 |
 | 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 / February 2007Lacking a good normal lens... dream kit thoughts...
This is mostly a repeat from an off topic rant in the 35mm group regarding the very rare 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor so I'm giving it it's own thread here. Saturday I lugged my whole kit on a long hike & ended up shooting everything on the 28mm f/2 AI MF and even then because it was in the dark forest, I had to boost the ISO for many shots: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Peninsula/2007-02-0 3-sanborne-skyline&PG=3&PIC=17> 1/45 f/2 ISO 500 <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Peninsula/2007-02-0 3-sanborne-skyline/full-set&PG=11&PIC=64> 1/40 f/2 ISO 800 And the 28/2 AI is a bitch to manually focus especially at around 15 feet & beyond there's only 1/8 inch turn to infinity. What I would really like is something like a fantastic 28mm or 33mm for use as a standard lens. I'm torn now between these: $2?00 28/1.4 AF $1460 17-35/2.8 $429 30mm/1.4 DX Sigma I currently have a $200 28/2 AI MF which would be $800 if it didn't have a big scratch on the front element and really like shooting with it, I would be willing to sell that and 2 other lenses to fund the 28/1.4 but they are similarly rare on ebay or anywhere. The 17-35 would be OK but I'd keep the 28/2 (or get the Sigma 30/1.4) & sell the Sigma 12-24 (at a loss) & want a 10.5mm DX fisheye and I've still got that gap up to 70mm so I'd ache for a matching 35-70/2.8 & be stuck having to decide which behemoths to leave at home for lack of space in my bag... argh. And as soon as I decide, Nikon is sure to announce a 32/1.4 VR. The only way to get that angle with VR is the mediocre 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom which would fill all my focal length needs but it's a slow poopy lens. If I won the lottery, I'd go for these & be set for life: $589 10.5mm DX fisheye $2?00 28/1.4 AF $3?00 58/1.2 AF Then I'd have this dream kit: 10.5mm DX fisheye 12-24 Sigma (full frame, super low distortion) 28/1.4 AF 45/2.8 MF (pancake, rounded bokeh, new) 58/1.2 AF 104/2.8 VR AF-S Micro 70-200 AF-S VR oh and lets add a wildlife lens... (for my 1.4 & 2x AF-S TCs): $5000 200-400/4 AF-S VR ... and some kind of flash system for macro work ... and some extension tubes ... and : - ) > I currently have a $200 28/2 AI MF which would be $800 if it didn't > have a big scratch on the front element and really like shooting with > it, I would be willing to sell that and 2 other lenses to fund the > 28/1.4 but they are similarly rare on ebay or anywhere. The 17-35 > would be OK The 17-35/2.8 is a killer lens and will serve you well. This is a must have lens. The 28/1.4 is a super lens, but will bore you on APS-C. Get the 17-35/2.8 for starters and wait for Nikon to introduce an FF body or buy a 5D to hold you over till Nikon comes through. Rita >> I currently have a $200 28/2 AI MF which would be $800 if it didn't >> have a big scratch on the front element and really like shooting with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have > lens. The 28/1.4 is a super lens, but will bore you on APS-C. It wouldn't bore me because I barely remember my film days it would just be a super sweet normal 42mm f/2. The 30/1.4 Sigma is so tempting & the $$28mm does seem a waste since I have not won the lottery. So the 17-35 comes out a winner given all that. > Get the > 17-35/2.8 for starters and wait for Nikon to introduce an FF body or buy a > 5D to hold you over till Nikon comes through. I can wait quite a few years for a FF D300. My D200 is built like a tank and should last. I'd sure like to test that 30mm DX Sigma against my 28/2 though... if it's got the sharpness & bokeh people say, it'd be worth it for a several years of great 'normal' shooting. If I had won the lottery, I would get a D200 & a 28/1.4 AF for the hypothetical 16-year-old's birthday. What a great kit package that would be! >>> I currently have a $200 28/2 AI MF which would be $800 if it didn't >>> have a big scratch on the front element and really like shooting with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > $$28mm does seem a waste since I have not won the lottery. So the 17-35 > comes out a winner given all that. Well, I ordered a bargain 17-35 from KEH and a new 10.5 DX fisheye Nikkor. The Sigma 12-24 is going to have pretty limited use now. If I ever find a 28/2 AF Nikkor or test a Sigma 30/1.4 DX well then we'll see what happens. >> Get the 17-35/2.8 for starters and wait for Nikon to introduce >> an FF body or buy a 5D to hold you over till Nikon comes through. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > hypothetical 16-year-old's birthday. What a great kit package that would > be! > Well, I ordered a bargain 17-35 from KEH and a new 10.5 DX fisheye > Nikkor. The Sigma 12-24 is going to have pretty limited use now. > > If I ever find a 28/2 AF Nikkor I meant to say the 28/1.4 at $2?00 > or test a Sigma 30/1.4 DX well then we'll see what happens. <SNIP> >> If I had won the lottery, I would get a D200 & a 28/1.4 AF for the >> hypothetical 16-year-old's birthday. What a great kit package that would >> be! Paul, just asking - you mention the 28/1.4AF - can you point me to a place where you would buy that? I can't seem to find that lens at B&H or Adorama. Cheers, ink >>>If I had won the lottery, I would get a D200 & a 28/1.4 AF for the >>>hypothetical 16-year-old's birthday. What a great kit package that would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > just asking - you mention the 28/1.4AF - can you point me to a place where > you would