xabi wrote:
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 can't believe I just read this. You haven't used the 1.4D and you think the 1.4G is not slow? Use the 1.4D and THEN say it's not slow.
dionysis wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Exactly, I could chunk them on my N-75 but that limits the film i can burn. I would have to go out and buy another body to shoot the film I want and the lens I want at that point. All because of lack of an ap ring.
Millsart, see all of my above posts specifically the one on the first page for the plethora of reasons to need an ap ring.
90 5.0 wrote:
Exactly, I could chunk them on my N-75 but that limits the film i can burn. I would have to go out and buy another body to shoot the film I want and the lens I want at that point. All because of lack of an ap ring.
Millsart, see all of my above posts specifically the one on the first page for the plethora of reasons to need an ap ring.
How many people go out and buy lens that cost nearly $2000 like the 14-24 or 24-70 to go shoot them on a film body like a N-75 though ?
Not to get into a debate about the joys of using obsolete technology, but I just don't see how thats a target market.
I think Nikon specifically designed the 14-24 and similar lens designs soley for the D3, D700, D3x market.
From a business aspect film is dead and has been for years.
HerbChong wrote:
it's the results that matter, not how i got them.
Sort of the opposite for me. I enjoy taking photos much more than the results.
And that's not because I'm a bad photographer. I like the results too, when I get it right. But I can't get it right with gear that I don't like. And I don't like +1 kilo f/2.8 lenses.
Makten wrote:
In the same way that cars are only built for getting you from point A to point B. Which of course is not true.
That's not an accurate comparison.
Image quality encompasses many things about a lens. If you want to say that, it'd have to be if I told you that lenses are built to let in light.
Primarily, lenses are built to serve image quality. Primarily, cars are built to serve ride quality. You can have cheap cars that serve up cheap ride quality, or expensive cars that serve up expensive ride quality, and it's the same with lenses.
To continue the comparison, this is equivalent to someone saying, "This car serves all of my needs very well. The ride quality is great, I have no issues with reliability or functional problems with the build of any kind. The trim around the edges of the dash, though, is plastic instead of wood and because of that, I am labeling the car as no good and all future cars with plastic trim will be no good."
Makten wrote:
Sort of the opposite for me. I enjoy taking photos much more than the results.
And that's not because I'm a bad photographer. I like the results too, when I get it right. But I can't get it right with gear that I don't like. And I don't like +1 kilo f/2.8 lenses.
Thats why you, like the rest of us, who make up probably .01% of the market, is here on a gear-centric discussion board on the internet.
I collect vintage guitars, not because I'm really a great guitar player, or in a band or anything like that, but simply because I like the old designs and craftsmanship. Same reason others might enjoy driving vintage cars on the weekend. Not to get to point A from point B, but because they actually enjoy driving it around, thats the fun of it.
I have a big collection of vintage camera's spanning about 100 years and its often fun to take some snaps with some old relics, even though the images are often crap, the lens and interface poor etc. Its just fun to see how things used to be done, and the work that had to go into making an image. Makes you appreciate what we've got to today.
But its not realistic to expect what we may like or enjoy to be main stream. Most people taking photos, or more importantly buying camera's, like things like AF-S G lens with autofocus etc.
Just because I may think driving a vintage car around is fun, I wouldn't expect the auto industry to stop using fuel injection, anti lock brakes, air brakes, air conditioning, cd/mp3 players etc. It wouldn't be mass marketable.
Nikon still sells some MF primes like the 50mm f1.2 but how many do they actually sell ? Very, very few, its not a popular item overall.
They probably sell several thousand 18-200's AF-S G's for every 50mm f1.2 someone orders. Its just not a good business model to cater to the minority for a large corporation.
Thats why smaller firms like CV can offers some specialized designs like the 20 and 40mm's, both of which are fantastic glass, and appeal to a very small and targeted market.
I like the lack of aperture ring on the G lenses. I have taken my cameras to some dusty places and if there is one less place for fine grit to get into the lens thats fine with me. There's no reason for it whatsoever on any camera that's built after 1996.
If I get nostalgic and want to put a roll of film through my F3 I'll use an AiS or Zeiss lens.
there are many pictures i get that are only obtainable with those lenses. that is why i use them. also, my Zeiss lenses are much heavier than any Nikkor counterpart and are much more able to deliver the images. for anything except my landscape work, working without AF is futile.
Herb...
Makten wrote:
Sort of the opposite for me. I enjoy taking photos much more than the results.
