Three New Zooms and a Fast "85" from Nikon

Share

The engineers at Nikon have apparently been burning the midnight oil of late, the results of which appear in the form of four new AF-S G-series Nikkor lenses. They include three new zooms—a 24-120mm f/4G ED VR, a 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, a 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR and an update of Nikon's classic 85mm f/1.4, a killer portrait lens if there ever was one.


The AF-S Nikkor 85 f/1.4G is a lens that makes the day for portrait and low-light shooters alike. When used at its widest apertures, the fall-off between sharpness and melt-away details is enough to make bokeh lovers weak in the knees. And it's an unbeatable short telephoto for low-light shooting. Capable of covering both full-frame (FX format) and APS-C format sensors alike (with an equivalent focal length of 127.5mm), the AF-S Nikkor 85 f/1.4G features Nano Crystal Coatings, which have proved to perform as advertised on previous Nano Crystal-coated optics from Nikon.

Other features found on the AF-S Nikkor 85 f/1.4G include an M/A Focus Mode switch for quick shifting between AF and manual focus, internal focusing, a Nikon Silent Wave Motor system (SWM) for quick and quiet focusing, Super Integrated Coatings (SIC) for improved light transmission and reduced flare, and 9 rounded aperture blades for that "natural look," a.k.a. nice bokeh.


AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G and
AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

For owners of full-frame (FX-format) DSLRs and SLRs seeking a high-performance, all-in-one zoom for any number of travel or business-related applications, the AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR is well worth considering. Like the AF-S Nikkor 85 f/1.4G, this image-stabilized (VR II) 10.7x zoom is optimized for use with full-frame and APS-C format compact DSLRs from Nikon. (When used on an APS-C format DSLR the equivalent focal length is 42-450mm.)

Along with 4 stops of vibration reduction, the AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR features two extra-low dispersion (ED) glass elements and three aspherical elements for improved sharpness and steep dampening of coma and chromatic aberrations and focusing down to 18" at all focal lengths.

Other features include a Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM) for quick and quiet focusing, an M/A Focus Mode switch for quick shifting between AF and manual focus, internal focusing (IF), Super Integrated Coatings (SIC) for improved light transmission, color consistency and flare reduction, a zoom-lock switch to keep the lens at minimum size during transport, and 9 curved aperture blades for natural-looking, out-of-focus highlight details (again... nice bokeh).


AF-S Nikkor 24-120m f/4G ED VR and
AF-S Nikkor 55-300 f/4.5-5.6 ED VR

The AF-S Nikkor 24-120 f/4G ED VR is an update of Nikon's original 24-120mm zoom. Designed to cover a full-frame (FX-format) DSLR or SLR, the AF-S Nikkor 24-120 f/4G ED VR is equally at home on a smaller DX-format Nikon DSLR, on which it is the equivalent of a 36-180mm lens.

Some of the improvements found on the AF-S Nikkor 24-120 f/4G ED VR include Nikon VR II image stabilization, Nano Crystal Coatings, two extra-low dispersion (ED) and three aspheric lens elements for improved color, sharpness and reduced coma and color aberrations, internal focusing (IF), a Silent Wave Motor (SWM), an M/A Switch for easy shifting between manual and AF and you guessed it: 9 curved aperture blades for natural, good-looking bokeh.

The fourth lens on the list is the AF-S Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR, which is specifically designed for use with DX-format (APS-C) DSLRs from Nikon. This compact zoom, which has an equivalent focal range of a 82.5-450mm lens, features Nikon's VR II image stabilization, a Tripod Detection Mode that steadies your image when shooting on a tripod, an HRI (High Refractive Index) lens element that helps maintain optimal contrast levels and two extra-low dispersion (ED) elements for optimizing color and reducing coma and chromatic aberrations.

Other features include a Nikon Silent Wave Motor, Nikon Super Integrated Coatings, a minimum focusing distance of 4.6' at all focal ranges and all together on the count of three—one, two, three!—9 curved aperture blades for natural, good-looking bokeh!

