 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 200630mm F1.4 APS 45mm eq. 'normal' prime
Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM (APS 45mm eq. prime) $450 I'm making a separate thread for this after Alfred's post about some new 4/3 lenses. It seems a useful lens for a crop fram dSLR, although not cheap, the normal field of view is still a very important thing. A quick look at the reviews & tests shows lots of barrel distortion and I'd assume it's not razor sharp but still I don't know of a fast 'normal' replacement anywhere near the price. As a result I don't have a fast normal prime and I don't think hardly any dSLR users do which is a shame. sample shots: http://qgyen.net/photos/category1071.aspx -what's that star shaped highlight stopped down? http://www.pbase.com/aroid/sigma_30mm_f14_ex_dc_hsm http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/sigma30 The Nikkon 35mm f/2 isn't all that great so this may be worth looking at & the 28mm f/1.4 is $1,800 which is just silly for what used to be a $100 f/1.8 normal prime. 'Normal' means roughly equivalent to the human field of view. OK well I found another option, the manual focus 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor $580 new, as low as $250 used. It's got some funny things about it like light fall-off, not flat field, weird bokeh, chromatic aberration, barrel distortion & no AF but it fits the bill as a dSLR fast normal prime at about the same price as that Sigma. It's supposed to be extraordinarily sharp around f/4-5.6 but poor wide open & mediocre at f/16. Manual focusing shouldn't be too bad with a huge 1.4 aperture although that does slow you down so limits spontaneous shooting opportunities. It's got close range correction so gets as close as a foot away. I'd love to find an old crusty one for cheap <g>. sample shots: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/35_14ais > Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM (APS 45mm eq. prime) $450 > I'm making a separate thread for this after Alfred's post about some new [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > 'Normal' means roughly equivalent to the human field of view.  SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > The Nikkon 35mm f/2 isn't all that great so this may be worth looking at > & the 28mm f/1.4 is $1,800 which is just silly for what used to be a > $100 f/1.8 normal prime. Oh come on, Paul. Don't be such a cheapskate. Since the 28mm f/1.4 is practically unavailable at any price I suppose that there is little chance of getting one. I suspect that this lens is due for an update anyway. With any luck it will also be cheaper. >>The Nikkon 35mm f/2 isn't all that great so this may be worth looking at >>& the 28mm f/1.4 is $1,800 which is just silly for what used to be a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I suspect that this lens is due for an update anyway. With any luck it > will also be cheaper. What about a Non-Ai 28mm f/2.0 Nikkor-N or the above mentioned Non-Ai 35mm f/1.4-N? Yeah, I think Nikon needs to add something along these lines to their offerings. > >>The Nikkon 35mm f/2 isn't all that great so this may be worth looking at > >>& the 28mm f/1.4 is $1,800 which is just silly for what used to be a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Yeah, I think Nikon needs to add something along these lines to their > offerings. I think the only fixed focus lenses that Nikon has introduced for awhile are the 10.5mm DX fish eye and the 105mm Micro Nikkor (and even that is a slightly re-worked version of the earlier lens). Customers want zooms, and with the high quality of zooms nowadays, why not? Now, a 24-80 f/1.4 AF-S VR DX zoom -- that might sell. >>>>The Nikkon 35mm f/2 isn't all that great so this may be worth looking at >>>>& the 28mm f/1.4 is $1,800 which is just silly for what used to be a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > want zooms, and with the high quality of zooms nowadays, why not? Now, > a 24-80 f/1.4 AF-S VR DX zoom -- that might sell. I'm sold on zoom but there is no such thing as a 1.4 zoom, or even prime in the normal range. That's a big problem with APS sensors IMO. > I'm sold on zoom but there is no such thing as a 1.4 zoom, or even > prime in the normal range. That's a big problem with APS sensors IMO. There's certainly such a thing as an f1.8 zoom, and even an f1.4 and f1.2 zoom -- for other formats. For *smaller* formats. They're ubiquitous in 16mm and especially the old Super-8 format. One of the theoretical benefits of APS sensors is that it's possible, for a given quality and price and zoom range and sales level, to make *faster* lenses. (Of course particularly with "sales level" on that list, often all other things *aren't* equal. And it takes a while for companies to commit to the new market conditions. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > I think the only fixed focus lenses that Nikon has introduced for > awhile are the 10.5mm DX fish eye and the 105mm Micro Nikkor (and even > that is a slightly re-worked version of the earlier lens). The new 105mm is a completely new design that would appear to have very little to do with the previous model. The optical design bears no real resemblance to the earlier version. Nikon has also introduced the 200/2 recently, along with the 300/2.8. > Customers want zooms, They want cheap crap, too. It's a shame the need to cater to that seems so often to outweigh the desire to look to the higher end of the market. Luckily Nikon does continue to put out some higher-end lenses, even if not quite as many as we might like. > and with the high quality of zooms nowadays, why not? Now, > a 24-80 f/1.4 AF-S VR DX zoom -- that might sell. Probably not very well, considering how expensive and large it would be. