Which lens option?

Energize said:
At f/1.8 indoors though my 550D has sometimes gone to ISO 6400 to maintain 1/500s. f/1.4 would at least help reduce noise.
Click to expand...

Considered going full frame? I don't think you can get critical image quality from APS-C sensor, Nikon D7000 probably gets you closest (with the similarly sensor-ed sony and Pentax much the same). Even there ISO 3200 is a strong limit.

In those kinds of conditions a full frame camera might be needed, D700 has very good low light. Massive budget difference i know but sometimes you just have to accept limitations.
 
Yeah, I really want full frame, but depending on how much compensation I get I may have to just get the D7000. Nice to know the lenses are just about the same anyway if I do upgrade to the 1.4. :) The f1.8 lens I'm using at the moment, has plenty of dof in the arena. So I'm not too worried about that.

614433_378335038898945_1608654462_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
THe D version is OK but the G version is so much better there isn't really a comparison. The AF-D version will actually focus faster than the AF-S version. I have the AF-D version and find it slightly too soft wide open but mainly lacking contrast, from 2.2 down it is great, bokeh is pleasant but with some outlining.

The new version is not only slightly sharper, but more contrast and smoother bokeh.


If you find the older version cheap second hand then it can be very good value, I wouldn't buy it new.


Edit, that was comparing the f/1.8. The 50mm f1.4 AF-D is a very nice lens, there is less difference between the old and the new here, the newer is nicer overall. I would rather buy the new 1.8 G than the older F1.4 AF-D - except if you need the extra light.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the 1.4D is sharp enough to be used wide open. I would consider it a 1.8 lens like the 50mm 1.8G.
The D focuses faster though.
The 85mm 1.8D has nice IQ from F2 up, it is also the fasted focusing prime I'v seen. I have thought about getting another for really low light as AF was still very fast.
 
The f/1.4D is only about £50 more than the f/1.8G, are they both full frame lenses? Makes it a difficult decision. :D I think if I was on full frame I would definitely buy the f/1.8G, but with the crop sensor in the lighting conditions the f/1.4D does have it's advantages with regards to noise reduction, and it will provide better subject isolation wide open. If it is as sharp as my current Canon EF f/1.8 wide open I would be happy enough, and obviously the faster focusing speed is an advantage when shooting equine sports.
 
Last edited:
the 50 1.8G is way better. I sold my 1.4D to get the 1.8G as bokeh is soo much better.
If you really want an extra 2/3rd's of a stop you can actually use, then the 1.4G or Sigma are the only real alternatives imo.

50mm 1.4D @ 1.4 is soo soft it looks out of focus.
 
The comparison images I've seen don't seem to show up that much difference in sharpness, not £125 worth anyway between the D and G.
 
Energize said:
The comparison images I've seen don't seem to show up that much difference in sharpness, not £125 worth anyway between the D and G.
Click to expand...

On websize you wont notice the difference in sharpness.

My complaint with my 50mm f/1.8D is the lack of contrast wide open. Put it this way, i find my 16-85 and my GF's 18-105 to provide far sharper and contrastier photos when both wdie open. Of course these zoom lens are much narrow aperture. I have the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX and it is far shaprer and crisper wide open, the 50mm f/1.8G is even shaper and crisper.

And that is only part of the picture (pun intended...), it is just not the sharpness but the colours, tones and the quality of the Bokeh, the new G lenses just give nicer images.

The central sharpness is comparable, the big difference is towards the edges. But as I said, i don't think the sharpness is the biggest weakness of the D version, it is lack of contrast. I did some focus testing against black printed text on white paper, the black text is grey @f/1.8 on my 50mm D lens, even if the sharpness is suitable.

The 50mm f/1.8D is still a good 50mm 1.8 lens compared to other manufacturers versions but it is definitely superseded by the newer G lens.
The old D lens makes sens if you can buy it very cheap second hand somewhere, at least then the savings are significant.
 
D.P. said:
I would choose A personally.

C is right out of the question, 28mm wide on crop is useless.

However, I can't say any of the options are that interesting.

