New NIkon Goodies.

[OsmosisStudios]

24mm f/1.4 and 16-35 f/4VR
Both FX lenses.

They're a bit overpriced: the 16-35 is meant to replace the older 17-35/2.8, but its being priced a good few hundred higher. The 24mm f/1.4 is looking to be about $2200 (US), which is, well, a lot.

16-35 f/4 VR
Nikon 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR stabilized ultra-wide zoom: Digital Photography Review

24mm f/1.4
Nikon releases 24mm f/1.4 G ED fast wideangle lens: Digital Photography Review

Both are weather sealed, gold ring, magnesium build, pro series lenses. Here's hoping Nikon has finally clued in and will make a collection of pro-level f/4 zooms to compete with canon's 17-40/70-200 pairing. They're halfway there!

[vandergus]

Yey! More awesome lenses that I will never afford. Gotta keep the pros happy, I guess. I like it better when they release cheap consumer level primes. Think they'll ever make that 16mm f4 DX? Yeah, probably not.

And I know I'm not the target market for the 24mm f1.4, but $2200 MSRP? Ouch.

[OsmosisStudios]

I'd be more tempted by a 10 or 12mm f/4 DX prime, to be honest. 16 just isnt wide enough.

The 16-35 is supposedly a start to the f/4 zoom range, which would mean the 16-35, a 28-105 refresh and a 70-200. Packed with a 200-400 and a 500 or 600 prime, you could have quite the package, all with an f/4 max aperture.

[sybren]

When a 16mm is called "ultrawide", it's meant for full frame cameras.

And yeah. I'd love a 10mm prime!

[vandergus]

Wasn't really thinking of a 16mm as an ultrawide lens, just a focal length I think I would enjoy on my camera. Something like Pentax's 15mm f4 DA.

[equilution]

You beat me to it, Os!! I was going to post about these two lenses as well. Did you get the same e-mail from Nikon that I did announcing them? I started salivating instantly. I'm all over the 16-35. I was considering the 17-35, but had been holding out for this one. That'll be my next. I like the 24 1.4 also. Nikon has always been proud of their lenses. They called my 85 f/1.4 overpriced when I got it for my D3 last year...but I'll tell ya, I wouldn't trade it for any other lens. If I could only have one lens in my bag, that'd be the one. It's worth every penny, and I suspect the 24 f/1.4 will be no exception. I'm just glad to see more FX compatible lenses come out. All the good standard, usable zooms lately seem to be for DX sensors.

Now, if we can get Nikon to make a 10-400 f/1.2/2.8, VR ED IF S we'll be in business!!!!

[sk66]

At first I thought you had bought them...was wondering when you were going to buy the FF body to match.

Overall, not terribly impressed....way too much money for what they offer IMO.

[RussHeath]

While the price seems crazy, I'm definitely going to start budgeting for the 24mm f/1.4 now. It's a perfect 35mm substitute on my D80, and it will only get better when I trade up for a D700X . . . (a guy can dream, right?)!

Seriously though, if it works as well as everyone is hoping, $2200 might actually be reasonable as the ultimate photojournalist lens with an FX body.

[jdepould]

*Grumble* I'd consider the 16-35, but it's just such a weird lens to pair with the 24-70.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

I'd like for an AF-S 85 f/1.8. That'd be nice.