Ahhhh yes, the narrow scope with which we choose to judge an entire range.
I would like to say I understand what you are saying and in many cases I enjoy the precision of some older gear, be it photography or something else. Take computer cases for example, todays cases made of stamped tin no thicker than aluminum foil where the old standard case weighed more than todays entire computer including the monitor. That said, I never cared much for monocrhome or 14 inch monitors so there is something to be said about the new. As is the case with camera gear, it may not be what you are looking for but at the same time I wouldn't say it's junk either. You said it yourself, it's not what YOU enjoy shooting with.
Reminds me of a mind boggling demonstration I had seen, they were crash testing cars. I remember my parents saying the new thin tin small cars would never stand a chance against the old sedans of the golden years up to the 70's even however I was quite astounded to see some of the "boats" being dragged on a catapult on coming to a newer compact in a head on. The compact crumpled and certain parts gave way to the impact as intended with people in the cabin relatively safe however the beast sedan literally crushed driver and passenger! I wouldn't have believed had I not actually seen the tests.
In my personal opinion you are being unrealistic in your terms of "hope" for new Nikkors, just buy the old stuff then and yeah there is a reason I hang on to some of my older lenses with aperture rings, dunno why but I have a 50mm 1.8 E (yea I do, my dad gave it to me, it was his).
There's no doubt that there are some wonderful "classic" lenses and they were really built like tanks back in the day BUT as with anything, technology marches on. With regard to lenses, new and different materials are discovered, tested, and implemented within the entire product lines. In the case of lenses with "plastic" housings you really cannot judge the quality of a lens by its housing. The proof is, after all, in the glass.
Sure both Canon and Nikon occasionally produce a dud but in general their optics are of very high quality. Having to carry around two, sometimes three bodies, I do appreciate the newer, lighter weight construction.
This is all relative. Get yourself something like a Bronica SQB, Hasselblad 500 or Mamiya RB/RZ and then laugh at the pitiful appearance and feel of any 35mm equipment.
I think i understand what you are meaning. I have lenses that are 30 years old, some of you guys probably have some that are even older. And some of these lenses are highly demanded and the prices are nearing the AFD prices.
I doubt that, for instance, the 35mm DX or 60mm DX or the new 85mm DX would last 30 years or more. Why.... because they are cheap. Yup, they are cheap, and because of that we will never really value the lens or get "attached" to it.
In film days, (good) lenses were expensive, so you would really watch out for it, and take good care of it. In a consumer society like ours, we know we can always replace it, if for instance something happened to the 35mm DX, you could always buy a new one for little money.
So because we are getting richer as a society, we consume more, keep upgrading our camera every 2. year and never really get that "love-feeling".
Sure the 24-70 and 14-24 will hold a high value for the next 10-15 years maybe even 20. But 30 years or more...i doubt it
i miss the aperture ring too :-(. the fact we dont need it on amateur cameras is understandable, but why to remove it from pro glass? i would gladly pay those 50Eur more to keep it there :-(
also with my experience AF-S less reliable than AF-D. i think pro glass should have both focus options.
Doesn't bother me in the slightest tbh. The aperture rings on lenses like the 35mm F2D, 85 1.8D feel like crap anyway. Ok, those are not exactly the 85 1.4D, but even so.
millsart wrote: Because you are simply two people and Nikon like most any business caters to what a majority of its market wants.
i cannot see the advanced amatuer crowd that is the majority of who shoots here could change what nikon does by saying they want something different, nikon's biggest market is the people who buy the entry level slr's and lenses, if they all wanted something different, things would change. But they simply don't know enough about the camera's they shoot to want anything different.
ISO1600 wrote:
haha i'm surprised people are getting so emotional about this.
I don't think people are getting emotional. I think that people are utterly disagreeing with you and are finding your points to be completely invalid, and many people, when faced with this, laugh it off as "emotional" rather than "reasoned but blunt/strong disagreement."
I tried out a 300/2.8 AF-S VR II ALPHABET SOUP lens at BIC Camera in Tokyo, on my D700, and the AF didn't come close to the speed i got with the Canon 300/2.8L IS on any EOS camera i ever tried it on. That is the only experience i have with the Nikkor "big guns", and it was a total letdown. That, coupled with their price (compared to Canon's equiv lenses) is not a pretty picture.
Gotta switch to Canon then. I've never had that experience, but if that's your seat-of-the-pants impression, then be happy and use the brand you've found to be better.
I bought a 50/1.4 AF-D earlier this year for $120. Was getting deployed to Iraq, thought the 50G would be a good idea (sealing), so i sold the AF-D and picked up a G lens from B&H. Other than the Imaqe quality, i absolutely hated that lens. The focus was abysmally slow, the focusing ring has about as much feel and character as a pencil sharpener, the G was huge in comparison to the AF-D, AND it took 58mm filters.... 58mm filters on a 50/1.4? haha. Yeah, for the price it is a good lens. It is extremely capable and i did get some good use out of it. Also sold it for 90% or more of what i paid. Now i'm shooting a $40 50/1.8 E on my D700 and FE2 and enjoying it....Show more →
Good, I'm glad you're enjoying it. But, may I just point out here, that lenses are built for image quality. Not for having "character" of handling. It's larger because the image quality was improved. So it was an extremely capable lens and it took great pictures. Yet this standard is so far beneath you that Nikon will never produce another good lens?
