Pavel wrote:
I'm very happy that nikon is not going for specmanship. THe f2.0 is an advantage in my book.
THe price will be about 1/3 of what a F 1.4 would be if you judge by todays pricing model and who the heck wants to carry around the much larger, much heavier, much more "look at me" lens? The iso performance of any of the last few years cameras obviate the need for f 1.4 and with a 85 focus is very chancy. Just look at the portrait that jamach has put up .... focus missed pretty badly there ... and that seems to be the likelihood for most shots. Remember that autofocus in modern cameras is still not exact. It is more like a very close variable.
So the F2.0 if it comes to pass strikes me as a very sensible decision, kind of like the D3 where they didn't resort to keeping up with the Cano-johnses and kept the resolution a modest 12 megapixels.
Go Nikon....Show more →
If you've ever shot with the 85 1.4 you'll realise that there is a huge difference between that and the 1.8 wide open. And the D3 is made for wide open shooting, as the AF is good enough to make the most of shallow DOFs, and the high ISO allows you to take shots that you wouldn't even have contemplated before.
There is a reason that the 85 1.4 is famous. An f2 VR version sounds like a cheap-ish consumer lens, not an update.
If Nikon release a 80--400 that is better than my excellent 100-400L IS I'll be more than interested in the D300 and if they release a 200 f/4 VR Macro I'll be even more interested. An 85 f/1.4 VR would be the icing on the cake.
Would the PC 28 f/2.8 be tilt-shift or just shift?
Rupert, I have owned and made money from the old non-AI 85/2 in film days, the AF 85/1.4 and the 85/1.8 in digital.
I disagree that there is a "huge difference" between ƒ1.4 and ƒ1.8 on these lenses. Most of the time, as a portrait shooter, you are at ƒ2.8 anyway, if not ƒ4, and the latter two lenses perform very similarly at these apertures. Any differences are minor, IMHO, and suitable foreground to background distances and composition render these aspects trivial. I agree with Pavel completely: a lighter (and less intimidating) lens with VR looks like a winner to me, and I plan on buying one if Nikon make it. ƒ2 is perfect.
And even the AF of the D3 is not spot on for portraiture, it is better than it was, I will agree—small enough AF points to focus, for example, on bottom eyelid or iris.
But I find myself using my eyes (and the DK-17M) to get the focus where I want it to be as often as shooting AF, so it's not there yet. I use the ZF 50/2 on the D300 and the 100/2 on the D3 for portraits regularly. YMMV, of course.
Kit - I know you feel strongly about this, but I heard you the first time...
My point is that there is already a lighter and less intimidating 85mm lens - the f1.8. If it is this version that is getting the f2 + VR treatment, then that would seem appropriate.
My contention is that this would still be more of a consumer lens, however much it may work for your style. There's a reason that people pay the significant penalty in cost, size and weight for fast primes. And frankly I'm not sure that sticking a smaller lens on a D3 will make it any the less intimidating - once that D3 'snicker-snack' shutter starts going, that's intimidating enough...
camerapapi wrote:
This "old" lens is very sharp even wide open at 400mm (my opinion) and it serves me well.
Haven't heard many people say that. I'd consider an AFS lens, but from what I've seen...better IQ at 400 in general would be appreciated from my perspective.
I would take a 85 2.0 VR if the price was right. about 600 max. which It wouldnt be. it would be about 1000. so forget it. and I dont buy the D3 as being "made for wide open." thats a load. its made for whatever aperture you need. the larger sensor will give a shallower DOF then DX camera's so if anything its "made for being stopped down"
I am not sure the 85 f2 (if confirmed) will be expensive. Nikon is investing in a lot a consumer lenses and wants to grow their market share. They reduced the cost of VR as seen in their recent introductions (55-200VR for example) and a consumer grade version should not be much more expensive than the current 85 1.8... looking at the performance of the 85 1.8, consumer grade definitely doesn't mean bad lens....
Kit Laughlin wrote:
Any differences are minor, IMHO, and suitable foreground to background distances and composition render these aspects trivial.
And when there is a horrible fence or shed behind the user which you just want to wipe away.. then what? Sure for studio portraits f/2 is ok, but many use the f/1.4 outdoors in informal situations.
