New Nikon 35 1.4, 200 2.0 VRII, D7000, SB-700

p0ss3s3d said:
*snip*
Click to expand...

twoblacklines gave some out of context paraphrase from some sports photographer, and you're also ignoring context. I'm not sure if you're purposely trolling, but you have a very narrow view of photography and what a 200/2 can be used for. So you know, 'supertele' does not mean a heavy telephoto lens.

For the record, I did have a 200/2 AI-S.
 
Mud said:
twoblacklines gave some out of context paraphrase from some sports photographer, and you're also ignoring context. I'm not sure if you're purposely trolling, but you have a very narrow view of photography and what a 200/2 can be used for. So you know, 'supertele' does not mean a heavy telephoto lens.

For the record, I did have a 200/2 AI-S.
Click to expand...

I'm not trolling, I was just making a point. ;)

Of course a 200 f/2 can be used for other things, but IMO it's primary intended use is indoor sports. I was being a little OTT/annoying, sorry about that, it was just the way you said 'as for your comment about VR; who told you people never use VR on this' or whatever it was and I was justifying TBL's comment for him. ;)


As for the 200 f/2 being a super tele. For me any 100mm+ (i.e fast) aperture lens (200/2=100, 300/2.8 = 107 and so on) with a focal length of 200mm+. Not forgetting the screw on hood and hard case. :p

So IMO 300 f/4/ 100-400/150-500 and so on and so on wouldn't be classed as super tele. But thats my view and canons view. Nikon and/or your own opinion may be different.
 
My (briefly) considered reaction is

35mm f/1.4 - bizarre lens in some ways, rather pricey - I'd take the 24mm f/1.4 first for not much more and with that and a 50mm f/1.4 I wouldn't think about spending £1500+ on this. I'm sure some people will have uses but...meh.

200mm f/2 - splendid, a super expensive, super niche fast telephoto. As you were - if you need one the cost was never a concern anyway. Though VR2 will be nice at 200mm and I'd take it over the (very) slight decrease in AF speed.

SB700 - nice, the features needed to work down as the SB600 is a pain to setup, for £100 extra though I won't be rushing out to replace mine.

D7000 - nice if you're in the market, I haven't spent a lot of time looking at it as I've no interest but it looks pretty damn good, now if Nikon would just mind coughing up the D300 successor please? Or the D700x/s.
 
D7000 is on the jungle site (American) and converts a lot lower than the pre-order prices I'm seeing for us in the UK. No surprises there then.

I'm also thinking this will replace my D80, trusty as it is the ISO handling something thats bugged me for a while. The D90 was nice, but didn't seem a huge leap. Whereas this looks a lot better.

That Chase Jarvis guy was using a lot of sexy glass! Loved the cheeky remote helicopter :P
 
bigredshark said:
My (briefly) considered reaction is

35mm f/1.4 - bizarre lens in some ways, rather pricey - I'd take the 24mm f/1.4 first for not much more and with that and a 50mm f/1.4 I wouldn't think about spending £1500+ on this. I'm sure some people will have uses but...meh.
Click to expand...

Canon has the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 for about 10 years now. And looking on POTN forum's lens archive you will immediately notice that the 35/1.4 has a MUCH MUCH bigger following. It is also why it is part of the Holy Trinity. The 24/1.4 isn't.

On FF 35/1.4 is perfect as the walk about prime, it really is. It can even do portraits (full body). 1.4 is amazing at isolating subject. 1.4 is also FAST !

24/1.4 is too wide for most things unless you are stuck in a small space.
 
bigredshark said:
My (briefly) considered reaction is

35mm f/1.4 - bizarre lens in some ways, rather pricey - I'd take the 24mm f/1.4 first for not much more and with that and a 50mm f/1.4 I wouldn't think about spending £1500+ on this. I'm sure some people will have uses but...meh.

200mm f/2 - splendid, a super expensive, super niche fast telephoto. As you were - if you need one the cost was never a concern anyway. Though VR2 will be nice at 200mm and I'd take it over the (very) slight decrease in AF speed.

