New DSLR lenses from Nikon

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Bruce, Feb 9, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Bruce, Feb 9, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:41:11 +1100, "Pete D" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
    >>
    >> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
    >> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
    >> US $ 1259.95
    >> Euro 1199.00
    >> GBP 1049.99
    >>
    >>
    >> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
    >> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length lens.
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp
    >> US $ 2199.95
    >> Euro 2149.00
    >> GBP 1949.99
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
    >crazy.
    >


    No. What's truly crazy is that you think that's the only thing that's
    crazy.
     
    Crazy Spotters Inc., Feb 9, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:19:57 -0800, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:

    >On 2010-02-09 10:41:11 -0800, "Pete D" <> said:
    >
    >>
    >> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
    >>>
    >>> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
    >>> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
    >>> US $ 1259.95
    >>> Euro 1199.00
    >>> GBP 1049.99
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
    >>> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length lens.
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp
    >>> US $ 2199.95
    >>> Euro 2149.00
    >>> GBP 1949.99
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
    >> crazy.

    >
    >Does the Euro pricing include VAT?



    Yes, the Euro and GBP prices include VAT (from 15% to 22% depending on
    which country) whereas the US price does not include taxes.
     
    Bruce, Feb 9, 2010
    #3
  4. On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:36:55 +0100, Alfred Molon <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
    >> crazy.

    >
    >Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.


    No, camera companies think that all DSLR buyers are stupid.

    They are correct.

    Those prices alone prove this, in any country.
     
    Crazy Spotters Inc., Feb 9, 2010
    #4
  5. C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
    >has no VAT.


    1: Canada does have VAT, it is called "Goods and Services Tax". Don't
    know about other countries in America.
    2: I am quite certain I prefer a flat simple straightforward VAT over
    the impenetrable jungle of local, state, county and other sales taxes
    that are slapped on in the US and sometimes vary just across the street.
    3: Not to mention that VAT is refundable upon export of the good while
    sales tax is not.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Feb 9, 2010
    #5
  6. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:04:46 -0800, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:

    >On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon <> said:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> says...
    >>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
    >>> crazy.

    >>
    >> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.

    >
    >Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
    >has no VAT.


    Not by that name, but the concept of adding a tax to the purchase of
    goods and services is certainly practiced here. Our states are just
    as tax-hungry as any other government entity.

    One of the major differences is that advertised prices in the UK
    include VAT, but advertised prices in the US do not include sales tax.
    They may include a notation that sales tax will be added, but not an
    amount.

    While visitors to the US often object to this because they feel the
    advertising falsely represents the actual price to be paid, there is a
    good reason for stating the pre-tax price. If Best Buy (a chain of
    stores) advertises a camera for $100, the final price will be $106 if
    the purchase is made in Orange County (FL) or $107 if the purchase is
    made in Seminole County (FL) due to local option tax rates. If the
    camera is purchased by a hospital or other exempt entity, the final
    price is $100. The stores involved may be equidistant from the
    customer's home.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Feb 9, 2010
    #6
  7. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:12:21 -0800, Jürgen Exner
    <> wrote:

    >3: Not to mention that VAT is refundable upon export of the good while
    >sales tax is not.


    Where this makes a difference is when the item purchased is taken into
    possession by the buyer in the place where sales tax is charged. An
    item that I may pay sales tax on can be purchased by someone in a
    foreign country who does not pay tax on that item. Once you pay sales
    tax, it is not refundable. But, under certain conditions, you need
    not pay the tax in the first place.

    Each state's laws on this may be different, but here's one example:
    http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub104.pdf


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Feb 9, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:36:11 -0800, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:
    >
    >Both parties are obsessed with populist "blame the bankers for the
    >economy" rhetoric. Which means they are likely to do nothing. Which is
    >just the way I like it. Unfortunately, while neither party has said
    >"Jewish bankers," the message is just as clear. The nation is being run
    >by fascists who dominate both sides of the aisle.



    You should thank God for Sarah Palin, then.

    Palin to the rescue, 2012. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Feb 9, 2010
    #8
  9. Bruce

    LOL! Guest

    On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:22:51 -0800, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:

    >On 2010-02-09 14:12:21 -0800, Jürgen Exner <> said:
    >
    >> C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
    >>> has no VAT.