And that's not because I'm a bad photographer. I like the results too, when I get it right. But I can't get it right with gear that I don't like. And I don't like +1 kilo f/2.8 lenses.
millsart wrote:
How many people go out and buy lens that cost nearly $2000 like the 14-24 or 24-70 to go shoot them on a film body like a N-75 though ?
Not to get into a debate about the joys of using obsolete technology, but I just don't see how thats a target market.
I think Nikon specifically designed the 14-24 and similar lens designs soley for the D3, D700, D3x market.
From a business aspect film is dead and has been for years.
No one I am sure, but like many others that have posted in here we have many different bodies from different era's. It's not the primary reason for purchase but it's nice to be able to shoot a lens if you really love it on any body you have for that price.
being nice isn't why the G lenses were introduced. the cost to Nikon of going forward was less than the cost of maintaining full compatibility. it's only a matter of time before most new Nikon bodies will AF only with AF-S lenses.
Herb...
90 5.0 wrote:
[It's not the primary reason for purchase but it's nice to be able to shoot a lens if you really love it on any body you have for that price.
I do have a question about the G lenses though... Wouldn't a G lens have better weather sealing vs a lens with a moving aperture ring? I know I have spent many days in the rain / snow with my 70-200mm and I don't worry about it too much. I can't say I would be comfortable doing that with my 28-70.
Yes, G Lenses are better sealed than previous lenses.
I am not saying i don't like nikon's system. I would still prefer G lenses over EF/EOS. I Shot Canon the first 8 years or so, but had a FE2 and some Nikkors for a few of those. Ended up getting on the D700 train because it gives me more of what i want in a camera than anything else out there, just like the Nikon lens lineup. I prefer 20+ year old Nikkor primes to most current glass from any MFG.
I have no brand allegiance, if Kraft or Velveeta made a great FF camera tomorrow for a good price, and had a good system of lenses to support it, i would consider it.
We're not just talking about weight. Me, I don't so much care about the build per se, but the size, THE SIZE! Just take the 50/1.4G for example: nearly ever lens since the 5.8cm f/1.4 rolled of Nippon Kogaku's line has used a 52mm filter thread. The new lens uses 58mm threads like a dumb Canon. I left my 5D behind without any regrets because of how much better in EVERY way the Nikon FX bodies are. Nikon has the weakest lens lineup for anyone wants a small and fast set-up of any current FX manufacture. I mean Nikon hasn't had to design a new mount like Canon. In the 20 years since Canon abandoned the FD mount they've replaced and made a few versions of their lenses. Nikon on the other hand has the weakest sub-85mm lens line-up around. Nikon doesn't even have a sealed zoom for Photojournalists. They don't have any current wide FX primes that are f/2 or faster.
The 35/1.8 DX is amazing. I'd be the happiest Nikon user alive if they made 20/24/28 f/1.8 lenses that matched the great qualities of the 35/1.8 while covering the full sensor. For me the most exciting lens Nikon's made since they discontinued the 28/1.4D is the 35/1.8 DX, but it still has issues.
Canon on the other hand makes a great set of small, cheap primes. The 28/1.8, 50/1.8 and 100/2 could all fit in my cargo pocket. Nikon has no AF line-up to match this.
In the end I want small, cheap and semi-fast primes from Nikon. I'm also happy to pay $2000 for something like a sealed 28/1.4 AF-S, but an update to the 24/2 AIS could be spectacular.
ISO1600 wrote:
Yes, G Lenses are better sealed than previous lenses.
I am not saying i don't like nikon's system. I would still prefer G lenses over EF/EOS. I Shot Canon the first 8 years or so, but had a FE2 and some Nikkors for a few of those. Ended up getting on the D700 train because it gives me more of what i want in a camera than anything else out there, just like the Nikon lens lineup. I prefer 20+ year old Nikkor primes to most current glass from any MFG.
I have no brand allegiance, if Kraft or Velveeta made a great FF camera tomorrow for a good price, and had a good system of lenses to support it, i would consider it....Show more →
Unless it said SIGMA.
TWoK wrote:
Canon on the other hand makes a great set of small, cheap primes. The 28/1.8, 50/1.8 and 100/2 could all fit in my cargo pocket. Nikon has no AF line-up to match this.
Funny you should mention these lenses. I just bought a EOS 3 and have the 28/1.8 and 100/2 coming in the mail. Ooops...I said both the C and F(ilm) words in the same sentence.
It's funny people told me time and time again in this thread to go to Canon. They will probably tell you the same, Nate.
I am happier with the D700 and Nikon's somewhat "limited" lens selection that i ever was with Canon and the EOS system + adapting lenses... but i would be MUCH happier if they had a more well-rounded system.
