Nikon's new 24-70/2.8, 24/1.8 and 200-500/5.6 are now official!

[Jørgen Ramskov]

Of course. It was merely a faint hope given the other recent lenses they have launched.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Would the 200-500/5.6 be seen as a viable polar bear Svalbard trip lens?    The weight seems reasonably manageable, but is the lens aperture sufficient in the lighting conditions expected?

[Bjørn J]

Just connect it with a D810A and crank up the ISO
More interesting is how fast and precise will the AF be on 5,6. I suppose that will depend on the camera as well.
It's an interesting lens. Let's hope the optical quality is good despite the relatively low price. They must have cut some corners somewhere.

[stenrasmussen]

They must have cut some corners somewhere.

Or perhaps they didn't on this one and instead are adding corners on their other, expensive lenses...

[Akira]

Just connect it with a D810A and crank up the ISO
More interesting is how fast and precise will the AF be on 5,6. I suppose that will depend on the camera as well.
It's an interesting lens. Let's hope the optical quality is good despite the relatively low price. They must have cut some corners somewhere.

So, you bought D810A?

I think the design is basically always fine (I haven't been disappointed with the kit lenses!).  The problem has always been the quality control.

[Bjørn J]

Not yet, Akira. But I have downloaded and studied rawfiles from D810A and D810. The difference at high ISO is very noticeable. When downsampled, the D810A matches the Sony A7II (and if you upsample A7II photos to 36 MP it will be a disaster!)
The slightly reddish colour cast that the 810A can give during general daylight photography is subject dependant, and generally not difficult to adjust if one wants to.

[Akira]

Not yet, Akira. But I have downloaded and studied rawfiles from D810A and D810. The difference at high ISO is very noticeable. When downsampled, the D810A matches the Sony A7II (and if you upsample A7II photos to 36 MP it will be a disaster!)
The slightly reddish colour cast that the 810A can give during general daylight photography is subject dependant, and generally not difficult to adjust if one wants to.

Is the red cast manageable in the current software?  So far as my understanding goes, that is similar to the IR contamination from which older digital cameras generally suffered, and is very tricky to handle in the software.  We addressed the problem using IR-cut filters.

[Bjørn J]

Some of the examples I have seen indicate that the worst is certain black fabrics, they can get a slight red/magenta tint (remeber Leica M8...).
Some flowers with strong red/purple colour might be affected. On other subjects it is almost no visible cast. I would not use the 810A for colour critical work, but for general photography I don't think it will be a big problem.

[Akira]

I used to be "happy" user of D2H, so the same tips seem to apply to D810A. 

[frankv]

Am I the only one excited over the 24mm? For me as a DX-shooter, 24mm is the sweetspot for a everyday, walk around lens. I use de 35mmDX a lot, but often wishes for a little wider FOV. So I'm really looking foreward to this.

But I still wish for a DX 24mm. Saving even 10-15% in size is valuable to me. Size difference between 35mm FX and DX is substantial, so please Nikon, give us a 24mm DX   

-frank-

[Roland Vink]

I updated my just now to include the new lenses: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html

Some comments:

AFS 24/1.8 G ED
This lens, unsurprisingly, has properties intermediate from the 28/1.8 and 20/1.8. The weight of all three lenses is nearly the same, the length also. The 72mm filter size fits neatly between the 67mm and 77mm of others, which corresponds to the increasing angle of view. It is a shame they didn't make more of an effort to standardize the filter size so that caps and polarizors could be interchangeable. The close focus limit of 0.23m also falls between the others although the maximum magnification is strangely less than the other two, if you are looking for a wide lens for closeups the 20/1.8 is a better option. Compared to the 24/1.4 it is as you would expect, a little smaller and lighter, and focuses a little closer. The table below shows a comparison with similar models:

LensName	Weight	Length	Filter	CloseFocus	Ratio
20/1.8	355	80.5	77	0.2	1:4.3
24/1.4	620	88.5	77	0.25	1:5.5
24/1.8	355	83	72	0.23	1:5
28/1.8	330	80.5	67	0.25	1:4.5
35/1.8	305	71.5	58	0.25	1:4.2

AFS 24-70/2.8 E ED VR
This lens has retained the overall appearance of its predecessor, to the point where they look almost identical - until you put them side by side. The new lens has grown in all dimensions. The older AFS 28-70/2.8 used to be known as "the beast", perhaps this name will now be applied to the new lens. It's heavier and slightly larger than the new 300/4 PF VR, and approaching the size of the old AF 80-200/2.8 zoom. The filter size has grown to 82mm, the first time Nikon have moved away from the standard 77mm filter for their pro lenses, which means caps are no longer interchangeable and buying another set of filters. This larger size is also used by Canon, Tamron and Tokina equivalents so seems to be par for the course.
I do find it strange that there are so many 24-70/2.8 models, as if all the manufacturers are following the same formula. Wouldn't it be interesting to have some variety, say a 28-80/2.8 or 20-50/2.8 for those who prefer slightly longer or shorter focal lengths?

AFS 200-500/5.6 E ED VR
An interesting addition to the lineup, giving the photographer a relatively affordable AFS super-telephoto. I suppose it could be seen as a successor to the old AI 180-600/8 ED zoom. Restriction to a relatively modest 2.5x zoom ratio, no nano-coating, no fluorine coating, modest max aperture and flimsy tripod mount suggest this lens was made to be as affordable as possible to compete with the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm zooms. The small zoom range hopefully points to good performance through the entire range. Nikon filed patents for similar zooms with a faster aperture at the short end, maybe they felt that would take sales from the 200-400/4, or would make the lens too expensive for its target audience. The size and weight is remarkably similar to the original 50-300/4.5, right down to the 95mm filter size. I was surprised the lens does not take internal filters, and I imagine 95mm filters are not cheap.

[Bjørn J]

I notice that Nikon claims that the AF in the new 24-70 is 1,5 times faster than in the current (old) model. For some that could be important.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The AF action of the current (ie., old) 24-70 is already blazingly fast. I doubt the difference to the new lens will be of any importance, but of course, needs to be checked. The AF circuitry might also handle tracking with less overshoot so be more reliable.

The MTF curves of the new 24-70 are impressive and probably translates to a superior optical performance. I have requested a review sample.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

FrankF: I fail to see what can be gained by a 24/1.8 DX. The optics would be virtually identical so the size difference would be negligible.

[pw-pix]

The AF action of the current (ie., old) 24-70 is already blazingly fast. I doubt the difference to the new lens will be of any importance, but of course, needs to be checked. The AF circuitry might also handle tracking with less overshoot so be more reliable.

There is a video out with the Nikon engineers/designers discussing the new 24-70/2.8. In it they talk about the new smaller & more powerful focus motor and it actually shows the two lenses focusing and the new one is faster. My current model 24-70/2.8 is so fast you sometimes wonder if it focused at all.   The new one must be amazingly fast.

https://youtu.be/hayHj5FX4cI