    >>
    >> 1: Canada does have VAT, it is called "Goods and Services Tax". Don't
    >> know about other countries in America.
    >> 2: I am quite certain I prefer a flat simple straightforward VAT over
    >> the impenetrable jungle of local, state, county and other sales taxes
    >> that are slapped on in the US and sometimes vary just across the street.
    >> 3: Not to mention that VAT is refundable upon export of the good while
    >> sales tax is not.
    >>
    >> jue

    >
    >If you like this oppressive, extremely regressive tax, fine with me.
    >I'll give it a pass, thank you. And don't complain to me about how your
    >stuff costs more.


    Yes. Let's all blame their respective governments on why $25 of labor,
    glass, metal, and cheap plastics costs $2000.

    Holy **** are you ever DSLR worshippers idiots!

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Feb 9, 2010
    #9
  10. Bruce

    LOL! Guest

    On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:22:51 -0800, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:

    >On 2010-02-09 14:12:21 -0800, Jürgen Exner <> said:
    >
    >> C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
    >>> has no VAT.

    >>
    >> 1: Canada does have VAT, it is called "Goods and Services Tax". Don't
    >> know about other countries in America.
    >> 2: I am quite certain I prefer a flat simple straightforward VAT over
    >> the impenetrable jungle of local, state, county and other sales taxes
    >> that are slapped on in the US and sometimes vary just across the street.
    >> 3: Not to mention that VAT is refundable upon export of the good while
    >> sales tax is not.
    >>
    >> jue

    >
    >If you like this oppressive, extremely regressive tax, fine with me.
    >I'll give it a pass, thank you. And don't complain to me about how your
    >stuff costs more.


    Yes. Let's all blame their respective governments on why $25 of labor,
    glass, metal, and cheap plastics costs $2000.

    Holy **** are you DSLR worshippers ever idiots!

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Feb 9, 2010
    #10
  11. Bruce

    Me Guest

    C J Campbell wrote:
    > On 2010-02-09 10:30:18 -0800, Bruce <> said:
    >
    >> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
    >>
    >> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
    >> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
    >> US $ 1259.95
    >> Euro 1199.00
    >> GBP 1049.99

    >
    > This thing is going to be one of the most popular lenses Nikon has ever
    > made.
    >
    >>

    The 16-35 looks okay from MTF charts for FX, just nowhere near as good
    as the 14-24 and 24-70. Nikon's MTF charts are at widest aperture, and
    the 14-24 is /much/ sharper edge frame at f2.8 14mm than the 16-35 at f4
    16mm.
    The MTF charts really do look great for DX, but 16mm is less exciting
    for DX users, and the 16-85VR is no slouch and less expensive.
    For f4 zooms, lower price and lower weight should be the advantage. At
    US$500 more than a Canon 17-40l, and almost the same weight but longer
    than the old Nikkor 17-35, it's a fail there too - sorry.


    The 24mm f 1.4 looks nice. Not something I'd use on FX or DX myself,
    but I'll wager that despite price, that will be the lens that will
    remain popular, expensive, and hard to get your hands on long-term.
     
    Me, Feb 9, 2010
    #11
  12. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:32:17 -0800, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:

    >On 2010-02-09 14:21:54 -0800, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:04:46 -0800, C J Campbell
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <>,
    >>>> says...
    >>>>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
    >>>>> crazy.
    >>>>
    >>>> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
    >>>
    >>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
    >>> has no VAT.

    >>
    >> Not by that name, but the concept of adding a tax to the purchase of
    >> goods and services is certainly practiced here. Our states are just
    >> as tax-hungry as any other government entity.

    >
    >Yes, but it is not reflected in the price of the lens. As you go on to
    >point out very clearly.
    >

    It's not reflected in the *advertised* price of the lens, or MRSP,
    but it will certainly be reflected in the price of the lens when you
    buy it.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Feb 10, 2010
    #12
  13. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Bruce <> wrote:
    >Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
    >
    >AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
    >Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
    >http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
    >US $ 1259.95
    >Euro 1199.00
    >GBP 1049.99


    Why would anyone spend that much to get image stablization on a wide
    angle f4 zoom?

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 10, 2010
    #13
  14. Bruce

    Paul Furman Guest

    On 2/9/2010 10:30 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
    >
    > AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
    > Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
    > US $ 1259.95
    > Euro 1199.00
    > GBP 1049.99


    Nice. f/4 should be cheaper though I'd have thought.
    That's the price the old 17-25 is selling for on ebay.
    AF-S & VR probably aren't needed, they could have saved money there.
    Nobody in their right mind will buy this for an entry level DX body that
    needs AF-S. VR ... we'll see if that's really useful. Maybe.


    > AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
    > Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length lens.
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp
    > US $ 2199.95
    > Euro 2149.00
    > GBP 1949.99


    Exotic game of catch up with Canon. This sounds fun but really is very
    specialized. Samples from the Canon version:
    http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=317311
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 10, 2010
    #14
  15. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2010-02-09 20:59:48 -0800, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up
    >>> telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over
    >>> $400K and I should benefit from some of that equity.

    >>
    >> How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for
    >> the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my
    >> previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this
    >> next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the
    >> legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are
    >> also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses.
    >>
    >> I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home
    >> at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the
    >> replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market.

    >
    >I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
    >Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
    >which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
    >that is a risk which is minimized for me.


    How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
    overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
    for me.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 10, 2010
    #15
  16. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


    >>> I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
    >>> Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
    >>> which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
    >>> that is a risk which is minimized for me.

    >>
    >> How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
    >> overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
    >> for me.

    >
    >Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive
    >Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual
    >premium was not unreasonable.


    $900/year with a $35,000 deductable doesn't seem very reasonable.

    >If not I would only have possible assistance to repair or rebuild if
    >FEMA came into play with a disaster declaration, and there is no
    >consistent guarantee of that happening.
    >
    >I was lucky with our 6.5 earthquake in December 2003. The epicenter was
    >about 20 miles from us.


    My house (we're about the same distance in the S. Bay) has stood
    without damage for 60 years. I've chosen to ensure that it's
    structurally sound.

    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_San_Simeon_earthquake


    Oh, THAT earthquake. I was referring to the Loma Prieta.

    >It felt as though a truck had run into the house. With all the shaking
    >I couldn't even take the initial move of getting out of the house, as I
    >was knocked off my feet. There was only some dry wall crack damage, and
    >the stove pipe for my wood stove got shaken loose. Two women in Paso
    >Robles weren't so lucky when a building collapsed on them.
    >
    >So as long as I am living between the Oceanic fault zone in the Santa
    >Lucia mountains and the Coastal ranges and the faults they harbor, and
    >the San Andreas Fault, 30 miles to the East, I think I can justify the
    >cost of Earthquake insurance.


    Shrug. Everyone makes their own risk assessment.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 10, 2010
    #16
  17. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Re: Brits/Euros take it up the a-- on price (AGAIN!)

    On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:24:24 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >On Feb 9, 1:30 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
    >>
    >> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
    >> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
    >> US $ 1259.95 -
    >> Euro 1199.00 - $1651.00 U.S.
    >> GBP 1049.99 - $1647.00 U.S.
    >>
    >> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
    >> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp
    >> US $ 2199.95
    >> Euro 2149.00 - $2960.00 U.S.
    >> GBP 1949.99 - $3058.75 U.S.



    Euro/GBP prices include Value Added Tax (VAT) which varies between 15%
    and 25% according to country. US prices do not include taxes.
     
    Bruce, Feb 10, 2010
    #17
  18. Bruce

    Martin Brown Guest

    Re: Brits/Euros take it up the a-- on price (AGAIN!)

    Rich wrote:
    > Bruce <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:24:24 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>> On Feb 9, 1:30 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
    >>>>
    >>>> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
    >>>> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom
    >>>> lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
    >>>> US $ 1259.95 -
    >>>> Euro 1199.00 - $1651.00 U.S.
    >>>> GBP 1049.99 - $1647.00 U.S.
    >>>>
    >>>> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
    >>>> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length
    >>>> lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp
    >>>> US $ 2199.95
    >>>> Euro 2149.00 - $2960.00 U.S.
    >>>> GBP 1949.99 - $3058.75 U.S.

    >>
    >> Euro/GBP prices include Value Added Tax (VAT) which varies between 15%
    >> and 25% according to country. US prices do not include taxes.

    >
    > Worst case scenario, a guy in California pays $2386.00 for the 24mm, tax-
    > in. The Brit pays $600 more.


    This is the golden island problem. UK photo dealers are much better at
    maintaining their margins than US box shifters. It wasn't all that long
    ago that the rule of thumb for hitech gear was price in USD = price in
    GBP. At least they have passed on some of the shift in exchange rates.

