Andre Labonte wrote:
However, even though pros and advid ametures spend a lot more per capita, they still, on average, want their f/2.8 zoom or the tele prime over the fast apeture WA. It's an issue of numbers; small numbers of individuals who will actually buy these fast WA lenses which only further drives up the cost due to the need to recover development costs.
Please, don't get me wrong. I like the 75-85mm FX format perspective and would love to see a 50mm or 55mm f/1.2 AF-S VR lens, but I also know it is not likely to happen. I would also love to see a 20mm tilt/shift, and I also know it is not likely to happen. Finally, even if either of these lenses DO happen, due to the small #s that Nikon will end up selling, the price will be sky high so that Nikon can recover the developent costs ... that only makes it less likley I will get one even though I want one. (Pavel, please don't kill me )...Show more →
Number one, I think you give the opinion of the internet photo world far too much credit for influence. I know about 300 pros, maybe 10 do weddings, the rest are high end advertising, PJ, stock and fine art shooters. All love and have primes. Out of some 26 lenses I have, only three are zooms.
And why on EARTH would you not think Nikon would make a 50 1.2 AFS? Pros use and need these lenses. Why does Canon come out with a 50mm 1.2L? To get on their knees and plead with the soccer mom with the kit lens to buy a $1,600 prime? You are giving this market WAAAY too much credit.
Nikon and Canon make most of their money off of the cheap stuff, but the build the reputations they have from the pros. I am willing to bet that Nikon will have in less than two years, some of the following new lenses:
24 or 28mm F 1.4 AFS.
35mm 1.4 AFS
50mm F 1.2 AFS
85mm F 1.4 or 1.2 AFS
135mm F 1.8 AFS
17-35 2.8-II AFS.
Every single Canon using pro I know has at least the 35 1.4L and often more. There are many reasons for that.
Make no mistake, Nikon is going to quickly get out fantastic new primes that will be FX optimized.
HerbChong wrote:
given how horribly so many Canon lenses flare, i don't see why anyone really wants them. i also don't see why so many Nikon lenses flare as much as they do.
Herb...
Herb is right, for you must be smoking it, my Canon glass has very little flare issues, especially the fast primes....
OK I admit I'm not very bright but I no longer want to fool with prime lenses. Specially considering sensor dust and lots of lens changes. I've been there ... got the T shirt but if the IQ of the Holy Grail D3 is as good as I'm praying it is ... top of the line 2x zooms surely will be 'good enough'.
Now I can obsess over IQ as much as the next guy. I print nearly five feet wide on Epson Canvas and sell my images in galleries. I like detail. My drum scanned 4 x 5 trannies yeilded 675MB files. Now I don't expect that level of detail with the new digital system and I will not be printing THAT large any more but I WILL be stitching and printing pretty big however.
I just don't expect to actually see any substantial difference in a landscape photo taken with a 50mm f1.4 and a 50mm from the 24/70 f2.8. Nor would I expect that my (one day) 200/400 f/4 will shoot a bird that is any more than 5% or so less detailed, sharp, contrasty and toned than a 300mm or 400mm Nikon prime. OK 10%. I'm just not that picky any more and I KNOW the image buying public can't see the difference.
Oct 10, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Nikon and Canon make most of their money off of the cheap stuff, but the build the reputations they have from the pros. I am willing to bet that Nikon will have in less than two years, some of the following new lenses:
24 or 28mm F 1.4 AFS.
35mm 1.4 AFS
50mm F 1.2 AFS
85mm F 1.4 or 1.2 AFS
135mm F 1.8 AFS
17-35 2.8-II AFS.
......
Make no mistake, Nikon is going to quickly get out fantastic new primes that will be FX optimized.
No doubt that Nikon and Canon both make $$$ on the cheap stuff and reputations on the pro stuff. This is what I have said many times over and over.
Also, if you go through all my posts, I do not claim that Nikon will not upgrade the primes. My argument is that the primes, especially the WA primes and the Normal Primes (35 & 50mm) will be the LAST lenses to be upgraded. I give an order to which Nikon will update lenses though I give no time frame. I would love it if your two-year prediction turns out correct, but I doubt it. Of what remains, it is the primes that need upgrading.
Of course this is all hypurbolie as we cannot predict the future, but just for fun and to recap what I have said and add some detail:
Order of upgrade:
1) -- Short to medium teles (85mm to 180mm and the 200mm micro) These that are upgraded will have AF-S and likely have VR as well; ALL will be FX format. I suspect they will pick only three of these lenses, the 85 f/1.4, the 135DC and the 200mm micro
2 or 3) -- WA Primes: These will likely have AF-S but not VR; all will be FX format. They will likely upgrade much fewer primes in light of the 14-24 and the 17-35; for example: 14, 18, 24, 30. They will likely be f/2 with one selected focal length (24-30mm) to be f/1.4
3 or 2) -- A WA tilt shift. This will be a true tilt/shift. They may or may not do focal lengths. If they do one, it will be 24mm FX, if they do two, it will be a 20mm DX and 28mm FX. If I were a betting man, I would bet on the one-lens solution and thus the 20mm tilt/shift I want is NOT LIKELY.
4) -- Normal lenses: yea, a 35 f/2 and a 50f/1.8 and f/1.4, all with AF-S is quite likely. A 55f/1.2 with AF-S and VR --- NOT LIKELY
Edited by Andre Labonte on Oct 10, 2007 at 10:58 AM GMT
Sfleming ... you are greatly corect about what you say about the landscape shots. I think that zooms have in the best of the instances gotten tremendous.
But still consider the difference in look to a tight portrait for instance between a 70-200 f 2.8, min focus distance of about 5 feet and a 85 f 1.4 minimum focus distance ... three feet.
Shoot a tight head and shoulders shot ... with the body falling away gradually in the frame.
Two completely different shots. THe one achieved with the zoom may often fit better for the mood of what the shooter wants .... but the 85, or the 50 ... or the 105 can duplicate it exactly. Vice versa ... not at all, if that other look is what is envisioned.
Just on that alone many shooters, especially high end amateurs interested in not bread and butter, but rather their vision ... they will buy at any price ... those more difficult primes.
There just is no substitute at those levels of creativity.
And its not only a zoom vs prime issue. Take a 85 f 1.4 and a zeiss 85 f 1.4. You will get a different look to the same shot. Never mind the narrow dof of the Canon 85 f 1.2 ... there is more to it than that ... there is a "look" to it that can't be duplicated (in my old rusty film experience) and so .... in the pursuit of "exactly" what is wanted ... the disadvantages ... the costs ... they melt away. Life is short. Try a prime!
Sfleming wrote:
I'm just not that picky any more and I KNOW the image buying public can't see the difference.
Until they see a Winter landscape in moonlight shot from the air with with a 24mm 1.4 on a 5D mounted to a gyro, then they see a BIG difference and pay the BIG bucks...:-).
Film_Ruled wrote:
Until they see a Winter landscape in moonlight shot from the air with with a 24mm 1.4 on a 5D mounted to a gyro, then they see a BIG difference and pay the BIG bucks...:-).
now, now, you can't brag without post the proof... picture please.
HerbChong wrote:
that completely ignores the change in market from nearly all primes when the EOS mount was introduced to nearly all zooms now. ignore reality all you want. i can tell you never bothered actually looking.
Huh? If anything, the fact that the EOS system was launched after the "zoom revolution" should bias its zoom-to-prime ratio even higher than a system like Nikon's F mount, which was likely 90% primes for a few decades.
29.7 million zooms versus 300K primes is a silly figure, plain and simple.
Qranc wrote:
Of course it's a drawback, the D40x wasn't intended for such a market that would use these lenses. You know that as well as I.
I have to disagree there. What would a lens like the 50/1.8 be designed for (in the face of a 50/1.4) except for low-end bodies like the D40x? Just because the body is cheap doesn't mean it's only used by point-and-shooters.
Qranc wrote:
I really really have no idea why you would even consider.
Why I'm looking at the D40x? Because it's a very compact body, which I often prefer when I don't need the functionality of the big bodies, and because I share my SLR kit with my wife, and she doesn't like using a big SLR body unless she needs to. It's a significant downside to me that I essentially have to buy a different set of lenses to retain AF and/or metering on the D40x.
Why am I looking at Nikon in general? For better noise performance, better flash control, and a 9fps FF body (replaces my need for both a 5D and 1DMk2 or 1DMk3).
Qranc wrote:
The D40x was designed for soccer moms. If you want to use the Nikon line up, ENTIRE line up then get a one of the upper bodies and leave the D40x where it belongs. I find lens shopping for the 1D IIn annoying because I tried to match what I had in terms of Nikon lenses. Oh ... here is the perfect lens! Oh ... you can't mount it on the camera so where is the EF equivalent? what? there is none? Right then.
[snip]
Duly marked but I still don't get your point. You already have Canon, you want to shoot Nikon but don't like Nikon because they have neglected their lineup .... sooooo then .... ok.
I would just stick with Canon dood, seriously this is getting silly. If they don't even offer what is a need to you why even consider it? ...Show more →
If Nikon made a D300 in a compact body, I'd buy it and be happy. But they don't. That's why I'm looking at the D40x. My frustration is that Nikon really has a very nearly perfect system with these two new bodies, EXCEPT for the fact that almost all of their primes are only focus on the D80 up, and all their AI-S lenses are only meter on the D200 up. (Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm a Nikon newbie....) That means I either have to live without primes on a compact body (and why would I use a compact body with a big bulky zoom?), or consider the D200 the bottom of the range, and give up on compact bodies altogether. Neither is an appetizing proposition!
Or you could you know, use AIS primes on a D40(x) and meter AND focus manually. The histogram can be your guide, or a good lightmeter. Not as simple or straightforward I know, but it's still doable! You could do the same with AF-D lenses, and you could still get AF on the D3.
the current sales rate is 1% primes. that says nothing about what happened over the life of the EOS mount. prime sales share has been dropping for more than a decade and will further drop, albeit pretty slowly now. however, they are making many more lenses than they ever were.
Herb...
CKrueger wrote:
Huh? If anything, the fact that the EOS system was launched after the "zoom revolution" should bias its zoom-to-prime ratio even higher than a system like Nikon's F mount, which was likely 90% primes for a few decades.
29.7 million zooms versus 300K primes is a silly figure, plain and simple.
CKrueger wrote:
I have to disagree there. What would a lens like the 50/1.8 be designed for (in the face of a 50/1.4) except for low-end bodies like the D40x? Just because the body is cheap doesn't mean it's only used by point-and-shooters.
Why I'm looking at the D40x? Because it's a very compact body, which I often prefer when I don't need the functionality of the big bodies, and because I share my SLR kit with my wife, and she doesn't like using a big SLR body unless she needs to. It's a significant downside to me that I essentially have to buy a different set of lenses to retain AF and/or metering on the D40x.
Why am I looking at Nikon in general? For better noise performance, better flash control, and a 9fps FF body (replaces my need for both a 5D and 1DMk2 or 1DMk3).
If Nikon made a D300 in a compact body, I'd buy it and be happy. But they don't. That's why I'm looking at the D40x. My frustration is that Nikon really has a very nearly perfect system with these two new bodies, EXCEPT for the fact that almost all of their primes are only focus on the D80 up, and all their AI-S lenses are only meter on the D200 up. (Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm a Nikon newbie....) That means I either have to live without primes on a compact body (and why would I use a compact body with a big bulky zoom?), or consider the D200 the bottom of the range, and give up on compact bodies altogether. Neither is an appetizing proposition!...Show more →
I can't disagree with you because my uncle wanted a D40x and ended up having to buy a D80 simply because he wanted to be able to use other lenses and not have to manual focus. Don't get me wrong, he is happy with the D80 but he was frustrated with the gap. There was nothing with the D40 size and D80 function. I didn't quite get his frustration, I'm starting to understand.
Avi B wrote:
Or you could you know, use AIS primes on a D40(x) and meter AND focus manually. The histogram can be your guide, or a good lightmeter. Not as simple or straightforward I know, but it's still doable! You could do the same with AF-D lenses, and you could still get AF on the D3.
I considered that, but I'm such a wimp with metering that I'd probably just leave the lenses home or pick up a little Oly E-410 instead of shooting by histogram. I don't mind focusing manually with MF lenses, but guess-and-check metering is beyond my brain/willpower.
Qranc wrote:
I can't disagree with you because my uncle wanted a D40x and ended up having to buy a D80 simply because he wanted to be able to use other lenses and not have to manual focus. Don't get me wrong, he is happy with the D80 but he was frustrated with the gap. There was nothing with the D40 size and D80 function. I didn't quite get his frustration, I'm starting to understand.
Yeah, I'm likely in the same boat as him. I got hooked on using my DSLR as a sort of high-quality aperture priority P&S with my 350D... with a 35/2 mounted it's not much larger than some of the bigger SLR-shaped P&S cameras... still small enough to hang from your neck without noticing it. But the pictures and handling are light years beyond a P&S. I'd really hate to give up that capability if I moved to Nikon. Even my 5D (and thus the D300) is a bit big and unwieldy to use in this manner.
I wish camera makers would start looking at miniaturization as a potential feature to sell people. It has happened in the P&S world, but it seems only Olympus is pushing the envelope in the SLR world.
I suppose the Perfect System is a futile dream, eh?
CKrueger wrote:
If Nikon made a D300 in a compact body, I'd buy it and be happy. But they don't. That's why I'm looking at the D40x. My frustration is that Nikon really has a very nearly perfect system with these two new bodies, EXCEPT for the fact that almost all of their primes are only focus on the D80 up, and all their AI-S lenses are only meter on the D200 up. (Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm a Nikon newbie....) That means I either have to live without primes on a compact body (and why would I use a compact body with a big bulky zoom?), or consider the D200 the bottom of the range, and give up on compact bodies altogether. Neither is an appetizing proposition!...Show more →
It sounds like the D3 and the D80 are the cameras for you. The D80 is phenomenal. I've been using it for my jobs recently and it does not dissapoint.
I do agree that something needs to happen to give more lenses AF-S so that D40 users can have access to them.
CKrueger wrote:
I considered that, but I'm such a wimp with metering that I'd probably just leave the lenses home or pick up a little Oly E-410 instead of shooting by histogram. I don't mind focusing manually with MF lenses, but guess-and-check metering is beyond my brain/willpower.
Well, it's not "guess-and-check" outdoors You surely know about the sunny-16 rule right? Anyway, don't you have a lightmeter? That would tell you how to meter something. Indoors, I personally just go wide-open at ISO200. Then I do guess-and-check.
Avi B wrote:
Well, it's not "guess-and-check" outdoors You surely know about the sunny-16 rule right? Anyway, don't you have a lightmeter? That would tell you how to meter something. Indoors, I personally just go wide-open at ISO200. Then I do guess-and-check.
Down here in Texas where it's sunnier, I start mine at 1/500 f/5.6 ISO200. If I tried wide open I'd be pushing the shutter speed limit on these smaller bodies.
mjmetts wrote:
I do agree that something needs to happen to give more lenses AF-S so that D40 users can have access to them.
Seems likely to me that nikon has already made that determination, with the sale of the d40. No new lenses have been announced, that aren't AF-S, right? So, it seems more than logical that none will be.
For one thing, they probably don't need to completely redesign a lens, just to add AF-S, so they can stuff that in a new lens barrel and sell it to us as an upgrade, making old lenses obsolete.
I'd buy new AF-S models of the 80-400, 85 f/1.8 and 105 DC. Dunno that I'd care about it at any lower focal length though. I have the sigma 30 f/1.4 and nikon 50 f/1.4. The AF on those lenses is not really much different.
In a way, I'm rather sad that they came out with the d3. That probably means they won't continue to offer new pro class DX lenses, like the 40-120 f/2 that I want so badly.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
In a way, I'm rather sad that they came out with the d3. That probably means they won't continue to offer new pro class DX lenses, like the 40-120 f/2 that I want so badly.
I remember reading in the press conference for the anouncement of the D300 and D3 that Nikon pledged ongoing commitment to the DX sensor. Although I, like you, am skeptical as to the professional-grade offerings that will ensue.
)
You surely know about the sunny-16 rule right? Anyway, don't you have a lightmeter? That would tell you how to meter something. Indoors, I personally just go wide-open at ISO200. Then I do guess-and-check.