So, hypothetically speaking, which of these potential Nikon ultra-wide full-frame zoom lens would you prefer: A 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 G, …or a 16-35mm f/2.8 VR?
Again, hypothetically speaking, the 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 AFS-G ED could probably cost around $600-800, would be extremely lightweight, and could probably not have VR stabilization. Despite previous stigma about variable aperture zooms, it could be extremely sharp since many of Nikon’s other recent variable-aperture zooms have also been.
Oppositely, but still hypothetically, a 16-35 f/2.8 AFS-G VR would probably cost upwards of $1500-1800, would be quite heavy, and would most likely be flawlessly sharp.
So if you had to choose, which one would you prefer that Nikon make? Okay, which one would you actually BUY, if Nikon did make it?
The fact: Nikon recently filed (and was granted) a patent for a new 16-35mm f/2.8 VR design. No other information is known about this lens, and there have been no credible leaks or rumors about it, just the patent filing and the “gap” in Nikon’s current lineup left by the 14-24mm f/2.8, an expensive specialty lens, and the current 17-35mm f/2.8, which is starting to show it’s age on higher resolution DSLR sensors such as the D600 and D800.
The rumor: Nikon will be announcing a 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 in about 1-3 weeks, at the CP+ trade show in Japan. It will weigh less than 1 lb, (~14 oz?) and will have 77mm filter threads, (instead of 82mm, or a fixed hood) …but again, this is just a rumor. (From Nikonrumors.com)
Additional fact: Nikon’s current 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 is very old, an AF-D design, and is not very sharp.
It would please a lot of high-end pros to see a 16-35 f/2.8 VR from Nikon, but would Nikon simply make more money by coming out with the more affordable consumer-grade zoom?
What do you think? What lens do you wish to see? Which do you think is most likely?