Switch to D700

Radiohead said:
Neither of the 85's are AF-S.

The 35 is of no use to me and I'm after a 24 and 35, both 1.4's.
Click to expand...

You have a D3 & D700 who cares about the S bit anyway? The non S models often focus quicker albeit a tad noisier.
 
Because I'd like to see the lenses updated for digital. I'd like quieter for ceremony work and focus accuracy with AF-C.

And that's just the 85's. The fast, wide stuff doesn't exist. I yield to no-one in my admiration of Nikon's recent zooms and the 50G but they have clear gaps in their prime set up.
 
Radiohead said:
Because I'd like to see the lenses updated for digital. I'd like quieter for ceremony work and focus accuracy with AF-C.

And that's just the 85's. The fast, wide stuff doesn't exist. I yield to no-one in my admiration of Nikon's recent zooms and the 50G but they have clear gaps in their prime set up.
Click to expand...

Sorry what is the difference between an AF 50mm f1.4 D and a AFS 50mmf1.4 G other than the loss of the aperture ring (which I would rather have) and the focus motor. The noise of the focus is hardly a problem and like I said the AF lenses tend to be quicker anyway. Just asking as I don't see any major advantage. I only bought the AFS over the AF version of the 50mm f1.4 so that my kids who have non motor bodies can use it too.
 
Sharper wide open, better handling of flare, better contrast. I'm less interested in outright focus speed and more in focus accuracy in low light. There the AF-S lens is a clear winner and it's there that the 35/2 and 85/1.4 struggle.
 
Radiohead said:
Sharper wide open, better handling of flare, better contrast. I'm less interested in outright focus speed and more in focus accuracy in low light. There the AF-S lens is a clear winner and it's there that the 35/2 and 85/1.4 struggle.
Click to expand...

Sorry I meant what is the advantage of the S bit. Yes the new lens is better in a number of ways but are any of these related to the S bit or is it just because it is a newer lens. If not then what is the problem with the AF 85mm f1.4 which is rather special as far as I'm concerned.
 
It's simply the internal lens motor. Nothing more.

The 85/1.4 is a special lens, but it has a cooler colour cast than the newer glass which I'm not so keen on. That means more PP to colour match.

So, with an AF-S 85 I'd expect better focus accuracy, better contrast, more accurate focus in low-light and more accurate focus with micro-adjustments using AF-C.
 
Radiohead said:
It's simply the internal lens motor. Nothing more.

The 85/1.4 is a special lens, but it has a cooler colour cast than the newer glass which I'm not so keen on. That means more PP to colour match.

So, with an AF-S 85 I'd expect better focus accuracy, better contrast, more accurate focus in low-light and more accurate focus with micro-adjustments using AF-C.
Click to expand...

Right, I understand what you are saying then. You just want all the fast primes updated and the AFS/AF bit is not actually relevant.

I love the AFS50mm f1.4G its a corker. I would have bought the AF50mmf1.4D if it had not been down to Nikon's freebie £50 off voucher that they gave me with my D700:) but I'm glad I got it now....

In fact I still have loads of Nikon £50-120 vouchers for different lens and the SB900 flash that will run out unused if anyone is thinking of buying a new Nikon lens. I might stick them in the for sale section as freebies...
 
cowasaki said:
Sorry what is the difference between an AF 50mm f1.4 D and a AFS 50mmf1.4 G other than the loss of the aperture ring (which I would rather have) and the focus motor. The noise of the focus is hardly a problem and like I said the AF lenses tend to be quicker anyway. Just asking as I don't see any major advantage. I only bought the AFS over the AF version of the 50mm f1.4 so that my kids who have non motor bodies can use it too.
Click to expand...

i agree with all your posts on here total sense.

ive kept the 50mm d even though i have the g as i often think i prefer it

the 85mm is a gem why fix what nots broke

half these minor quibbles remind me of the hi-fi experts who only played white noise in pursuit of some percieved perfection.

ther are so many variables anyway whats the point?
 
ditchdigger said:
i agree with all your posts on here total sense.

ive kept the 50mm d even though i have the g as i often think i prefer it

the 85mm is a gem why fix what nots broke

half these minor quibbles remind me of the hi-fi experts who only played white noise in pursuit of some percieved perfection.

ther are so many variables anyway whats the point?
Click to expand...

Its not about "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", its about Nikon being inferior to Canon in certain area's. I would love a 35L on a Nikon.
 
ditchdigger said:
i agree with all your posts on here total sense.

ive kept the 50mm d even though i have the g as i often think i prefer it

the 85mm is a gem why fix what nots broke

half these minor quibbles remind me of the hi-fi experts who only played white noise in pursuit of some percieved perfection.

ther are so many variables anyway whats the point?
Click to expand...

