Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Do Nikon make a 35/2.0 that works with full frame bodies? If so would that be an option?
Poll: Primes or Zooms - Lets have a poll
- Thread starter bigredshark
- Start date
Do Nikon make a 35/2.0 that works with full frame bodies? If so would that be an option?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 78,847
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Yes, its a 35/1.8 but it's a bit like Canon's 35/2.0, a bit average.
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
They do - 35 f/2 AF-D but it's not an option for me, it's not optically better than the 24-70 (that's not to say it's bad though) and only a stop faster.
Indeed the Nikon 35/1.4 isn't spectacular despite being razor sharp, for some unknown reason Nikon made a new AF-S version without any ED elements, so it's got pronounced colour fringing - it's correctable if you shoot in RAW and if you shoot in JPEG the camera corrects it fairly well but it's annoying it's there to begin with. They evidently know how to do the fast prime thing (witness 24/1.4 which is fantastic in every way) but it didn't seem to quite work out here. Given it's a £1600 lens today, it's not happy circumstances.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nikon's 35/1.8 is DX (crop frame) so wouldn't really work too well on the D700.
I didn't realise that it was so expensive, I can understand why you're tempted to jump ship to Canon.
I guess having both a D700 and a 5Dmk2 is an option, but it would be a pain I think...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 78,847
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
For a £1600 lens, thats dropping the ball !
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,537
- Location
- London
I prefer primes when I know what I'm going to be shooting as they're often able to be task-specific. I really love my 135 f.20 L a great bit of glass - for portraits and a range of other shots too. If just out and about or on holiday then I take 24-105 f4 L with me as a general purpose lens the IS helps too.
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
I do think so at times, other times I think the new camera's correct it automatically and it's sharp and delivers great contrast and colours with lovely bokeh. But it's £1600, it should be fantastic and it's not quite there.
Nikon are making a habit of their professional grade primes being £300ish more than Canon's at the moment which I'm generally far from wild about.
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
We'll see what the D800 offers, my remaining D200 needs to go in favour of a full frame body anyway. Whatever it is I want decent video, that's about it, huge resolution isn't as important as decent image quality and both are good enough high ISO performance. I prefer Nikon's controls and I have some nice glass I'd be loath to give up but we'll see.
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
You do realise starting this thread is like going into motors and saying "Natural Aspiration Vs Forced induction......DISCUSS"
Anyway, I love primes, but zooms certainly have their advantages
Come on! What kind of answer is that? Get off the damn fence....
Obviously they both have their pluses, I'm just saying what do people prefer and what would they prefer given the money, we're more polite than motors anyway...
I have a mixed bag of zooms and prime lenses but very much leaning towards primes.
i have 2 zooms left and 3 primes with a fourth planned. I must agree that i love to use primes because of the DOF mainly and also the sharpness i get near wide open.
Having saying that the 2 zooms of mine are L lenses. I very much doubt i will go for anything less for a zoom. I would just not be impressed with the optical quality and never use it.
My wish list is a 35mm L but cant afford it at the moment however the 28mm will give me a taste for the widish end and prime work.
i have 2 zooms left and 3 primes with a fourth planned. I must agree that i love to use primes because of the DOF mainly and also the sharpness i get near wide open.
Having saying that the 2 zooms of mine are L lenses. I very much doubt i will go for anything less for a zoom. I would just not be impressed with the optical quality and never use it.
My wish list is a 35mm L but cant afford it at the moment however the 28mm will give me a taste for the widish end and prime work.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 78,847
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Now, don't get me wrong, I love my 24-70. I have taken some of my favourite images with it. ala this one.
The bokeh is fine too, even at close distance and this is at F/4.0.
But then again, when you last expected it, you want that extra stop of light. I wasn't going for the shallow DOF look, I just needed the light, and that's where primes comes in.
This is 35mm, F/1.8, 1/30th and 1600 ISO
The room was huge, windows both sides and yet some how at that moment, the light dropped so much I was pushing 1600 ISO.