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Since the 28mm f/1.4 is practically unavailable at any price I suppose > that there is little chance of getting one. > > I suspect that this lens is due for an update anyway. With any luck it > will also be cheaper. The 28mm f/1.4 is listed on Nikon's Japanese site as discontinued: http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/discontinue/others/index.htm SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >The Nikkon 35mm f/2 isn't all that great What is wrong with the 35/2.0? SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>The Nikkon 35mm f/2 isn't all that great > > What is wrong with the 35/2.0? Maybe it's an option but it's not 1.4 or even 1.8. I'm inclined to get a 2.8 zoom in that range and f/2 seems hardly different from that. I would like something dramatically faster than 2.8 (and normal or wider). > >> The Nikkon 35mm f/2 isn't all that great > > What is wrong with the 35/2.0? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would like something dramatically faster than 2.8 (and normal or > wider). A 2.0 is a full stop faster than a 2.8. The difference between a 2.0 and a 1.8 is trivial. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> What is wrong with the 35/2.0? > >Maybe it's an option but it's not 1.4 or even 1.8. I'm inclined to get a >2.8 zoom in that range and f/2 seems hardly different from that. I would >like something dramatically faster than 2.8 (and normal or wider). One stop faster than the 35/2.0 is the 35/1.4. But I'm not sure that I need the shallow DoF it is supposed to offer. I like relatively compact lenses. In my opinion, most zooms are too bulky. I select zooms only when there is no real alternative, such as with the 17-35. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> What is wrong with the 35/2.0? > > Maybe it's an option but it's not 1.4 or even 1.8. I'm inclined to get a > 2.8 zoom in that range and f/2 seems hardly different from that. I would > like something dramatically faster than 2.8 (and normal or wider). f/2 is a full stop faster than 2.8. f/1.8 is only a third of a stop faster than that, barely significant. Nikon has a 35/1.4, though its wide-open performance is not reported to be all that wonderful. You can also get the 28/1.4, but it's going to be amazingly expensive. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>The Nikkon 35mm f/2 isn't all that great > >What is wrong with the 35/2.0? What is right with it? It isn't particularly sharp, especially wide open, and it has harsh bokeh. Not one of Nikon's better lenses. In fact Nikon doesn't offer any particularly good lenses in the 35mm focal length. The same applies to the ~50mm standard lenses, where only the 58mm f/1.2 NOCT-Nikkor is a particularly good design, and that lens costs a small fortune. It is in the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths that Zeiss will do particularly well with the new ZF range for Nikon AI mount. The Zeiss 35mm and 50mm f/1.4 lenses will be very good additions to almost any Nikon outfit, except of course those AF film and digital SLRs that don't offer metering with non-CPU lenses. >>>The Nikkon 35mm f/2 isn't all that great >> >>What is wrong with the 35/2.0? > >What is right with it? It isn't particularly sharp, especially wide >open, and it has harsh bokeh. Not one of Nikon's better lenses. My sample seems sharp enough. >It is in the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths that Zeiss will do >particularly well with the new ZF range for Nikon AI mount. The Zeiss >35mm and 50mm f/1.4 lenses will be very good additions to almost any >Nikon outfit, I can't wait to see a shoot out between the Zeiss lenses and the Nikon counterparts. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>What is wrong with the 35/2.0? > > What is right with it? It isn't particularly sharp, especially wide > open, and it has harsh bokeh. Not one of Nikon's better lenses. It doesn't sound like you've actually used it; it's a quite good lens. > It is in the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths that Zeiss will do > particularly well with the new ZF range for Nikon AI mount. The Zeiss > 35mm and 50mm f/1.4 lenses will be very good additions to almost any > Nikon outfit, except of course those AF film and digital SLRs that > don't offer metering with non-CPU lenses. There have been very few sample shots from the Zeiss 50/1.4, and those have not been impressive by comparison to Nikon's. I'll wait and see on that one. The out-of-focus rendition is the area where Nikon's offerings fall over (even the best 50mm models they've made), but the samples I saw from the ZF model didn't look much better. A 35/1.4 would be interesting, though, and could probably beat Nikon's. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>>What is wrong with the 35/2.0? >> >> What is right with it? It isn't particularly sharp, especially wide >> open, and it has harsh bokeh. Not one of Nikon's better lenses. > >It doesn't sound like you've actually used it; it's a quite good lens. On the contrary, I have extensively used the 35mm f/2 in both AIS and AF-D versions. It works well at f/8, but so does most Cosina glass. Wide open performance is poor. Bokeh is harsh. Mechanical reliability leaves a lot to be desired and there is the recurring problem of helicoid lubricant reaching the iris diaphragm blades. It is a very disappointing lens in every respect - unless you value low price over optical ability. The Nikon 35mm f/2 is a weak design in an important focal length. If it was any good it would be a useful standard lens on Nikon DSLRs. Unfortunately, it is at best a mediocre optic, especially when compared with such optical gems as the Pentax 35mm f/2. >There have been very few sample shots from the Zeiss 50/1.4, and those >have not been impressive by comparison to Nikon's. I'll wait and see >on that one. The out-of-focus rendition is the area where Nikon's >offerings fall over (even the best 50mm models they've made), but the >samples I saw from the ZF model didn't look much better. Do you have a link for these? I wasn't aware that any sample shots had been released. Someone posted some shots from a Carl Zeiss for Contax 50mm f/1.4, trying to show bokeh comparisons, but they were fatally flawed, being of different subjects in different conditions. >A 35/1.4 would be interesting, though, and could probably beat Nikon's. Agreed. Both of the Carl Zeiss 35mm lenses for Contax SLRs were outstanding performers. >>>>What is wrong with the 35/2.0? >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Unfortunately, it is at best a mediocre optic, especially when > compared with such optical gems as the Pentax 35mm f/2. Nikon: http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/NiAF35_2D-442.shtml Contax: http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/CoGPlanar35_20-125.shtml You'll see the Nikon is hardly a "weak design" if you consider the Contax (Zeiss) to be fantastic. Performance is virtually identical and far, far, far above ANY of the tested Cosina lenses (they seem pretty bad from the MTF charts). Too bad most of the Pentax lens tests at Photodo are for the MF lenses and the 35mm f/2.0 isn't tested. Pentax did make some great lenses. >>There have been very few sample shots from the Zeiss 50/1.4, and those >>have not been impressive by comparison to Nikon's. I'll wait and see >>on that one. The out-of-focus rendition is the area where Nikon's >>offerings fall over (even the best 50mm models they've made), but the >>samples I saw from the ZF model didn't look much better. Nikon lens performance passed Zeiss's (and Leica's, sorry Leicaphiles) back in the late 1950's and early 1960's (photojournalists covering the Korean war were happily snapping up Nikons in SE Asia which weren't available in the U.S.). The photographers (collectors?) that I've heard who express a preference for Leica lenses over anyone elses usually talk in terms of uniform color rendition throughout the line of lenses...the only other place I've heard that claim was for the Bronica PE line of lenses. > Do you have a link for these? I wasn't aware that any sample shots > had been released. Someone posted some shots from a Carl Zeiss for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Agreed. Both of the Carl Zeiss 35mm lenses for Contax SLRs were > outstanding performers. Zeiss lenses, are frequently manufactured under license by the company whose camera they fit. I do remember reading (years ago) that Yashica was making the Zeiss-designed lenses for their Contax line. The tests at www.photodo.com seem to generally indicate that they did a good job at it, too. Too bad Photodo didn't test the 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss, I'd be interested in seeing how it did. They did test the 35mm f/2.0 for the Contax (I gave the link above) and it did almost the same as the Nikon (including softness at f/2.0). Unfortunately, bokeh doesn't seem to be something anyone can quantize (so there is no info on that). >You'll see the Nikon is hardly a "weak design" if you consider the Contax >(Zeiss) to be fantastic. Performance is virtually identical and far, far, >far above ANY of the tested Cosina lenses (they seem pretty bad from the MTF >charts). The Kyocera-made Carl Zeiss lenses for Contax SLRs included a 35mm f/1.4 and f/2.8. There was never an f/2. The Contax lens you referred to is for the G Series. It is not suitable for SLRs. It is well known that its optical performance was mediocre, especially by the high standards of Zeiss lenses made in Japan. The 16mm, 21mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses for the G Series were excellent; the 35mm (and the 35-70mm zoom) fell far short of the standards the other lenses set. >Too bad most of the Pentax lens tests at Photodo are for the MF >lenses and the 35mm f/2.0 isn't tested. Pentax did make some great lenses. And Pentax still do. Unfortunately, MTF figures are of little relevance to the real world. They help lens designers and production controllers but they don't tell any meaningful story to users. The Photodo data is even worse than MTF, because of the bizarre and highly inconsistent methodology used. No attempt is made to measure the many other parameters that have a significant impact on optical quality. It's MTF and nothing else, carried out in a subjective and strangely arbitrary manner and wrapped up in an even more subjective "overall rating". As a result, Photodo data is grossly misleading, and best ignored. >Nikon lens performance passed Zeiss's (and Leica's, sorry Leicaphiles) back >in the late 1950's