williamkazak wrote:
Well, I enjoyed the lens discussion here but not the rest of it.
In my experience, with over 25 years of shooting, wide open is crappola to me on most hi-speed lenses. I had the Nikon 24mm F2 AIS, and various Nikon 50mm Ais F1.2 and F1.4 Ais and AFD lenses along with the Nikon 35mm F1.4 Ais. The overall flare/lack of contrast/unsharpness wide open and my inability to achieve precise focus wide open made them worthless to me at max aperture. The only benefit I realized was the brighter look thru the viewfinder for focusing and the so called "snob appeal" of "owning the best". What a waste of money for me as I think back on it now.
F2 lenses suit me just fine. I feel good about my 105 DC F2 and 35mm F2 AFD when used wide open. I was pleased with my 85mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.8 AFD when used at F2. With these lenses, wide open is always there if I need it. Also, I can see thru the viewfinder very well, thank you, at F2.
I don't give a damn about F1.4 lenses now for the above mentioned reasons and the fact that the front end is so wide. I like compact primes with no flare....Show more →
+1! I agree with you 100% except that my 85mm 1.8 was ok only from 4.0. and smaller.
You guys know there's a huge difference between lenses introduced in in 1993 like the 50mm f/1.2 AIS or the 1969 35mm f/1.4 AIS and modern lenses introduced today?
This is 2010 and modern fast aperture lenses like the current Canon L line and ostensibly the new Nikon fast primes are in a completely different class. There may be an improvement in resolving power when stopping down, but these new lenses are generally engineered to maintain high contrast and minimise flare and aberrations wide open. These are not the 35mm f/1.4 AIS and 50 f/1.2 AIS, these are something different entirely. Using the Canon 24L, 35L, 50L, or 85L should give you a really good grasp on how far we've come.
-------------------
@ 90 5.0 - The 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor cost $1700 when it was introduced in 1994, if we adjust for inflation it'd cost ~$2500 in todays money. The Canon 24L came out in 1997, and the 35L in 1998. The Nikkor was 'before it's time' both their ability to produce it and in market interest.
A similar fate befell the Canon 50mm F/1.0L introduced in 1989 for the price of ~$2800, another case of before its time engineering and manufacturing wise.
------------------
On a completely different note, if your curious what we've been missing in SLR land in regards to fast primes and performance wide open look a the M-mount Leica Summilux range and 50 Noctilux over the years. We've been jipped on account of the necessity of retro focus designs and consumer electronic pricing in the SLR market.
"Wait, did I just read that most f/1.4 and fast lens user don't use their lenses at max aperture most of the time?"
<Rant mode ON>
Seems to me that the only people who can comment meaningfully on the wide open performance of fast lenses are low light photographers, or bokey lovers (ie people who actually NEED wide apertures). There is no sense in a normal photographer buying an f1.4 lens, always using it at f8, then proclaiming "the f1.4 performance of my lens is crap, or who needs f1.4!?"
I had the Nikkor 28mm f1.4 from the mid 1990s to last year, got some of my best shots with it. I used f1.4 99 percent of the time, and stopped down to f2 rarely. I honestly don't know how good that lens was at f8, and I don't care. If I needed f8 I would have bought a much cheaper and lighter 28mm f2.8.
If you need f1.4 buy an f1.4 lens and live with the aberrations. Its not the low light photographers that bitch about the inevitable compromises at such fast apertures, particularly on fast wides, its the f8 brigade who should be grateful they can buy much cheaper lenses!
<Rant mode OFF!>
Speaking as a low light photographer who does need a wide that can do f1.4, I am delighted that Nikon have brought out the new 24, and I am delighted that Canon have so successfully redone their 24L f1.4. Now I have 2 potentially cracking lenses to choose from. Before Nikon brought out their new lens it was depressing to think that only one Japanese manufacturer could supply the lens I need, now I have a choice again!
90 5.0 wrote:
Same with hordes of uses claiming they'd pay a premium for a 400 5.6 vr, yet they don't own any long lenses as it is. Sure they'd sell some and I would more than likely be interested in it but they wont fly off the shelves like the requisite 2.8 zooms or consumer lenses do.
Do you have a reliable source of information or are you making it up to according to your own prejudices?
I can only speak for myself. I own the Sigma APO Macro 400mm F5.6 lens, and it is so so. Were Nikon to bring out a good equivalent lens, I would buy it. I cannot speak for others, though the Canon equivalent seems to sell quite well, especially to bird photographers.
gerikson wrote:
Earlier the cry was "Nikon needs fast wide primes!".
