Nikon mirrorless definitely on the way

I agree with the wide open bit, but in my experience a f/2.8 lens shot at f/4 produces a nicer result than the f/4 wide open. Also the nice glass and good tech seems to go in the f/2.8 glass.

Just interesting to see what others are doing.
 
I shot lenses mostly wide open, if they're good enough at that. The option is there to stop down, you can look at it both ways, no right or wrong.
 
woof woof said:
To use lenses primarily wide open doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I can't believe many people do that. It makes much more sense to me to choose the aperture you want and if the lens goes to f0.000001 then that's a setting that's available when it's needed or it's an artistic choice. Band shot at the gig in poor light? f1.2 might be nice :D Family group shot at f1.2, no thanks :D

At the mo I have a couple of f1.2 lenses and more f1.4's and I use them at all apertures but maybe it's me that's the odd one out :D
Click to expand...
Ok I concede to your point, depending on the lens. Obviously something like the 24-70mm f2.8 is a multipurpose and often used for landscapes where you’ll obviously not be shooting wide open. However, if this is your main choice then why not buy the 24-120mm f4 which is pretty much just as sharp, cheaper, lighter and has more flexibility? That’s just my view of course ;)
 
Eyon said:
I agree with the wide open bit, but in my experience a f/2.8 lens shot at f/4 produces a nicer result than the f/4 wide open. Also the nice glass and good tech seems to go in the f/2.8 glass.

Just interesting to see what others are doing.
Click to expand...
F2.8 zooms ‘seem’ to be more pro zooms and are generally well built, but we’ve no idea of the build quality of the new Z lens yet but they are saying it’s extremely sharp.
 
snerkler said:
Ok I concede to your point, depending on the lens. Obviously something like the 24-70mm f2.8 is a multipurpose and often used for landscapes where you’ll obviously not be shooting wide open. However, if this is your main choice then why not buy the 24-120mm f4 which is pretty much just as sharp, cheaper, lighter and has more flexibility? That’s just my view of course ;)
Click to expand...
It’s a bad choice for landscapes the 24-120.

It’s sharp enough in the centre but drops off noticeably outside the central portion. At 24mm it’s really quite weak and very obvious on the landscapes I took with it before upgrading.

The new Nikon l need seem ultra sharp across the frame though.
 
snerkler said:
F2.8 zooms ‘seem’ to be more pro zooms and are generally well built, but we’ve no idea of the build quality of the new Z lens yet but they are saying it’s extremely sharp.
Click to expand...

Some reviewers say the f4 build is horrible, built like a toy.
 
Brazo said:
It’s a bad choice for landscapes the 24-120.

It’s sharp enough in the centre but drops off noticeably outside the central portion. At 24mm it’s really quite weak and very obvious on the landscapes I took with it before upgrading.

The new Nikon l need seem ultra sharp across the frame though.
Click to expand...
MIne was pretty good tbh.

twist said:
Some reviewers say the f4 build is horrible, built like a toy.
Click to expand...
Felt good to me. Obviously not as good as the 24-70mm f2.8 but still felt well built, unlike the 18-35mm which does feel like a toy ;)
 
Dave Semmens said:
And this is why I moved away from Nikon - I think there is far too much variance from lens to lens of the same type.

I spent too much time and money trying to find a good 16-35 and know others have done the same. But some will tell you their copy is sharp across the frame.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's perception/expectation? Did you see examples of the others pics that were "sharp across the frame"? I wonder if opinions also vary depending on how much you paid? For example I only paid £450 for my 24-120mm f4 vs the £800 or so it was at the time for new UK. I'm not sure I'd be as happy had I paid £800
 
A bit like the Sony 35mm 1.4
Dave Semmens said:
And this is why I moved away from Nikon - I think there is far too much variance from lens to lens of the same type.

I spent too much time and money trying to find a good 16-35 and know others have done the same. But some will tell you their copy is sharp across the frame.
Click to expand...
 
snerkler said:
Maybe it's perception/expectation? Did you see examples of the others pics that were "sharp across the frame"? I wonder if opinions also vary depending on how much you paid? For example I only paid £450 for my 24-120mm f4 vs the £800 or so it was at the time for new UK. I'm not sure I'd be as happy had I paid £800
Click to expand...

I didn't see examples but know how poor my 2 copies were - I can only assume someone must have had a better copy as no one would be buying them if they all had soft corners and were soft down an entire one side.
 
