New Nikon Lenses - 24-70 2.8 VR, 24 1.8 and 200-500 5.6

[MissionMan]

Not sure if anyone saw these but some new Nikon lenses including the long awaited 24-70 f/2.8 VR

https://mynikonlife.com.au/gear/nikk...es/tech-specs/

https://mynikonlife.com.au/gear/nikk...es/tech-specs/

https://mynikonlife.com.au/gear/nikk...atures/images/

[I @ M]

Saw the email but rather underwhelmed with the offerings ( much the same as I have been by any recent Nikon announcements ) because at the projected pricing the 24-70 would have to be be an absolutely stellar lens to fend of the likes of the Tamron twin and the 200-500 seems to be a little on the short side compared to the non OEM products that are known to be producing excellent results at similar price points. I guess the 24mm will sell reasonably well to those who want that focal length and have deep wallets.

[MissionMan]

Saw the email but rather underwhelmed with the offerings ( much the same as I have been by any recent Nikon announcements ) because at the projected pricing the 24-70 would have to be be an absolutely stellar lens to fend of the likes of the Tamron twin and the 200-500 seems to be a little on the short side compared to the non OEM products that are known to be producing excellent results at similar price points. I guess the 24mm will sell reasonably well to those who want that focal length and have deep wallets.

I'm surprised about the comments on the 200-500. Pricing is pretty good (compared to the usual pricing Nikon have) for a long lens. It's definitely within the affordability realms for most users compared to the other lenses.

[I @ M]

I'm surprised about the comments on the 200-500. Pricing is pretty good (compared to the usual pricing Nikon have) for a long lens. It's definitely within the affordability realms for most users compared to the other lenses.

My thoughts on the 200-500, which I maybe should have been more detailed with, are that it offers 500mm where Sigma and Tamron go to 600mm at the long end. Yes, the Nikkor is 1/3 stop faster and will probably accept a 1.4 tc to get extra reach and hopefully provide extremely good image quality but as a bare lens it still that bit short compared to the others.

I didn't mention anything about the price of the Nikkor lens as the only indication of pricing that I have seen is USD 1400 and how that will translate to Oz pesos at a retail level is unknown to me at least at this point. The Sigma ( contemporary ) and Tamron lenses seem to have a retail point around the $1200.00 mark and there are quite a few real life images around the 'net to show how capable they are.

I am not a brand snob so if I were in the market for a tele zoom the Nikkor would have to be an outstandingly superior lens to the opposition for me to feel anything less than underwhelmed. I feel that the Nikkor will retail at a dearer price point than the opposition and that will only add more underwhelmingness ( is that a word? ) to the equation when you look at focal lengths and add the cost of a tc to the equation.

Maybe I am wrong and the lens will retail at $1200.00, Nikon will throw in a 1.4 tc as part of the deal and the images will be as good as you can obtain from a 600mm prime -----

Everybody is allowed to dream.

[MattNQ]

B&H prices quoted below
Nikon 200-500\5.6 at $1395 USD (2.3kg, 19 elements in 12 groups, f5.6-f32, internal focusing , 9 blade. 2.2m min focus, 95mm ring, sport mode VR, no mention of whether it is weatherproof, ED glass)

Sigma 150-600/5-6.3 sport is $1999 USD (splashproof, 2.8kg, 24 elements in 16 groups, f5 - f22, 9 blade, 2.6m min focus, 105mm ring,)

Sigma 150-600/5-6.3 contemporary is $1039 USD (splashproof, 1.9kg, 20 elements in 14 groups, f5 - f22, 9 blade, 2.8m min focus, 95mm ring)

Tamron 150-600/5-6.3 $1069 USD ( 1.9kg, 20 elements in 13 groups, f5 - f40, 9 blade, 2.7m min focus, 95mm ring Low dispersion glass

I'm thinking they have priced this between the two Sigmas on purpose to make the decision less clear cut.

[swifty]

The f1.8 line of Nikkors are rounding out nicely. So we now have relatively affordable 20, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85 f1.8 lenses.

The 24-70 VR looks like a beast. 82mm filter threads though. Those with large MP bodies should appreciate it but seems pretty costly, at least at the present. But since this will be a workhorse lens for the next 8 years or so of expected current model life, it might have to withstand bodies with 100+ MP in the future.

[Cage]

The f1.8 line of Nikkors are rounding out nicely. So we now have relatively affordable 20, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85 f1.8 lenses.

You missed the 28mm swifty. I know there is one because I have it, and it is an excellent bit of kit.

I'll keep an eye on the 200-500mm offering and see what the feedback is like from real life users. If it works as well with the 1.4 T/C as my 300mm f4 does it could be well worth a serious look.

