that size at that aperture.
“I can already see the softening in 12×18in print” – “Some of us print very large, up to 60 inches and more” – those prints are sure growing and that DLA is not getting any better..
Would love to see some of your work online.
Turn it off and put some tape over the button, then.
In for an argument, aren’t you? Do I have to explain everything as I would to a 10 year old?
I print large. 60in long is not an exception. This fact has nothing to do with the argument at hand. It would strike me as obvious that the larger a print is the more pronounced effects of diffraction are, so I mentioned 12×18 as a print size at which I can already see softness creeping into the image. It only gets worse..
Now if you want to keep your argument going you could bring up the topic of viewing distance. But as I say, I am fussy about sharpness in my images.
Oh yea, I could show you some of my work online, but I really don’t see a reason why. I am not trying to prove anything here.
You are saying that you see softness in your images when printed, I’d love to see what kind of photographer you are, print at home one of those f/8 images at 12×18 and look for its softness.
Other than proving your point and truthfulness there is nothing in it for you.
blunder or not, opticaly these new nikkors beats the hell out of the crappy and soft wide to normal tele canons (like the 24-70,16-35,17-40 etc show me one lens which whic can match the 14 24 nikor , even the pricy 14mm canon shy´s away when it comes to sharpness)and canon fanboys are living with it why not nikon guys enjoy their´s?.
check these out http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html and go hide yourself mate
Nikon (14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 16-35)
Canon (17-55, 24-105, 70-200f4, 70-200f2.8)
from the above list i´d say nikon managed to get it right with excellent lenses all the way through , (except for the minor 70-200 FL problem)
and in the canon list there is just one lens which is nearly as sharp as the nikors the 70-200 f4. sure they are older designs,
and the tele end canon does great (except for the 200-400 nikkor) but that´s a special market ,i´d bet most of the guys here including me can only dream of those teles .but the affordable FL range lenses the wide angle technology is still under nikon´s belts.
only fanboys can deny this
I swear to god you’re not even reading what I write.
First, I wrote that at f/8 the softness is not visible in print (as opposed to f/11 and smaller).
Second, why would I want to print anything at home? Printing at home printers available today, the image quality probably suffers from other shortcomings in technology more that it does from diffraction. I do my gallery prints at a professional lab, which has equipment far more expensive than I could afford. That’s where I did the print comparison.
14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 200-400 simply covers anyone´s need if they have money .
yes they cost more, but you pay more for nikors , and you pay more for making sure you dont get a lemon as often as with Can.. and not only for just better quality.
“First, I wrote that at f/8 the softness is not visible in print (as opposed to f/11 and smaller).”
So somebody with the same nick must have written:
“Only one stop beyond diffraction limit (which is what, f/6.8, in the 7D and about f/10 in 5D mark II) I can already see the softening in 12×18in print.”
Oh well I had enough of that discussion that was mostly about catching your little “exaggeration” or as you put it “in flagrante delicto”.
Have a great life – may your pictures never be soft and your claims never be verifiable.
you can only say it´ll trash canon if someone try it with an adapter on a canon cam.the high MP canon sensors (except the D3X)has a better potential to show how good or bad the lenses are.
and ordinary people are going to buy a 18MP cam (more is always better , eh? :-)) and a the crappy kit lenses and wonder why the pics are soft.
One stop above f/8 (see my posts above for explanation), which makes it f/11, doesn’t it? This is getting tiring..
But I do agree that this discussion is rather pointless. May your images be always soft for as long as you don’t care about softness.
+1
pwnt :D
Yes. I was wondering the same thing. Theoretically, at 16mm you should be able to handheld 1/16s and faster, so 4-stops means you should be able to handhold up to 1/1s! The whole 1 second?! Now that would be something, but I don’t think you can handhold any focal lenght for a second long, even with IS/VR. Image stabilizations are usually more useful and more efficient at longer focal lenghts.
That’s right.
In the APS-C world, Canon has demonstrated they can design and make better lenses than their Nikon counterparts (C10-22 vs N10-24, C17-55 f/2.8 IS vs N17-55 f/2.8).
But when it comes to FF, Canon has a lot to work on: 14, 17-40, 16-35, 24-70, 50 f/1.2. ALL these lenses need MAJOR improvements optically.
They need to perform as well as the 24 f/1.4 Mk2 and 17 TSE.
Canon’s EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS performs BETTER optically than Nikon’s DX 17-55 f/2.8.
No one knows how their 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk2 performs.
Of course the Nikon equivalents should be better, they had years to design it and improve upon the Canon versions that were designed many years ago, before the time that the Noink fanbois were pooh-poohing FF cameras :P.
Well trolled sir. Hats off to you. Please compare their respective MTF graphs before you spout garbage.
And their 17-55 is the BEST performing APS-C lens with the best features (IS and USM) in its category.
That is an excellent point. I agree with you TOTALLY.
Give it up pal, you’ve been 0wnz0red. Nikon had to release more lenses in recent years because they had to catch up with Canon’s already solid pro offerings. That is exactly why the pros switched en masse to Canon since the release of the EF mount in 1987. Nikon is just doing what is expected of them to do, make lenses that have built-in motors like all the Canon EF lenses. That some of them have better IQ is to be expected since they beneifit from more modern designs compared to the Canon equivalents which were released many years before.
70-200 f/4 IS is the best zoom from any maker. Only the Noink fanbois are in denial since they don’t have it.
Heh. It should for that price and how late it came. The Canon 17-40 f/4 is circa 2003. :P Welcome to the 21st century Nikon. Lulz.
LULZ. Well trolled sir. Hats off to you.
It seems Nikon has learned from Canon and has added VR for more “marketing differentiation”. Nothing wrong with that. It should make them get out of the red.
No?
Canon has 35/2.0 and 35/1.4.
What’s wrong with them?
And the professionals go for 12MP FF and wonder why their pics are lacking detail…
I’m using canon and my photo didn’t crap.
But it’s true that Nikon’s Body is better than Canon.
Peace
It’s not a problem.
For extended DOF, use Focus stacking, for longer exposures use ND filters.
The 5D Mark II is far from perfect, but it has HUGE potential not exploited yet.
There are lot of fixes and features that can be implemented via Firmware Update. And that wouldn’t really compromise other cameras, because all are very different.
This concept can be also applied to 7D and 1D4 indeed.
If Canon is smart, it should be done.
We are encouraging people to request, and keep requesting. We did it since the beginning… and that gave results.
It won’t work forever for the 5D2, but there are still some chances (especially when you have inside reports that Canon is somewhat working on that)
That’s WHY we make so much emphasis on it.
If people knew all the stages…
The firsts answers we got from Canon were “I don’t think so”, then “probably not”, then -after thousands of requests- “yes”….
Optically the 35/2.0 is sharp, but the bokeh is not great and it has a buzzy old DC micro-motor AF with no full-time manual over-ride capability. The 35/1.4 L is a great lens, which is what you’d expect given its price! What most people want is a modern ‘normal’ lens for APS-C crop (i.e. in the 28-35mm range) that has decent AF and speed, without costing an arm and a leg. Nikon offers this (as do Sigma), Canon do not.
Ok, why on earth would Canon “need” a 16-35 F/4L??! Canon has both the 17-40 F4 and the 16-35 F/2.8!! Just because Nikon made a 16-35 F/4L you think Canon “needs” one?? sorry that is just like little kids wanting other kids’ toys. Just ask yourself, IF Canon actually released a 16-35 F/4L, with the current other offerings in the same range, would YOU buy it?? I personally wouldn’t, unless it’s within 800$ range maybe, which is highly unlikely for an L-IS lens, but if higher I’d go with the 16-35 F/2.8L without IS for sure.
You raise some interesting questions. I agree that it would be great to be able to hand-hold up to 1 sec, would save me having to set the tripod up so early for evening shots. Tripods always slow down your pace -sometimes this is a good thing of course! You also point out that IS/VR gets less effective at shorter focal lengths, which does seem to be the case so far. Even if it was effective to 4 stops at 16mm, I guess you would have to use live-view to avoid mirror vibrations (I don’t think MLU would be practical handheld, but others might disagree). Interesting times!
I’m not saying that the Nikon 24mm isn’t good, but how are the images you linked to supposed to be able to support that claim? I mean, 10% image samples always look good, no matter what lens was used (provided the photographer knew what he/she was doing).
Thats quite a silly thing to do, seeing as the T/S lenses do not have autofocus… and thus should work just as well with a mount adapter on Nikon…
:)
Pictures or it didn’t happen…. as they say.