and early 1960's (photojournalists covering the Korean >war were happily snapping up Nikons in SE Asia which weren't available in >the U.S.). An urban myth. Nikon and Canon manufactured lenses in Leica screw and Contax bayonet mount and they were sold to photojournalists covering the Korean war at one quarter to one third of the price of Leica or Contax glass. No wonder the PJs were enthusiastic - the lenses were absolute bargains! It would be some years before Nikon and Canon could make lenses that competed on level terms with Leica and Zeiss glass - and by then, Leica and Zeiss had moved on. Only one of the Nikon rangefinder lenses was still worth considering - the 105mm f/2.5 was an excellent performer and the still-current 105mm f/2.5 AIS is very closely based on the same 1950s design. Nikon have made very few lenses since that are optically anywhere near as good as this lens. It is a gem. >The photographers (collectors?) that I've heard who express a >preference for Leica lenses over anyone elses usually talk in terms of >uniform color rendition throughout the line of lenses...the only other place >I've heard that claim was for the Bronica PE line of lenses. You clearly have not the faintest idea of what you are writing about. >Unfortunately, bokeh doesn't seem to be something anyone can >quantize (so there is no info on that). If only the inability to measure bokeh was the sole failing of the Photodo "tests". If you look into the detailed methodology, and the way Photodo presents the results, you will soon see just how meaningless those results are. But there are plenty of gullible people who believe lens performance can be expressed as a single number, so Photodo still has its "believers". 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss <http://www.hotbuyselectronics.com/item_detail.php?item_id=648> >>You'll see the Nikon is hardly a "weak design" if you consider the Contax >>(Zeiss) to be fantastic. Performance is virtually identical and far, far, [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > people who believe lens performance can be expressed as a single > number, so Photodo still has its "believers". SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > tell any meaningful story to users. The Photodo data is even worse > than MTF, because of the bizarre and highly inconsistent methodology [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wrapped up in an even more subjective "overall rating". As a result, > Photodo data is grossly misleading, and best ignored. Wrong. It is actual measurement data and therefore more valid than most subjective opinions. One has to understand the charts at photodo in order to understand what they mean and how they contibute to the overall "score" for the lens. It would be nice if they did measure other qualities, to be sure, but what they do measure, lens to lens is a valid comparison. As you have never posted a high quality image, ever, it is a wonder that such things even occupy your thoughts in any case. ;-) Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >On the contrary, I have extensively used the 35mm f/2 in both AIS and >AF-D versions. It works well at f/8, but so does most Cosina glass. >Wide open performance is poor. According to Nikon MTF charts, apart from the corners, the 35/2 AF is about as sharp as the 50/1.8. According to David Ruether, in <http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm>, sharpness of the 35/2. is 'very good' at f/2.8 (except from the corners, which are described as 'good'). You are not going to convince me that a lens can go from poor to very good in just one stop. Bjørn Rørslett has this say about the 35/2: "On the D2X, the AIS 35/2 I own performs superbly. It shows flatter "field all-over than the faster 35/1.4 and CA is well under control. "Image crispness is of the highest class, even when the lens is "opened up (a little softer at f/2 than the 35/1.4, though). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >According to Nikon MTF charts, apart from the corners, the 35/2 AF is about as >sharp as the 50/1.8. Two truly *horrible* lenses. No wonder they can be compared. ;-) > Do you have a link for these? I wasn't aware that any sample shots > had been released. Someone posted some shots from a Carl Zeiss for > Contax 50mm f/1.4, trying to show bokeh comparisons, but they were > fatally flawed, being of different subjects in different conditions. They were on dpreview, and came from some non-English site where there was no way to tell whether they were even genuine; the text claimed they were from the ZF models, but with no indication of how they got their hands on them, it's hard to say for sure. Somewhere in the Nikon Lens forum in the past few days. Nothing too special. I'm still in wait-and-see mode, as a big fan of 50mm on 1.5x. The 85/1.4, though, will need to come down the mountain with Moses to be interesting compared to Nikon's. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Do you have a link for these? I wasn't aware that any sample shots > had been released. Someone posted some shots from a Carl Zeiss for > Contax 50mm f/1.4, trying to show bokeh comparisons, but they were > fatally flawed, being of different subjects in different conditions. Some more Zeiss ZF samples: http://www.nikonclub.cc/nikon/index.php?showtopic=1655&st=30 I am quite unimpressed. Out-of-focus rendition seems to be about as bad as the Nikons. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.