I had ordered the Tamron 150-600mm but cancelled out due to re-prioritising my needs. I also have the Tamron 24-70mm and the 70-200mm and they both
well and truly deliver what I hoped for.

PS: You edited your post swifty.

[swifty]

Haha... Yea I forgot the 28/1.8G initially, had to edited it in :P
All we need now are 105 and 135 1.8's but of course those would really go with the 1.4's league.

[MissionMan]

The f1.8 line of Nikkors are rounding out nicely. So we now have relatively affordable 20, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85 f1.8 lenses.

The 24-70 VR looks like a beast. 82mm filter threads though. Those with large MP bodies should appreciate it but seems pretty costly, at least at the present. But since this will be a workhorse lens for the next 8 years or so of expected current model life, it might have to withstand bodies with 100+ MP in the future.

I think you're right. I think the new 30MP+ cameras are going to need better quality optics and I think this will have to reflect in the higher end lenses.

Also interesting to see Sigma has released what they are calling a prime quality zoom in the 24-35 f/2 which is supposed to be prime quality the whole way through the range. Initial reports are fairly good on it.

[arthurking83]

Saw the email but rather underwhelmed with the offerings ( much the same as I have been by any recent Nikon announcements ) because at the projected pricing the 24-70 would have to be be an absolutely stellar lens to fend of the likes of the Tamron twin .....

my suspicions are that the Nikon 24-70VR will be the 24-70 of choice.
Yeah price is monumental, but going by recent testing by LR, Canon's newer (that Nikon's older 24-70) is overall better in many respects.

So Nikon HAVE to counter this obviously glaring issue to start with.
As you know I have the Tammy, and love most of it's abilities .. i.e. have no inclination to have a better lens(I'm not that anally retentive )

But Nikon did need a new version of this lens to be a lot better overall than the currently fantastic version simply for the probability of future cameras that place greater demand on optics!

I the past most lens designs have performed well enough to last for a 20 or more year life cycle.
That the current 24-70 has only lasted 7 years when the decision to update it must have been made, is surely a sign of more pixels to come

I passed out when I read of this supposed pricing of the 200-500! took me a few minutes to recover ... a new cheap!! Nikon lens .. <expletive>ing unbelievable
(there goes the global warming issue!.... hell has just frozen over folks! )

[Cage]

I wish I'd held off on getting the 28mm as I'd much rather have the 24mm.

And I'm with Arthur re the Tamron 24-70mm. Does all I ask of it and does it very well.

OK, the Tamron has some distortion at the wide end and the Nikon not very much, but for the difference in price I can live with that and usually work around it.

[arthurking83]

.....

OK, the Tamron has some distortion at the wide end and the Nikon not very much, but for the difference in price I can live with that and usually work around it.

my thoughts exactly!
Perfectly suited for almost any situation now and into the short term future.

The issue will be the long term future for a lens like the Tammy.
If Nikon create a higher resolution (100Mp or more) camera, obviously the lens with the lower resolution performance will be the one that is made redundant earlier.

And no matter what, I think even for such a short focal length lens .. the VR is a massive advantage. It's easy to turn off, but handy for use if needed.

I think the 82mm front filter diameter(and hence larger diameter front element) is the clue to this lenses performance.

Same with the 200-500.

Those physical properties allude to better overall resolution performance than current lens offerings.
If it turns out that neither of those lenses performs better(than current offerings) .. Nikon have a major issue on their hands!

The 24/1.8 is home free tho. It doesn't really compete with much else really, so it's relative performance is only against itself.
To a lesser degree comparable with Sigma's 24/1.4, but really only due to prices being similar.
The differences can be argued to be advantageous to one or the other and are different enough that one is better than the other in different ways. (eg. Nikon lighter and slightly smaller, Sigma faster .. etc).

There will always be a faboi somewhere that will shout loud and hard .. and I'm no fan of these time wasters.
I'm more prosaic with such matters.
If it's good enough and price is reasonable, it's great.
If it's cheap but crap, it's useless.
if it's exceptional but unaffordable .. it's useless.

Hopefully the 200-500 will be better than the rest within by comparison.
But my thought processes follow a line of reasoning that the entire possible process of any purchase has to be taken into consideration.
And even if the 200-500 is more able than the Sigma 150-600 Sport, the configurability of the Sigma lens via the optional USB dock is almost certainly to be a better overall system.

Until other manufacturers get it into their heads that in some(generally many) situations, some of us simply want to have control over our devices.
It's the way the world is headed and they need to be receptive to it!

[Cage]

Arthur, I love my 28 1.8G, use it lots.

I also use it for astro shots and that extra 4mm would be a bonus. (Where less is more )

[arthurking83]

Arthur, I love my 28 1.8G, use it lots.