The bokeh is fine too, even at close distance and this is at F/4.0.
But then again, when you last expected it, you want that extra stop of light. I wasn't going for the shallow DOF look, I just needed the light, and that's where primes comes in.
This is 35mm, F/1.8, 1/30th and 1600 ISO
The room was huge, windows both sides and yet some how at that moment, the light dropped so much I was pushing 1600 ISO.
The Nikon 35 1.4 is brand new and will go down in price with time and is in high demand right now, the Canon version is much older. The Nikon is also reportedly better than the Canon
The D700 is much more of a camera the the 5DMKII, the price difference is fair I think for getting a pro body with weather sealing, pro focusing, pro metering, etc.
A better way to think of it is how much of the D3 do you get in a D700 for so much less money, compared to the many missing features of the 5DmkII compared to the 1DsMKIII.
The D700 practically gives you the full pro D3 in a smaller lighter body for a fraction of the cost.
Yes, there are times when Nikon's pricing can be very questionable. The 17-55 2.8 is one lens that is a bit of an oddball.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 9,136
- Location
- Clydebank
Actually, although it is a DX, it works very well on FX body. There's a great website somewhere with example shots and vignetting wide open is minimal, and adds a bit of character, and could probably be removed in PP if required. For the price it's a consideraton.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond700/discuss/72157622459065465/
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VLHs
Wildlife is about 75% of my shooting. I've just sold 2 primes, 400 5.6L and the 300 4.0L.
Both produced beautiful images but the lack of versatility in the field was frustrating me.
I've gone back to the 100-400 and upgraded my 70-200 F4 to the IS version.
I do have 2 primes, the nifty fifty which sits in the cupboard and a 100 2.8 Macro which gets a lot of use.
As a walk-about I love my 24-105.
Although Raymonds images are glorious, for the sort of stuff I do a zoom makes no real-world difference in IQ etc. to the primes .
Both produced beautiful images but the lack of versatility in the field was frustrating me.
I've gone back to the 100-400 and upgraded my 70-200 F4 to the IS version.
I do have 2 primes, the nifty fifty which sits in the cupboard and a 100 2.8 Macro which gets a lot of use.
As a walk-about I love my 24-105.
Although Raymonds images are glorious, for the sort of stuff I do a zoom makes no real-world difference in IQ etc. to the primes .
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I didn't know the D800 was going to be released soon, I'm guessing it will have a different sensor to the D700?
If huge resolution isn't important to you then is it worth sticking with DX? The newer Nikon sensors on the D3100 and up seem to have much better performance at higher ISO's, and DX is far easier on the pocket...
Nice, I didn't know that. I actually own this lens, but I've never tried on anything other than my D60 so it's nice to know that it will work if I do ever go full frame in the future.
I find I shoot majority of my shots with the 50mm (f1.4 version). Still being a newcomer here, I don't own many lenses and haven't used that many from others but I do prefer the prime to anything I've tried so far.
I feel like I'm really getting used to what the 50mm is capable of though as others have mentioned, occasionally I find myself wanting/needing something just a little bit wider for a given shot.
I feel like I'm really getting used to what the 50mm is capable of though as others have mentioned, occasionally I find myself wanting/needing something just a little bit wider for a given shot.
I prefer a combinations of both depending on the circumstances and job at hand. I am a rather skint student though my main lens at the moment is a zoom but as a compromise I've been investing into some M42 glass which is actually really damn good once you get used to manual focus.
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
Well, it's not official but it seems a given this year to my eyes. I'm set on FX for a few reasons - I don't like the crop factor and what it does to focal length and depth of field, I shoot film too so I'm effectively swapping between the two systems as it is and I prefer the finders on FX bodies (huge and bright in comparison to DX, don't try one, you won't want to go back...). There's also the issue the D7000 isn't for me (too consumer in it's control layout) and the D300 (which is now in short supply and surely due replacement very soon) has an uncertain line going forwards (there's been a few rumors of going to a D2x/D3 style body with integrated grip). Either way, FX is where I'm going.