Now we need to amend that to "Nikon needs fast wide *affordable* primes!".
You can have cheap poor quality fast wide angle primes, or you can have expensive high quality fast wide primes. Personally I do not see the point of the former. What is the point of a fast wide lens that produces poor images wide open?
I originally thought that my fast primes were somehow great lenses, as I mentioned previously, but to answer David's rant they did not give me the quality I expected at the widest apertures so I usually used the 35mm F1.4 AIS at around F5.6-F8 for improved performance at the weddings and I preferred the Nikon 50mm F1.8 AIS and the current 50mm F1.8 AFD over the 50mm F1.4 AIS and the current 50mm F1.4 AFD. I rarely shoot them wide open and I like bokeh too but I could not live with the increased flare and the loss of contrast wide open with those lenses when shooting people in ordinary light situations.
Currently, my second 105 F2DC and the 180mm F2.8 AFD, when I had two of them at different times, seemed more contrasty wide open and did not cause me any flare problems and they have nice bokeh. Make your own tests and that is why the 105 DC and the 180mm F2.8 AFD impress me.
williamkazak wrote:
I originally thought that my fast primes were somehow great lenses, as I mentioned previously, but to answer David's rant they did not give me the quality I expected at the widest apertures so I usually used the 35mm F1.4 AIS at around F5.6-F8 for improved performance at the weddings and I preferred the Nikon 50mm F1.8 AIS and the current 50mm F1.8 AFD over the 50mm F1.4 AIS and the current 50mm F1.4 AFD. I rarely shoot them wide open and I like bokeh too but I could not live with the increased flare and the loss of contrast wide open with those lenses when shooting people in ordinary light situations.
Currently, my second 105 F2DC and the 180mm F2.8 AFD, when I had two of them at different times, seemed more contrasty wide open and did not cause me any flare problems and they have nice bokeh. Make your own tests and that is why the 105 DC and the 180mm F2.8 AFD impress me....Show more →
I not only agree with you 100% again, I'll also throw in my views on the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 AF-S as an example. It is a relatively new lens in terms of Nikon technology and is considered to be in the class of proffessional lenses.
The 17-55 was my main lens for wedding work. If weddings don't qualify as low light photography, I don't know what else does. The main difference is that anyone can shoot street photography because they don't have to answer to a demanding client such as wedding photographer does. We don't just need a lens that can perform well under low light conditions; we need one that can perform flawlessly.
The 17-55 was soft at 2.8 (not a DOF issue). I still own it, it is still soft. No, I didn't get a bad copy, it is a soft lens at 2.8. I have shot dozens of weddings with the 17-55 and I really know its strengths and limitations. While it has a constant aperture (if needed) at 2.8, it performs outstandingly well at 5.6.
LeifG wrote:
Do you have a reliable source of information or are you making it up to according to your own prejudices?
I can only speak for myself. I own the Sigma APO Macro 400mm F5.6 lens, and it is so so. Were Nikon to bring out a good equivalent lens, I would buy it. I cannot speak for others, though the Canon equivalent seems to sell quite well, especially to bird photographers.
Are you really argueing that they'd sell more 400 5.6 vr's than the newest 18-whatever zoom that's easily enough found out just google some sales numbers it's been posted a ton on here before.
As well as people complaining that there's no 400 5.6vr. but ask them what they have for long now and they say 18-200, now there are some that really would buy one and most of them have the 300 f/4 and a 1.4x or better combo's. I'm not saying no one will and the need isn't there just that the hordes of complainers on the internet won't go grab one up when it comes out.
snegron wrote:
I just have a problem with a company that charges an absurd amount of money for something that is not so technologically advanced (nor expensive to make) and could have been produced a decade ago.
You speak as though you were intimately involved in the design/production/marketing process.
If you don't think it's worth what they plan to charge, then by all means exercise your right as a consumer and don't buy it.
I for one am glad they're starting to release these upgrades...
The 24/1.4 is very advanced and is undoubtably rather expensive to make. Look at what goes into it and it shouldn't take long to figure that out. I expect excellent performance at 1.4, given all the glass, and low distortions.
oobie wrote:
You speak as though you were intimately involved in the design/production/marketing process.
If you don't think it's worth what they plan to charge, then by all means exercise your right as a consumer and don't buy it.
