[jude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....An f 1.4 lens is entirely different in this regard than an f 2.8 lens....

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....As an aside, I just got the Sigma 30 1.4 in the mail this morning and I just shot a test. It is VERY nice....

Again, I first had it for the Canon, switched to Nikon, and had to get the Nikon-mount version. Yes, I'd love to be able to spring for the now-legendary (and discontinued) Nikkor 28mm f/1.4, but it's so far out of my budget that I know that's not going to happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....Very nice lenses. Exactly what I was looking for to complete my kit... Tokina 11-16 2.8, Nikon 18-55 VR, Nikon 18-200 VR, Sigma 30mm 1.4, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tokina 100mm macro 2.8. I covered it in six....

Wow, Steve, that's a nice half-dozen you've got there. I'd like to someday add the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR to get me from 14mm to 200mm f/2.8 all the way through. Given their prices, however, I can't see adding either of them anytime soon. I was reading on DPreview that there's rumor of a possible update to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR in 2009, so I'm curious to know how true that ends up being. I think one of my more immediately obtainable (and affordable) lenses will be either the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro (macro) or the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro--I'd like a dedicated macro lens, and want to be able to get my shots without getting as close to my targets as I had to with the Canon shooting the 60mm f/2.8 EF-S macro. So my kit could be well rounded with this very pricey collection of five total lenses.

(And I think all but the Sigma 30mm would be full-frame capable, should that decision ever be made in the future.)

 

[bigshot]

OK. Here ya go...

Full resolution version

This is just pointing the camera out the front door in midday light. But it'll give you the idea. I'm going to shoot with it tonight. I'll see what I come up with.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jude /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think one of my more immediately obtainable (and affordable) lenses will be either the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro (macro) or the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro

Consider the Tokina 100mm 2.8 macro. I'm very happy with mine. Tokina makes great lenses in their AT-X line. It's FF capable, but I won't be using it for that anytime soon.

See ya
Steve

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jude /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't intend to speak for Steve here, but I think what he's saying is that in extreme low-light conditions, it can be more difficult to know that you've got your subject in focus, which becomes increasingly important with the paper-thin DOF that can come with f/1.4. I agree with him on this one, as even a Nikon-made 28mm f/1.4 would also have very shallow DOF at f/1.4 (especially at close distances). In other words, I think I understand what Steve is saying, and I think it applies no matter who's making the f/1.4 lens. As I stated earlier regarding the Sigma f/1.4 (when shooting wide open), I personally find it helpful to shoot as quickly after acquiring focus as possible, as even a tiny movement from me or the subject between focus lock and shutter actuation can result in an OOF image.

F/1.4 only becomes real narrow when you get to higher magnifications.
Beyond 2 feet with your typical F/1.4 wide angle - normal angle it's not so critical, and the ability of the the lens/camera combo to Auto focus correctly is much more important.

 

[bigshot]

The Sigma 30mm 1.4 isn't a wide angle lens. It's a normal focal length designed for crop cameras. Even focused to infinity on a street scene like the one I posted above, at 1.4 everything in the nearest block would be out of focus to one degree or another. Whenever you shoot wide open with this lens, depth of field is an issue.

See ya
Steve

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif F/1.4 only becomes real narrow when you get to higher magnifications. Beyond 2 feet with your typical F/1.4 wide angle - normal angle it's not so critical, and the ability of the the lens/camera combo to Auto focus correctly is much more important.

I'm not sure what the DOF calculators say, but at 30mm f/1.4, the part that's sharpest is within a thin slice, so you can see an eye sharply in focus, but a nose less in focus (if you're close enough)--or even one eye very sharp, and the other eye somewhat sharp, if the face is shot at even a mild angle at a relatively close distance.

I know it gets more pronounced as the focal length increases, but 30mm at f/1.4 can be rather unforgiving as far as DOF goes, especially if you're shooting a person with it.

That all being said, that shallow DOF can be fun to play with a lot of the time, too.