MOAAAAARRRRR TROLLLLLZZZZZ
It also shows that nikon aren’t innovating at all. They are just product watching Canon and splicing their range with tweener products. This level of market focus really doesn’t innovate it just copies.
I was under the impression that the D3 and D700 cameras were developed out of a passion for the format…but this cynical lens release is a parody of Canon’s spec with a thin attempt to improve on one of Canon’s lenses without the understanding what makes canon’s f4 line so good seems to proove other wise. Cheap, light, top build, with no reduction in IQ for the price. Pack a 17-40L, 24-105L and a 70-200/4L in a bag and it’s nearly half the weight of the f2.8 versions. So why put an IS in an ultrawide.
I do a lot of serious low light landscapes…an IS/VR will never replace the stability of a tripod.
After 22 years of 35mm photography….for the life of me i can’t see a single use (other than marketing spin) for an IS unit in an ultra wide lens.
As to the 24L clone….good news for Nikon users and it’s been long over due.
How do you know this lens is better than the Canon 17-40L in the corners? It’s not yet been tested and it’s not yet for sale? You are sounding very assuming.
As to the VR replacing the need for a tripod…not really. A proper landscape will need a tripod…end of story. Other wise it’s a snapshot not a landscape.
I will not enter ideologic debate on what’s a landscape or not. it depends on your own definition and if Photography was an exact science with a proper definition of a “landscape” (ie using tripod as you suggest), Cartier-Bresson should have had the Fields Medal or Nobel Price of physics, and we would all be engineers…(disclaimer: I am) Come on, it’s stupid, but you are entitled to this idea if you want…
Walking hours in the mountain, not everyone has the money to buy Gitzo carbon tripod, maybe you have, or maybe you are very strong. But I prefer to take a potential 17-40 with IS with me instead of taking a tripod when trekking.
Like a few other people here, you don’t read posts entirely. I never suggested any comparison between the 17-40 and the new nikon lense, and never said tripods aren’t necessary (vital for long exposures). I just said that the performance of the 17 40 are not so good in the corners, too soft, period. The 16-35 II L sucks as well in the corners. Both are very good lenses, but for me only the 17-40 worths its money, and I strongly whish an updated version.
If you read the comment, you can see there are dimwit here also. I’d better have an IS version of a lense with “mode 1 or 2” function and a off button.
People tend to only think about their own petty use of a lense. Photojournalist would love to have IS Wide angle zoom such as the 17-40. Tough construction, IS, real weather sealing, Top image quality with ED/ and Aspherical lenses to correct deformations and loss of resolution in the corners and you have a new best selling lense.
What you said was clear enough to me (the 16-35VR makes me feel the same).
One (additional) good news is, it may push Canon to really improve the body of the 5D3. Who knows ?
Yeah, really waiting for the 24-70 IS!!!!!!
Had a bad sample of the 24-70, so I sold it, but now I miss the range!
Cant get myself to buy the same one again, when the new one should come out sometime soon (hope so anyway!)
why isn’t there any announcement today?…so disappointing
How is IS useful on wide angle lenses when photographing moving subjects?
Honest question.
That’s right!
unlike canon well nikon was never in video business, but was the first one to introduce it in SLR, and guess what, they just destroyed canon´s market for those video cams which costs much more than their id series cams, now they are forced to giving away a better qual video in their 500 $ cams, guess what, canon is the one who lost a part of their business with video, and nikon managed to force it,
by the way 99% of people buying the canon or nikon slrs aint buying it for video, sure the will take a couple of vids every month.
and the other 1% who buys it for video were the potential video cam (which costs much much more) buyers.
16-35 is too short. too limited in it’s use and application.
both are just average lenses when it comes to sharpness and bokeh check photozone.de
I’d very much like a FF 35mm f/2.0 or f/1.8 USM with the optical and build quality of (say) the 85mm f/1.8 – and in the same price range.
I would not be surprised at all if Canon sold no more than a handful of the old 35mm f/2.0 in the last few years.
If you look carefully at the Photozone charts you’ll see that they are both pretty sharp for wide angle lenses, sharper than most others at this length. Granted the EF-S 17-55mm comes close, which is very good performance for a zoom -but that lens isn’t exactly cheap either! You can’t compare a 35mm lens to a short telephoto, the latter are far easier to design. I do agree that the boken of the 35mm f/2.0 is pretty awful, but I’ve not come across such criticism of the 35mm f/1.4 L (so far).