Just stick with your old lenses. I understand that you like the feel of them. It's just that a deliberately inflammatory statement like "Nikon will never produce another good lens" is utterly ridiculous. If your only criteria for lenses is solid metal and character of handling, you probably can't consider yourself a photographer.
ISO1600 wrote:
FM'r TWoK and I recently came to the conclusion that, in our opinion, Nikon will never make another good lens. Good meaning a lens that we will enjoy and actually want to own.
Why is this?
The G lenses are all so flimsy, plastic, and lifeless, and have slower AF than their AF-D counterparts (at least in the shorter primes). They are also bigger and more expensive.
Yes, they have outstanding glass, QUIET focus, and will AF on all the newer (cheap) DSLR's, but i can't use them on my FE2 or F.
My 35/2 AF-D focuses closer and faster than the 35/1.8G DX does on a D90.
I will just keep buying AI(and pre-AI) and AF-D stuff.
So- with all that being said, are we the only ones that don't really have any hope for new Nikkors? ...Show more →
You guys are funny.
You said you can't use the newer lenses on your older cameras. Why would you? If I use a older camera I use a matching older lens. The newer lenses are for the newer cameras. Live with it and move on.
I hate to get into to this kind of debate, but I've to say, I've both the 35mm f1.8G and 50mm f1.4G. I like both. I think they're very well bulit, and although I haven't used the 50 1.4D, I don't think focus on the 50mm 1.4G is slow.
I used to use Nikon film camera but I rarely use them now, and switching to the G lens doesn't bother me.
I'm with you on this one ISO1600. I recently sold off all of my G lenses, and AF-D lenses for that matter. I'm not saying they were "bad" lenses in any way; they just didn't have the feel that I was looking for. I'm down to just a few MF lenses now, and couldn't be happier. They feel much sturdier to me, and I like being able to control the aperture through the aperture ring. It's hard for me to cough up more cash for the AF counterparts to the Nikon AIS glass when I know I'll be giving up metal for plastic, and well damped focusing rings for just plain ole focusing rings.
I think that this "debate" is funny. My favorite 2 lenses to use on my Nikon FM are my Nikon 17-35mm 2.8 and my Nikon 28-70mm 2.8. I find the focus on these lenses more predictable than most of the old MF primes. Sure I have tried a 105 2.5 and a 135 that were great but in general I prefer how my 2 AF-S zooms focus.
If you don't like what you have then go find something else. This shouldn't be a difficult decision. If you don't think that Nikon will produce any "good" lenses in the future then I see no reason for you to look forward to a future with Nikon. Get over it and go see what the other manufacturers have.
I don't even feel I need to go into the reasons to love a 200mm f2 & a 300mm 2.8, it has been stated here many times. I don't know if you could find finer glass anywhere.
i am always amused about people who talk this way about their lenses. photography is about images and the process is just a means to accomplish it. i have cheap MF lenses, expensive MF lenses, and lots of AF lenses. i use a MF lens only when it accomplishes the job better than an AF one. for me, that means image quality and controlability. it's the results that matter, not how i got them.
dionysis wrote:
I think that this "debate" is funny. My favorite 2 lenses to use on my Nikon FM are my Nikon 17-35mm 2.8 and my Nikon 28-70mm 2.8. I find the focus on these lenses more predictable than most of the old MF primes. Sure I have tried a 105 2.5 and a 135 that were great but in general I prefer how my 2 AF-S zooms focus.
If you don't like what you have then go find something else. This shouldn't be a difficult decision. If you don't think that Nikon will produce any "good" lenses in the future then I see no reason for you to look forward to a future with Nikon. Get over it and go see what the other manufacturers have.
I don't even feel I need to go into the reasons to love a 200mm f2 & a 300mm 2.8, it has been stated here many times. I don't know if you could find finer glass anywhere.
If you had the 14-24 and the 24-70 however you couldn't. That's my point. I'm not mad about af-s of countless other changes. It's the lack of the ap ring on pro lenses that gets me. Consumer lenses should be the only g's imo.
90 5.0 wrote:
If you had the 14-24 and the 24-70 however you couldn't. That's my point. I'm not mad about af-s of countless other changes. It's the lack of the ap ring on pro lenses that gets me. Consumer lenses should be the only g's imo.
I agree, I don't own those lenses, I think that the ap ring would be a good thing on pro lenses. It is a frustration of mine with my 70-200mm. A good friend of mine does own the 14-24 & 24-70 and also owns an N80 & F100 because of it. He has sold both his Nikon F3 and Nikon FM2 recently due to lack of use.
In the near future I see myself picking up another F100. I just wish that I could get a FM style metal body with some new features that would enable it to work with G lenses. Maybe a FM15 or something.
90 5.0 wrote:
If you had the 14-24 and the 24-70 however you couldn't. That's my point. I'm not mad about af-s of countless other changes. It's the lack of the ap ring on pro lenses that gets me. Consumer lenses should be the only g's imo.
Whats the need for the ap ring though ? Canon hasn't an an ap ring on their EF mount in like 15 years and I've never heard of a single Canon shooter complain about it ?
I've got a few AF-D lenses that have it and just don't see the point in it really, seems much easier to adjust it from the camera. I don't think it hurts having by any means, but just don't see what advantage there would be having the ap ring on the 14-24 or similar.
