Nikon AFS 24mm f1.4G

[Fragment]

Tom,

Personally felt it will be rather ideal for event/wedding photographers for low ligtht shooting, factoring in considerably the weight (if compared apple to apple - 24-70 f2.8 which is 1 full stop slower) and the amt of light it will suck in in tricky lighting conditions :devil:

24-70 is 2 stops slower than the 24/1.4.

 

[akdwivedi]

24-70 is 2 stops slower than the 24/1.4.

and those 2 extra stops coupled with high ISO capabilities from D3 can provide wonderful keepers even in very low light..

As somebody already posted, those who need it will take it. it's a special purpose lens.. for me it would cost me twice as all my investments need to go thru wife approval process.

 

[Numnumball]

24-70 is 2 stops slower than the 24/1.4.

Yup, agreed.. My bad :sweatsm:

 

[Danntbt]

and those 2 extra stops coupled with high ISO capabilities from D3 can provide wonderful keepers even in very low light..

As somebody already posted, those who need it will take it. it's a special purpose lens.. for me it would cost me twice as all my investments need to go thru wife approval process.

at 1.4...DOF is so shallow, so application might be limited to certain kind of shots....definitely not good for Group shots etc.....

 

[tomcat]

at 1.4...DOF is so shallow, so application might be limited to certain kind of shots....definitely not good for Group shots etc.....

Ya.. that's what I think too :think:
Similarly for landscape shooting... I would have thought that the smaller the aperture the deeper the DOF and the better for landscape photography. I always try to use at least f/5.6 for landscape. Maybe a shallower DOF could be useful for isolating a subject from the background in a landscape shot... :think:
So if smaller apertures are preferrable for event and landscape photography, then it is a waste to pay so much for apertures that we won't use much.
That was why I ask about the actual usage for this lens in the first place.

 

[Omega23]

Ya.. that's what I think too :think:
Similarly for landscape shooting... I would have thought that the smaller the aperture the deeper the DOF and the better for landscape photography. I always try to use at least f/5.6 for landscape. Maybe a shallower DOF could be useful for isolating a subject from the background in a landscape shot... :think:
So if smaller apertures are preferrable for event and landscape photography, then it is a waste to pay so much for apertures that we won't use much.
That was why I ask about the actual usage for this lens in the first place.

at low light u still can use F1.4 handheld to shoot landscape.. i have done that and photos are sharp.

 

[hacknet]

So why compare against a Canon?

Why NOT?

just because you're not interested doesnt mean other people arn't..

 

[Danntbt]

at low light u still can use F1.4 handheld to shoot landscape.. i have done that and photos are sharp.

..sure it can be sharp but you missed the point, its good for isolating subject or you focus to infinity without any foreground objects ...generally your landscape would be weird without a main subject as focal point....you may want to look at the skyline picture in the 14-24 discussion where you can see disturbing blurry part...though I am not sure if that was due to PS of large F-stop, as the exif infor was not available. Then again used creatively you can get interesting outcome, like blurring of the foreground to frame your image and so on....as I said earlier, its application is more niche than for general usage. Thus the 16-35 is probably a more suitable lens for general usage. The VR though would be useful mainly for stationary subjects...but for people shots unless its a group shot and you request for them to be as still as possible, you may still faced with getting blurred faces.

 

[Omega23]

..sure it can be sharp but you missed the point, its good for isolating subject or you focus to infinity without any foreground objects ...generally your landscape would be weird without a main subject as focal point....you may want to look at the skyline picture in the 14-24 discussion where you can see disturbing blurry part...though I am not sure if that was due to PS of large F-stop, as the exif infor was not available. Then again used creatively you can get interesting outcome, like blurring of the foreground to frame your image and so on....as I said earlier, its application is more niche than for general usage. Thus the 16-35 is probably a more suitable lens for general usage. The VR though would be useful mainly for stationary subjects...but for people shots unless its a group shot and you request for them to be as still as possible, you may still faced with getting blurred faces.

That's the useful of f1.4 u would have higher shutter to eliminate the blurr from movement..A good lens with a creative photographer will yield better photos in more situations.

 

[Kit]

..sure it can be sharp but you missed the point, its good for isolating subject or you focus to infinity without any foreground objects ...generally your landscape would be weird without a main subject as focal point....you may want to look at the skyline picture in the 14-24 discussion where you can see disturbing blurry part...though I am not sure if that was due to PS of large F-stop, as the exif infor was not available. Then again used creatively you can get interesting outcome, like blurring of the foreground to frame your image and so on....as I said earlier, its application is more niche than for general usage. Thus the 16-35 is probably a more suitable lens for general usage. The VR though would be useful mainly for stationary subjects...but for people shots unless its a group shot and you request for them to be as still as possible, you may still faced with getting blurred faces.

You must be referring to this? In all your experience, it didn't occur to you the blur in the reflection was induced by the moving water? You think a larger aperture (shallower depth of field) will cause bottom half the frame to be out of focussed?

 

[wildcat]

You must be referring to this? In all your experience, it didn't occur to you the blur in the reflection was induced by the moving water? You think a larger aperture (shallower depth of field) will cause bottom half the frame to be out of focussed?

This was taken handheld? :bigeyes:
Wow.

 

[Kit]

This was taken handheld? :bigeyes:
Wow.

I'd be insane to even think of doing that. Of course it was shot with camera mounted on a tripod.

And in case some were wondering, it shot at f/11.

 

[Jed]

I'd be insane to even think of doing that. Of course it was shot with camera mounted on a tripod.

And in case some were wondering, it shot at f/11.

K. R0ckwe11 would do that handheld without batting an eyelid, he who can shoot a handheld 600mm lens rock steady at 1/2s, it stands to reason he can handhold a WA lens forever.

 

[wildcat]

I'd be insane to even think of doing that. Of course it was shot with camera mounted on a tripod.

And in case some were wondering, it shot at f/11.

Haha, okay. Am catching up with the other thread.. yeah, I also din think you'd take that without a tripod :bsmilie: great shot!! :heart:

K. R0ckwe11 would do that handheld without batting an eyelid, he who can shoot a handheld 600mm lens rock steady at 1/2s, it stands to reason he can handhold a WA lens forever.

Okie.. we get the point, haha. You dun like K. R0ckwe11 (because he is a Terminator in disguise?)

 

[Kit]

K. R0ckwe11 would do that handheld without batting an eyelid, he who can shoot a handheld 600mm lens rock steady at 1/2s, it stands to reason he can handhold a WA lens forever.

and I'm sure many on CS is deeply influenced and aspire to be like him.....

 

[Kit]

Haha, okay. Am catching up with the other thread.. yeah, I also din think you'd take that without a tripod :bsmilie: great shot!! :heart:

Okie.. we get the point, haha. You dun like K. R0ckwe11 (because he is a Terminator in disguise?)

Thanks. I don't mean to post a photo taken by the 14-24mm in here but since it was referenced, I figured that I should clarify how the blur in the reflection was "achieved".

How can anyone not like Rockwe11? He's truly an inspiration as testified by many of his faithful followers here.....

 

[Omega23]

I got this done handheld.. using a tripod will yield a more smoother water and star type of light spots

 

[wildcat]

I got this done handheld.. using a tripod will yield a more smoother water and star type of light spots

Hmm.. how come EXIF data says 30mm f1.4 arh? :dunno:

 

[ZeroDivine]

Hmm.. how come EXIF data says 30mm f1.4 arh? :dunno:

that's the sigma 30 1.4 EX

 

[mcn]

truly, a worthy master of ken R :bsmilie:

I got this done handheld.. using a tripod will yield a more smoother water and star type of light spots