You still need to control an aperture. So you can use them on Nikon only wide open I’m afraid…
Honest reply : The IS is not relevent to compensate moves from the subjects…
But…when catching moving subject to the total move the sensors sees is an addition of target movement and yours…at least it can help to reduce your movement. I cannot imagine this VR having no effect on your production…
Anyway, being able to catch scene with slightly greater depth of field when no flash can be use can be better. Honestly, I have my idea, and I share it with some friends they pretty much agree, but what do you think?
Would you prefer have IS or no IS? Can’t you see any situation which can benefit from having IS?
Video is quickly becoming the most important differentiator in DSLRs. Ignoring Video is no longer an option.
And why would you want to ignore video? This is one of the most exciting new capabilities from these affordable DSLRs. I am really looking forward to learning how to make decent video on DSLR. Photographers need to grow, and stop sticking only to what you already know.
as a current 5dmkii owner, if i even tried to move to nikon, i would be spending at least 2-4k more just because of lenses. canon offers excellent weather sealed/resistant lenses at a reasonable price. many of which are lightweight.
just spending money on a nikon 14-24, 70-200 2.8, and 24-70 i can easily spend 6k. (not including the body)
with canon i can get a 5dmkii, 17-40, 70-200 f/4 IS, 100mm IS macro, and a 50mm 1.4 lens for LESS
as an avid hobbyist and enthusiast, canon still offers the best bang for the buck..
Come on Canon, what does a guy have to do to get a 14-24 2.8L around here????
for your applications maybe.
The Canon 35mm 1.4L is one of the best lenses made. Add an 85mm 1.8 and a 135mm 2.0L and you have covered a wide range with GREAT glass at a reasonable price (less than $3000 total, or $4500 if you get the 85mm 1.2L).
I’d rather have IS than not have IS, BUT I don’t see it as a must-have feature at short focal length.
I certainly wouldn’t trade my 16-35 in for an IS version unless there was also a substantial optical difference (i.e. sharper or faster).
The 17-55 2.8IS is one of the sharpest zooms Canon has ever made, EF or EFS.
and $2200 poorer…poor Nikon users LOL.
Hey, I just posted my first comment on Photo Rumors and I’m a hexagon (with a monocle)! If Canon Rumors used avatars, what would you like to be?
On a serious note, I wonder how much the rumoured Pentax 645D will cost? Could be serious competition for both Canikony and the MF companies, if they get it right…
I would buy one, IS is needed for video. The new lenses are increasingly going to have to do double-duty as video cameras.
I’d like to see IS in a lot more lenses, all new general purpose lenses in fact.
Actually you can buy similar lenses with Nikon for less money. The fact is you listed the 14-24 which is a speciality lens at best, granted it’s an amazing lens. I also highly doubt the new Canon 70-200 will compare with the Nikon 70-200. People have been taking 1/2 exposures hand held with no problem. Somehow they optically improved the previous version which is nothing short of amazing.
Nikon starting to push F4 lenses is simply a way to create more affordable lenses for people other than professionals. Oddly enough this is what Nikon shooters have been asking for. Isn’t it wierd when a camera company actually listens to their cliental instead of trying to push garbage.
I just switched to Nikon this year after all the frustration I had with Canon. Not a single regret to say the least. The lenses are a little more expensive but for what it’s worth the quality of those lenses is definitely better than what I had with canon.
All zooms should have IS variants. If it’s going to be handheld most of the time your pictures will benefit from IS. It is an extra variable in the photographic parameters equation.
Honestly, I don’t care about a 16-35 f4 IS lens. Faster glass is almost always better glass.
How about:
14-24 IS 2.8
24-70 IS 2.8
I would love an updated 17-40 f4 IS too!
In the meantime, try one of these for $70:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/586957-REG/Joby_GP8_01EN_Gorillapod_Focus_Flexible.html
Actually faster glass is not always almost better. The vast majority of photographers can get way more use out of an F4 lens than most F2.8 lenses. Heck look at most photos a person takes and they are usually shot at F5.6 and above anyways.
If Canon does come out with a 14-24mm lens it will be an odd lens just like Nikon’s and people may or may not like it. I actually sold my 14-24 since I was paranoid about damage the front element. I loved that lens but man, it was just a beast that 99% of people don’t need.
