ponderosabob wrote:
For the record, I said they weren't that great, and yes they have great central sharpness, but are very soft away from center. Which is not always a bad thing. Depends on what you are going for. Shallow DOF can be used to great benefit. Close them up a couple stops and they sharpen up, but then you are still at the same f-stop where the Nikkors AF lenses are already sharp.
Why are you so focused on "sharpness"? The 35L was my favorite lens because its great color reproduction, fantastic bokeh in addition to its sharpness as well as its sturdy build, etc. I think anyone who's actually used the 35L extensively would be a fan - have you actually used one? I love my Nikon stuff, but the Canon 35L is a really fantastic lens that simply doesn't have a peer in the Nikon camp.
ponderosabob wrote:
I have at least a half dozen lenses that I could have taken that photo with.
Most likely in much less light.
What are YOU saying - that Nikon equipment would not be capable of that photo?
Puhleeez
For the record, I said they weren't that great, and yes they have great central sharpness, but are very soft away from center. Which is not always a bad thing. Depends on what you are going for. Shallow DOF can be used to great benefit. Close them up a couple stops and they sharpen up, but then you are still at the same f-stop where the Nikkors AF lenses are already sharp.
Check out photozones reviews of the 2 lenses, and you'll see I'm not alone in my opinion.
So ..... What about that photo requires autofocus? ...Show more →
Haha, I like you, bob!
I'll play along because I am more bored than the glove salesman at michael jackson's favorite glove shop.
For starters, I'm curious which Nikon lenses you own that could do that at that aperture? Maybe I will buy a d700 afterall!
Secondly, I wasnt saying that a Nikon couldnt take that shot, I was simply debunking the nonsense you were spewing. And I think I did so with one snapshot. As the kids are saying these days 'you've been served'.
Certainly, a Nikon could take that shot, but you would have to compromise:
1. Shoot it with the stellar Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 (or any other 35mm f/2.8 offering) but then you'd need to shoot it at ISO 25000 to make up the two stops lost in aperture.
2. Buy the 28 f/1.4 @ $3k.
3. Use the Sigma 30 f/1.4 (good luck with that), but then I think you'd have to shoot on crop mode (could be wrong about that).
For ME, but I'm crazy, I'll take the 5d2 + 35L option for shots like this.
Oh, and autofocus was not required...so why did I use it on this dimly lit shot? Because it works!
Does anyone think that Nikon and Canon dominate the DSLR market by producing lousy pro glass? Both companies take a different approach to their lens line-up, each having its strengths and weaknesses.
The PhotoZone review of the 35L f/1.4 looks much better than Nikon's 35 f/2. Many here wish Nikon would rework their fixed lens line-up. I prefer zooms, with a few fixed lenses mixed in, but that's me. For Canerios' shot, I would use Nikon's manual focus 35 f/1.4--a great lens in the 70's.
Not much to be gained putting down other manufacturers. We should be arguing about KR.
Slug69 wrote:
One thing that is pretty cool is the battery that comes with a D700 will work in 8 other Nikon Camera bodies. (D300, D80, D70, D70s, D50, D200, D90, D100)
This helps keep the cost of batteries down. There are a few third party battery suppliers that produce excellent copies of this battery.
Yup, coming from the D80, I had two batteries, and now that I got the D700 I bought another battery, and so have 4 original Nikon batteries.
James R wrote:
Does anyone think that Nikon and Canon dominate the DSLR market by producing lousy pro glass? Both companies take a different approach to their lens line-up, each having its strengths and weaknesses.
The PhotoZone review of the 35L f/1.4 looks much better than Nikon's 35 f/2. Many here wish Nikon would rework their fixed lens line-up. I prefer zooms, with a few fixed lenses mixed in, but that's me. For Canerios' shot, I would use Nikon's manual focus 35 f/1.4--a great lens in the 70's.
Not much to be gained putting down other manufacturers. We should be arguing about KR....Show more →
The 35L should be much better glass, as it's a L-lens and is a newer design. The Nikon lens is good, but is older now and also was not made with the same build quality as the Canon 35 1.4.
I do wish Nikon would update their primes across the board.
