advertisement


New Nikkor Glass

I'm not sure I have. Vey few people actually need a fast lens, but quite a few desire one.

Even putting to one side the output differences of flash vs natural light, you mean like...

...in a museum/cathedral/gallery where flash and tripod are forbidden

...at an event (wedding, dance etc) where flash is forbidden or would ruin the ambience

...any shot where you are looking to control dof (portraits, street shots, product shots)

...scenic shots in low light where you aren't carrying a tripod (as an example I've carried my lightweight 'pod around the tour du mont blanc (glutton for punishment) but wasn't willing to go through the hassle when hiking the torres del paine in Chile),
 
Vey few people actually need a fast lens

You seem to know a lot about what 'people' need.
Are you saying you've never wanted an extra stop or so when it started getting dark outside?
If the extra stop was available, 'people' would use it.
 
Of course there are circumstances where a fast lens is useful, but many of those listed above aren't really suitable for narrow DOF shots. Landscapes and interiors don't really work at large apertures unless you're picking out details.

So if you don't want to carry a tripod, prop the camera on something and use a self-timer or cable release to reduce shake. Much cheaper than spending £2K on fancy lens.
 
Of course there are circumstances where a fast lens is useful, but many of those listed above aren't really suitable for narrow DOF shots. Landscapes and interiors don't really work at large apertures unless you're picking out details.

So if you don't want to carry a tripod, prop the camera on something and use a self-timer or cable release to reduce shake. Much cheaper than spending £2K on fancy lens.

Granted, using large apertures for interior or landscape is normally a compromise and I'd much prefer to have my trusted humble beanbag than nothing at all. I do think it's a little silly being 'anti-fast lenses', 'anti-tripod' or 'anti-flash' - I suspect many people (includling myself) own, value and use all three.

Edit: incidentally, there was the mention of vr earlier in the thread. I had Nikon's VRI on a couple of lenses and wasn't convinced. Last year I was using their 16-85 vrII lens and was hugely impressed by the shutter speeds I could get away with (this was in a cathedral) at the wide end, leaning against a pillar - far better than I'd have managed without the vrII
 
Of course there are circumstances where a fast lens is useful, but many of those listed above aren't really suitable for narrow DOF shots. Landscapes and interiors don't really work at large apertures unless you're picking out details.

Although landscapes can be fine as long as everything is out past infinity.
 
Never understood why the Canon lenses I used to own let you go passed infinity on the focus ring. Seems a bit odd.

Long focal length manual lenses often go past infinity (at least the 400mm one I have does), and is supposedly to compensate for temperature expansion/contraction so I believe.
 
Thanks. I've never noticed the infinity point moving on any of my lenses. Maybe I haven't been anywhere hot / cold enough.
 
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?

A crappy old Canadian 35mm F1.4 Summilux with a cracked finger grip and a bent hood is my "standard lens" on my M9. It was less than 25% of the price of the new Nikkor and every bit as good optically as the £4K 24mm Summilux.

Plenty of people buy the 24mm Lux to go on the M8 as a standard lens for available light photography. I think there are fewer takers for the 21mm lens except maybe for people who want to shoot wide landscapes or urban scapes in low light. But the new Nikkor would be a handy lens on say a Nikon D300S

24mm isn't quite wide enough for my needs on an FX sensor, so I use a 20mm AF-D Nikkor which does pretty spectacular bokeh at F2.8, so I guess the new 24mm would do even better bokeh at F1.4
 
But a super wide isn't about defocus, it's about getting up close and really, really personal. Philip Jones Griffiths vs Peter Lindbergh...
 
Well Joel, I think all photo equipment is about possibilities, so you can use a 24/1.4 as a landscape lens or as a street photography lens or as a portrait lens or for still life or...or...or
 
Or..or..or..Not really. Confucius really did say that true mastery is seeing through the maze of possibilities to the one right way. And he was right.
Like most of us I can't claim that ability for myself, but masters such as Griffiths (who Bresson compared to Goya, no less) or Capa could. It's a vision thing.
 
It's a vision thing.

Ah, now I agree with you there. HCB had one kind of vision which made him take rather different photos with a Leica and a standard lens than Capa.

So that is my point really. With a 24mm F1.4 lens on an FX body you and I would almost certainly do something different.
 
This was shot a few minutes ago in shade but cold and sunny otherwise at F2.8 from about 18 inches and shows that even at "only" F2.8 you can get DOF effects from a wide angle lens when used to photograph still life or ... imagine someone's head where the jar is ...

(no drooling over the marmite Guy)

4348233287_836f8bc84e.jpg

Nikon D3S, AF-D Nikkor 20mm 1:2.8 wide open @ 1/160th
 
Anex,

Never understood why the Canon lenses I used to own let you go passed infinity on the focus ring. Seems a bit odd.
I have one Nikon tele that also extends beyond infinity.

Nikon's explanation for why this is so is the same as the one ultrawomble offered -- at temperature extremes the lens elements expand or contract, so the optical infinity point shifts slightly. If I recall correctly, this phenomenon is only an issue with long and very long teles.

Joe
 


advertisement


Back
Top