I don't know what the canon Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USm is like, I have a similar Nikon lens (16-85VRII) that is by far my most used lens depsite owning things like a 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8. I use the 16-85 and 70-300mm combo as a lightweight, versatile high image quality setup when I have sufficient light to work with.


I would maybe think about a tamron/sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, but try before you buy.
Click to expand...

Sorry to jump back to an early post (and to thread hijack to a certain extent :D ). What are the Nikon 24-70s like in comparison to Canons offering (if you can find one, as stocks are vanishing) and not the new mkII? Just wondering as I'm currently mulling over the possibility of, in a few months, getting something around that range. As the Canon 24-70mkII is vastly overpriced for me, and if it doesn't come down, there's a very real possibility of a D7000 & 24-70 for (currently) £300 less.

I might not do it, but I'm curious what it's like. I had low light photography in mind (gigs, etc), and my 60D isn't all that great in noise handling. Getting the 5DmkIII is something I'll definitely be doing at some point, but if the 24-70 on Nikon is very good and sharp as a tack, then the Nikon could be a stop gap.
 
@ Energize
Got a link to these crops. I remember 1.4 being softer than Andrex, also the bokeh is hexagonal rather than circular. 1.8 Becomes acceptable sharp, but then the 1.8G is still sharper with MUCH more pleasing bokeh.
 
ElDude said:
Sorry to jump back to an early post (and to thread hijack to a certain extent :D ). What are the Nikon 24-70s like in comparison to Canons offering (if you can find one, as stocks are vanishing) and not the new mkII? Just wondering as I'm currently mulling over the possibility of, in a few months, getting something around that range. As the Canon 24-70mkII is vastly overpriced for me, and if it doesn't come down, there's a very real possibility of a D7000 & 24-70 for (currently) £300 less.

I might not do it, but I'm curious what it's like. I had low light photography in mind (gigs, etc), and my 60D isn't all that great in noise handling. Getting the 5DmkIII is something I'll definitely be doing at some point, but if the 24-70 on Nikon is very good and sharp as a tack, then the Nikon could be a stop gap.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just get a Tamron 24-70 and a 5Dii or iii?
 
Because the Tamron has issues. I was seriously looking at it, but it does have some large drawbacks. I'd rather spend more on something I wont have problems with, but not spend £2300!
 
ElDude said:
Sorry to jump back to an early post (and to thread hijack to a certain extent :D ). What are the Nikon 24-70s like in comparison to Canons offering (if you can find one, as stocks are vanishing) and not the new mkII? Just wondering as I'm currently mulling over the possibility of, in a few months, getting something around that range. As the Canon 24-70mkII is vastly overpriced for me, and if it doesn't come down, there's a very real possibility of a D7000 & 24-70 for (currently) £300 less.

I might not do it, but I'm curious what it's like. I had low light photography in mind (gigs, etc), and my 60D isn't all that great in noise handling. Getting the 5DmkIII is something I'll definitely be doing at some point, but if the 24-70 on Nikon is very good and sharp as a tack, then the Nikon could be a stop gap.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 is consider the reference standard pro zoom to which all others are compared, optically much better than the older canon. Not seen many comparisons with the new canon but heard that they are similar.

AF is super fast and reliable. The lens is built like a tank. As I said, it was the reference design and it is not really clear if the new canon matches or exceeds it.


If you are thinking of getting a Nikon setup I would think of it long term rather than stop gap. Pick up a D700 or D800 with the 24-70, you will save a lot of money. There is nothing the 5dmkiii can do that the d700 is not more or less as good at except video and high res, I can't think of anything that the 5dmk3 is noticibly better than the d800 at. Not saying you should swap to Nikon or Nikon is simply the best, I just don't see the point in buying a Nikon 24-70 + Nikon body as a stop gap before swapping back to canon.

To me canon is really pricing themselves too high and will loose customers. Consider a crop canon user who wants to go FF, a canon 5dmk3 + 24-70 + 70-200 costs so much more than the same Nikon setup with the d800 that you could still buy another lens. The Nikon setup is about 1300GbP cheaper, that will happily buy you a Nikon 85mm 1.4G and a Nikon flash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom