Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: A Japanese headfier's monologue (Sasaki)
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
Yes. Way back in the late 70s. I had a 1.2 as well, but I sold that because it seemed to have low contrast wide open. They were all fine for printing 8x10 wide open, and they got sharp by the time you got to around 2.8 or 3.5 or so. But the larger apertures were more for convenience than for actual critical use.
I'm willing to compromise sharpness a bit for convenience in a zoom. But in a prime, I want all of the stops to perform perfectly. When I pull out a lens like this, it's for a specific purpose- and in this case that's wide open with the subject in the center and lots of soft focus all around.
My Tokina 11-16 is from another world IQ-wise. The stuff I'm getting from it are better than anything I ever got with 35mm. I'm hoping this 50mm will be in the same league. The shots I've seen on the web taken with it look great. Until recently, I didn't realize how significant the advances in lens design have been over the past couple of decades.
Thanks for the suggestions, the D90 is not an option for me since the point of upgrading from my D70 is to get a body that meters and AE's with my older manual focus Nikkor lenses.
I am in a similar situation to you. I have a huge kit of old 70s and 80s nikkor glass. I suppose I could use them on my D200, but I just haven't found myself doing that. The lenses I've gravitated to do things those old lenses never could.
I have five lenses now, and they cover what I do perfectly... Nikon 18-200VR, Nikon 28-70 AF-D, Tokina 100mm Macro, Sigma 50mm 1.4 and Tokina 11-16. The first two there are extremely versatile (one for good, one for lightweight bum-around), the second two cover portraits and macro, and the last one nails architecture and landscapes. The only other lens I might want is a fast long sports lens, but the amount I would use it doesn't justify the cost. Basically, in five lenses, I've covered everything in my old bag full of primes- with the added benefit of faster apertures and sharper optics.
Rather than upgrading your body, I would suggest getting a really useful lens. For sheer versatility, the 18-200VR can't be beat. And it won't duplicate anything you already have in your bag.
D-Movie will be a fun feature for sure, but the 5 minute clip limit will never ever see any practical use for any real life replacement of an HD camcorder.
I think the point is that it's unfair to compare a DSLR to an HD Camcorder, especially when it's the only DSLR to be able to shoot HD video at all. Of course it isn't a replacement for a camcorder. But in a lot of situations, it may be enough to save having to take a camcorder along on a vacation with you. And in the future, the two classes of cameras will certainly end up merging into a hybrid that does rival both types. That's the next camera I'll be buying. Until then, my D200 and Canon HV30 will do the trick for me.
I have five lenses now, and they cover what I do perfectly... Nikon 18-200VR, Nikon 28-70 AF-D, Tokina 100mm Macro, Sigma 50mm 1.4 and Tokina 11-16. The first two there are extremely versatile (one for good, one for lightweight bum-around), the second two cover portraits and macro, and the last one nails architecture and landscapes. The only other lens I might want is a fast long sports lens, but the amount I would use it doesn't justify the cost. Basically, in five lenses, I've covered everything in my old bag full of primes- with the added benefit of faster apertures and sharper optics.
Right, this is what I mean, I got an old 180/2.8 in manual focus for $125 and barely missed getting a 300/2.8 for $450. The AF versions of those lenses would be at least 5x as expensive. The Sigma 50/1.4 is around 5x a 50/1.4 MF Nikkor though maybe it's a better lens (in my case I have a 50/1.8AF and manage to live without the extra stop). I have the 18-70 kit lens from the D70 and rather than an 18-200 I sometimes think of getting the 17-55/2.8 for more speed, but in the long run I want an FX camera, so I'm resistant to sinking a lot of $$ into DX lenses. The 28-70/2.8 is of course a fabulous lens but costs more than a D3. In practice I'd mostly care about the wideangle end, and I have the 35/1.4 and 28/2.0 in manual focus and I think they were about $150 each. Zooms that fast simply do not exist. My one concession to semi-expensive DX lenses is the Sigma 10-20mm which I've been having a good time with, for sure. I wouldn't mind buying expensive stuff if I used it more or felt I was going to keep it a long time, but given how little DSLR shooting I actually do, I really have to resist acquiring a pile of high-end AF lenses (especially DX models).
Yes. Way back in the late 70s. I had a 1.2 as well, but I sold that because it seemed to have low contrast wide open. They were all fine for printing 8x10 wide open, and they got sharp by the time you got to around 2.8 or 3.5 or so. But the larger apertures were more for convenience than for actual critical use.
I'm willing to compromise sharpness a bit for convenience in a zoom. But in a prime, I want all of the stops to perform perfectly. When I pull out a lens like this, it's for a specific purpose- and in this case that's wide open with the subject in the center and lots of soft focus all around.
My Tokina 11-16 is from another world IQ-wise. The stuff I'm getting from it are better than anything I ever got with 35mm. I'm hoping this 50mm will be in the same league. The shots I've seen on the web taken with it look great. Until recently, I didn't realize how significant the advances in lens design have been over the past couple of decades.
The 28-70 F/2.8 should go for around 1100 used, and the 24-70 F/2.8 goes for around 1600$ new.
The 28-70 I have is the f3.5/4.5 AF-D. It cost me $80. It's the perfect lightweight walkaround beater lens.
Originally Posted by Towert7
Wow, huge difference in those two pictures. Wonder what the zeiss does to portraits without stopping down much.
It performs a lot better in daylight. And if you notice, it's a lot better in the center than at the edges. With portraits all that edge messiness would be blur anyway.
Nikon hybrid HDvideo/DSLR cameras will be crop, not full frame. Don't sell off those DX lenses yet! Also, I bet a new classification of lenses will emerge with powered zooms.
Linear Mode