Add new comment

Damn!

I really wish there was a way to buy a 85 mm 1.4 without having to mortgage the house. 

Anonymous wrote:

Damn!

I really wish there was a way to buy a 85 mm 1.4 without having to mortgage the house. 

Can you live with 75mm f1.4 at a much lower price?

In a DX format DSLR, a 50mm has the same magnification as a 75mm on a standard 35mm format (FX full sized sensor) camera.

An autofocus 50mm f1.4 with a silent wave motor can be had for as little as $419.Not too bad. check here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585343-GREY/Nikon_2180_AF_S_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_4G.html

There's also a less expensive AF-D model for $274 but is not compatable with all DSLR's (not D40,D60,D3000 and D5000). check it out here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/97413-GREY/Nikon_1902_AF_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_4D.html#features

I have a D50 with a sigma 25-70mm f2.8 lens - I was just looking at these for better low natural light shooting (since that would buy me 2 f-stops or ISO settings. I am also looking to upgrade to a D300s wich has higher ISO and thus less grain per sensitivity than my D50.

Good Luck

Anonymous wrote:

Damn!

I really wish there was a way to buy a 85 mm 1.4 without having to mortgage the house. 

Let see... if you have 3 kids, and each of them has a paper route in the morning, and maybe can mow the neighbors lawn in the afternoons after school, and don't forget shoveling snow off driveways in the winter, and if we can get the lady of the house to maybe bake cookies and of course her wonderful holiday schnitzel  and knockwurst salad...

Anonymous wrote:

Damn!

I really wish there was a way to buy a 85 mm 1.4 without having to mortgage the house. 

LOL !!! Too true

AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
AF-S Nikkor 24-120m f/4G ED VR

So which of these would be a better QUALITY glass? I want an all-in-one travel type lens with the highest quality possible. These both look promising so which would take better QUALITY shots?

Toedoc wrote:

travis wrote:
AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S Nikkor 24-120m f/4G ED VR So which of these would be a better QUALITY glass? I want an all-in-one travel type lens with the highest quality possible. These both look promising so which would take better QUALITY shots?

Go with the older 18-200mm. It goes wider, it costs less and you probably won't really need the 300mm for a "travel lens."

...but keep in mind the 18-200 is a DX lens. I really believe that the trend will continue towards FX sensors, so every new lens I will buy MUST be able to cover full frame. I recently upgraded to the 70-200 2.8 because I knew that my next camera body, and the one after that, would be a full frame body. You can always throw an FX lens on a DX body, but the reverse wastes pixels.

Now if I totally switch to full frame and the trend goes to medium format, I'll be pissed!

Is this lense compatible with a Nikon D60?

 ^ first poster I agree with you. or in my case having to shell out half my quarter of tuition and rent.. arghh hopefully the old 2.8's come down in price :x hopefully..

For the all bells and whistles and price of the 24-120 zoom, it better rugged metal built with rubber sealants and not that plastic feeling stuff that Nikon puts out.  But it looks like that crappy plastic contruction.  =(

Travis, the 24-120mm would obviously be the better quality lens.

I wouldn't mind paying the high cost of pro glass if I didn't have to update my body every 2-3 years! That being said, Nikon knows that they can always count on pros (and shooters with too much money) to pay their prices. I don't think that we'll see prices go down, unless they have a backlog of supply. That's not likely to happen, as they seem to be doing an effective job of managing inventory and keep us clamoring for more product.

I'm eager to get my hands on the new 24-120. That's a great range for travel and event shooting. The constant f/4 is also a plus. If the optical quality is anything like the previous two generations of 24-120s, however, I'll stick with my Nikon 17-55 and Tokina 50-135 lenses. Both of them are excellent lenses.

What would you suggest for a macro lens on my Nikon D5000?

SkG wrote:

What would you suggest for a macro lens on my Nikon D5000?