Nikon is just trying to fill a segment of lenses that are more affordable. IT makes sense if you think about it. Their camera bodies are already significantly better than what canon offers. I think canon may have a slight edge in the entry level area and a huge advantage when it comes to compact cameras.
Video video video…
Can’t be ignored any longer
A canon 24-70L II (sans IS) would command a price premium over the original, I am betting somewhere close to $1,500. Since IS versions typically have a $400-500 price premium, expect a 24-70 II with IS to be close to $2,000.
Expect a major price increase to come with an IS version of anything.
70-200L f4 w/out IS $640
70-200L f4 w/IS $1,210 (a $570 price difference)
70-200L f2.8 w/out IS $1,300
70-200L f2.8 w/IS $1,800 (a $500 price difference)
Best case scenario for a 24-70L IS is $1,800, that’s without the “new copy tax” that Canon will give, so bump it up to around $2,000.
behold the Canon645D
http://i45.tinypic.com/fcmcfs.jpg
ahaaha. srry. i try.
All this babble about Nikon on this website triggered Google Ads to start showing Nikon ads. Good job everyone!
sure you need to buy 2 of them 17-40 lenses to make sure atleast one is not a lemon, wonder why nikkors costs more?, it´s called quality control.and it´s the number of times they check each lens what makes them costlier, so you are basically paying not just for the quality but for less chance of geting a lemon.
wonder why zeiss and leicas costs more ?, they both have very high tolerance rates compared to can or Nik ,so no lemons leaves the factory unlike can..
every additional QC check adds up to the total cost of lens, and leica does the most number of checks AFAIk.
it´s easy to make the lens price less by doing a couple of rounds check less, when you are a company making over 5 million lenses per year.
hope you fanboys understand what i mean
and for 7 years fortunately nikon havent been dishing out crapy widangle lenses like those. LOL
sure on the paper it´s the biggest differentiator, but it dosent mean that average joe like me and you can replace those tv or hollywood guys who know a thing or two about videography, tell me how many years you have been using DSLRs and how would you rate yourself as far as still photography goes,to those big guns out there simply cos you could buy a similar gear like theirs?
i agree photographers need to grow but dosent mean they need to shoot video simply their cams has it, it´s just an addition that´s all the guys who knows video and own additional 5 to 10 thousand supporting gear will make a living out of it, but we average joes will use it for bragging rights and sill youtube videos , that´s all.
prime shortfall? the only area they lack AF prime lenses is the wide prime, namely 24 & 35 1.4. Other than that, have a 14 2.8, 24 1.4/2.8, 20 2.8, 28 2.8, 35 2.0, 50 1.4/1.8, 85 1.4/1.8, 105 2.0, 135 2.0, 185 2.0, 200 2.0, 300 2.0/4.0, 400 2.8, 500 4.0, and 600 4.0 all w/ AF and every single long lens with IS.
Admin you need to do your homework.
nikons got great stuff but seriously this isnt nikonrumors.com man.. stop posting junk like this
You’re too self-limiting.
Sure, if you’re not willing to work hard to learn you certainly will not; “those tv or hollywood guys who know a thing or two about videography,” were not born with that knowledge, and anyone with the desire can learn.
The top seller on Fotolia was an average Joe using his girlfriend as a model when he started. Good thing he didn’t give up because he was told he was just an average joe.
Some of best photographers and film makers were self-taught “average joe’s” who didn’t hold themselves back because they didn’t “own additional 5 to 10 thousand supporting gear .”
The great film-maker Werner Hertzog is a self-taught “average joe”. Good thing he didn’t listen to the many people who thought he was being foolish, or who criticized him while he was learning.
I never understood this kind self-defeating attitude, and I hope I never do.
And how many of that has built-in lens motors of the USM/AF-S kind? :P
This makes for a very useful travel lens. Good for indoor stuff, too.
Remember: cranking up the shutter speed so you can handhold a non-IS lens means you have to open up the aperture. If you can hold the lens steady at a slower shutter speed, you can buy back some of the depth of field that you may want with a wide angle.
I’d love it if Canon put IS on a wide zoom like this. But first, I want that 24-70/2.8L IS!!
