I picked mine up today at my local pro shop and I mentioned it worked on the D700. We strapped it onto the store camera and spent 10 minutes figuring out how to disable DX mode, then started shooting.
It works perfectly. Some shots exhibited no vignetting, some slightly stronger. Its wicked sharp at f/1.8 and focus speed is great with the D700.
So, yeah. D3 and D700 users, its your lucky day. A fast wide prime for $200!
I picked mine up today at my local pro shop and I mentioned it worked on the D700. We strapped it onto the store camera and spent 10 minutes figuring out how to disable DX mode, then started shooting.
It works perfectly. Some shots exhibited no vignetting, some slightly stronger. Its wicked sharp at f/1.8 and focus speed is great with the D700.
So, yeah. D3 and D700 users, its your lucky day. A fast wide prime for $200!
Oh, and its great on the D90 too
While that may be true, I ordered one for my D700, I think the unpredictability of the vignette is what killing it for me. While I still use it, I will avoid all situations that I know will have tons of vignette. But from the samples I have seen, it looks to be a good FX lens.
f/1.8 samples on the D90. These are SNAPSHOTS. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't read into it too much. I like my copy. Focuses very close, seems sharp at f/1.8, interesting bokeh... can't think of another lens at $200 that I'd rather have.
If Nikon marketed this as an FX lens, people would be up in arms about it. The fact that people are overflowing with joy that it works in a pinch on FX is a testament to the cleverness of Nikon's marketing department. It's no FX lens, but it will do.
And yeah, we don't really need another thread on this. But in the interest of fairness, here's some boring brickwall tests to show what the lens is really capable of on an FX body, in terms of vignetting and sharpness:
man, screw brick wall shots. I posted real pictures because that is what i take. I don't know the last time i though "man, i should take a shot of that brick wall, people will love it"....
the lens' vignetting is very predictable, IMO. If you are close in, it will have next to none, if you are far out, it will be there.
ISO1600 wrote:
the lens' vignetting is very predictable, IMO. If you are close in, it will have next to none, if you are far out, it will be there.
I think the vignetting is predictable for a DX lens used on FX. That's why I think starting a thread claiming that it's an FX lens in disguise is asinine. It's one thing to claim that it will have "next to no" vignetting, it's another to prove or disprove it. Personally, I think that the level of vignetting is fine for my work, and I've shown practical shots with it - but these sorts of shots do serve a purpose in showing in a more objective way the real characteristics of the lens. All lens introductions are met with a certain amount of hype and skepticism - count me in as one of the skeptics, I suppose.
I think it's just a case of we have very different standards for a $200 lens vs a $1600 lens. Pleasant surprise vs WTF! It's like software: A bug or a feature!
Sam, Taylor, anyone else with this lens and a FX camera, can we see more photos with this lens on FX please? Brick walls are beneath FM'ers. Really.
I miss the 35L and add vignetting to most of my images anyway, so this is an interesting thread. I'm now just wondering if it really that much of a pain in the butt to switch in/out of real camera, er, FX mode.
Nikon should have just made it FX and charged 3x as much. Ridiculous that this is so close and they copped out on it for marketing reasons, I'm guessing. Kinda pulled a Canon if ya ask me.
mauriceramirez wrote:
Sam, Taylor, anyone else with this lens and a FX camera, can we see more photos with this lens on FX please? Brick walls are beneath FM'ers. Really.
I miss the 35L and add vignetting to most of my images anyway, so this is an interesting thread. I'm now just wondering if it really that much of a pain in the butt to switch in/out of real camera, er, FX mode.
Nikon should have just made it FX and charged 3x as much. Ridiculous that this is so close and they copped out on it for marketing reasons, I'm guessing. Kinda pulled a Canon if ya ask me.
Taylor Barrett wrote:
Yes indeed! I probably eat there at least twice a month. Its walking distance from my house and the owner is a super nice guy.
I know his son.. nikolas, funny guy... did you see the crow print hanging anywhere? It's a print I sold him. I miss that place, I miss Queen Anne, El Diablo Coffee... I miss seattle... don't mean to hijack the thread, I suggest you get out and shoot as much as you can when you can, especially @ queen anne..
~ive
Don't want to hijack either but this isn't a very meaningful thread so its all good.
I'll take a look next time I'm in. If its not on the far left wall I probably wouldn't see it otherwise because I usually sit in the same spot. I don't even have to order anymore... they know what I want
I actually almost never take a camera out on queen anne, except once in a blue moon to Kerry park. I'm hoping to change that... hopefully I'll be getting 2 weeks off school to photograph 9 to 5 and I can check out all the places I've neglected.
I don't know how long its been since you were up here but its changing a lot... lots of the kitschy little shops are closing down and condos going up on queen anne ave. I hope qa cafe holds out for a while.
Mar 12, 2009 at 10:00 PM