So those of us that see gaps, or areas that need to be improved in real-world situations are imagining it are we?
 
Just quickly reading through the recent posts since mine, it would appear to me to be "nit picking". I don't shoot in a laboratory under test conditions. However I'm happy to concede if you feel the differences are important to you.

Personally I think the 85mm 1.4 is one of the best lenses ever made, which is simply why Nikon haven't updated it.
 
treeman said:
Just quickly reading through the recent posts since mine, it would appear to me to be "nit picking". I don't shoot in a laboratory under test conditions. However I'm happy to concede if you feel the differences are important to you.
Click to expand...

Is professional wedding photography shooting in a lab then?


treeman said:
Personally I think the 85mm 1.4 is one of the best lenses ever made, which is simply why Nikon haven't updated it.
Click to expand...

No, they haven't got round to it yet. That's all. They will.
 
Radiohead said:
No - the AF-S is relevant - for the reasons around focus accuracy and noise.
Click to expand...

Neither is an issue for me, the point about the 85 f1.4 being cooler is a strange one as well, I think the modern stuff is too warm, the more neutral rendition from the 85 f1.4, 35-70 f2.8 and 180 f2.8 lenses looks more natural, especially for people shots, and that crinkle finish looks like a lens should :cool:

My 85 f1.4 is not noisy, the shutter noise is louder, and I have never noticed any focus inaccuracies with it.

I am happy with the way these lenses are, not all of us want a bag full of AF S drainpipe sized lenses, but each to their own, it would not be good if we all wanted the same things in life.
 
Martyn... said:
Neither is an issue for me, the point about the 85 f1.4 being cooler is a strange one as well, I think the modern stuff is too warm, the more neutral rendition from the 85 f1.4, 35-70 f2.8 and 180 f2.8 lenses looks more natural, especially for people shots, and that crinkle finish looks like a lens should :cool:

My 85 f1.4 is not noisy, the shutter noise is louder, and I have never noticed any focus inaccuracies with it.

I am happy with the way these lenses are, not all of us want a bag full of AF S drainpipe sized lenses, but each to their own, it would not be good if we all wanted the same things in life.
Click to expand...

It would indeed.

I am far from alone in these comments though, although obviously not here :lol:

I'm talking about using this lens in very low light work (like ISO3200+ with f1.6 and 1/100s) - it's there that you'll see the focus inaccuracies (comparing it with the accuracy of the 50G is like light and day). Shoot it in tricky low autumn sun and you'll see the flare. These are all areas that I'd like to see improvements in.

I'm not sure why that means I shoot in test labs. I'm about as far aware from a measurebator as you can get.
 
Radiohead said:
It would indeed.

I am far from alone in these comments though, although obviously not here :lol:

I'm talking about using this lens in very low light work (like ISO3200+ with f1.6 and 1/100s) - it's there that you'll see the focus inaccuracies (comparing it with the accuracy of the 50G is like light and day). Shoot it in tricky low autumn sun and you'll see the flare. These are all areas that I'd like to see improvements in.

I'm not sure why that means I shoot in test labs. I'm about as far aware from a measurebator as you can get.
Click to expand...

I did read a recent rumour of an 85 f1.4 AF S being close to appearing, how true I do not know.
 
Radiohead said:
It would indeed.

I am far from alone in these comments though, although obviously not here :lol:

I'm talking about using this lens in very low light work (like ISO3200+ with f1.6 and 1/100s) - it's there that you'll see the focus inaccuracies (comparing it with the accuracy of the 50G is like light and day). Shoot it in tricky low autumn sun and you'll see the flare. These are all areas that I'd like to see improvements in.

I'm not sure why that means I shoot in test labs. I'm about as far aware from a measurebator as you can get.
Click to expand...

no I agree with you from here - I'd dearly love to see this lens updated with modern coatings, better flare and CA control and colour rendition the same as more modern Nikon lenses. The AF could do with an update, there's nothing wrong per se, but compared to other lenses in my bag its just not there and I'd like it to be.

Hugh
 
chilliz said:
I considered a switch to the D700 from my 450D, but went for the 5D MKII, and I`m glad I did. Try and get hold of Digital Camera Magazine for September 2009. They don`t rate the D700, it`s worse for fine detail and just about everything else, all except for High ISO noise, which is it`s ace. They said it was outclassed by todays offerings from Canon and Sony.

