advertisement


New Nikkor Glass

Cliff? ;-)

-------------------

Probably won't be as good, but I'll make do with my $200 secondhand 24mm f/2.8 AIS.

Joe
 
guybat said:
Who the hell is going to pay £1,950 for a 24mm f/1.4 lens?
Click to expand...

Someone, who can only afford half the Leica 24/1.4 Summilux M! Seriously, fast wide angle primes, are hard to get right. Many wide primes are soft at the edges and vignette significantly. A fast wide lens that is sharp from edge to edge with no vignetting is expensive, period. You can then shoot in available darkness. For available light shooters, like myself, it's the only way to go. I haven't put batteries in my Metz flashgun for 3 years now.

Charlie
www.charlie-chan.co.uk
 
It's an AF-S lens right, so it's actually a 35mm equiv lens? I'd have thought there were plenty of 35/1.4 options well below this price point that could be used on a full frame camera rather than popping 2k to stick a wide fast prime on a modern digital camera.
 
Cesare said:
It's an AF-S lens right, so it's actually a 35mm equiv lens? I'd have thought there were plenty of 35/1.4 options well below this price point that could be used on a full frame camera rather than popping 2k to stick a wide fast prime on a modern digital camera.
Click to expand...

On a Nikon DX it's a 36mm f/1.4 but on Nikon FX (D3/D700) it is a 24mm f/1.4
 
I can never understand why people go all orgasmic over a "fast" lens (or "glass"). Is it willy waving?
 
Cesare said:
So what's the nikon lens designation for a DX format only lens? I've obviously not understood their naming convention (canon user here!).
Click to expand...

It will explicitly say DX in the name. AF-S NIKKOR 24MM F/1.4G ED just means Gelded (no manual aperture ring) and ED glass, so will be fine on FX.
 
When I first saw the headline on dpreview I thought it was going to be a replacement for the DX 16-85mm vrII but with a constant f/4. Not being a full-frame boy, that would have interested me (as would a 2.8 version).

Cav, fast glass makes a huge difference depending on you're subject matter. Scenic photos on a sunny afternoon - unlikely to be an issue. Scenic photos at dusk w/o a tripod (or wide shots in a cathedral for example with no flash/tripod supplied) - benefits of these new lenses.

Indoor event shots without flash on a standard zoom - huge difference between say, using one of my standard zooms at 5.6 or my 1.8s/1.4s.

Rob
 
Why don't they make any high speed zooms that also have VR? I want a high quality version of a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8 OS. Even more I want a fast version of my 18-200mm VR Nikkor!
 
Cav said:
I can never understand why people go all orgasmic over a "fast" lens (or "glass"). Is it willy waving?
Click to expand...

I didn't until I understood what is possible with the wafer-thin depth of field of a really fast lens. One of my friends who is a pro photographer has a somewhat bettered old Nippon Kogaku Nikon 55mm F1.2 and the way he can use it to put one person out of a group into sharp focus is amazing - it enables a whole aspect of composition that many lenses compromise or miss completely.

Tony.
 
Tenson said:
Why don't they make any high speed zooms that also have VR? I want a high quality version of a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8 OS. Even more I want a fast version of my 18-200mm VR Nikkor!
Click to expand...

There's the odd one - most obvious Nikkor is the 70-200 2.8 vrII I guess.

I had a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Sigma 50-150 2.8 and enjoyed the faster speed. Got rid of the Tamron as it was inconsistent and always found the Sigma range too 'middle' for DX (would be good on a second body for a wedding guy etc).

Now I find the vrII on the Nikon 16-85 is amazing- it's ridiculous what you can get away with at 16mm. My high speed stuff tends to be low-light events or people pics and I always fall back on primes - Sig 30mm 1.4, Nikon 85mm 1.8 etc
 
Tony L said:
I didn't until I understood what is possible with the wafer-thin depth of field of a really fast lens. One of my friends who is a pro photographer has a somewhat bettered old Nippon Kogaku Nikon 55mm F1.2 and the way he can use it to put one person out of a group into sharp focus is amazing - it enables a whole aspect of composition that many lenses compromise or miss completely.

Tony.
Click to expand...

Cav doesn't like things to be out of focus, he thinks we should only ever use F8+

The extra speed also makes the lower range of stops sharper - i.e. lenses often aren't sharpest when wide open, for those that worry about that kind of thing. Although I'd hope it wouldn't really make any difference on a £2K lens.
 
Cav,

Did you look at the "Days with my Father" thread? A beautiful example of what can be done with a narrow DOF.

Dan
 
50mm + lenses can look great with a wafferthin DOF, as per Dan's example. But wide-angles have such an inherently large DOF, it seems almost going against the nature of the beast.

Wide-angle accentuates the depth of what you see, so compounding that with a very shallow DOF might be a bit odd. Any examples anywhere?
 
Anex said:
Cav doesn't like things to be out of focus, he thinks we should only ever use F8+
Click to expand...

Oh for ****s sake...

What I don't like is a photo where nothing is in focus and it is claimed to be some sort of art work rather than abysmal technique, laziness, or affectation.
 
dan m said:
Cav,

Did you look at the "Days with my Father" thread? A beautiful example of what can be done with a narrow DOF.

Dan
Click to expand...

I have no problem at all with narrow dof - in fact it can be excellent. However, it can be achieved with almost any 50mm + standard lens (e,g. 1.7 or even 2.0).

If you want to spend thousands on an extra third or half or one stop - feel free.
 
I haven't thought about it that much, but even at f2 on my new s90 you have to get *really* close to get a narrow DOF. Forget it if your subject is a meter away. Now, the attraction of this new Nikon appears to me to be it is a fast 35mm on a DX sensor. 35mm isn't that wide (though not ideal for head shots). Is it more cost effective to buy this lens and a cheaper DX body, than shell out for a FFS body and a fast 35? Especially considering the camera body will be worthless in 3-5 years.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top