Now tha Canon announces 24-70/f4 IS zoom lens. I hope Nikon is not too far behind with a f4 VR zoom of its own. And it will make a trisome, 16-35/24-70/70-200mm F4 VR, a dream set for FX shooters of all strips.
Perhaps I should have expected something like this, but I didn't. It seems like Nikon and Canon both feel their professional and prosumer customers want a higher quality product and are willing to pay a higher price for it.
Given that the Canon wants $1499 for this new 24-70mm f/4L and under $1200 for its 24-105mm f/4L, it'll be interesting to see a) what the quality difference turns out to be, and b) how well it sells.
One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it. - Galen Rowell
If Nikon produced a similar lens, I'd pick it up in a heartbeat (with the presumption that it's optical performance was stellar)... but probably not that at that price.
For me, the lower weight is something I'd appreciate more than the speed lost, but the image quality needs to be there regardless.
That being said, the Canon f4 is only 200g less than the Canon f2.8 (at least according to the data at B&H).
Would be nice if Nikon always made two version of their pro-grade lenses, both with superb optical performance, but one optimized for speed (and the weight would have to become what is required to attain that), and one optimized for size/weight (where the speed would be dictated by the size/weight goal).
Having zooms so the ranges not overlap would be a pedantic exercise. Judging by the distortions on the 24-85, combining true wideangle with telephoto is too demanding. If I were making a zoom range from scratch I'd prefer to start from a kind of 17-35, though I've still to use one myself.
I prefer it when the zoom range overlaps a little. It means you don't have to change quite so often and less need for zooming with your feet, which is not always possible for the mountainous terrain in which I often shoot.
so 16-35, 24-120, 70-200 all f4 and gold ring lenses makes sense to me as a landscape shooter where high image quality is essential but you also value portability much more than the f2.8 speed.
I don't see the need for a 24-70 f4VR in the Nikon range. this new Canon 24-70 f4L is going to have to offer stellar image quality to gain market traction against well respected existing 24-105L and 24-70 f2.8L offerings.
If Nikon is going to do anything in this arena it probably needs to look at VR implementation on the 24-70 f2.8 lens.
I'd be more in favour of something a bit more akin to the old 28-105 AF-D. Say a 24-105 AF-S VR, or even a 28-105 AF-S VR if going down to 24 means more distortion, which the older design does really have little of.
And it could keep the "almost macro" capabilities of the older design too. I'd have trouble resisting that one, exactly as now I have trouble resisting the 70-200/4!
Olivier Rychner __________________________________________ Jetez un oeil à ma galerie if you feel like it! And it's a bit void as of now, but I also have a Nikonians blog
Auta i lomë! And my Nikon's only awaiting daylight...
A 24-70 2.8 VR is long overdue. Nikon seems to focus on low end VR for many new lenses. Canon has been putting IS into all classes of lenses for almost a decade. It is hard to say why Nikon can't keep up.
Compared to a variable aperture zoom, usually in the f/3.5-5.6 range, fixed aperture zooms at f/4 seem like a logical lower cost alternative to expensive, heavy f/2.8 zooms . Many people can't afford the cost, nor want to carry the weight of the premier lenses.
This isn't the same as asking for a f/4 prime in a short focal length (400mm is another matter). There is no clear advantage to one of those in terms of cost, weight or size.