Posts: 7,383
Threads: 1,634
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
33
Well, things are getting more complicated the faster you make them.
So it'll be interesting whether they can keep the quality.
Posts: 4,031
Threads: 41
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
22
It'll be interesting to see how this compares to the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 Contemporary. A little bit less range vs a bit more customization - for those willing to spend some time with the USB-dock.
Fluorine coating, Nano crystal, electromagnetic diaphragm on Nikon side, minimal distance 22 cm on Sigma side and at half the price...
Posts: 6,717
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
07-02-2015, 06:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2015, 06:50 AM by Brightcolours.)
$1,069.95. Weighs 480 grams. 72mm filter thread. 17 elements in 13 groups.
24-120mm f4.2-6 full frame equivalent.
The AF-S 24-120mm f4 VR for FF costs $1299.95, weighs 710 grams, has a 77mm filter thread and also 17 elements in 13 groups.
All in all, to me the price seems a tad elevated.
16-80mm f2.8-4 DX:
AF-S 24-120mm f4:
Posts: 2,625
Threads: 26
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
18
07-02-2015, 08:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2015, 08:27 AM by Rover.)
Yeah, pretty similar construction overall (except the layout of the seven elements towards the rear). But fast APS-C zooms have always been pretty expensive, think the 17-55. The 24-120 didn't seem that great on the long end per Markus's review anyways.
Posts: 6,717
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Quote:Yeah, pretty similar construction overall (except the layout of the seven elements towards the rear). But fast APS-C zooms have always been pretty expensive, think the 17-55. The 24-120 didn't seem that great on the long end per Markus's review anyways.
A constant aperture lens is a bit more expensive to design.
Weight is to a certain extent a good measure for price. The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 weighs 645 grams. The Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 weighs 755 grams. With 480 grams the new lens is a light weight in comparison...
Posts: 7,383
Threads: 1,634
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
33
At max. aperture it is slightly worse than the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6. However, I reckon that it is better at comparable apertures.
Posts: 4,031
Threads: 41
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
22
Do you plan to review the new Contemporary version of the already reviewed 17-70/2.8-4 macro OS some day or are the differences just too small to justify another test procedure? The optical quality appears to be close to the Nikkor 16-85
Posts: 6,717
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010