SB700 - nice, the features needed to work down as the SB600 is a pain to setup, for £100 extra though I won't be rushing out to replace mine.

D7000 - nice if you're in the market, I haven't spent a lot of time looking at it as I've no interest but it looks pretty damn good, now if Nikon would just mind coughing up the D300 successor please? Or the D700x/s.
Click to expand...


The 35mm 1.4 is probably the most anticipated lens from Nikon in recent times, much higher up people wish list than the 24 or 85 1.4 (the latter worked perfectly fine anyway).

35mm is a perfect FF walk about and a perfect DX portrait. The price is actually much lower than I expected, Amazon US pre-order prices are much the same as the >Canon 35mm 1.4

The 200 f/2 is not a new lens. These exotics are made in batches every few years. Time has come to produce a new batch of lens and throwing in a Nano coating and the latest VR takes no effort at all.

To early to tell prices on the SB-700, the SB-600 is very old and the SB-700 not released, with time the SB-700 will be the same price as the Sb-600 , they are meant for the same market.


The D7000 already looks like a D300 successor for many people.
 
Another +1 for the "I'd rather have a 35 than 24 on FX" brigade. Also: cripes, the D7000 is arguably better than the D300s

Part of me doesn't like this announcement, because now my dream setup actually exists (D700 + 35 1.4 + 85 1.4) which makes me more likely to go to a loan shark and actually finance it
 
D.P. said:
The 35mm 1.4 is probably the most anticipated lens from Nikon in recent times, much higher up people wish list than the 24 or 85 1.4 (the latter worked perfectly fine anyway).

35mm is a perfect FF walk about and a perfect DX portrait. The price is actually much lower than I expected, Amazon US pre-order prices are much the same as the >Canon 35mm 1.4
Click to expand...

I expected the price to be less than the 24/1.4, probably moreso than it is though. I find 35mm a bit of a clumsy length, I'm going to try 24+85 based on crunching the focal lengths I used back when I had zoom lenses. I can get by with just a 50/1.4, so I'm not sure I can see justifying a 35/1.4 that's so much bigger and more expensive whilst not all that different in length (I expect the 35/1.4 to outperform the 50/1.4 though). The 50/1.4 is beginning to look like a bit of an odd man out now, maybe there's a gold-ringed 50/1.2 on the horizon.
 
I'm just stumped how they can justify the price difference when compared to the exchange rate. I know its a policy of pretty much everyone, but its around £300 more just for shipping/customs/vat?
 
Benihana said:
I'm just stumped how they can justify the price difference when compared to the exchange rate. I know its a policy of pretty much everyone, but its around £300 more just for shipping/customs/vat?
Click to expand...

Yea, it's really annoying... It's almost cheaper to book a flight to the US, but a camera from there, then fly back...
 
Mud said:
I expected the price to be less than the 24/1.4, probably moreso than it is though. I find 35mm a bit of a clumsy length, I'm going to try 24+85 based on crunching the focal lengths I used back when I had zoom lenses. I can get by with just a 50/1.4, so I'm not sure I can see justifying a 35/1.4 that's so much bigger and more expensive whilst not all that different in length (I expect the 35/1.4 to outperform the 50/1.4 though). The 50/1.4 is beginning to look like a bit of an odd man out now, maybe there's a gold-ringed 50/1.2 on the horizon.
Click to expand...

That's my view - I know the 35mm was much anticipated but I've never been very interested. The 24mm f/1.4 was a bit special for me, on a D700 it's a really amazing combination as it's a worthy landscape lens, nice walkabout and usable for shots indoors - and it can basically see in the dark into the bargain.

I fully acknowledge others will have different needs but for me the 35mm is all a bit meh, on DX it's more interesting and akin to the 50mm but who's still using DX and prepared to pay £1500+ for a mid range prime? (and add in the £180 f/1.8 version to make that decision even easier)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom