I too am waiting for fast primes from Nikon, like the 35L etc. I love the ergonomics and controls of Nikons, but not entirely ready to give up fast primes.
RyanFlynn wrote:
I'm definitely calling bull on that. Care to share some of your sample images from it? So we can see where you garnered this wisdom?
I had two different copies, and returned both of them because they were utter crap. The only sample photos I still have were the ones I sent to B&H to prove the second lens was totally unsharp at any aperture, and I can post some of them when I get home next week...
I think it's quite funny how the Canon users faithfully troll the Nikon forum, so they can spring to the defense when anyone criticizes their beloved brand's second-rate gear...
molson wrote:
I had two different copies, and returned both of them because they were utter crap. The only sample photos I still have were the ones I sent to B&H to prove the second lens was totally unsharp at any aperture, and I can post some of them when I get home next week...
I have had one, and one copy alone It is good wide open and superb when stopped down! I don't see how anyone can _not_ like the quality this lens offers at 1.4 and 24mm. It is not 200 1.8 IS L USM sharp (at 1.8) at 1.4, but you can't expect this from a 24mm?
ulrikft wrote:
I have had one, and one copy alone It is good wide open and superb when stopped down! I don't see how anyone can _not_ like the quality this lens offers at 1.4 and 24mm.
Like the saying goes, if you don't expect much, you'll never be disappointed... I guess that's how Canon manages to keep so many happy, devoted followers.
molson wrote:
Like the saying goes, if you don't expect much, you'll never be disappointed... I guess that's how Canon manages to keep so many happy, devoted followers.
Thanks... :P
Yep the dirty little secret is that Nikon has a very limited range of modern AF fast primes. IMHO the Nikkor f2.8 24-70 is the equal of their primes so you will have to buy a Canon body (I have) to use the EOS F1.4 24 & 35 and their F1.2 50 & 85 "Ls ."
But with Nikon's superb FX sensor performance @ 6400 ISO consider just how "Fast" a 2.8 lens really is (also with more DOF). I am happy with their 3 pro F2.8 zooms that cover 14-200mm. So a good case can be made for buying a D700 to save lots of money on a camera package.
molson wrote:
I had two different copies, and returned both of them because they were utter crap. The only sample photos I still have were the ones I sent to B&H to prove the second lens was totally unsharp at any aperture, and I can post some of them when I get home next week...
I think it's quite funny how the Canon users faithfully troll the Nikon forum, so they can spring to the defense when anyone criticizes their beloved brand's second-rate gear...
Edited by molson on Sep 08, 2008 at 07:40 AM GMT
Pretty much the unnecessarily pedantic and sarcastic response I expected from you, but thanks. Call me a troll if you want, but I couldn't care less about brands, I just want what I want, and I like things that work. Canon lenses are perfect for me, Nikon bodies are perfect for me ... what to do?
Not that you'd believe me, because it's outside your locked-in view of Canon users, but I have zero brand loyalty, and I couldn't care less what people say, if it's true.
My 24/1.4 is fantastic, that's all there is to it. And I know enough other people with great copies to believe that your poor copies are the exception, not the rule as you'd have us believe. People deserve unbiased facts, not opinions. I'm anxiously awaiting your sample images, and your further derogations.
There are quite a few test that report the 24L as a state of the art glass that compares well not only with Nikkors but the German glass as well. That said the 24L is really a specialized lens for F2.0 and below shooting.
I have the 20mm F2.8 and the 35mm F2. I tried the 17-35mm in the camera store, shooting the slaesman with backlight from the large windows and it sucked.
You wanted some facts. Since every lens is different, samples vary and unfortunately, you will have to make individual tests on the lenses in question. This is why enthusiasm varies by user.
Also, I had a 24mm F2 MF and it did not suck. I had a 35mm F1.4 MF and it was allright. I had a 50mm F1.2 and by F4 it started to look good. The 50mm F1.8 MF looked even better.
Drawbacks? Well, wierd and hard-to-correct distortion, not very good corner sharpness until f/8 or so. But who would buy an f/1.8 wideangle for shooting at f/8? Not me.
Drawbacks? Well, wierd and hard-to-correct distortion, not very good corner sharpness until f/8 or so. But who would buy an f/1.8 wideangle for shooting at f/8? Not me.
+1
Although, I don't find the distortion that bad at all for a 20mm!
phillip ino wrote:
Although, I don't find the distortion that bad at all for a 20mm!
It's not "bad", but very hard to correct since it goes from barrel shaped to wave shaped, to almost pincushion in the extreme corners. Not a lens for architecture, but for everything else it's nice.
If manual focus is not an issue (which it isn't with the D700 in my opinion), the Nikkor 35/1.4 is an other very nice lens. Acceptable sharpness wide open and very sharp stopped down, except for the extreme corners again.
It is good wide open and superb when stopped down! I don't see how anyone can _not_ like the quality this lens offers at 1.4 and 24mm. It is not 200 1.8 IS L USM sharp (at 1.8) at 1.4, but you can't expect this from a 24mm?