Over at Nikon rumors the telezoom makes the biggest impact according to post numbers. So, there's a demand and an interest in that lens. Nikon's strategy of putting a 2.5×* zoom against 3 Tamron / Sigmas 4× zooms will please the "strictly Nikon and nothing else" group. I don't reckon a better performance than the 3rd party lenses, but I also was amazed about the price - because the 24-70/2.8E VR follows the current trend of bringing lenses with less resolution but lightweight design / fluorite coating / fresnel elements / electronic aperture and VR for a huge bite more bucks. A 24-70/2.8 for app. 2200 $? Good luck with that, Nikon. ^_^
* if 2.5× at all. I guess, in closer distances it will be less FL-range because of it's fixed length barrel design.
I welcome those choices, we really can choose more excellent glass than we could use at a time. So, Nikon does it's traditional marketing thing and leaves the more exotic stuff like 18-35/1.8 or 24-35/2 or 15-30/4 to others, manufactures most new lenses in China (I still remember the agony when we learnt, a batch of Zeiss lenses will be made by Yashica in Japan, but "up to Zeiss standards" and not many people believed that).
Since I just start collecting experience with long lenses, I learnt it can be a good thing carrying a very lightweight 300/4 and a very less lightweight 150-600/5-6.3 (except the carrying bit
) but I'm afraid it won't happen very often. So, I'm curious about the weight of this 200-500. To me, it appears to be another lightweight lens.
And the 24/1.8? Another piece for the "only Nikon glass in front of a Nikon body" -at the same price I can get a Sigma 24/1.4 Art I don't see much reason not going for an extra ½ f-stop. But they will love it and I'm sure it's at least as good as the 24/1.4 G Nikkor, if not better.