The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by lan

That's true if you want to get technical but for all intents and purposes, it's 75 don't you think? Most people are interested in the field of view. The depth of field is also less on a cropped body. But it is good to mention what you said.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a 50mm. Most DSLR users have never shot film. When I think of the FOV of a 50mm lens, I think of the FOV of a 50mm lens on an APS sensor.

[meat01]

Most DSLR users have never shot film.

I don't agree with this statement, but I agree that a 50mm lens still has a 50mm magnification ratio, but with a smaller FOV.

[lan]

Originally Posted by Arainach

As far as I'm concerned, it's a 50mm. Most DSLR users have never shot film. When I think of the FOV of a 50mm lens, I think of the FOV of a 50mm lens on an APS sensor.

Ok but in use you'd still have to backup and frame it as if it was 75mm.

[milkpowder]

Originally Posted by nineohtoo

Like mentioned it'll need a motor in the body. If you're patient, Sigma announced their 50mm 1.4 that will AF with the D40 and D60. If it's anything like their 30mm 1.4, it'll be a great lens. What Sigma really needs to do is release an affordable 85mm 1.4. If they do I'd honestly be set.

Re: Sigma
That's good news.

I went to a large electronics retailer and enquired about the 50mm F/1.4 and F/1.8. The F/1.4 costs around $300 and the F/1.8 a measly $80-85. They didn't have either in stock. Is the F/1.4 really worth that much more? I read a review which said that the F/1.8 is as sharp as the F/1.4 when stopped down. Also, I saw a 85mm F/1.8 for $900+

Earlier in the day, I went shooting photos again. There is a spot on a random bridge in Hong Kong where a lot of enthusiasts gather to take photos of this special tree which blooms at certain times of the year. I saw a D300/70-200 as well as a D3 user with what looked like a 14-24 + teleconverter.

Will post a couple pictures later.

[meat01]

I am happy with my 50 1.8 and do not think it is worth the extra 2/3 stop for the 1.4. Some people do want or need that extra low light ability. I think you would be hard pressed to differentiate the sharpness between the lenses.

[nineohtoo]

It's really in what you're gonna shoot. I want to get into shooting rock shows, and I've got no choice but to use fast glass and high ISOs. If you're walking around outdoors, 2.8 should be good enough to have control over your depth of field, unless you want some razor thin DOF.

Nikon has renewed it's accommodations with us. D300 for $1300... But there are used D200s on the market right now for about half that. I'm happy with my D70s, but I'd really love to have better ISO's and faster low light focusing. More AF points would be a huge plus too. I want to tell myself to hold off on both, because Nikon's next consumer update(if it ever happens), should have some of the D300 goodness trickled into it. What should I do? (and I don't have $1300 lying around lol)

[perplex]

Originally Posted by Arainach

Wrong.

A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens. Its depth-of-field and focal points are still calculated as a 50mm lens. It will have the same field of view as a 75mm would have on film, but it's still a 50mm lens.

Yeah sorry.. let me just clarify.. I did NOT mean that a 50mm lens will magically morph into a 75mm lens on a crop body .

You're actually confusing noobs with what you said because on the internet you sometimes hear that a 50mm is the "perfect prime" and it's very close to what the human sees, but that is assuming it's used on full frame. So it can be confusing.

Originally Posted by milkpowder

Re: Sigma
That's good news.

I went to a large electronics retailer and enquired about the 50mm F/1.4 and F/1.8. The F/1.4 costs around $300 and the F/1.8 a measly $80-85. They didn't have either in stock. Is the F/1.4 really worth that much more? I read a review which said that the F/1.8 is as sharp as the F/1.8 when stopped down. Also, I saw a 85mm F/1.8 for $900+

....

Optically the f/1.4 and f/1.8 are similar if not f/1.8 being very slightly better, though don't forget you can stop down the f/1.4 to f/1.8 too and it might be even better than the f/1.8 wide open. This is just from what I've heard on the internet. I've got the f/1.4 and I'm very glad I did even if it's just for the superior build quality. It's still not quite pro-quality I don't think but it's supposed to be much better than the f/1.8's. I've heard people say they were unhappy with the latter's build quality

Over the long run the extra cost might be justified.

[Towert7]

I just used the technique I mentioned earlier to find out what focal length matches my eye.

On my DX camera, my vision is equivalent to about 70mm ± 5mm.
So about 105mm ± 7.5mm on 35mm format.
Although, this may be dependent on the viewfinder being used. I'll try it on a D80 sometime and see if I get a different result.

It was cool. As I got closer and closer to what my eye sees, all of a sudden the overlapping images became 3D (like one of those child's 3d stereograph toys).

[fureshi]

Originally Posted by nineohtoo

Nikon has renewed it's accommodations with us. D300 for $1300... But there are used D200s on the market right now for about half that. I'm happy with my D70s, but I'd really love to have better ISO's and faster low light focusing. More AF points would be a huge plus too. I want to tell myself to hold off on both, because Nikon's next consumer update(if it ever happens), should have some of the D300 goodness trickled into it. What should I do? (and I don't have $1300 lying around lol)

did nikon lower the price of the d300 to $1300? this is the first time i've heard of this price. if this is so, i wonder where the D90 will slot in. with the original D300 price of $1800, i was expecting the possible D90 to be somewhere around the $1200 mark.

[lan]

All places I search still show D300 for $1800 so I don't know where $1300 comes from also.