    The smart Brit has a long weekend holiday in New York and goes shopping...

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Feb 10, 2010
    #18
  19. Bruce

    NameHere Guest

    Re: Brits/Euros take it up the a-- on price (AGAIN!)

    On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:27:15 +0000, Martin Brown
    <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    >Rich wrote:
    >> Bruce <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:24:24 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> On Feb 9, 1:30 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>>> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
    >>>>> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom
    >>>>> lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
    >>>>> US $ 1259.95 -
    >>>>> Euro 1199.00 - $1651.00 U.S.
    >>>>> GBP 1049.99 - $1647.00 U.S.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
    >>>>> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length
    >>>>> lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp
    >>>>> US $ 2199.95
    >>>>> Euro 2149.00 - $2960.00 U.S.
    >>>>> GBP 1949.99 - $3058.75 U.S.
    >>>
    >>> Euro/GBP prices include Value Added Tax (VAT) which varies between 15%
    >>> and 25% according to country. US prices do not include taxes.

    >>
    >> Worst case scenario, a guy in California pays $2386.00 for the 24mm, tax-
    >> in. The Brit pays $600 more.

    >
    >This is the golden island problem. UK photo dealers are much better at
    >maintaining their margins than US box shifters. It wasn't all that long
    >ago that the rule of thumb for hitech gear was price in USD = price in
    >GBP. At least they have passed on some of the shift in exchange rates.
    >
    >The smart Brit has a long weekend holiday in New York and goes shopping...
    >
    >Regards,
    >Martin Brown


    I fail to understand what is preventing all these whiney-assed pompous
    brits from making their own cameras and lenses, then selling them at
    inflated prices to all other countries. No, they'd rather sit on their
    asses whining about the rest of the world, like it owes them something. Do
    the british actually produce *anything* that the rest of the world wants?
    That whole country could probably fall off the face of the earth and nobody
    would know until months later, when everyone noticed there was a drastic
    record-lull in the worldwide level of complaining and whining.
     
    NameHere, Feb 10, 2010
    #19
  20. Bruce

    Me Guest

    C J Campbell wrote:
    > On 2010-02-09 15:10:36 -0800, Me <> said:
    >
    >> C J Campbell wrote:
    >>> On 2010-02-09 10:30:18 -0800, Bruce <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
    >>>>
    >>>> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
    >>>> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
    >>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
    >>>> US $ 1259.95
    >>>> Euro 1199.00
    >>>> GBP 1049.99
    >>>
    >>> This thing is going to be one of the most popular lenses Nikon has
    >>> ever made.
    >>>
    >>>>

    >> The 16-35 looks okay from MTF charts for FX, just nowhere near as good
    >> as the 14-24 and 24-70. Nikon's MTF charts are at widest aperture,
    >> and the 14-24 is /much/ sharper edge frame at f2.8 14mm than the 16-35
    >> at f4 16mm.
    >> The MTF charts really do look great for DX, but 16mm is less exciting
    >> for DX users, and the 16-85VR is no slouch and less expensive.
    >> For f4 zooms, lower price and lower weight should be the advantage.
    >> At US$500 more than a Canon 17-40l, and almost the same weight but
    >> longer than the old Nikkor 17-35, it's a fail there too - sorry.

    >
    > Could be. However, having seen most people's photography, lens quality
    > is not the issue.
    >

    Nothing new about that.

    >
    >>
    >>
    >> The 24mm f 1.4 looks nice. Not something I'd use on FX or DX myself,
    >> but I'll wager that despite price, that will be the lens that will
    >> remain popular, expensive, and hard to get your hands on long-term.

    >
    > Sort of a newer wide angle version of the Noct, you think?
    >

    No - I don't think so. With pgm replacing grinding, they can probably
    churn these out much faster than they could with the 28mm f1.4. But
    there's big pent up demand, I don't see any cheap used 14-24s, 24-70 etc
    floating around, but I still don't believe any new lenses have got
    "investment potential".
    If the rumours based on Nikon's Japanese patents remain reliable, then a
    50mm f1.2 is coming. That might calm "noct" prices down a bit.
    Naysayers claimed there wasn't enough room in AF F-mount, but there is
    of course - the area where the electronic contacts are is out of the
    light path.
     
    Me, Feb 10, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.