The new zooms and their weight

[imajin]

Has anyone noticed the new zooms' specs on weight?

24-70  -  approx. 2.45 lbs.
14-24  -  approx. 2.20 lbs.

while the...

17-55  -  approx. 1.63 lbs.
28-70  -  approx  1.90 lbs.

It doesn't seem to be ridiculous compared to previous design and the physical gains in each, but wow.
I'm guessing it'll all be worth it.

[nfoto]

The new lenses are very beautifully made and in particular the 14-24 has a lot of glass inside. Just seeing that huge bulbous front of the 14-24 prepares you for the weight

Both lenses handle well however, so I doubt future buyers will pay much attention to the weight alone. I certainly did not object to their heft, since this in fact made shooting with them easier on the D3.

[KliftonJK]

Bjørn,
  I can sell you some lead weights for your 17-35mm if that makes you feel better about its performance on the D3.

  I'm just looking forward to seeing how they perform on the FX sensor in comparison to the 17-35mm / 28-70mm... Not that the two lenses directly relate with the new offerings, but the 17-35mm has held reign for so long it will be interesting to see.

  Downside is, I already have the 17-35mm, having to save up for a 14-24mm could take a while.

  Upside is, I utilize the range of the 17-35mm much more than I could the 14-24mm (except for some tasks).

  The 24-70mm interests me most if its f/2.8 performance matches its MTF and the rest of its capabilities are in line with the 28-70mm (in particular the minimal distortion and creaminess) then the 24-70mm might just put a hit in the pocketbook. I am very glad for the 24mm wide end (makes it more capable on a DX sensor and into the wide angle realm on FX)... I'm surprised they did not include VR on the 24-70mm however.. Not that I use VR even when it's there ,but feature wise, it seems this would have put a bigger hit to the sensor based stabilization systems as well as one-upping Canon...

  But when you have auto ISO up to 6400, maybe they figured it wasn't required.

[nfoto]

I might have the opportunity to shoot both 14-24 and 24-70 on a D3 tomorrow. Still no news of my own copy of D3, however. I don't like waiting.

[KliftonJK]

Well give us some hint to their performance if you do.

I don't like waiting either. I just want the D3 to be here already!!

I'm also anxious to see your reviews... Of course, that'll be a while off yet... Just hope no hard drive gremlins attack!

[nfoto]

The "hard" gremlins are always present, when you have multi-terrabyte systems running. I just spent the better part of two days restoring the contents of a 2TB RAID-5 drive that failed on two disks simultaneously. Ouch. I have backups of course (RAID is NOT a backup), but getting everything back to the original locations still takes time. Especially when several hundred GBs worth of images  had to be reloaded from CDs and DVDs - man, am I tired of being a disc jockey   I comfort myself that I had intact backup tapes with most of the data on them, so was up and running fairly quickly after the crash. It's just the final uploading that annoys me, but I have just a handful of DVDs left by now.

If I wake in time tomorrow morning, the D3 is waiting for a spin. But I have used several of them already so it's my personal camera that I want to have. Can't play around with epoxy glue on a sample camera......

[KliftonJK]

Wow, that sounds like a terrible thing, I think I'm going to go straight home and backup my hard drives!

Makes ya wish for film again sometimes.

What do you think of online storage backup? I realize its not the cheapest but it may be more efficient and stable in the long run? I don't know...

What? The D3 has functions to glue up? I just want to put the 85mm f/1.4D on the D3 and cue the "ooooh" At least I hope I cue the "oooh" because if the 85mm doesn't work the way I hope it will on the D3, I'll be disappointed.

[nfoto]

Last time I checked, the storage capacity on my networks was approx. 20 TB. Not something you wish to have on-line (and *pay* for).

Film is much more vulnerable than digital. I could spend days telling horror stories about what can -  and did  - go wrong with film.

There will always be something on any camera that judiciously applied epoxy can improve.

[rvink]

Has anyone noticed the new zooms' specs on weight?

24-70  -  approx. 2.45 lbs.
14-24  -  approx. 2.20 lbs.

 while the...

