Other than the AF-S Micro 60/2.8, the PC-Es are still gem status to me... $$$ no enough.. :sweat:
Prime Lens Shooter...Please come in!
- Thread starter playlens
- Start date
- Status
Other than the AF-S Micro 60/2.8, the PC-Es are still gem status to me... $$$ no enough.. :sweat:
Andrew Hoi
Member
Rightly so. My wish list is a new 35 1.4 & a 24 1.4. Tho theres a new 50mm, we have no idea
how much it has improved frm the old 50mm 1.4.
takeshi.lum
Senior Member
thinking abt getting 35mm or 50mm for my D40 :think:
Let me look at what the thread starter has
"I have 24mm F/2.8, 35mm F/2, 50mm F/1.4 85mm F/1.8 and 105mm F/2.8 Macro" and you also have a lovely D700, nice
I shoot primes a lot too, as I like their excellent quality.
However, I'm not sure what you shoot normally. If you're doing events as the solo photog, a 24-70, 80-200 would be a nice setup, ideally on 2 bodies. But that being said, using what you have..
try running with just the 24, 50 and 105, or go 24 and 105 to minimise confusion. If you're just shooting around for fun that would cover most of the common perspectives.
If you're in a rush, then best bet would be a zoom or 2 body approach. You can pick up a cheap 2nd body D50,D70 for your 105/2.8 for extra FOV and run the 24 on your D700
Just my opinion, YMMV! Whatever the case, I'd be happy if I had a D700
"I have 24mm F/2.8, 35mm F/2, 50mm F/1.4 85mm F/1.8 and 105mm F/2.8 Macro" and you also have a lovely D700, nice
I shoot primes a lot too, as I like their excellent quality.
However, I'm not sure what you shoot normally. If you're doing events as the solo photog, a 24-70, 80-200 would be a nice setup, ideally on 2 bodies. But that being said, using what you have..
try running with just the 24, 50 and 105, or go 24 and 105 to minimise confusion. If you're just shooting around for fun that would cover most of the common perspectives.
If you're in a rush, then best bet would be a zoom or 2 body approach. You can pick up a cheap 2nd body D50,D70 for your 105/2.8 for extra FOV and run the 24 on your D700
Just my opinion, YMMV! Whatever the case, I'd be happy if I had a D700
I love to shoot DX with my 18-200. I love to shoot FX with my 24-70. I also love to shoot with my primes. It is not a problem but a joy as one gets to buy more lenses so one gets to shoot with whatever one fancies. Manual primes like the 50f1.2 are great too.
Might be hard to see a 24/1.4, I am using a Sigma 24/1.8. It isn't too expensive and the corners hold up quite well for FX.
zac08
Senior Member
Only issue is the skin on the Sigma. Not much like it... :bsmilie:
I'm more concerned about the front/back focus issues. ;p
Andrew Hoi
Member
You do think theres a high possibility a 35 1.4 is in place ??
Yes.. I think so.. With the new FX bodies, I think Nikon might just revive what they had in the past. They have sort of sideline all these wonderful primes they had in the past and let Canon take over the lead since they introduced EF. I think it's high time for Nikon's return. ;p
I'd love to see 24/1.8 or 24/2, 28/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, a new 85/1.4.
I've yet to test AF-DC 105/2 and AF-DC 135/2 on FX. I suspect these 2 lenses should at least get a Good-V.Good, so Nikon probably got it covered from 105 onwards.
Andrew Hoi
Member
well, lets hope they speed up the process. But i really love to see 24 1.4 (if only they have) n 35 1.4 in place sooner tho ...
Hi All,
Thanks all Prime Lens Shooter for your postings.
I have some questions on DOF of those f/1.4 lens, like 85mm or 50mm. ( My info on DOF is obtained from www.dofmaster.com )
1. Are you able to take landscape or big object using picture at f/1.4 if you are far enough?
2. Do you always use f/1.4 for like portrait, how do you handle the sallow DOF at f/1.4. I cannot seems to get a good sharp portrait at f/1.4 due to sallow DOF. My favorite aperture for portrait is f/2.8 with 50mm or 85mm lens.
3. Is it necessary the spend extra $$$ for f/1.4 ( compare to f/1.8 ) since it is not easy to use f/1.4 due to the DOF.
Thanks and Welcome you feedback for the above.
Thanks all Prime Lens Shooter for your postings.
I have some questions on DOF of those f/1.4 lens, like 85mm or 50mm. ( My info on DOF is obtained from www.dofmaster.com )
1. Are you able to take landscape or big object using picture at f/1.4 if you are far enough?
2. Do you always use f/1.4 for like portrait, how do you handle the sallow DOF at f/1.4. I cannot seems to get a good sharp portrait at f/1.4 due to sallow DOF. My favorite aperture for portrait is f/2.8 with 50mm or 85mm lens.
3. Is it necessary the spend extra $$$ for f/1.4 ( compare to f/1.8 ) since it is not easy to use f/1.4 due to the DOF.
Thanks and Welcome you feedback for the above.
If you are gonna be taking a photo of the landscape you'll definitely want to stop down to maybe f/8 or so. But of course if you wanna add some creativity to the shot or smth, then definitely you could use f/1.4. But only part of the picture would be focused.
For portraits, you would wanna really focus on the eyes, especially on f/1.4 with such a small dof.
I think wether or not it's worth it really depends on what you wanna use it for. For example i think if you mainly do portraits, then f/1.4 is really useful. But if you do mainly sports for example or smth, i think f/1.8 would be better, plus cheaper.
For portraits, you would wanna really focus on the eyes, especially on f/1.4 with such a small dof.
I think wether or not it's worth it really depends on what you wanna use it for. For example i think if you mainly do portraits, then f/1.4 is really useful. But if you do mainly sports for example or smth, i think f/1.8 would be better, plus cheaper.
I certainly agree that 14-24mm zoom is a gem and it cerainly perform as good as primes in that area. I have been playing around with 24-70mm lens for the last few month and though I am happy with quality, but the lens is heavy and long and does not fit my definition of a walk around lens, but I am using it as I do not like changing lenses too often.
Was really hoping Nikon would've announced more than just the AF-S 50mm at Photokina.. but perhaps they're just saving it up for the right moment heh! Since we're talking all about our dream lenses, on top of all the super fast primes which are just shiok(!), it'll be great for Nikon to take a page from Pentax's pancake lineup as well.
I know everyone's talking about FX FX FX but until Nikon comes up with a moderately compact and affordable FX camera, something like a FM2 perhaps?
, I'll probably still be sticking with DX and in this world, how awesome would a 16mm f/2 be? Or a pancake 24mm f/2.8?
I know everyone's talking about FX FX FX but until Nikon comes up with a moderately compact and affordable FX camera, something like a FM2 perhaps?
, I'll probably still be sticking with DX and in this world, how awesome would a 16mm f/2 be? Or a pancake 24mm f/2.8?Response below in blue
Hi All,
Thanks all Prime Lens Shooter for your postings.
I have some questions on DOF of those f/1.4 lens, like 85mm or 50mm. ( My info on DOF is obtained from www.dofmaster.com )
1. Are you able to take landscape or big object using picture at f/1.4 if you are far enough?
If you're taking landscapes, you might want to read up on hyperfocal focusing. It will sound 'cheem' at first, but its a useful tip when tackling landscape photos. Here's a link explaining http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0307/rb0307-1.html
2. Do you always use f/1.4 for like portrait, how do you handle the sallow DOF at f/1.4. I cannot seems to get a good sharp portrait at f/1.4 due to sallow DOF. My favorite aperture for portrait is f/2.8 with 50mm or 85mm lens.
Its really up to what you want to compose. Operating at F1.5 and below, you run out of DOF very fast so you have to be very careful with your model's position. Use whatever works for you I would think here.
3. Is it necessary the spend extra $$$ for f/1.4 ( compare to f/1.8 ) since it is not easy to use f/1.4 due to the DOF.
If you want the speed sure go get the F1.4 lens. It gives you more options to play with. If you gave me either a 85/1.8 or 85/1.4 I wouldn't complain
For medium tele portraits, my preferred lens is a 105/2.5AIS, otherwise I prefer environmental portraits with a wider lens.
Thanks and Welcome you feedback for the above.
Response below in blue
Thanks for posting Rurouni. On the Hyperfocal issue, for 50mm@f/1.4 the hyperfocal is
93 meters. So, does that means I can technically use f/1.4 to take Mount Fuji if I am more than 93m away and the picture will be sharp?
IMHO, I think it depends on how sharp you want Mt Fuji to be and how much enlargement you are going to make to the image. I suppose if you want to take a flower between half of 93m to 93m and you want Fuji to be sharp in the background, that sharpness at hyperfocal infinity should be ok. Otherwise it would always be better to focus as close to Mt Fuji as possible. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
Apparent sharpness
Precise focus is possible at only one distance; at that distance, a point object will produce a point image.[1] At any other distance, a point object is defocused, and will produce a blur spot shaped like the aperture, which for the purpose of analysis is usually assumed to be circular. When this circular spot is sufficiently small, it is indistinguishable from a point, and appears to be in focus; it is rendered as acceptably sharp. The diameter of the circle increases with distance from the point of focus; the largest circle that is indistinguishable from a point is known as the acceptable circle of confusion, or informally, simply as the circle of confusion. The acceptable circle of confusion is influenced by visual acuity, viewing conditions, and the amount by which the image is enlarged. The increase of the circle diameter with defocus is gradual, so the limits of depth of field are not hard boundaries between sharp and unsharp.
- Status
Similar threads