Dave Semmens said:
I didn't see examples but know how poor my 2 copies were - I can only assume someone must have had a better copy as no one would be buying them if they all had soft corners and were soft down an entire one side.
Click to expand...
Soft down one side sounds like a decentering issue to me :eek: Not good that you've had bad QC issues with their lenses :(
 
Dave Semmens said:
I can only assume someone must have had a better copy ...
Click to expand...
That'll be me then. I've bought around 300 Nikon lenses, and none of them have been decentred.
 
StewartR said:
That'll be me then. I've bought around 300 Nikon lenses, and none of them have been decentred.
Click to expand...

I can't match 300 but I've never had a 'bad copy' of any lens. Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sony. They're all fine.

When I hear of people buying 5 or 6 copies before finding a 'good one' I just want to put my face-punching suit on.
 
snerkler said:
Maybe it's perception/expectation? Did you see examples of the others pics that were "sharp across the frame"? I wonder if opinions also vary depending on how much you paid? For example I only paid £450 for my 24-120mm f4 vs the £800 or so it was at the time for new UK. I'm not sure I'd be as happy had I paid £800
Click to expand...


I paid £803.97 for the D750 kit with a bloody sharp 24-120

Shouldn't have sold that
 
Radiohead said:
I can't match 300 but I've never had a 'bad copy' of any lens. Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sony. They're all fine.

When I hear of people buying 5 or 6 copies before finding a 'good one' I just want to put my face-punching suit on.
Click to expand...

You clearly haven't bought Sony Zeiss 35mm f1.4 :D
 
Radiohead said:
More than likely. I'm editing a wedding at the moment and a whole sequence of 35mm shots. My over-riding thought is 'this lens is bloody sharp'...
Click to expand...
The lens is indeed very sharp. Unless you decide to compose your bride in the extreme corner @ f1.4 with half her face cutoff :D
 
snerkler said:
Soft down one side sounds like a decentering issue to me :eek: Not good that you've had bad QC issues with their lenses :(
Click to expand...
it went to Fixation for repair and they thought it was actually a manufacturing issue. They were quite confident that it would be fixed by Nikon under warranty but in the end Nikon refused.

Even once fixed the lens was still soft in the corners compared to my ancient 17-35 F2.8 (which wasn't the greatest lens to start with)

It was the end of the line for me with Nikon.

It is night and day comparing the results I got from the Nikon wide angles compared to the 16-35 GM
 
Radiohead said:
I can't match 300 but I've never had a 'bad copy' of any lens. Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sony. They're all fine.

When I hear of people buying 5 or 6 copies before finding a 'good one' I just want to put my face-punching suit on.
Click to expand...

You punch yourself in the face because people had some iffy lenses? Odd ... you wedding togs, always so melodramatic :D
 
Dave Semmens said:
it went to Fixation for repair and they thought it was actually a manufacturing issue. They were quite confident that it would be fixed by Nikon under warranty but in the end Nikon refused.

Even once fixed the lens was still soft in the corners compared to my ancient 17-35 F2.8 (which wasn't the greatest lens to start with)

It was the end of the line for me with Nikon.

It is night and day comparing the results I got from the Nikon wide angles compared to the 16-35 GM
Click to expand...
But isn't the Sony 16-35mm £2299 which is a lot more than the comparative Nikon lenses. I do think the 17-35mm f2.8 is overpriced though, especially considering it's one of their older D lenses which will have the old coatings etc.
 
snerkler said:
But isn't the Sony 16-35mm £2299 which is a lot more than the comparative Nikon lenses. I do think the 17-35mm f2.8 is overpriced though, especially considering it's one of their older D lenses which will have the old coatings etc.
Click to expand...
It's also a much better lens than most of the others around. I'd even go as far as saying it's the best lens in its class all things considered.

Having said that Sony lenses are generally more expensive than DSLR equivalents. But this may not but be unique to Sony anymore looking at Nikons mirrorless lens prices.
 
snerkler said:
But isn't the Sony 16-35mm £2299 which is a lot more than the comparative Nikon lenses. I do think the 17-35mm f2.8 is overpriced though, especially considering it's one of their older D lenses which will have the old coatings etc.
Click to expand...

No it's £10 CHEAPER than the Nikon.
 
nandbytes said:
It's also a much better lens than most of the others around. I'd even go as far as saying it's the best lens in its class all things considered.

Having said that Sony lenses are generally more expensive than DSLR equivalents. But this may not but be unique to Sony anymore looking at Nikons mirrorless lens prices.
Click to expand...

Are they really?

N 16-35 f4 = 1059
S = 1049

N 24-70 VR = 2000
S = 1830

N 70-200 2.8 FL = 2390
S = 2499

N 70-200 F4 = 1173
Sony = 1149

N 35 1.4 = 1549
S = 1339

N 85 1.4 = 1450
S = 1449
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top