Sure, why not... especially if you want to shoot close-ups, though I would strongly recommend you skip the 60mm and get the 200mm/4 macro Nikkor if you plan on shooting portraits of snapping turtles, rattlesnakes, or anything else that crawls and has no sense of humor.

SkG wrote:

What would you suggest for a macro lens on my Nikon D5000?

the 85/3.5 VR micro

I don't mind paying for a good lens, but I just don't get $1300 for a 24-120. I don't care if it is a constant f/4. 

Anonymous wrote:

I don't mind paying for a good lens, but I just don't get $1300 for a 24-120. I don't care if it is a constant f/4. 

If you like the Canon 24-105mm f/4L, a stellar lens by any account, then you will like the Nikon. The price is about the same as the Canon, the Nikon has the advantage of an extra 15mm on the long end. With both those types of lens for the situation it’s being used believe me that 15mm is huge. I have the Canon 24-105f/4L paired with the Canon 20D. Since I’m all Nikon now might just sell the 20D with the 24-105 and get the Nikon. Truly this is the lens I was waiting for. The version being replaced had to many negatives to get rid of the Canon set. After some tests come in and I’m hoping Nikon nailed this lens then I will buy it. The Canon 24-105f/4L is known for the best general purpose lens in Canons line up that focal length as a walk about can’t be beat. The 28-300 is intriguing but not turned on by 5.6. 

LongfellowDeeds wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't mind paying for a good lens, but I just don't get $1300 for a 24-120. I don't care if it is a constant f/4. 

If you like the Canon 24-105mm f/4L, a stellar lens by any account, then you will like the Nikon. The price is about the same as the Canon, the Nikon has the advantage of an extra 15mm on the long end. With both those types of lens for the situation it’s being used believe me that 15mm is huge. I have the Canon 24-105f/4L paired with the Canon 20D. Since I’m all Nikon now might just sell the 20D with the 24-105 and get the Nikon. Truly this is the lens I was waiting for. The version being replaced had to many negatives to get rid of the Canon set. After some tests come in and I’m hoping Nikon nailed this lens then I will buy it. The Canon 24-105f/4L is known for the best general purpose lens in Canons line up that focal length as a walk about can’t be beat. The 28-300 is intriguing but not turned on by 5.6. 

As an aside, I kinda like the rugged good looks of the “old” 85.

LongfellowDeeds wrote:

LongfellowDeeds wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't mind paying for a good lens, but I just don't get $1300 for a 24-120. I don't care if it is a constant f/4. 

If you like the Canon 24-105mm f/4L, a stellar lens by any account, then you will like the Nikon. The price is about the same as the Canon, the Nikon has the advantage of an extra 15mm on the long end. With both those types of lens for the situation it’s being used believe me that 15mm is huge. I have the Canon 24-105f/4L paired with the Canon 20D. Since I’m all Nikon now might just sell the 20D with the 24-105 and get the Nikon. Truly this is the lens I was waiting for. The version being replaced had to many negatives to get rid of the Canon set. After some tests come in and I’m hoping Nikon nailed this lens then I will buy it. The Canon 24-105f/4L is known for the best general purpose lens in Canons line up that focal length as a walk about can’t be beat. The 28-300 is intriguing but not turned on by 5.6. 

As an aside, I kinda like the rugged good looks of the “old” 85.

I'm with you on that last line. The Oldsmobile 85 was a real hottie, especially the convertibles. My friend Ernie had one back in high school. 

I have both Canon and Nikon.  My biggest complaint is that Nikon lenses feel like they are made from cheap materials.  The composite material is for weight saving and strength, but still feel like they are cheap.  Sigma got around the issue with nice satin coating over the lense body.  Why can't Nikon do the same thing and make us feel better for dropping $$$$ on it.  It's all preception but give a brother a break and make us feel like we aren't schmucks.  Btw, I prefer my canon lenses over my nikon, but prefer the nikon body over my canon.

Anonymous wrote:

I have both Canon and Nikon.  My biggest complaint is that Nikon lenses feel like they are made from cheap materials.  The composite material is for weight saving and strength, but still feel like they are cheap. 