 

[OverlordXenu]

Honestly Jude, I don't think the 14-24/2.8 is a very good choice if/when you "upgrade" to full-frame...it is just way, way too wide. I LOVE my wide angles, they're all I use for either landscape or street photography (and portraits, but I do environmental portraits, not headshots). I think the 16-35/2.8 is a much better choice. Not as wide on crop, but it still goes from pretty wide to normal. And on full-frame, it goes from extremely wide to normal. Not to mention you can actually protect the 16-35mm with a filter.

That said, I do plan on pairing up a 16-35mm and 14mm soon.

 

[jpelg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Sigma 30mm 1.4 isn't a wide angle lens.

This has been my thought since this part of the thread began. I don't really understand the desire for a near-normal (45-50mm net after the crop factor) lens. Neither enough "this", nor enough "that". The first thing people used to do with film SLR's was get rid of their 50mm standard, and put on a wide-angle or telephoto.

Wouldn't something between 20-24mm (30-36mm net) of the same speed be more desirable?

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif This has been my thought since this part of the thread began. I don't really understand the desire for a near-normal (45-50mm net after the crop factor) lens. Neither enough "this", nor enough "that". The first thing people used to do with film SLR's was get rid of their 50mm standard, and put on a wide-angle or telephoto. Wouldn't something between 20-24mm (30-36mm net) of the same speed be more desirable?

I guess it all depends what you like. A 35mm lens on crop camera is my fav event / person lens. I'll be using it for Halloween. That same lens on full frame is not the same and neither is 50mm on full frame.

 

[bigshot]

The reason I wanted a 30mm prime was to get something that approximates the way I shot back when I got my first Nikkormat with the stock 50mm f 2.8 lens. I have a good fast ultra wide, two mid range zooms that cover 18mm to 200mm and two great fast short teles for portraits. The missing link was the prime in the middle. It's definitely a specialty lens. Not everyone needs one.

If there was one lens (aside from a mid range zoom) that everyone needs, it would be the 50mm 1.4. That's an ideal informal portraiture lens. I think everyone shoots pictures of people, and that's what the Sigma 50 1.4 does best.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Honestly Jude, I don't think the 14-24/2.8 is a very good choice if/when you "upgrade" to full-frame...it is just way, way too wide. I LOVE my wide angles, they're all I use for either landscape or street photography (and portraits, but I do environmental portraits, not headshots). I think the 16-35/2.8 is a much better choice.

You're right of course, but it's a waste of money to buy a lens to suit a camera that you don't even have yet. Better to get one that works best with the one you already have. If it works at all in any capacity FX cameras, all the better. But how it works now is more important.

I see people dumping DX lenses and replacing them with FF lenses before they even have a FF camera. That's pretty silly. A FF camera will still shoot DX. Why sacrifice usability today just to salvage a couple of hundred bucks in resale value in some theoretical future?

See ya
Steve

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're right of course, but it's a waste of money to buy a lens to suit a camera that you don't even have yet. Better to get one that works best with the one you already have. If it works at all in any capacity FX cameras, all the better. But how it works now is more important. I see people dumping DX lenses and replacing them with FF lenses before they even have a FF camera. That's pretty silly. A FF camera will still shoot DX. Why sacrifice usability today just to salvage a couple of hundred bucks in resale value in some theoretical future? See ya Steve

I don't understand how you don't see the benefit in buying a lens that both works on a DX camera and will also work on a FX camera. You don't buy an FX camera to use a DX lens on it, that's just silly. Be honest Steve. You can save yourself a lot of money by just buying a DX camera. You buy a FX camera to use FF lenses on it!

I can buy a lens to use on my D50 now, and can also be used just as nicely on a D700 in a few years. Why would I buy a DX lens for use on a DX camera now, and need to sell off my DX lens when I upgrade to a D700? (and again, you don't buy a D700 to use DX lenses on it, that's silly)? That's a waste of money, and a waste of resources. With gas at 10$ a gallon, I can't afford to be wasteful. Maybe you can?

