Hey who said it's "lowly" It was out there in light rain for the best part of an hour, and I changed lenses a couple of times too. It looked best a few months ago with snow on the prism and gathering inside the lens hood - too bad I didn't have a compact with me to record that
Here we go again, my love/hate relationship with Nikon.
As has been mentioned Nikon's weakness is with fast wide primes. Nikon used to be the king of the hill with this class of lenses, but no more.
People commonly say that they expect Nikon to bring out new 24 f1.4, 28 f1.4, 35 f1.4 lenses, and I hope they do, because the range of Nikkors is seriously undermined without them.
Yes the 14-24 f2.8 is an amazing lens (and if it had an aperture ring I would have bought one), but f1.4 it ain't.
The big problem with new fast wides is the lead time to design, test and produce them. The classic Nikon fast wide was the unmatched 28mm f1.4, available now only secondhand sadly. The following link perhaps explains why there have been no new fast wides from Nikon recently:
"Within Nikon, as a rule one optical designer is responsible for one product from start of design through volume production, though this lens involved a total of four optical designers and it was at last completed after a lot of hard work. In 1994, the lens was placed on the market about ten years after the start of development."
Ten Years
I could be wrong about no new fast Nikkors for a while, but if you really need fast wides then you might be better advised to stay with Canon.
Thanks a bunch for your answers again! Informative and good answers!
My main application for fast primes is (of course) avilable light photography and concert photography. I seldom wish for something much wider than my 24 1.4 at a 1.6 crop body, so a 50 1.4 might just do the trick, but for the times I really wish i had a 20-30 something prime, it would be great to have the ability. I guess I have to weigh how much I like weather sealing (beer sealing.. :P ), better lowlight af and eventually fps (these being nikon) and how much I like my 24 1.4 L (being canon).
Richard.P wrote:
I've heard that the D700 has weather sealing like the D3, which is somewhat better than the D300 (apparently). Personally, I've shot my D300 in light rain for extended periods, and no problem. On the one occasion I've got it smothered with wet snow, it didn't give the slightest trouble either. I wouldn't hesitate on that score. Here's the evidence
Cool stuff. i never hesitate to use either my D2x or D300 in the rain. What i worry about is the lens. What do you have attached there? a 17-55?
Yes, a non-sealed lens might be a concern (but then, my Sigma 10-20 was fine). The lens in the picture is the 24-70 which fits that D300 like a hand in glove. Advantages in bad weather include sealing and a lens hood the size of the Colosseum
Going straight to the questions yes, the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.4 are very good lenses and yes, they are in production. I would buy any of them even if they were not in production.
"Is the 35mm f2 the best wide alternative on full frame?" This one is hard for me to answer because I do not know the intended use of the lens. 35mm is a nice wide angle on a full frame for me but if it will be wide enough for your FF photography is something only you can decide. Nikon also has an excellent 28mm f2.8 and a 24mm f2.8 that is one of my favorite wide angles.
Now, are you unhappy with Canon? Canon also has excellent gear and if you have the lenses I would consider staying Canon.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
As a canon shooter thinking about switching to nikon, I'm a bit worried about primes. I've been told that both the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are good, but are both those in production? And is the 35 f/2 the best wide alternative on fullframe?
Ulrik
My (MF) 50/1.4 is nearly as sharp as my leica m50/1.4. But the nikon vignettes terribly at 1.4 & 2.0
My 85/1.4 is good, but falls well short of a leica m75/1.4 I borrowed.
But my 35/2 is underwhelming.
Actually the best all round 35 I have is the AFS28-70, even wide open its pretty good. But its a big heavy lens. Maybe I should have kept the AF35-70/2.8 after all.
I cant make my mind up about my MF 35/1.4
From 2.0 to 8 it is very sharp, but not that easy to focus (on a D3), and it lacks contrast compared to the alternatives. I use picture controls to add a bit of contrast...
Wide open it captures plenty of detail, but it is veiled. The extreme corners can look horrible if the subject falls on the plane of focus into the corners.
The only thing I want from Nikon right now is an AFS35/1,4 of a similar optical standard to the 14-24. Even if it was AF and not AFS I would be happy....