buy that? I can't seem to find that lens at B&H or Adorama. Yeah it was discontinued so it's quite rare. They show up on ebay occasionally. I don't know why. >>>>If I had won the lottery, I would get a D200 & a 28/1.4 AF for the >>>>hypothetical 16-year-old's birthday. What a great kit package that would [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > They show up on ebay occasionally. > I don't know why. Righty-ho. Thanks for the info. Sound like something they shouldn't discontinue... ;-) Cheers, ink > This is mostly a repeat from an off topic rant in the 35mm group > regarding the very rare 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor so I'm giving it it's own [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > : - ) I found out the other day why a wide aperture lens is difficult to focus on a D200. The D200 won't use the full aperture, stops at f2.8 for focusing. Set your 28 at f2 depress the DOF button, will be the same if you do that at f2.8, then at f4 you start to see the change. I use a 24 f2 and have always had problems shooting it wide open with the D200. I realize the NOCT Nikkor is a legend but have heard several folks say it is no better and maybe not as good as the 50 f1.4. It is an f1.2 and often the compromises in making these lenses lower performance for speed. Just want to save you $3500. Tom >>And the 28/2 AI is a bitch to manually focus especially at around 15 >>feet & beyond there's only 1/8 inch turn to infinity. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > use a 24 f2 and have always had problems shooting it wide open with > the D200. With my ancient 28/2 AI MF I can hold down the DOF preview button while I turn the aperture ring and see it change at each click though I'll admit I cannot distinguish between f/2.8 & f/2. Curiously, the most obvious visual difference is more vignetting stopped down which ought to be the opposite of the real results. I don't have anything faster than f/2. My only other lens with an aperture ring is the new 45/2.8 AI-P which must have it's aperture set to 22 & the camera dial does the adjusting. > I realize the NOCT Nikkor is a legend but have heard several folks say > it is no better and maybe not as good as the 50 f1.4. It is an f1.2 > and often the compromises in making these lenses lower performance for > speed. Just want to save you $3500. That may be but I *DO* use these wide open like the sample photos I posted in the dark forest conditions where I had to boost the ISO to 800 to catch a fern in that dim light. And the bokeh is important to me. The 28/2's bokeh can be nice but it can get pretty funky in some conditions as well. I nevery really know about bokeh claims though because it has more to do with avoiding harsh points of light but the NOCT has a special correction for 'coma' abberations where you get funny crescent shaped highlights in the corners. Kind of like cat's eye effect I've seen in sample shots from acclaimed super-fast German lenses, it can be interesting and is normally the price paid for shooting at crazy wide apertures but apparently the NOCT has taken a step toward adressing these kinds of problems. Here's an example of the less than perfect bokeh on the 28/2: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Peninsula/2007-02-0 3-sanborne-skyline/full-set&PG=12&PIC=69> click the main pic & you'll see a full pixel crop with ugly little donut highlights. If the 28/1.4 could beat that in a face to face shootout, I'm interested. I won't be getting the NOCT until I win the lottery or start making more money from my photography. If the Sigma 30/1.4 crashed in a test against my 28/2 then I'd pass for sure even though it would be nice to have AF & a wider aperture. > Saturday I lugged my whole kit on a long hike & ended up shooting everything on the 28mm f/2 AI MF and even then because it was in > the dark forest, I had to boost the ISO for many shots: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > : - ) Lens choice (with good "sequencing") is often frustrating, especially if particular use-requirements are added (like sharpness with high speed). You may find this of interest, since I have used many of the lenses you list, and have rated them (full-frame, for corner performance at the widest stop to expect good performance for the FL - so many would rate higher on the smaller digital sensor size) - www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html. Comments on your choices: 10.5mm (appears to have poor corners in sample photos I've seen, even well stopped down - the MF 16mm *f3.5* is FAR better, though longer); 28mm f1.4 (somewhat low in contrast at wide stops, outperformed by the Nikkor 28mm f4 PC, 28-70mm f3.5-4.5, and 28mm f2.8 *AIS* [which outperforms the f2 wider than about f5.6]); 12-24mm Sigma FF (rather poor - but adequate well stopped down, only for FF [the Sigma 10-20mm f4 is better, as is the Nikkor 12-24mm]); 45mm f2.8 (if anything like the old flash-Nikkor, good, but not great - the 50mm f1.8 or 1.4 is better at f2.8); 58mm f1.2 (I didn't like it wider than f5.6 - get the 1.8 or 1.4 instead...); 105mm f2.8 VR (by reputation this may not be as sharp as the non-VR, and I preferred infinity-focus sharpness of the MF to the AF version [BTW, I'm selling my MF version...]); 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR (by reputation it is superb, but so are all the 80-200mm f2.8 Nikkors [I have one of these to sell...;-]). How about this: 10-20 Sigma (or 12-24 Nikkor), 35mm f2 Nikkor, 60mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor (or 50mm), 105mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor, 