New Nikon 10-24DX lens

[K1W1]

According to Nikonrumours it will be announced in Austria on 14 April. Why can't they announce things in Australia on 14 April while you lot sleep?

Link here (http://nikonrumors.com/2009/03/26/the-real-deal-nikon-af-s-nikkor-10-24mm-135-45g-ed-dx.aspx)

[VTEC_EATER]

I think I mentioned this in the other thread, but if I were to make the next move with ultra wide photography, it would be D700 with the 14-24/2.8. Certainly a much more pricey option than a 10-24, but probably a better option in the long run.

[K1W1]

I actually have no desire to go to or interest in FX.
From what I have seen very, very view people have the ability to get substantially better results from FX than they can from DX. You need to be pixel peeping in many cases to see a real difference. FX is a fashion statement for a lot of people I think.

[eddie_dane]

I actually have no desire to go to or interest in FX.
From what I have seen very, very view people have the ability to get substantially better results from FX than they can from DX. You need to be pixel peeping in many cases to see a real difference. FX is a fashion statement for a lot of people I think.

I agree Kiwi, for the same reason, I have no interest in the D3x. Having used the D700 for a while now, the significant advantage for me over the D200 is the high ISO performance. Since I shoot concerts, it's a big payoff but I'd still be using the D200 if it had the same performance in the dark. I certainly didn't need the extra 2megapixels

[jcon]

I dont think too many would have an interest in the D3x unless they are strictly a studio photographer. ISO isnt all that well on the D3x, in my opinion, the D3 is more realistic. ISO performance isnt the only benefit of full frame, DOF would be another.

I could also say that very very few people can get substantially better results with a DSLR than they can with a P&S. It just depends on the needs, the photographer, and the knowledge of said photographer.

FX has its benefits and DX also has its own benefits. To each their own.

[XaiLo]

I say it's what ever floats your boat, pick a camera and comparatively speaking you can make an argument for and against.

[XaiLo]

Well it's a reality folks!

[RED_Partizan]

What of the price then?

[K1W1]

What of the price then?

I hope Jeff is wrong. US$900 seems way steep that will make it close to Aus$2000 by the time Nikon Australia get their claws into it. :confused:

[swpars]

DPReview is saying 850 EUR, which will probably be about the same in USD. If I get an UWA to complement my upcoming Tamron 17-50, I may have to go the Siggy 10-20 route for price & performance.

[Rooz]

what a joke.

[faisal]

Suppose it's like a Nikon version of the Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 by the specification and price....doesn't Nikon already have one of those??

[Rooz]

yes, they DO already have one. its equally as high priced as the canon version.

[K1W1]

If the current Nikkor AF-S DX 12-24mm f/4G is selling for Aus$1699.00 (US$1240.00) and this lens has a MSRP of US$900.00 (Aus$1232.00) I can't see what the big selling point for this lens will be.
The Tokina and Sigma equivalents are all under Aus$1000.00 (US$730.00) so are Nikon Australia going to price this in the market at under $1k or are they going to call it a premium product in the $1300-$1400 range and then cause confusion with the current f4 version?

[Rooz]

buggered if i know mate. to me this is just a nonsense unless the 12-24 goes.

you know what, its like nikon sense some market hesitation or indecision about DX so they want to emphatically say "not only is DX here to stay but we're supporting it with new products aswell."

[K1W1]

Is the 12-24 f4 any good or is it a dog?

[Rooz]

great lens. overpriced is all.

[Aldor88]

Theres like million wide zooms out now :S. Im all for going wide but gimme a break! This lens is a bit too expencive for me to even consider atm.

[e_dawg]

The part that I find interesting is how the Nikon 10-24 and the Tamron 10-24 are very similar under the hood. They have something like 80% of the lens elements and optical construction the same between the two. Compare the lens diagrams for each and you'll see.

[XaiLo]

Makes you wonder?

[e_dawg]

Yeah, makes you wonder how many of Nikon's lenses are designed / produced by Tamron, and how many of Tamron's lenses are designed by Nikon.

I know that Tamron designs and makes a lot of Sony's lenses, but that's because Sony has an ownership stake in them.

Similarly, THK has an ownership stake in Pentax, so they design and make some of Pentax's lenses as well as use some of Pentax's designs.

Sigma designs and makes a couple of Olympus' lenses, etc. The list goes on.

Maybe the 10-24 isn't the only Tamron/Nikon product... :eek:

[tim11]

I hope Jeff is wrong. US$900 seems way steep that will make it close to Aus$2000 by the time Nikon Australia get their claws into it. :confused:

What makes you think it will be one cent cheaper than $2000 considering Nikkor 12-24 F/4.0 is $1400 and 14-24 F/2.8 is $2700 (from grey importer DDPhoto that is).

EDIT: never mind what I said. I thought this new one was constant F/2.8.
K1W1: I see your signature said 'photography is easy, just spend money'. That's not serious comment, is it? I think the comment is only valid if you have some photographic talent and patience to spend a lot of time with it.