I must admit for sports photography, I think I would opt for the 7D, no contest, I wouldn`t even consider full frame at all. Just MHO.
Click to expand...

I must tell all my friends at the international agencies that Digital Camera Magazine, clearly the photographer's bible, says the D700 in rubbish.

:cuckoo:
 
cowasaki said:
Oh I know, there is a gap which Canon fill with their f4 lenses. I was simply pointing out that there are alternatives if you don't mind 2nd hand. This is a real hole in Nikon's line!
Click to expand...

Canon will sort out their FF bodies with a 7D AF system years and years before Nikon will sort out the gaps in their lens line up. IMO.

Personally, i am glad i have stuck with Canon, the next 5D should be a REAL corker. With one release, say a 5Diii with the 7D AF, add to the current lens line up, Nikon system's short comings will all of the sudden look very apparent. Sure, for most amatuer this won't matter as they are unlikely to get those fast primes, but for pro's, it is a pain in the ass basically.

This is beside the point that people often forget that there is always the 1DsMKIII, with FF & better AF :p
 
Raymond Lin said:
Canon will short out their FF bodies with a 7D AF system years and years before Nikon will sort out the gaps in their lens line up. IMO.
Click to expand...

That might come back to bite you.

And if the performance of the new 70-200mm that I've just seen some real wedding shots from is anything to go by it'll be worth the wait.
 
chrisgeary said:
I misread that first time around :lol:
Click to expand...
:D


treeman said:
Obviously not, but I couldn't see how you are managing to find these flaws.



Fair point, that's not a scenario I've ever shot in. :)
Click to expand...

I thought I was fairly clear in why I'd like to see it improved. It's all very well saying that a lens doesn't need improving, but without stating what you shoot it doesn't really help. I buy a lens like the 85 for low-light work and that's where it can struggle.
 
Radiohead said:
And if the performance of the new 70-200mm that I've just seen some real wedding shots from is anything to go by it'll be worth the wait.
Click to expand...

It looks great but the price hike was rather unwelcome!
 
Raymond Lin said:
Canon will short out their FF bodies with a 7D AF system years and years before Nikon will sort out the gaps in their lens line up. IMO.
Click to expand...

Canon / Nikon both have lenses the other does not, my 200-400VR with and without 1.7TC gets more use than any other in my photography.
 
Radiohead said:
That might come back to bite you.

And if the performance of the new 70-200mm that I've just seen some real wedding shots from is anything to go by it'll be worth the wait.
Click to expand...

I find that kinda funny that is the one lens you seldom use at your work. :lol:
 
Radiohead said:
I meant 'the primes will be worth the wait'.....not the 70-200.
Click to expand...

ah, then i stand by my statement that Canon will sort out the AF in the 5D before Nikon sort out their holes in their lenses.

I've love to be prove wrong, it makes things interesting and its what drive the market forward. We'll see. :)
 
Just to put another slant on things. Do you think Nikon may be thinking why make faster primes when they've achieved such good quality high ISO. Just up the ISO rating rather than open up.

Or would we still want fast lenses and good high ISO performance?
 
treeman said:
Just to put another slant on things. Do you think Nikon may be thinking why make faster primes when they've achieved such good quality high ISO. Just up the ISO rating rather than open up.

Or would we still want fast lenses and good high ISO performance?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why they'd think that - you can't duplicate most of the effects of a really fast prime with high ISO, so I want both
 
treeman said:
Just to put another slant on things. Do you think Nikon may be thinking why make faster primes when they've achieved such good quality high ISO. Just up the ISO rating rather than open up.

Or would we still want fast lenses and good high ISO performance?
Click to expand...

Depends what you want the wide apperture for... letting in light is only one reason.... DOF and subject isolation is the other..
 
i use the 85mm in extreme[and i mean extreme] low light ive also use it in extreme sunshine for outdoor portraits.

focusing was superb and quiet,there was no flare the results as always looked brilliant.

it was a good lens yesterday and just as good today.

as i said i have both 50mm d and g to me there is no real world difference,except i prefer the feel and look [plus versatility] of the original d

you only have to look at the galleries on nikon cafe to see ime not alone in praising the 85mm lens.

its a bit like the kodak gold film with the unusual bright UNREAL colours in people test it was the more neutral konica[i think] film that was preffered
 
desantnik said:
Depends what you want the wide apperture for... letting in light is only one reason.... DOF and subject isolation is the other..
Click to expand...

very true as i found out yesterday when i took my lighter 70-300

rather than the 70-200 f2.8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top