You are obviously talking about Nikon's consumer grade lens. Stick with the pro oriented glass and you'll not be able to even remotely make comments like this.

Do I get this right, that all the news about the AF-S Nikkor 85 f/1.4G  is that it is now available with VR? Every other feature semms to be old to me?

Anonymous wrote:

Do I get this right, that all the news about the AF-S Nikkor 85 f/1.4G  is that it is now available with VR? Every other feature semms to be old to me?

The major update is having an 85 f/1.4 with an AF-S motor.  I'm sure they did all sorts of other little tweaks to the glass and design, but the AF version was already considered to be one of their very best portrait lenses, so there will be a question as to whether the new version even holds up to the old version as a portrait lens.  In other words, there was no real need to do anything to this lens other than 1. make it compatible with all nikon bodies by giving it AF-S, and/or 2. make it less expensive.  They didn't go for #2.

But it is a big update ... I love to be able to take one of my small bodies when I want a compact camera, but I hate that I can't take a bunch of my lenses because they are only AF.  Especially since an 85 f/1.4 is great in low light + about as long as you want to have to get past security for a lot of events, so a small body and one of these lenses would be a perfect setup for that.  I woud love to have it if it is as good as the old version ... maybe someday I will want to lay down all that cash.

VR on a lens this small would seem to be pretty silly to me.  I don't know if a lot of testing has been done, but it seems to me that the benefits of VR are greatly diminished when you are talking about small lenses that can easily be held steady.  I mean is it making you a stop or two faster if it is being held still?  But then again, they put vr on lenses like the 18-55, so maybe there is a reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do I get this right, that all the news about the AF-S Nikkor 85 f/1.4G  is that it is now available with VR? Every other feature semms to be old to me?

The major update is having an 85 f/1.4 with an AF-S motor.  I'm sure they did all sorts of other little tweaks to the glass and design, but the AF version was already considered to be one of their very best portrait lenses, so there will be a question as to whether the new version even holds up to the old version as a portrait lens.  In other words, there was no real need to do anything to this lens other than 1. make it compatible with all nikon bodies by giving it AF-S, and/or 2. make it less expensive.  They didn't go for #2.

But it is a big update ... I love to be able to take one of my small bodies when I want a compact camera, but I hate that I can't take a bunch of my lenses because they are only AF.  Especially since an 85 f/1.4 is great in low light + about as long as you want to have to get past security for a lot of events, so a small body and one of these lenses would be a perfect setup for that.  I woud love to have it if it is as good as the old version ... maybe someday I will want to lay down all that cash.

VR on a lens this small would seem to be pretty silly to me.  I don't know if a lot of testing has been done, but it seems to me that the benefits of VR are greatly diminished when you are talking about small lenses that can easily be held steady.  I mean is it making you a stop or two faster if it is being held still?  But then again, they put vr on lenses like the 18-55, so maybe there is a reason.

The new 85 has AF-S motors, which makes it focus faster, and Nano coatings, which based on my experience with 2 other Nano-coated Nikkors, should make this lens an outstanding optic.

As for VR, you don't really need it with an f/1.4 lens as much as you do with a lens that first starts at f/3.5 and gets progressively slower as you zoom in.

 ...but I hate that I can't take a bunch of my lenses because they are only AF. 

Why? you can certainly use the older AF lenses. You just have to manual focus. OK, that isn't convenient sometimes, but nothing prohibits their use.

People have been saying "can't use" and "incompatible" since the D40 came out, and it just isn't true. It just requires MF instead of AF.

When the D100 came out in the lens compatibility chart, Nikon mentions that older non-chipped lenses would work, but you couldn't meter them. But lenses with a max aperture of f5.6 or larger could be focus-confirmed by the rangefinder method (the green dot in the viewfinder), but folks said you CAN'T use them. A bunch of hooey.

I like AF as much as the next guy, but I also love my beautiful 50mm f1.4 AIS lens on any of my bodies, film or digital.

digitaljay wrote:

 ...but I hate that I can't take a bunch of my lenses because they are only AF. 

