ilkka_nissilaOffline Activity Details
|
EB-1 wrote:
ilkka_nissila wroteI personally would prefer a lens like the 180/2.8 (modernized) quite often vs. the 70-200/2.8 but Nikon hasn't implemented any primes in the 180-300 mm window in Z mount yet. A modern regular (non-macro) 180/2.8 would be significantly lighter than the 70-200/2.8, but Nikon seems to not prioritize these lenses, instead they cover this range with multiple zooms. I can understand the rationale as it is much easier to compose at these focal lengths with a zoom, and the image quality of the 70-200/2.8 (and I am sure the upcoming 120-300/2.8) is very good. However, the 180/2.8 was a popular lens as well.
EBH
Having those primes in the lineup is a question of versatility and flexibility in the system. On a given outing, I might need a macro lens like the 105 mm MC and then I want something a bit longer while keeping the total bag weight to a minimum, which would lead to the 180/2.8. Since I might be carrying a lot of shorter focal lengths, tripods, etc. I might not want to allocate any more weight to the longer lens than I have to, if that's not a priority for the day. I often travel with a lot of photo gear but I want to choose where I have the weight and where I do not. For example when I travel for landscape I would have more space in the car but on the plane there are limits to carryon weight (let's say it can be 5 kg in some cases), depending on what kind of aircraft I am traveling on and the region. If I am photographing in a city, I would have tilt-shift for wide angle, then some fast wide prime, medium tele and a bit longer tele, and I would want the teles to be compact so people don't assume I'm some part of a production for TV or something, or photographing for a newspaper. For that a 19 PC, 35/1.8, 85/1.8, and 180/2.8 would be close to optimal the way I like to set up my kit. The 70-200/2.8 is really something I use in a wedding ceremony or similar event, and in many cases I often just prefer the capabilities of a 105/1.4 or 135/1.8 to reduce the noise. It is not so much a question of the lens's weight in itself but the freedom to set up your kit for the day in a way that is optimal for what you're about to do. And if someone is on a student budget a 180/2.8 could easily be one half of the price of the 70-200/2.8, and yet fast enough for most lighting conditions, small enough not to attact attention. The 70-180/2.8 does exists and fills some of the same niche but a modern Nikon 180/2.8 prime could be potentially better quality, faster focusing, smaller, and lower weight. It's a question of what you optimize for. Sometimes I indeed shoot a whole day with one focal length, as it leads to a consistent look and allows my mind to focus on what is possible with that restriction, this leads to a different set of images than if I had set out with a zoom. There are so many reasons why one might want a medium tele prime of just about any (or all) focal lengths. It's not at all necessary to carry "all" the primes that a zoom covers (I don't think I've ever done that), as gaps are not somehow evil. For example for me a 20/35/85/180 would work great for a variety of situations if I don't need macro or tilt/shift capabilities. Sometimes restrictions can lead to a clearer mind and fewer but more distinct images. I often have the problem that when I use zooms, I get too many images from a shoot which then increases editing time. Using primes introduces natural restrictions to my shooting and fewer but more well-thought out, distinct images. I realize that someone with a mindset of always preferring zooms would disagree and I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just presenting arguments and situations where and why one might want a lens like 180/2.8 with a modern design. For the longest time I was annoyed that Nikon didn't make a really high-quality 135 mm prime for the autofocus (D)SLR system (the 135 DC can be wonderful for people shots in some situations but its autofocus is not great and wide open sharpness could be better for general use). Now they have 135/1.8 which is a great lens, but no 180, no 200 mm, and no 300 mm primes. Always they emphasize something that wa previously missing from the lineup but leave out the good stuff that was there before, why not just make a comprehensive set of lenses covering all the focal lengths with great optics and fair prices, instead of always leaving something out, it's like a car with only three wheels but placed in the corners so it's basically limping. I suppose from a marketing perspective they might want to leave out things so that people will always missing something and wanting to buy something new, instead of having a complete system and being done with it.
|