70-200/80-200 zoom + short converter? Or, for a small/light lens set, the 24mm f2.8 (or 20mm f2.8), 35mm f2, 60mm f2.8 Micro (or 85mm f1.8), and a 70/75-200/ 300mm zoom (especially the VR?) or better yet, the superb Nikkor 180mm f2.8 AF. All of these (if you select the zoom version carefully...) are excellent lenses on the small digital sensor. If you go with the excellent but rather large and heavy 17-35, it is compared with other Nikkors (on FF) at - www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm Standard TTL flashes work very well for macro if mounted at the front of the lens with a bracket, pointed directly at the subject (see "bugs", at http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/phun.html - the *relatively* large flash head makes one flash head look like a soft box to a bug...;-). -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether > How about this: 10-20 Sigma (or 12-24 Nikkor), 35mm f2 Nikkor, 60mm The Sigma 10-20mm is a good lens, like you say, but it's f/4-5.6. This "5.6" is a lot more irritating than I, at least expected! But it's sharp, very well made, has an internal focusing motor (so it's quiet and, more importantly, it has full-time manual focusing without fiddling with switches). But it's half the price of the Nikkor, and I cannot complain about the optical quality of mine. > f2.8 Micro-Nikkor (or 50mm), 105mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor, 70-200/80-200 > zoom + short converter? Or, for a small/light lens set, the 24mm f2.8 (or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lenses on the small digital sensor. If you go with the excellent but rather large > and heavy 17-35, it is compared with other Nikkors (on FF) at -www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm >>How about this: 10-20 Sigma (or 12-24 Nikkor) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fiddling with switches). But it's half the price of the Nikkor, and I > cannot complain about the optical quality of mine. My Sigma 12-24 is 4.5-5.6 & that doesn't bother me; at wide angles you gather so much light & have so much DOF that it's almost a non-issue. I chose it partly because it's full frame which is so far irrelevant and it does have some good characteristics like very low barrel/pincusion and consistent corner to corner sharpness although it's not particularly sharp overall, especially at 24mm it's sort of a waste, only handy for having that range in one lens. It flares hideously and if you have a situation where the bokeh shows, it makes the most awful blobby freaky donut ring highlights. It does have HSM (internal focusing motor). It's huge & heavy & the odd slip-on lens cap was poorly designed & pretty much broken on mine so it's always falling off. >>If I won the lottery, I'd go for these & be set for life: >>$589 10.5mm DX fisheye [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > How about this: 10-20 Sigma The 10 would be tempting but I've already got 12mm rectalinear Sigma & I could really use a fisheye for nature shooting. > (or 12-24 Nikkor) Not really a great lens for the price, and it's DX but yeah it would be sharper than my Sigma so that'd be in my lottery bag. > 35mm f2 Nikkor I came close to getting this one but chose the 28 because I prefer a bit wider than normal. And the 17-35 would cover this. I'll take one in my lottery bag though, it is supposed to be quite a fine lens at a reasonable price. I think it even comes in AF, I forget? > 60mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor (or 50mm) Is there a wider micro? I've got the 105. For lottery dreaming I'd be more likely to add a 200mm Micro. > 105mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor, 70-200 zoom + short converter? I've got those. > Or, for a small/light lens set, the 24mm f2.8 (or > 20mm f2.8), 35mm f2, 60mm f2.8 Micro (or 85mm f1.8), and a 70/75-200/ > 300mm zoom (especially the VR?) or better yet, the superb Nikkor 180mm > f2.8 AF. I do have a 28-200 for backpacking but it's pretty slow & mediocre even if it is small. > All of these (if you select the zoom version carefully...) are excellent > lenses on the small digital sensor. If you go with the excellent but rather large > and heavy 17-35, it is compared with other Nikkors (on FF) at - > www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm There is also an old 20-35/2.8 AF of comparable size & quality to the 17-35/2.8. I want the faster glass & the 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 drops from my list for that reason. > Standard TTL flashes work very well for macro if mounted at the front > of the lens with a bracket, pointed directly at the subject (see "bugs", at > http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/phun.html - the *relatively* large flash > head makes one flash head look like a soft box to a bug...;-). Beautiful work! I was thinking about the Nikon setup with several baby flash units that mount on the front of the lens (2 should be plenty) but it looks like you've got a good solution there and it's useful for longer range flash work too. A ring flash just sounds like it would look too flat, more for medical work than artistic natural effect. I generally hate flash (prefer fast glass or a tripod) for most work but for macros I could use something to get more DOF. > If I won the lottery... > > oh and lets add a wildlife lens... > (for my 1.4 & 2x AF-S TCs): > $5000 200-400/4 AF-S VR Scratch that & make it a used 400mm f/2.8 AF-S (no VR) for the same price and one of those tripod things for swinging around big lenses like that. |
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.