I for one am glad they're starting to release these upgrades...
As you probably read from my post several pages ago, I have absolutley no plans on buying this lens. In fact, I'll bet that there are many (if not most) here who, like me, will not buy it either. I am sure that there will be many more of us who don't buy it as opposed to those few who do buy it!
Now, I would love to know if you, or anyone else here, would care to share the following information:
If Nikon was recently able to release a $300.00 35mm 1.8 AF G lens, why couldn't they produce the same thing in a 24mm focal length? Yes, I know it's a DX prime, but there are still many of us who still own and use DX SLR's. Call me silly, but the idea of a budget-priced prime seems like a good idea to me. Yes, Nikon could still produce the 24mm 1.4 "high-end/high price" lens as I am sure that those three or four people who plan on spending the $2,200.00 would still buy it as opposed to the "budget" version. However, the rest of us members of the mass market would buy the budget version, the same way we have all purchased the new $300.00 35mm 1.8. Some say that the new 35mm 1.8 is just as good as the old 35mm 2.0 AF-D, so it proves that producing this type of "budget lens" is possible.
Am I "intimately involved in the design/production/marketing process"? No, I am simply a customer who has been purchasing and using Nikon products for the past 25 years and believes he has the right to voice his opinion on whether he likes or dislikes what Nikon has chosen to release. Just because Nikon makes it doesn't mean we all automatically have to bow down and praise how wonderful it is. Does this mean I plan on jumping ship to Canon just because I am dissapointed with Nikon for not giving a hoot about its average customers? Not likely as I have too much money invested in Nikon equipment to even consider the notion. Am I a troll for voicing my opinion? No. I'm simply a long-time customer who is not happy with having waited so long for an improved* 24mm AF lens only to be dissapointed with the extremely high price tag.
*By "improved" I am reffering to a lens that wouldn't have the same issues/problems that the old 24mm 2.8 AF-D had. A larger aperture wasn't necessarily a must-have option on my list.
p.s. Are you planning on buying this lens, or will you be one of the many like me who won't?
I haven't read all the posts, so forgive me if these examples have already been posted. Wish I could see larger examples and not in HDR, though, to each their own...
snegron wrote:
*By "improved" I am reffering to a lens that wouldn't have the same issues/problems that the old 24mm 2.8 AF-D had. A larger aperture wasn't necessarily a must-have option on my list.
For me, I'm completely out of the loop. $2,200 for a 24/1.4 is not going to happen (although I could afford to do it), and the 24/2.8 is just ok. I was hoping for an AF-S 24/2 for ~$800, or an AF-S 28/2 for ~$600. Neither of those are going to happen. Closest in an AF lens with silent focusing is the Canon 28/1.8 USM for ~$450.
phillip ino wrote:
I haven't read all the posts, so forgive me if these examples have already been posted. Wish I could see larger examples and not in HDR, though, to each their own...
Once again the "outrage" which follows the price tag of new gear announcements is hillarious. First the D3X, then the 70-200II, now this. Perhaps people should petition for a Mr Chavez to become president of Nikon so that all equipment will come in predefined and affordable price ranges.
90 5.0 wrote:
Are you really argueing that they'd sell more 400 5.6 vr's than the newest 18-whatever zoom that's easily enough found out just google some sales numbers it's been posted a ton on here before.
As well as people complaining that there's no 400 5.6vr. but ask them what they have for long now and they say 18-200, now there are some that really would buy one and most of them have the 300 f/4 and a 1.4x or better combo's. I'm not saying no one will and the need isn't there just that the hordes of complainers on the internet won't go grab one up when it comes out.
"Are you really argueing that they'd sell more 400 5.6 vr's than the newest 18-whatever"
I made no such statement. You made a claim that lots of people say they want a new 400mm F5.6 lens, but in practice they do not own any long lenses. You also implied that it would not sell well. I suggest you have no evidence for those statements and that they are no more than opinion. I stated my position, since I cannot speak for others, namely that I would like such a lens, and I do own some long lenses (several 200mm F4 micro lenses and a so-so Sigma 400mm lens).
Jammy
Would you consider the 28mm f1.4 a lens that could compete with this new generation of lenses?
I am thinking of getting one if they come down in price
The question is: is the 24mm 1.4 going to be way better than the old 28mm 1.4
that's easily enough found out just google some sales numbers it's been posted a ton on here before.