What’s odd is that Nikon put VR on the 16-35, but not on the 24-70/2.8 where it would be even more useful.
no there are adaptors which you can set the aperture . lever operated ones like this http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/ and you get the best of both worlds,very good high resolution sensors from canon and the best lenses from nikons.
i wish someone bbuild an interchangeable lens mount with AF capability for nikon lenses
do you really think the MTF charts you see tells you that all the lenses they make follows it, then how come there are so many C lenses which perform like garbage optically from the same series.
i had to go through 3 24-70´s to get an acceptable one, and still wasent satisfied, The mtf chart said something else :-)now i have a cheapo tamron 17-50 instead and i am atleast satisfied with the price and sharpness. the AF is real slow but for me the IQ is what mattered.
it´s got nothing to do with attitude, it´s simply reality,
the problem is every average joe thinks all they need is buy is a cheapo video slr and they are better than those same pros you mentioned who came up with years of hard work .
i admire works of a lot of self taught people in this field.
a large number of those pros came up because they managed an education in that field, let it be from some school or through apprenticeship or simply by assisting ,it was all hard work.and not just because they managed to buy a gear and started out in business the next morning.it´s only dreamers like you who could deny that part, but sure it´s dreamers like you who managed to make it to the top ,unfortunately there are too many of them out there right now, cos every average joe could afford the gear.that´s what i meant.
simply look at fotolia or istock photo and tell me how many made a real business like Yuri Arcurs you mentioned, probably 10 -20 people ,he´s explained how to do it, check his site and try out as he did,may be u´ll succeed. but believe me you are not the only one.
the market is different right now,because every average joe is thinking like you,the gear is dirt cheap now,i´ll buy a video dslr and will start working as a wedding photo/videographer the next day, see how easily a hard working pro´s bread and butter is gonna be harder for him to get.hope you understand what i mean.
LOL, it´s canon who´s been catching up and copiying nikon since last 2-3 years, innovation? where does canon get these ideas on video and stuff,live view,the horizon level ,deactable imposed grid in viewfinders,super high iso sensors,high res displays,and now touch screen displays like in coolpix,they are probably trying hard to find a way to make a wide angle lens with acceptable corner to corner sharpness like the new nikons.
and oh, one should give credit to can for their greatest innovation in this century, the “Print Button” in 35 years of your photographic life, you sure havent seen an innovation like that i bet.
lol
That’s neat! :) But I thought we are talking about using TS-E lenses on Nikon body. Is there similar adapter, that will allow to set an aperture on TS-E lens+Nikon body as well? Just out of curiosity…
Well, I don’t care who is copying from who as long as they make good stuff. No Nikonist will ever complain that Nikon copied some good idea from elsewhere and no Canonist will ever complain that Canon copies some good idea from elsewhere either. They would be only against themselves, if they refuse to take advantage of new feature, just because someone other came with it first.
Customers should be glad for competition and development that it causes, not spend petty fights about which brand is better. I’d like to paraphrase Ansel Adams here: the best brand is the one you have. (What good is the other brand to you, if you don’t have/use it.)
I’ve chosen Canon for some reason I had that time, but I’m sure I’d be glad either, if I picked Nikon back then.
+1. Maybe only on really slow days.
No they won’t. Backfocus (flange focal distance) is on Nikons 46mm and on Canons 44mm, so it’s impossible to make it work on a Nikon without the addition of an optical element, which in turn degrades image quality and focal length.
only canon pros are complaining about high MP mushy detailed pics using their ageing L lenses which used to work great till 12 MP but cant resolve the fine hi res sensor;-))
crummy build quality, poor focusing and soft corners cost less to manufacture.thus the cheaper prices on your fav lenses:-))
the 16-35 VR is way more versatile and the F stop you lose the VR makes up. Cant wait for Canon to make such a lens.
You mean like the:
Nikon 200-400 f/4 VR
Nikon 14-24 2.8
Canon lenses have only 1 year warranty
Nikon lenses have 5 year warranty
Shows Canon people are thinking about the future? If Nikon can make something close to the 70-200f4 and put VR on their 300f4, for prosumers, the cat could be among the pigeons.
A lot of people are going on about IS/Vr on the 24-70F2.8’s. I will love a 35-85f2.0 for FF use (got the 16-35’s or 17-40’s for wider angle). Ja, and then there are the 14-24f2.8, but i haven’t got a Nikon, yet.