Most likely the next Nikkor will be wider given the 11-24 FF Canon.
Most likely the next Nikkor will be wider given the 11-24 FF Canon.
If Nikon updates their 14-24mm lens even wider than Canon's 11-24, say 10-24mm --and-- maintains the f/2.8 aperture of the current 14-24mm lens it will be 1) Friggen HUGE and 2) cost $3k+
I think the pre-order price of the Sigma 12-24 f/4 ART lens is $1600. If it's sharper and overall better than the Nikkor 14-24mm I'd consider it for an upgrade in mid 2017 ( or 2018 ).
Last edited:
The distortion is rather high for a prime and look at the MTF astigmatism.
It should be good lens for the price.
Astigmatism does seem a bit high. Not a whole lot of 11mm full-frame lenses to compare it to but it seems to have less distortion than the 11-24mm Canon. But of course the Canon is a zoom, and nearly perfect after 14mm.
If this lens was $1200 (refurb 14-24) I'd jump on it. But I'd rather wait for Nikon to put out an update to see if there is some improvement.
I don't have frequent need for 11-24 and would probably just rent one occasionally.
You beat me to it Lunar. I was going to post that link earlier today. Yeah, that sure is a funky 24mm f/14 macro lens. Yes, f/14 NOT f/1.4. I wonder what the IQ will be with such a tiny piece of glass on the front of that lens. Could have interesting applications if IQ is decent and cost is not crazy.
/sigh
The Canon 6D2 rumors have already started. Hoping for the Nikon D8xx rumors to start. Not that I can afford or justify an upgrade to such a camera. The updated Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR II wasn't announced at Photokina 2016. I'd like to see a 12-24mm Nikkor f/4 as well.
The Canon 6D2 rumors have already started. Hoping for the Nikon D8xx rumors to start. Not that I can afford or justify an upgrade to such a camera. The updated Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR II wasn't announced at Photokina 2016. I'd like to see a 12-24mm Nikkor f/4 as well.
I would think Canon needs an "under $3xxx" full frame camera to compete with Nikon and various MILCs.
Maybe so, but that does nothing for me. A possibly interesting development would be if the next 6D or D6x0 had an EVF.
That MILC feature and grade of camera is probably more appealing to the Milleniums than the 5D or D8x0 series.
Yes, it's out now. The delay was only a couple of days. We can hope to see a couple of tests by next week.
400/2.8 IS II lenses are pretty damn good. 
Thanks. Subtract the dumb questions, complaining and whining and it's closer to 50 actual posts.
400/2.8 IS II lenses are pretty damn good.
They better be pretty damn good for their $10k price tag. Aaaaaaaaaaaand, they are out of stock at B&H. I wonder why?
I wonder what they are going to do with 48, 400/2.8 IS II lenses after the experiment(s) has concluded. The University of Toronto's and/or Yale University's photo clubs need to start befriending some of those physics students.
Hold on a second. Something fishy is going on. All the students are attractive young ladies. No geeky, sad looking males. Sed needs to change his major. QUICK.
I'm not sure why they are updating the 70-200/2.8 again as it is really very good. 19 PCE seems a bit not so wide, but IQ will probably be great. I'd rather see a 16 mm PCE lens at this point.
Meanwhile the Canon 600/4 DO seems to be on the way next year. I suppose there may be a further development announcement at PK.
The current G-version is 8+ years old so Nikon needs to release a newer E-version just to get some current sales. Nikon needs all the financial help they can get.
The E-version will finally get an electronic aperture, and hopefully fix the severe focus breathing of the current version.
With 24-70mm f/2.8E and 70-200mm f/2.8E Nikkors available, maybe, fingers-crossed, Nikon will release an xx-24mm f/2.8E ultrawide to complete their "modern trinity" E-version lineup.
I did not realize it had been 8 years. 70-200 SLR lenses are not typical cine lenses. Due to the telephoto ratio and inherent design limitations of smaller lenses with high IQ, I don't know how large/heavy Nikon will make it to suit the cine market. I would like Canon to update the 70-200/4 IS as well. It's starting to run out of steam at 50 MP.
I'm a little confused Lunar? Why would Nikon make their new 70-200 a cine lens? Or cine-like? They simply need to "copy" the Canon version. 1) Electronic aperture, and 2) no focus breathing, and 3) Same or better IQ as the Canon lens.
Canon has had an electronic aperture (EF mount) for decades now. About time Nikon caught up.
I don't have that lens and did not realize it was so lacking, but 8 years is a while for sure.
I'm still waiting for the 24-105 II (shipping ~10/31) and some tests of the Tamron 150-600 G2.
Sales seem to be slow, probably due to the disaster with the G1.
You waiting is almost over SD. Jan 2017* is just around the corner. What's a years delay anyways. /snark
I think the new Tamron superzoom will be good. Their 15-30/2.8 is excellent, their 70-200/2.8 is very good. The Tamrom 35mm and 45mm f/1.8 primes are good and I believe (read some rumors?!?!) Tamron worked with Nikon on the Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6E, perhaps some cross licensing/collaboration so I'm thinking it will be as good/better then the Nikkor 200-500/5.6.
Perhaps you should just wait for the rumored Canon 200-600/4.5-5.6. Rumored to NOT be a L-lens so it won't be crazy expensive, but if it's actually f/5.6 @ 600mm (and NOT f/6.3@600) I'd guess a price of $2600+. 600/6.3 probably under $2000.