I also use it for astro shots and that extra 4mm would be a bonus. (Where less is more )

do you research the lens characteristics before making a purchasing decision.
Obviously in this situations astigmatism specifically.
That is the lenses ability to render the image at the edges of the frame.
Astigmatism is where the point sources(so in your situation stars .. remember they're supposed to be round points) are rendered strangely. They get rendered as triangle shapes instead(as a common description).

They may not be specifically blurry as such, but just not rendered as stars should be.

The most obvious question to go with that tho is, do you even care about such matters!

[Cage]

I actually do a lot of research before I buy a lens. I check various forums for user feedback, and also sites like LensTip, DxOMark and Photozone.

And I was having a seniors moment above ( ) when I mentioned the 24mm f1.8G, as the lens I meant to refer to was the 20mm f1.8G which, according to LensTip, has negligible astigmatism.

And it has good sunbursts which should be good for the brighter stars.

[arthurking83]

I actually do a lot of research before I buy a lens. ....

As I suspected you would

Another great site for lens reviews is Lensrental's blog area.

All info is good, and they all may differ a little on what's good what's great and what's fantastic, but LR is the only site that gives you some guts on expected sample variation for any given product.

If you go there there is a good article on how to interpret MTF graphs and decide for yourself how good astigmatism is for any given lens type, plus the added bonus of why you would never rely on just the one lens for stuff like sharpness and astigmatism(again back to the topic of sample variation).

The other thing I like about LRs data is that they don't rely on the results for any given camera(any more) and use pure lens data to conclude their results.
This difference (nowadays) is significant.

As an aside but still related to the topic .. have a quick look at some of their recent blogs on just how bad Nikon(lenses) fare in terms of sample variation!

[glennb]

still early days but I think the 200-500mm looks a bit disappointing, I personally would rather pay 1k-1500 more and have a 200-400mm that is significantly sharper than the tammy and siggy, or at least not "debatable". Think there is still room for a 400mm 5.6 in Nikons line up me hopes.

[mongo]

the 200-500 is between $1800 and $2000 Aus dollars. Mongo was ready to buy a sigma or Tamron for travel purposes until this lens was announced. The 100mm less than the other two lenses is on no real consequence. If the lens is a very good performer - it is worth a serious look. However, , if it is no better than the other two, then, Mongo will go back to his original plan and likely to choose the sigma over the Tamron but would probably be happy with either of the third party lenses in that case. Let's see what all those lens test people have to say. Mongo is shocked that none of them seem to have taken the new 200-500 for a test drive. They are usually given advance copies to try out very quickly after the announcements.

[arthurking83]

.... If the lens is a very good performer - it is worth a serious look. ....

judging by Nikon's expectations of this lens via the published MTF chart, it should render very well.

While it's impossible to compare MTF charts from different manufacturers(ie. this Nikon vs Sigma's 150-600's MTF) you would expect that Nikon uses consistent methodology across their own products(at the least).

So it's not unreasonable to expect that Nikon's lens MTF charts are comparable.

So taking that as a a given, the 200-500 at 200mm(wide end) looks better at 200mm overall than the 200-400/4 .. and at 500mm, it's showing a clear advantage in the centre resolving higher at the 30lp/mm result and only really dropping just below out to the corners of the image frame.
So if you shoot with your subject at the centre of the frame, the 200-500 should resolve more detail than the 200-400/4.

To me this only means one thing .. Nikon is certain to be working on a replacement 200-400 lens.
(no way in hell would they allow a situation to continue where a cheaper consumer type lens to be equal to. let alone exceed a top end pro oriented lens by comparison)

of course the 200-400 is still a top notch lens, and the advantage of that extra stop of light is always an advantage(other than for size/weight).

But I think the 200-400 will soon have fluorite lens elements very soon(as has been predicted elsewhere too mind you).

Note tho that while Nikon publishes fantastic looking MTF charts, they don't always equate to real world instances. See Lens Rental's blog for more info.

[mongo]

thanks Arthur. Mongo has not yet seen (or knows where to find the MTF for the new 200-500). He does agree that at least, Nikon is internally consistent with its MTF charts of its own products. However, Mongo has noticed that those charts are usually at the 30lp/mm and not at the more universally used 50lp/mm. Not sure if the 150-600 Sigmas and Tamrons are using 30 or 50lp/mm but Mongo would like to compare apples with apples in this regard


UPDATE - have found MTF charts and attached below. Have to agree with most of Arthur's interpretation of the charts re both lenses. However, still interested how this lens stacks up against its real opposition - the Tamron and the Sigma

200-500mm-f5.6-VR-MTF-.jpg
200-400-f4-VR-MTF-.jpg