After being out of the hobby for the better part of 14years, a D3 popped up locally for what I feel is a good price. 85k clicks, with a few Kirk Brackets, and two batteries. The seller is asking $350, which prompted me to start looking at D3 prices. I stumbled across one in excellent condition with only 9,900 clicks for $500. I'm very temped by the lower mileage model for obvious reasons, but am always curious if the lower use cameras were sub-par performers or if the owner just didn't play with them much. haha
Not long ago I imported my whole Lr catalog into C1 (to leave Adobe for good), including all my D700 photos. To my surprise I found out that the excellent D700 colors and tonality are even better in C1
I was so positively surprised that could not resist picking almost mint condition D700 when I found one. To start again with F-mount a bought AF-S 35/1.4 for the camera. Also AF-S 28/1.4 was available but I decided to skip it this time as it cost about 3x as much as the 35mm.
For me 35mm is good allround lens, but I would like to have also a 50mm or slightly longer lens. I remember AF-S 50/1.4 was fairly terrible unless stopped down - normal? How about AF-S 58/1.4 - it is more expensive but also a modern legend? Another possibility is AF-S 60/2.8 macro, I had one back in the days, and I remember it was a very reliable performer. Any other recommendations?
As a current Sony shooter I am both scared and excited with D700 size, OVF and retro style DSLR architecture. Not to mention archaic AF and no IBIS
tuomkok wrote:
Also AF-S 28/1.4 was available but I decided to skip it this time as it cost about 3x as much as the 35mm.
For me 35mm is good allround lens, but I would like to have also a 50mm or slightly longer lens. I remember AF-S 50/1.4 was fairly terrible unless stopped down - normal? How about AF-S 58/1.4 - it is more expensive but also a modern legend? Another possibility is AF-S 60/2.8 macro, ...
I speak as a big Nikon fan but 50mm has always been a wasteland for them. I started with the FM2n plus 50/1.4 AiS in 1981 and it was one tired double Gauss after another until the Z 50/1.8S. I give grudging approval to the 50/3.5 Ai Micro but many lenses look good at that speed (like my quite awesome Elmar 50/2.8 from 1960). For a modern DSLR, you best option is the Sigma 50/1.4 Art which is still quite expensive new but will perform like a champ. I own the earlier 35 Art which put Sigma on the map as an S-Tier maker.
The other Nikkor that deserves top recognition is the AF-S 28/1.4E which is still the best WA that you can attach to a Nikon Z. Yup, pricey.
tuomkok wrote:
For me 35mm is good allround lens, but I would like to have also a 50mm or slightly longer lens. I remember AF-S 50/1.4 was fairly terrible unless stopped down - normal? How about AF-S 58/1.4 - it is more expensive but also a modern legend? Another possibility is AF-S 60/2.8 macro, I had one back in the days, and I remember it was a very reliable performer. Any other recommendations?
Really depends what you're looking for and expecting. The 60mm f2.8 is sharp from wide-open, the 50s won't be as sharp. If you expect modern mirrorless lens performance wide-open, you'll be disappointed. But there are literally thousands of amazing pictures that were taken with these lenses, so maybe pixel-level sharpness at 100% zoom isn't that important after all
Personally, I like the AF-D 50mm f1.4, which is the same optical formula as the Ai-S 50mm f1.4. I almost always stop it down to f2, which gives a nice boost to clarity and imo makes the bokeh a little more calm.
The AF-S 50m f1.8G is also very solid. I'd also stop that one down to about f2.4. Wide-open the bokeh can be really nice, but it can also be a bit busy depending on the background.
fjablo wrote:
Really depends what you're looking for and expecting. The 60mm f2.8 is sharp from wide-open, the 50s won't be as sharp. If you expect modern mirrorless lens performance wide-open, you'll be disappointed. But there are literally thousands of amazing pictures that were taken with these lenses, so maybe pixel-level sharpness at 100% zoom isn't that important after all
Personally, I like the AF-D 50mm f1.4, which is the same optical formula as the Ai-S 50mm f1.4. I almost always stop it down to f2, which gives a nice boost to clarity and imo makes the bokeh a little more calm.
The AF-S 50m f1.8G is also very solid. I'd also stop that one down to about f2.4. Wide-open the bokeh can be really nice, but it can also be a bit busy depending on the background. ...Show more →
Browsing through Flickr and watching a few YouTube videos supports your advice on AF-S 50/1.4. It seems to be economical and easy to get alternative. Maybe AF-D 50/1.4 if screw drive is not a problem. However, if I am happy with the camera and photography experience, I think will look for the 58mm - it seems to be a dream lens with D700 when one is after the "look".
BTW One of the reasons why I moved about 10 years ago over to Sony was that I was not happy with Nikon std primes. Another reason was wide-angle focusing problems with D810. However, I had zero AF-problems with. the D700 I had.
rico wrote:
The other Nikkor that deserves top recognition is the AF-S 28/1.4E which is still the best WA that you can attach to a Nikon Z. Yup, pricey.
Seems to unique lens that (unfortunately) came very late to F-mount.
tuomkok wrote:
Browsing through Flickr and watching a few YouTube videos supports your advice on AF-S 50/1.4. It seems to be economical and easy to get alternative.
Note that I specifically mean the AF-D 50mm f1.4 (screwdriver motor) not the AF-S 50mm f1.4G. Imo the older lens has a better rendering and as far as I know also faster autofocus.
If you want an AF-S lens, then either the 50mm f1.8G or the 58mm f1.4G. Honestly just get the 1.8G as they’re dirt cheap. You can always get the 58mm later and sell the 1.8G again..
AF-D lenses seem to have greater color saturation than the G. I assume because they were built for film rather than the flatter, more subtle Gs built for digital processing.
