Comments on: Nikon AF-S 10-24MM F/3.5-4.5G ED DX Lens http://www.photographybay.com/2009/04/13/nikon-af-s-10-24mm-f35-45g-ed-dx-lens/ The latest in digital photography and camera reviews, news and rumors for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and more. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:12:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Micah http://www.photographybay.com/2009/04/13/nikon-af-s-10-24mm-f35-45g-ed-dx-lens/#comment-157180 Micah Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:24:58 +0000 http://www.photographybay.com/?p=5220#comment-157180 I get this completely. There was nothing like the 12-24 when it came out. Since then several superior third party lenses have come out at much lower prices. The 12-24 is a dog in my opinion. If this lens is even a little sharper, they'd be wise the drop the 12-24 in favor of this lens. And variable aperture doesn't equate to crappy optical performance. If it did, the 12-24 would be a superior lens to the 10-20 Sigma. Having shot with both and owned the 10-20 for several years, I can say that this is not the case. MSRP is what people will pay in advance and for the first few months. If Nikon manages to meet demand levels with production, this will probably drop at least $100 by xmas. I get this completely. There was nothing like the 12-24 when it came out. Since then several superior third party lenses have come out at much lower prices.

The 12-24 is a dog in my opinion. If this lens is even a little sharper, they’d be wise the drop the 12-24 in favor of this lens.

And variable aperture doesn’t equate to crappy optical performance. If it did, the 12-24 would be a superior lens to the 10-20 Sigma. Having shot with both and owned the 10-20 for several years, I can say that this is not the case.

MSRP is what people will pay in advance and for the first few months. If Nikon manages to meet demand levels with production, this will probably drop at least $100 by xmas.

]]> By: Zach Matthews http://www.photographybay.com/2009/04/13/nikon-af-s-10-24mm-f35-45g-ed-dx-lens/#comment-157056 Zach Matthews Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:50:12 +0000 http://www.photographybay.com/?p=5220#comment-157056 I don't get this one. While I am very happy to see Nikon working on ultra-wide lenses, I just don't see the specs on this lens being sufficiently different from the 12-24mm f/4 DX already in production at $1100. Essentially, you get a $200 discount for a variable-aperture lens (not especially important on a lens you're going to shoot at f/16 most of the time anyway). But, my beef is that it's still $900! My best guess is, Nikon was trying to make this lens for closer to $600, in order to keep prosumers in a DX body and buying DX lenses. I suspect the DX lineup has a higher profit margin for Nikon due to primarily relying on old R&D and lower build qualities, so it makes business sense to maximize DX sales, especially now at the end of the design cycle when DX technology is long since paid for. But it looks like they couldn't do it - the same factors making the 12-24 f/4 an expensive $1100 lens are working against this one (large front element size, necessity of having very optically clear treatments to avoid vignetting at the edges). So I'm kind of meh on this. It just seems duplicative. Or a very small step at best. I don’t get this one. While I am very happy to see Nikon working on ultra-wide lenses, I just don’t see the specs on this lens being sufficiently different from the 12-24mm f/4 DX already in production at $1100. Essentially, you get a $200 discount for a variable-aperture lens (not especially important on a lens you’re going to shoot at f/16 most of the time anyway). But, my beef is that it’s still $900!

My best guess is, Nikon was trying to make this lens for closer to $600, in order to keep prosumers in a DX body and buying DX lenses. I suspect the DX lineup has a higher profit margin for Nikon due to primarily relying on old R&D and lower build qualities, so it makes business sense to maximize DX sales, especially now at the end of the design cycle when DX technology is long since paid for. But it looks like they couldn’t do it – the same factors making the 12-24 f/4 an expensive $1100 lens are working against this one (large front element size, necessity of having very optically clear treatments to avoid vignetting at the edges).

So I’m kind of meh on this. It just seems duplicative. Or a very small step at best.

]]>