*assuming no further delays, sensor shortages, earthquakes, tsunamis, Nikon upper management shakeup, etc, etc.
I'd have little use for a cheap 200-600 if it not somewhat collapsible. It would be too similar to the 200-400/4 w/1.4x.
ddrueding
Fixture
Yup. Easily, in all samples.
I have rented some camera equipment from Lensrentals.com that I'll take on my vacation/road trip thru AZ and UT.
-Nikon D500 camera.
-Nikkor 14-24/2.8 lens.
-128 GB XQD memory card.
-17 days.
-All items with full damage+theft protection.
-$732.85 (rental+ins+shipping+tax).
My friend will be using my D610 + 16-35/4 and I'll use the D500 + 14-24/2.8.
Why the D500, when the D810 would be more appropriate for landscape pictures you might ask? I'm probably never going to buy a D810 so I don't need to test one out. However, I might buy a D500 if I decide to branch out a bit and start shooting bird and wildlife. Plus I can mount my 200-500/5.6 onto the D500 and see if I can get better results than I did with my D610. I also saved about $75 renting a D500 vs D810.
I'm also thinking about eventually upgrading my 16-35 lens with either the Sigma 12-24/4 or the "updated" Nikkor 14-24mm, or whatever ultra-wide zoom Nikon eventually ships. If the new Nikkor is a $3xxx monster like the Canon 11-24 I may just buy the Nikkor 14-24 anyways so I want to test that lens out.
-Nikon D500 camera.
-Nikkor 14-24/2.8 lens.
-128 GB XQD memory card.
-17 days.
-All items with full damage+theft protection.
-$732.85 (rental+ins+shipping+tax).
My friend will be using my D610 + 16-35/4 and I'll use the D500 + 14-24/2.8.
Why the D500, when the D810 would be more appropriate for landscape pictures you might ask? I'm probably never going to buy a D810 so I don't need to test one out. However, I might buy a D500 if I decide to branch out a bit and start shooting bird and wildlife. Plus I can mount my 200-500/5.6 onto the D500 and see if I can get better results than I did with my D610. I also saved about $75 renting a D500 vs D810.
I'm also thinking about eventually upgrading my 16-35 lens with either the Sigma 12-24/4 or the "updated" Nikkor 14-24mm, or whatever ultra-wide zoom Nikon eventually ships. If the new Nikkor is a $3xxx monster like the Canon 11-24 I may just buy the Nikkor 14-24 anyways so I want to test that lens out.
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Is there something non-obvious that could happen to a rental body that would produce a different result from a new body?
:scratch:
I'm not sure I understand your question. If a rental camera has been treated badly it may fail but I don't think the results would be any different that from a camera I bought new.
I am renting so we have a second body/lens for our road trip, so my friend and I don't have to share one camera. On out last road trip it seems I wanted to take a picture when he had the camera and vice versa.
I'm also renting those particular pieces of equipment because I may purchase them in the future and would like to try them out for an extended period of time. Buying new would be over $4000, renting is only $750.
Not only that, but one can often buy the rental equipment at a reduced price.
The better companies carefully check the gear and turn it over every few years. I suppose there is a small risk, but I've not had any issues.
It's better than buying tens of thousands of gear that is used a few times and just decomposes in the closet.
My semi-planned road trip:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Pho...8354a1bac!2m2!1d-112.0740373!2d33.4483771!3e0
Exactly.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Pho...8354a1bac!2m2!1d-112.0740373!2d33.4483771!3e0
It's better than buying tens of thousands of gear that is used a few times and just decomposes in the closet.
Exactly.
I'm not sure what you are doing in NM and CO. Are you going to Mesa Verde, Chaco, etc.? Have you been to Arches and Capitol Reef before?
Yes, going to Mesa Verde NP and four-corners, on the way to Arches NP, Canyonlands NP and Capitol Reef NP. Plus we drive thru Petrified Forest NP on the way up. Nothing is set in stone. If there's lots to see we'll stay longer or move on quickly if less to see. Might not even go to all the places if we run out of time.
I went to Mesa Verde when I was a kid 35+ years ago but have never been to the other parks. I know Mesa Verde has some closures but it's not the main focus of trip.
Any suggestions/recommendations welcomed. Oct 26-Nov 4 rough time frame. Hopefully nothing is snowed over or completely closed.
Stereodude
Not really a
Except of course the trees.
I've done a couple similar trips to the locations you've outlined. The last one I did is mostly outlined here...I took two weeks off to drive through many of the national parks because we explored a bit in each of them. Bryce was one of my favorites with Canyonlands a very close second. I feel like I could have been there for three weeks there was so much to see and so many pictures to take.
I had been to Mesa Verde, Petrified Forest, Painted desert, Meteor crater, and a few others back in 2006. I remember spending a long time traveling through the Petrified Forest while stopping frequently to enjoy the views. Mesa Verde was more of a riding along in the car and seeing interesting things in the mountain sides from across the way. I don't recall why we didn't stop more but it may be because we were on our way to another location. I remember that it would have been nice to have a longer telephoto to get some of the details in the mountain side.
I visited the following parks back in late 2011:
Arches
Bryce
Canyonlands
Capitol Reef
Cedar Breaks
Dixie National forest
Natural Bridges
Zion
Gooseneck state park
Goblin Valley state park
Brian Head
Monument Valley
Grand canyon south rim