Too bad we must purchase what is out there and not what our minds dream up.
I am lusting after the 14mm F2.8. Now, that is an odd one for me.
I have the 20mm F2.8 already but I want to play too.
williamkazak wrote:
Too bad we must purchase what is out there and not what our minds dream up.
I am lusting after the 14mm F2.8. Now, that is an odd one for me.
I have the 20mm F2.8 already but I want to play too.
Where would you expect the image quality to be?
when you compare 14mm prime with the 14-24?
I think the new 14-24 would be better.
What do others think?
Zeiss may produce a 24/1.4 for the Sony mount... keep an eye open.
Otherwise, consider buying a silicon jacket for your current body. You can buy them in black, and although they obviously won't be as water resistant as internal seals, they will give you shock absorption and a protective surface from which to wipe off all that sticky beer goodness I accept that this isn't really a good solution to the weather resistance problem, but it might help a bit...
A Zeiss 24mm f1.4 would really, REALLY, get my attention! (particularly if Sony brought out an affordable FX body). Also thinking of saving up for the new Zeiss 18mm in Nikon fit to adapt for my Canon.
Tony Brown wrote:
i'm a Canon guy....i will say the only reason i havn't switched to Nikon is because of the Canon 35 L 1.4.
that lens along with the 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 have me thinking about running parallel systems.... 5D with those lenses alongside D700 with my current Nikkors.... hmmmmmn, so much gear.... so little money!!
I went back to Canon for a few weeks and bought a 24L, 50L and 85L 0 GREAT lenses WHEN the camera will focus correctly (5D) - Half of my shots were always OOF so I sent it all back to BH and am getting a D700 to go with the D300 and also ordered the Zeiss primes which are AMAZING as I had them before. 25 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 1002, etc. The NIkon 85 1.4 is AMAZING. If i were you I would get the Zeiss 28/2, 50/2 Makro and NIkon or Zeiss 85 1.4. The Zeiss lenses surpass the Nikons for quality and 3D depth/color.
As a canon shooter thinking about switching to nikon, I'm a bit worried about primes. I've been told that both the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are good, but are both those in production? And is the 35 f/2 the best wide alternative on fullframe?
Ulrik
I have the 28mm 2.8 ais and I like it alot. The D3 and the 700 will meter with that lens but it is a manual focus but hey they all were manual focus at one time
This lens has stood the test of time for me my Dad bought it new in the early 80's and I still use it today.
I switched because of the Nikon AF verse my 1D2 and 1Ds2. I almost always used primes with the Canons, and also lamented the lack of 35 f1.4, 50 f1.2 and 85 f1.2 equivalents. However I discovered the high ISO of the D3 and the IQ of the 24 - 70 f2.8 is so good, that I am not sure I would buy fast primes even if they were available. I have two recent CD covers shot at ISO4000, and there is not so much as a hint they were shot at a high ISO.
After thinking about it for a minute, I can remember having to use both the 50 and 85 t f1.2 at ISO3200, and the noise at this ISO required a lot of PS work to make the image passable. I used to try to avoid using anything over ISO 800/1000. I can see wedding photographers looking for fast primes, because I can remember times when it has been very dark inside at these events. I have been hear Nikon will update several lenses, including primes, since I bought a D3 last year. Maybe Photokina will finally shed some light on this for us?
For what it is worth, I do not care what brand name is on the camera I use - it is the image people see, not the camera that took it - but that said, the D3 is the best camera I have ever used in every way but two - Changing the lens and turning the zooms rotates in the opposite direction of the Canons. That can drive you nuts until you finally get used to it.
R. Francois wrote:
Cool stuff. i never hesitate to use either my D2x or D300 in the rain. What i worry about is the lens. What do you have attached there? a 17-55?
That is the one area I worry about. I used the Canons in pouring rain, and I was in the water getting photos like these - the camera and lens get drenched, but I wiped them off with a towel and go back for another shot. When I ask the people at Nikon if I can use their cameras like this, they tell me to get a rain cover.
It was out there in light rain for the best part of an hour, and I changed lenses a couple of times too. It looked best a few months ago with snow on the prism and gathering inside the lens hood - too bad I didn't have a compact with me to record that 