Why? you can certainly use the older AF lenses. You just have to manual focus. OK, that isn't convenient sometimes, but nothing prohibits their use.

People have been saying "can't use" and "incompatible" since the D40 came out, and it just isn't true. It just requires MF instead of AF.

When the D100 came out in the lens compatibility chart, Nikon mentions that older non-chipped lenses would work, but you couldn't meter them. But lenses with a max aperture of f5.6 or larger could be focus-confirmed by the rangefinder method (the green dot in the viewfinder), but folks said you CAN'T use them. A bunch of hooey.

I like AF as much as the next guy, but I also love my beautiful 50mm f1.4 AIS lens on any of my bodies, film or digital.

Yeah who needs metering too, right?  Or a viewfinder even REMOTELY designed for manual focus.  Hell, why even look through the viewfinder.

I have an original Nikkor 24-120. No VR and it's very sharp and contrasty, but at some focal lengths it bends straight lines unacceptably, and the front of the lens rotates with the zoom ring which makes using a polarizer a hassle. I hope the newest 24-120 corrects those problems. The zoom range makes it a versatile travel lens.

The new 85 does NOT have VR. From what I've been reading, a lot of pros are relieved - the feeling is that VR would likely impact the bokeh negatively (I'm not a pro, but having bought the 105 f/2 DC I'm not interested in the 85 in any case).

When will Nikon come out with the 24-70 in a VR? I really want the 24-70 lens and it is one many Nikon photographers I know use but I like the VR like my other lenses. Is it worth waiting to see if they do or just go with the 24-120 VR lens now?

I had the Nikon AF Zoom Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Autofocus Lens 72 mm filter size, what a letdown and disappointment that lens was. I traded it in within a few months,  it was not sharp, etc etc. I hope the Nikon engineers took to heart what many of the users of the previous version posted to the Nikon tech site, 77mm filter size and constant f stop. I am willing to give Nikon another try in this zoom range but I am going to have to shoot one on my D3 and D700 first before I buy it. Hope it turns out.  

Nikon has decided to confuse us, totally.

We're used, now, to identifying lenses for the smaller DX sensors by looking for the "DX" in the model name. We know that the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED is a lens for the DX bodies, and sticking it on a D3/D700 body will switch the body into using just part of the sensor. The AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, by contrast, is an FX lens, and (coincidentally) offers about the same range of angles of view on a D3 as the previous one does on a D300 (or D700 vs. D90-D3000, etc.).

So today Nikon announces a thing called a AF-S NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR.  Cool, you think, there's "standard to lengthy tele" lens for the FX users kinda like the 18-200mm is for the DX folks, right?

Nope. That's a DX lens. Does it say it's a DX lens? Nope. It pretends it's a regular old Nikkor, which have always been FX lenses (even back in the days when we called "FX" by the quaint term "Film" or 35mm)!

Sure, you may have noticed that it's an "AF-S NIKKOR ... VR" while the previous examples were "AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKORs", but that's not compelling, either: the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II is a full frame beastie, and very nice it is too.

 Bah!

Malcolm Weir wrote:

Nikon has decided to confuse us, totally.

Nope. That's a DX lens. Does it say it's a DX lens? Nope. It pretends it's a regular old Nikkor, which have always been FX lenses (even back in the days when we called "FX" by the quaint term "Film" or 35mm)!

 Bah!

Click on any of the links for this lens- look at any picture of the lens - you'll see that it's clearly marked DX

jimcdc wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:

Nikon has decided to confuse us, totally.

Nope. That's a DX lens. Does it say it's a DX lens? Nope. It pretends it's a regular old Nikkor, which have always been FX lenses (even back in the days when we called "FX" by the quaint term "Film" or 35mm)!

 Bah!

