or1onz
Member
Ok thanks. But what is NSC?
I googled, and National Skin Centre came out...
Ahha. Its Nikon service centre located in
-Anson Road Fuji Xerox Towers #10-01/02.
You can google and check for their opening time.
D600 User Thread II
- Thread starter ijnek
- Start date
Ahha. Its Nikon service centre located in
-Anson Road Fuji Xerox Towers #10-01/02.
You can google and check for their opening time.
ZerocoolAstra
Senior Member
Sorry but I really don't understand what u mean by "lose the wide angle perspective at 35mm..."
Coz if u zoom in from 18 to 35mm whilst standing at the same spot, you end up with a narrower field of view and thats pretty much it.
I'd be willing to bet that a DX cam (@12mm) and an FX cam (@18mm) if shot side by side, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
Exaggerated perspectives (I think this is the concept you're referring to) come from using UWA lenses and going closer than you'd normally feel comfortable to.
Don't get too hung up on FX
By the way, Sigma makes a DC 8-16mm which is CRAZY wide...
Sorry but I really don't understand what u mean by "lose the wide angle perspective at 35mm..."
Coz if u zoom in from 18 to 35mm whilst standing at the same spot, you end up with a narrower field of view and thats pretty much it.
I'd be willing to bet that a DX cam (@12mm) and an FX cam (@18mm) if shot side by side, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
Exaggerated perspectives (I think this is the concept you're referring to) come from using UWA lenses and going closer than you'd normally feel comfortable to.
Don't get too hung up on FX
By the way, Sigma makes a DC 8-16mm which is CRAZY wide...
Haiz, so hard to express wad I'm thinking into words.
Ok, basically, my concern is that Nikkor 18-35mm when zoomed in to 35mm, I may lose the wide-angle perspective and get the same portrait feeling as though shooting with a Nikkor 35mm f1.4 G. Coz i never used such FX lenses before, so i dun noe and hopefully you guys with experience can help me out.
Actually what do u shoot at the ultra wide focal length? In my opinion when im shooting wide, i have always wished for wider. So if i have a 18-35 lens, ill be using 18 most of the time. If i have a 12-24, ill be using 12 most of the time. I will hardly be touching the middle.
U can invest in a fx zoom tat also works well on dx body. Maybe u can consider the 12-24 sigma. On a dx 12 is pretty wide and if u decide to go fx in future, u still can use it.
My advice for i is not to get into fx yet, invest in good lens first
U can invest in a fx zoom tat also works well on dx body. Maybe u can consider the 12-24 sigma. On a dx 12 is pretty wide and if u decide to go fx in future, u still can use it.
My advice for i is not to get into fx yet, invest in good lens first
slackscholar
New Member
guess i understand what u meant. to me, 35mm and 50mm are quite different perspectives. 35mm is still a lot wider than 50mm on FX, the difference is not so obvious on DX though. so, 50mm wont be redundant if you get 18-35. at least i dun see them as substitutes. but still, pay a visit to NSC and experience them!
ChengB
Member
ok i sort of get what you are trying to say. Well that wide-angle perspective of the 18-35 at the 35 end is most definitely less pronounced compared to the 18 end.
But personally, like what slackscholar has said, I wouldnt use the 18-35 as a portrait lens at the 35 end. Zooms just dont have the same feel as a prime.
And after reading everything from the start, it seems that you are mostly thinking of all these cos you are poisoned!:rbounce:. Jump onto the d600 ship. I don't think you will regret it coming from a d90! :bsmilie:
Ok thanks for that insight.
So u advise me to buy the required FX lens and try out on my D90 and slowly build up my FX lens collection before i jump to FX camera? Coz i originally intended to save up, then splurge 3k on D600 + wide-angle lens at one go. (That would prob be in June when i work to earn the money first...)Hahas.
Agreed. Kena poisoned by watching too much DigitalRev TV on youtube! But anyways, thx. That was wad i was looking for with regards to the 35mm question. Hahas.
Well when u talk about effective focal length, be it 35 or 18, it shud look the same on fx or dx body, or using dx or fx lens. As long as the edfective focal length is same, it shud look the same. So ur concern of how 35mm on fx will look, just try 24mm on ur dx and it shud look more or less the same.
The above is not taking individual lens characteristics into consideration, just perspective wise, which is ur concern.
Ok. Thanks a lot.
That really helps. And I do agree that kai is evil
in a way. He makes every lens look so appetizing that makes you long for them. But when u finish watching the video, u get jolted back into reality: crap! I only got this much to splurge on lens...so which one do i choose?Yeah. Camera lens reviews are always evil.
ageha
Senior Member
"Concern"? Do you realize that at 35mm both render the same FoV? I give up...
Last edited:
ZerocoolAstra
Senior Member
If you shoot w 18-35 @35mm and 35/1.4 (assuming you set to the same aperture) from exactly the same spot, the photos will come out remarkably similar, ignoring (small) differences in sharpness, contrast, etc.
Therefore I go back to my original point, which is that I think you're mistaken about perspective/distortion. The exaggerated perspective commonly associated with ultra-wide angle lenses comes from being closer to the subject than you would normally shoot from when using a longer focal length. Therefore you exaggerate the difference in distance between yourself, the subject, and the background.
It's not so much a characteristic of the lens (and hence not some 'special feature' of FX) but rather from utilizing the wide Field of View to go closer.
Here's a shot from the 16-35 VR @ 35mm f4 with my D600.
Portraits needs not always have dreamy feel or die die must be bokehlicious. I cannot imagine shooting this shot at f1.4 (assuming the 35mm prime). It all boils down to what you want to achieve in your shots.
Here's a shot from the 16-35 VR @ 35mm f4 with my D600.
Portraits needs not always have dreamy feel or die die must be bokehlicious. I cannot imagine shooting this shot at f1.4 (assuming the 35mm prime). It all boils down to what you want to achieve in your shots.
Same, I've done portraits at 17mm wide. Don't know what's it with zooms and primes only for portraits.
Nice shot. Yup f1.4 not teally suitable for environmental portraits.
Here's a shot from the 16-35 VR @ 35mm f4 with my D600.
Portraits needs not always have dreamy feel or die die must be bokehlicious. I cannot imagine shooting this shot at f1.4 (assuming the 35mm prime). It all boils down to what you want to achieve in your shots.
Great shot!! Wonderful street photography
ChengB
Member
Its always nice to see a picture that can tell a story, instead of just going "WA! XMM!" :bsmilie:
martinchan83
New Member
Hi there, if there a choices of Nikon 50mm 1.4g and 85mm 1.8g, which are better for portrait with my Nikon d600? Sorry guys I'm new in photography, and just brought a 24/70 2.8, now are thinking of this 2 type of prime lens. Hope to heard advice here
I am guessing budget is no concern here since you got the best general purpose lens even though you are new.
You will get varying replies here for sure. Problem is, both are capable lenses. Some people like it tighter, some don't. What's your preference? All I can say is so far, negative reviews of the 85mm is hardly seen, if any. The pictures taken with this lens are top rated, just go to Flickr and you will know what I mean.
As for the 50mm, I suggest to either just skip it since you already have the 24-70, or save some money to get the 50 f1.8G, which gives the f1.4 a big run for its money.
Finally, if you want to concentrate on photography and not lens upgrades thereafter, buy the 70-200mm f2.8 VR2. You'll be surprise how far zoom lenses have come, with it's IQ matching the prime lenses, and giving u added versatility. I am saving up to go this route.
My humble opinion
Similar threads