Rupert—I deleted those multiple posts. For some reason, as I edited my original and reposted last night, the earlier versions were kept but were not visible to me as I edited and resposted. Odd.
I agree re. giving the VR treatment to the 1.8 version; that makes sense. But your post led me to thinking about the ƒ1.4 version again—I have not experienced it on the D3, and on re-re-thinking, the ƒ1.4 makes far more sense on the D3 (not just image-wise but weight and size-wise, too) whereas it was unwieldy on the D200, the last digital body I tried it on.
So how much do folks think a new 80-400 af-s VRII will list for.
Interesting to me, all those folks who like the Canon 100-400, I had 2 of them and prefer my copy of the Sigma 80-400 - just get far more keeper shots hand held with the Siggy than I did with the Canon 100-400. Conversely neither my Sigma 70-200 or 100-300 could hold a candle to my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS.
Pavel wrote:
THe price will be about 1/3 of what a F 1.4 would be if you judge by todays pricing model and who the heck wants to carry around the much larger, much heavier, much more "look at me" lens? The iso performance of any of the last few years cameras obviate the need for f 1.4 and with a 85 focus is very chancy.
So the F2.0 if it comes to pass strikes me as a very sensible decision, kind of like the D3 where they didn't resort to keeping up with the Cano-johnses and kept the resolution a modest 12 megapixels. ...Show more →
Well I for one wants to carry one and actually, the only people that would consider it a "look at me lens" would be those that have considered buying one which is a substantial minority when you consider most would be shooting with the kit lens they got with the camera that happens to be pretty much about the same size, at least your average consumer wouldn't know the difference.
Now, this is all just my opinion but just because we can shoot at higher iso and get clean files doesn't mean you SHOULD by default for exactly the same reason we shoot raw. For every little microgram of quality we can get.
If the 85 2 VR becomes reality I will applaud but at the same time I won't be running out and selling my 1.4.
Rupert Stubbs wrote:
There is a reason that the 85 1.4 is famous. An f2 VR version sounds like a cheap-ish consumer lens, not an update.
If it in fact is an accurate prediction I would think the f2 VR be just another selection in the 85. Just as Canon has three versions Nikon decided to do 3 as well but in a different way and here I agree with Pavel, a job well done for Nikon doing something different.
I don't think that lens replaces the 1.4 however it probably would do better at handholding with the VR. I didn't like my 50mm 1.8, I still have a 50mm E from the 80s that feels better than than that thing did after a few years. The 1.4 I bought is nice (the newer ones not so nice almost identical to the 1.8 in build). Based on that experience it is unlikely the lens is for me personally but I see where this is a subjective matter and has as much to do with emotion as it does image quality.
I have shot with both the 1.8, the 1.4 and the canon 1.2. Diminishing returns.
By a "look at me" lens Rene .... I mean conspicuous when you are walking around not "showing off" but rather not wanting to stand out to where the equipment draws attention.
sometimes its ok ... sometimes it's really nice to not look like someone with expensive gear. And the 1.4 draws attention.
Despite the "legend" status people simply tend to love to think if its expensive that it is great and if they have spent a fortune on it "sublime".
The 1.4 is not so hot wide open in my experience and I have to really look hard at the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 in bokeh. Funny, the 1.2 vs the canon 1.8 shows a huge difference but much of it I put down to how that lens simply paints because it has that look even at f 2.0 and the 1.8 does not. But focusing the 1.2? Hit and miss.
(of course if I were not so mello and diplomatic in my old age - I'd say all canon focus is "hit and miss" .... but some don't care for the friendly ribbing ... perhaps because they suffered through the syndrome themselves?)
Anyhow, to put this into perspective I would love for them to both be updated. And the 1.4 improved at bit. But if it is only one or the other .... there is nothing wrong with a tini lens, one stop slower, which would likely cost $500-700 versus a much much higher price-tag.
A great lens made even better but for many more people rather than a gem, with bragging rights and a bit more - for a lot more. No I'm cool with either ... I just don't get why some think the sky fell - if its not the ultimate. Heck ... if Nikon goes that way ... they would be nuts to stay in Canons shadow and do only a 1.4. Go all the way then, don't you think?
In any case, either way if this rumor is true .... our little worlds just got better. :-)
Ruairidh wrote:
So how much do folks think a new 80-400 af-s VRII will list for.
Interesting to me, all those folks who like the Canon 100-400, I had 2 of them and prefer my copy of the Sigma 80-400 - just get far more keeper shots hand held with the Siggy than I did with the Canon 100-400. Conversely neither my Sigma 70-200 or 100-300 could hold a candle to my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS.
I think a new 80-400mm would cost about the same as it is now, about $100 more. The current one being $1430, I'm guessing a new one would be around $1550 or so. I don't see it being more than the 70-200mm F/2.8.
louis fusco wrote:
i dont think a dx version of a 50-150 would be of any difference is size and weight from fx. the agedly 28 is only pc not ts.
The Sigma 50-150mm and the Tokina 50-135mm are considerably smaller than their 80-200mm counterparts. The nice thing too, is that they have reduced the min focusing distance by about half. I had Sigma's and it wasn't half bad. I would like to see Nikon release one in the same range with VR.
Pavel wrote:
I have shot with both the 1.8, the 1.4 and the canon 1.2. Diminishing returns.
By a "look at me" lens Rene .... I mean conspicuous when you are walking around not "showing off" but rather not wanting to stand out to where the equipment draws attention.
sometimes its ok ... sometimes it's really nice to not look like someone with expensive gear. And the 1.4 draws attention.
Despite the "legend" status people simply tend to love to think if its expensive that it is great and if they have spent a fortune on it "sublime".
The 1.4 is not so hot wide open in my experience and I have to really look hard at the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 in bokeh. Funny, the 1.2 vs the canon 1.8 shows a huge difference but much of it I put down to how that lens simply paints because it has that look even at f 2.0 and the 1.8 does not. But focusing the 1.2? Hit and miss.
(of course if I were not so mello and diplomatic in my old age - I'd say all canon focus is "hit and miss" .... but some don't care for the friendly ribbing ... perhaps because they suffered through the syndrome themselves?)
Anyhow, to put this into perspective I would love for them to both be updated. And the 1.4 improved at bit. But if it is only one or the other .... there is nothing wrong with a tini lens, one stop slower, which would likely cost $500-700 versus a much much higher price-tag.
A great lens made even better but for many more people rather than a gem, with bragging rights and a bit more - for a lot more. No I'm cool with either ... I just don't get why some think the sky fell - if its not the ultimate. Heck ... if Nikon goes that way ... they would be nuts to stay in Canons shadow and do only a 1.4. Go all the way then, don't you think?
In any case, either way if this rumor is true .... our little worlds just got better. :-)...Show more →
I may have misunderstood your point because I certainly agree with you about diminishing returns. Having used the Canon 85 1.2 more than my 1.4 I feel it has a certain something that I can't put my finger on. I am not above admitting it may be it's reputation that clouds judgement but damn that focus.
I think any of the 85 models in the hands of skilled craftsmen are suitable and the printed differences of a great image defy the differences in price.
At any rate, I agree with all of your above. I am not immune to being impractical in my lens choices. I often point out people should buy what they want, they are more likely to actually go out and use it than something simply practical. It is true at least in my case.
The 85 f2 sounds interesting especially if it is a new formula made with exotic glass. We will have to wait and see the details. But keep in mind that one of the best performing short tele you can buy is the Leica 90mm f2. It is incredible and the bokeh just rocks. So, 85 f/2 from Nikon would be welcome if it can come close to the 90 Leica apo.
gugs wrote:
I have to agree about the PC lens. I just "cut and pasted" the list and I think this is a mistake. But on the other hand I have seen other sources confirming the first three... and because of the track record of the source I would bet that this is 90% reliable.
Only the future will tell...
Guy
There is a rumour that Canon may have an update for at least one of their T/S lenses at PMA, my guess is that its the 24mm & it has been said that it will have some form of AF.
A 28mm PC nikkor is not out of place & will fill a big gap in the range. I know of two pros who chose Canon due to their 3 T/S lenses which are invaluable for table top & landscape work