Click on any of the links for this lens- look at any picture of the lens - you'll see that it's clearly marked DX

Once you open the box, perhaps it is "clearly marked". But let's not try to pretend that Nikon has *called* it a DX lens, because they haven't -- that's why I included links to Nikon's site, not B&H Photo's, so nobody could blame B&H for Nikon's mistake.

Let's turn it around, jimcdc, and explain to us why what is clearly (and as I said) a DX lense is NOT CALLED A DX LENS.

I will wait for independent review(s) for all the lens mentioned above. The reviews sound more like advertisement and selling points.

If the price of the 24-120 f4. is $1300, Then Nikon can Keep there lens. I have been buying Nikon since 1980 and love there products. The prices have gotten to high for this old boy. I'm sure there are some photographers that can justify the high prices. They are probably few and far between.

Digital photography is advancing to fast for the average photographer to keep up with the latest equipment. You'll see the next D? this winter or next spring? Good Luck!

OMG!  $1650?? Who buys these things? Lottery winners?

nikon lenses is to EXPENSIVE..................................PERIOD

Anonymous wrote:

nikon lenses is to EXPENSIVE..................................PERIOD

To be fair and honest, all glass is expensive.  Do you think canons lenses are reasonably priced?

All these manufacturers will try to get as much money as we are willing to pay... good for them.  If you dont like it dont pay for it.  Just leave your sniveling at the door.

Joel H wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

nikon lenses is to EXPENSIVE..................................PERIOD

To be fair and honest, all glass is expensive.  Do you think canons lenses are reasonably priced?

All these manufacturers will try to get as much money as we are willing to pay... good for them.  If you dont like it dont pay for it.  Just leave your sniveling at the door.

Canon's offering for their 85mm pro glass is nearly $2000.00. I was actually surprised that Nikon's update isn't closer to that mark. 

Some photographers can easily justify spending $1700.00 for this glass, especially if they could pay for it in one job. I am not one of them at this point, but I will definitely be renting one for some of my weddings until I can comfortably afford to purchase one.

Anonymous wrote:

Joel H wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

nikon lenses is to EXPENSIVE..................................PERIOD

To be fair and honest, all glass is expensive.  Do you think canons lenses are reasonably priced?

All these manufacturers will try to get as much money as we are willing to pay... good for them.  If you dont like it dont pay for it.  Just leave your sniveling at the door.

Canon's offering for their 85mm pro glass is nearly $2000.00. I was actually surprised that Nikon's update isn't closer to that mark. 

Some photographers can easily justify spending $1700.00 for this glass, especially if they could pay for it in one job. I am not one of them at this point, but I will definitely be renting one for some of my weddings until I can comfortably afford to purchase one.

The Canon version is a larger aperature lens f/1.2 and you get a ton-o-glass hence the 2000+ price tag.  However the 1.8 version is 1\3 the price.

I love my lenses big and fast!

Anonymous wrote:

nikon lenses is to EXPENSIVE..................................PERIOD

First of all it's not 'is too expensive', but 'are too expensive'.

Secondly, there should only be 3 dots followed by a space between the words 'expensive' and 'period'.

Grammar aside, the better optics from Nikon, Canon, and the rest of the lot can get pricey, but if you truly care about getting the best image quality out of your camera sometimes you have to go the extra mile by saving up a bit longer rather than saving a few dollars up front, buying a cheaper (and usually not as sharp) lens, and never really be happy with the quality of your pictures.

I will, of course, follow the reviews from those of you who are experts, but couldn't you justify, and this hurts, $1300 for an everyday, most situations, kinda lens like the new 24-120? I am still using the original 24-120 F3.5-5.6 VR that came with my Nikon D700 on the majority of my shots. I am noticing more and more that it is not as sharp as I would like and I get lots of vignetting (although easy to correct in Lightroom). If the new lens corrects those situations and I have a major milestone birthday coming up (or if the wind blows the right way) I could justify spending the money for a lens that will go with me more times than not.

