Camera Labs

If the 24-120 is well reviewed, I could be interested in that lens. I'd hope Nikon won't drop a ball and make another 24-105 with this new one.

_________________
Nikon D700 | 20mm f2.8 | 28mm f2.8 | 50mm f1.8 | 70-300 f4-5.6 | SB800 | flickr | serial photography

And my 55-200mm is rather nice or my eyes are getting older.

Agreed. It is a very nice lens for the money, except for the lens snobs, that is.

_________________
Nikon D300 D80 D40 18-55mm 18-70mm 18-135mm 55-200mm 18-200mm 28mm 2.8f 50mm 1.8f 85mm 1.8f
Panasonic DMCFZ28 Slik Pro 700DX

I know a little about a lot, a lot about little and everything about nothing.

Well, they've been officially announced.

http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2010/08 ... 300-03.htm

I think I'll stick to saving up for the 24-70 f2.8. More useful for me than the 24-120 f2 I reckon. The old 16-35mm f4 though, I shall most definitely be having that when funds allow.

_________________
Nikon D700 | 20mm f2.8 | 28mm f2.8 | 50mm f1.8 | 70-300 f4-5.6 | SB800 | flickr | serial photography

I've checked the prices in the German press release and added/corrected the information in the first post. All prices included 19% VAT!
And here are the MTF charts:
85/1.4G:

Not too shabby for f/1.4, pretty flat up to 17mm and a little better than the old version

24-120 VR (wide, tele):

Looks like an improvement over the old one, but have to find the old MTF-charts first

28-300 VR (wide, tele):

As an 11x zoom this lens is bound to have compromised IQ and the charts look it. It even looks worse than the 18-200 DX at the extreme ends.

55-300 VR DX (wide, tele):

That looks similar to the 55-200 VR DX at the extreme ends, but the interesting point will be how the new lens performs between say 80mm and 240mm. Only a professional test will tell.

Next up we'll have a look at magnification and the dreaded shrink-factor©®™

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Lens, max. magnification, at min distance -> shrink-factor©®™:
85, 1:8.3@0.85m -> 0.95x = only very little shrink
24-120, 1:4.2@0.45m -> 0.58x = shockingly shrinking (behaves like a 70 mm at closest focus distance and longest focal length)
28-300, 1:3.1@0.5m -> 0,31x = absurdly shrinking (behaves like 90 mm lens)
55-300, 1:3.6@1.4m -> 0,79x = reasonably shrinking (behaves like 240 mm lens)

I personally find magnifications of around 1:3 - 1:4 quite useful for my type of photography.
__________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D300+assorted lenses

Can someone explain how to read MTF charts?

_________________
Nikon D700 | 20mm f2.8 | 28mm f2.8 | 50mm f1.8 | 70-300 f4-5.6 | SB800 | flickr | serial photography

VR requires more for the motors to turn. 1.4 glass is already gigantic enough as it is...

to me the best thing about the 85mm is the focus accuracy. af-s is usually much much faster and accurate.

_________________
WHO I AM BLOG, WHAT I DO BLOG
Facebook
*most of my photos nowadays come with a blog post. Please take some time and stop by

I'll do a write-up one day, Welly: "MTF-charts for Dummies"
But suffice it to say the higher the values/lines the better the contrast is. And a value of 1 means 100% contrast (like the original).
On the X-axis is the distance from the optical center in mm - so 0mm is center, 14mm is corner of DX, 21mm is corner of FX-sensor.
__________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D300+assorted lenses

Cheers Thomas! I shall look forward to the guide!

_________________
Nikon D700 | 20mm f2.8 | 28mm f2.8 | 50mm f1.8 | 70-300 f4-5.6 | SB800 | flickr | serial photography

If you are interested in the technical aspects of lens sharpness – Shneider Crutchsnatch (the best lens manufacturer in the world) has a nice page up that explains it quite well:

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/knowhow/digfoto_e.htm

"Shneider Crutchsnatch"
---
To elaborate further, the better looking (=higher/red) lines indicates the performance = contrast at an image-resolution of 10 line-pairs per mm and the lower lines (blue) are normally at 30 line-pairs per mm resolution. Just for comparison a 12MP DX camera like the D300 has around 90 line-pairs/mm, a 12MP FX body like the D700 has around 60 line-pairs/mm.
And the difference between the dotted and the solid line shows the "astigmatism" of the lens: The resolution depends on the orientation of the structure: normally lines that run through the image-center (sagittal) are resolved better than lines that are tangential (meridional) to the image circle. If the lens has little or no astigmatism the solid line and the dotted line are very close. As there is no astigmatism in the center both the meridional and the sagittal lines start at the same point. But make no mistake: The worse=lower line of both determines the impression of sharpness you have on the lens in my experience.

That's it in a nutshell.

Addendum:
(1) Those MTF charts are always for the lens wide open. So you're comparing apples and oranges when you see the chart of an f/1.4 lens right beside a f/4.0 lens (as I've posted above).
(2) MTF = Modulation Transfer Function. Meaning: how good is the modulation (changing brightness) of the subject transferred through the lens without loss of contrast.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

After looking at some first shots, my mindset is as follows:

I'm still undecided

(1) 85/1.4G sounds good, but it's pretty close to the 50/1.4G. And I'm still on the 35/2.0D.
A nice walk-around combo would be a new 35/1.4G with the 85/1.4G - but that would surely make my 50/1.4G collecting dust on the shelf ::)
On the other hand there is the 24/1.4G which would be a nice complement to the 50/1.4G. But as I'm aiming to convert to FX soon(er or later) I'm not sure how much I would really need the 24/1.4G. I think my wide-angle needs are very well covered by my 14-24/2.8 then.
So Nikon: bring on the new 35/1.4G and I'll think about the 85/1.4G too.

(2) As to the super 11x FX-zoom: I own and love the 18-200 on my D300 still as in some situations I just mount it and I'm done. Being a cheapo I still think that with a new higher res FX body (a'la D700x with 16-18MP) I would be happy to use the 18-200 in DX-mode before investing another 1000€ in another Jack-of-all-trades.

(3) Regarding the 24-120, again: if results are mediocre at best, I'm already covered. If there is a surprise after professionally testing the lens I might reconsider, because 24mm on FX is normally wide enough for my purposes and 120mm is not too shabby either

(4) The DX 55-300 zoom: no thanks: I'm not going to invest in DX-lenses any more
__________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D300+assorted lenses

Interestingly (or typically?) Ken Rockwell is thinking the 85/1.4G is an ED lens: "Nikon calls this the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G ED"
He could have easily seen on the product-photo he displayed that this is not the case.
Only all the other (cheaper) new lenses have ED glass
Btw.: The 85/1.4 is now equal in the poll to the 24-120/4.0. Will be interesting which lens pulls ahead in the end...
__________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D300+assorted lenses

Having had a closer look at the sample images of the 28-300mm here, I'm quite impressed what Nikon did achieve!
The MTF figures didn't look too good, but the images are certainly nothing to scoff at
Would be interesting to pit this lens against the 24-120mm!
__________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D300+assorted lenses

hey,these are pretty good results for such a huge focal range...it looks like a better walk around lens than the 24-120

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here