17-55  -  approx. 1.63 lbs.
28-70  -  approx  1.90 lbs.

It doesn't seem to be ridiculous compared to previous design and the physical gains in each, but wow.
I'm guessing it'll all be worth it.

The weight for the 24-70 is right, it's not heavier than the 14-24. I don't know the value in pounds but here are the metric weights:

28-70 - 935g
24-70 - 900g  (lighter than the 28-70)

 and...

14-24 - 1000g (I'm not surprised this lens is big and heavy)
17-35 - 745g
17-55 - 755g
14/2.8 - 670g

[KliftonJK]

20 TB?

Wow!

I thought my 850GB of photos was massive to keep track of, lol.

[Vivek]

The 14-24 fascinates me the most.  I will even overlook the sad fact that it is only a G lens- if it delivers.

I look forward to your views on that, Bjørn.

[nfoto]

The 14-24 is the one that interests me most as well. I'll purchase one as soon as I've verified its quality.

[Dallas]

Spoke to local Nikon rep yesterday and she says that here in South Africa we can expect the new stuff at the end of November. Pricing is expected in the next two weeks.

[LostWolf]

Bjørn, a short question: I have been wanting to buy the beast for a while, but decided to wait due to the announcements. Am I understanding you correctly (obviously I am only basing that on you saying the 14-24 is the one that interests you most, which can mean alot of different things) that you dont think the difference in quality between old beast and new beast is so big (if anything can be said about this at the moment)?

[nfoto]

I regard the 14-24 as being a versatile 18mm lens. This is something different form my 17-35 which I regard as a 24mm giving +- adjustments. As to the 24-70, I do own the 28-70 and see little or no reason to replace it with a newer design.

[nfoto]

Shot another D3 today with the AFS 600/4 VR and 24-80/2.8 AFS. Both were production level items and both delivered astonishing results on the D3. The 600 focused swiftly even in dim llight. I did a series up to 25600 ISO to show the high-ISO performance to the public attending that event and had the strange experience of a camera telling me it ran out of shutter speeds  in dim light: "HI" at f/4, @ 25600 ISO - I had to stop the lens down to get the speeds within the fastest 1/8000 sec. Now, that is a new dimension for most of us 

 The previous 24-70 I used in Tokyo was pre-production and showed severe flare issues, not so with  this production copy. Images were crisp and clear across the entire frame, geometric distortion on the D3 looked minimal or negligible, and CA virtually non-existent. Sorry, embargo on D3 images so you need to take my words for this.

I spent the better part of an hour with my old favourite AFS 17-35/2.8 on the D3 to see whether it behaved in a civilised manner. As far as I could ascertain, no severe issues with vignetting or CA occurred. I'll rerun this lens and a number of other again when I receive my personal D3 later.

This concludes the report from the Norwegian jury.

[Vivek]

Thanks for the preview, Bjørn!

Isn't it a shame that D3 has poor UV response?  With all that high ISO performance!!!

(ISO400 is tops on the cams I use for any color UV captures.  Monochrome is a different story though.)

[nfoto]

Isn't it a shame that D3 has poor UV response?  With all that high ISO performance!!!

Indeed. That's why I asked for a D40 as payment for today's performance ....

[KliftonJK]

Thanks for sharing!!

You sound a lot more optimistic on the 24-70mm than previously...

So, the ISO performance of the D3 @ 25,600, where in the range does it compare to the D200? Any guesses?

It's good to hear the positive performance of the 17-35mm on the D3... this is extremely encouraging!

Now I just hope the 85mm f/1.4D is positive!

C'mon D3!!!

[nfoto]

Still not have had the opportunity to run comparisons directly, but my impression is that 6400 on D3 is cleaner than 800 on the D2X, and 25600 looks more or less as 1600. All of this will be tested throroughly later, of course. For the D300, my guess at this time is that 3200 is on the level of 800 for D200, but take this statment with a big pinch of salt. Since we now use cameras with embargo on the jpgs and  no RAW converter is currently available, too much remains speculative.