Anonymous wrote:

I will, of course, follow the reviews from those of you who are experts, but couldn't you justify, and this hurts, $1300 for an everyday, most situations, kinda lens like the new 24-120? I am still using the original 24-120 F3.5-5.6 VR that came with my Nikon D700 on the majority of my shots. I am noticing more and more that it is not as sharp as I would like and I get lots of vignetting (although easy to correct in Lightroom). If the new lens corrects those situations and I have a major milestone birthday coming up (or if the wind blows the right way) I could justify spending the money for a lens that will go with me more times than not.

The original 24-120 F3.5-5.6 VR was unfortunately never up to the challenge of delivering sharp images with the D700. The camera's sensor simply out-resolved the lens and as such made it a poor choice for use on the D700 as well as any FX-format Nikon DSLR. For APS-C sensors or film-based Nikon SLRs it was fine, but not so for the D700.

If you own or plan on owning a full-frame DSLR from Nikon or any other manufacturer, don't scrimp on the lens, because if you do, instead of enjoying your camera you'll spend all your waking hours belly-aching on-line about how unhappy you are with your camera.

I was just about to buy the AF 70-300 lens and now this new 55-300 comes out. Which one is a better lens? 

Rebecca wrote:

I was just about to buy the AF 70-300 lens and now this new 55-300 comes out. Which one is a better lens? 

Rebecca,

I was in the same situation. I was going to get a 70-300 too. I have chosen to get the 55-300 as it goes to 55 on the low end. Sometimes I think the 70 would be too long when I want to use this lens. The 70-300 advantage, it is an FX lens so you can use it on an FX camera without pixal loss.

I like some of the new features on the 55-300 like the tripod detection as well. We will see which one is better when the 55-300 actually ships. I took the gamble and pre-ordered.

I shoot horse shows and when outside the 55-200 was too short on the long end so the 55-300 will reach a little farther for me and the low end at 55 allows me to pull back when the action is closer. Should fit the bill for what I am looking to shoot. I don't have time to switch lenses when things move closer. 

JMHO

Mark

For those considering the 'new' 24-120 lens, I would strongly advise them to wait for some real-world reviews (as with all new lenses).

I owned both the original (1st generation) 24-120mm non-VR lens (which I used on an F70) as well as the 'improved' (2nd generation) VR version. The original performed well on my F70 and was a killer 'all-rounder' and 'travel' lens on a film camera - the 24mm end was sooooo useful.
Despite the loss of wide-angle usability on a DX camera, I bought the 'improved' 24-120 VR lens in 2004 (just after its release) to go with my new D70, largely on the strength of that 24-120 'Gen 1' experience, as there were not many reviews around at that time. I still have it, but it's been horribly disappointing lens - not sharp at all. It seems I'm not alone, either .. from the reviews above or even the opinions of reviewers like Ken Rockwell (love him or hate him). And as Ken rightly says, the Gen 2 lens was choc-full of the 'right' technology (VR, ED etc) and had a hefty price tag to match, so it really should've been better.

So .. even though it might look appealing (especially with the apparent rise of the FX format), one shouldn't equate the 'better' technology, the constant aperture or the heftier price tag with anything meaningful .. yet. Wait and see!

I have the old 85-1.4 lens,  I can take very amazing pictures. I hope the new one it's better especially with SWM and IF. 

Enjoy it

Yves

RE: 24-120 f/4 @$1300-- I'm happy shooting with my Nikkor 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 that I bought cheap (I could buy ten+ for one new lens)--sharp and contrasty, little distortion, not too big, works great on my D700.  When I win the lottery, then maybe....

dear sir  

   i writing in reference to my command placed and the cheque of us$45000.00

please try to infor me if you have recieved my  consament 

philip mgbatu wrote:

dear sir  

   i writing in reference to my command placed and the cheque of us$45000.00

please try to infor me if you have recieved my  consament 

Philip,

If I understand you correctly, please go to https://secure.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home/?O=myAccount&A=orderHistory&Q=orderHistory

where you are given a variety of options with regard to tracking an order.

All the best.

Hello! gabefkg interesting gabefkg site!

Pages