My FF lenses give me better images than similar DX type lenses. So, I get better images now, and I don't have to buy another lens when I get a FF camera. I also save money, because I'm not taking a hit with depreciation. Plus, DX lenses are going to loose more and more of their value as more and more people are trying to sell their DX lenses off.

I think it's VERY foolish not to consider the future. If you don't have the hindsight, you'll end up paying more. Speaking of which, I'm so glad my lenses work on FF cameras. ^_^

I really wish I could add a 80-200mm and 17-35mm F/2.8 to my list of FF lenses.
:sigh:

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't understand how you don't see the benefit in buying a lens that both works on a DX camera and will also work on a FX camera.

Just about all Nikon mount lenses post AI will work on just about all Nikon cameras... FF or DX. Say you have a D300 and a nice DX lens today. It shoots great pictures. The image quality is probably even better than you need to print. In ten years, perhaps you might want a FF camera which shoots a little better in the dark. Your DX lens will work just as well as it ever did on your D300. You aren't losing anything.

Because of the focal length difference between DX and FF, lenses aren't really substitutable between systems anyway. Say you have a great 50mm 1.4 portrait lens for your DX rig... like the new Nikon. It isn't going to be a nice portrait lens if you get a FF camera. It's going to be a normal prime, which is an odd duck for most people who prefer midrange zooms to cover that focal length. In order to get the same use, you're still going to have to buy the 85mm 1.4.

FF lenses are more expensive to manufacture to optical standards than DX lenses are. That isn't going to change. The smaller the sensor, the easier it is to create tack sharp fast wide range zooms and long telephotos. There's no 18-200 VR for FF, and if there ever is, you'll need a sherpa to carry it and a fortune to buy it. Just because you can afford a FF body doesn't mean that you'll want to spend all the extra money on the lenses to go with it. Even in the future, DX will still have its price advantages.

If you can get a lens that might work well on both systems and you don't have to pay extra for it, swell. But why pay more or get a focal length that doesn't work as well for you today in the hopes that you might get a FF camera in the future? You should think about your current need first and foremost, then if it's convenient to get something that works on FF too, then get that.

Here is how I think about my own lenses projecting into the distant future when I might be willing to drop another grand or two on camera equipment...

18-200 VR DX: No chance that this is ever going to exist for FF. I would use this lens on a FF camera at crop happily to get this sort of range.

18-55 VR DX: I wouldn't need this lens on FF, but who cares for $120? The image quality of this lens stopped down a couple of stops is as good as any lens Nikon sells on DX- even the "pro" lenses.

30mm 1.4 DX: I'd probably eat this one too. But it's great on my D200. Well worth the $300 I paid for it. This lens has just about as good image quality as the Nikon 28mm 1.4 for my crop camera- at a tiny fraction of the price. I can afford to eat it.

11-16 DX: It would work as a 16mm prime on FX without vignetting. This lens is faster, sharper and has less distortion than the closest Nikon equivalent.

My other two lenses would work fine on FF: Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50mm 1.4. The Tokina is as good as the Nikon stopped down a stop and the Sigma is better than the Nikon wide open and has better bokeh.

So in a kit consisting of four DX and 2 FF lenses, only two lenses would really be useless to me with FF. But together they cost less than any single FF Nikon lens. I'll get plenty of use out of them until I go FF. I'm confident I can get my $400 out of them.

Here is the punch line. I got a full range of great lenses for $2600. How much more would it have cost me to cover 11mm to 200mm with comparable speeds and ranges with Nikon brand pro FF glass?

If you buy equipment as an "investment" to look at sitting on the shelf, by all means, get lots of pricey FF exotics. But if you buy an inexpensive DX lens and use the hell out of it, it doesn't matter if you throw it away and get a FF lens to replace it in five or ten years. You've gotten your money's worth out of it.

See ya
Steve

 

[dj_mocok]

I don't think Nikon will be dropping their DX line anytime soon. So like what Bigshot says, just buy the one you really want and don't bother worrying about future that you can't even predict. You'll be using it all the time anyway, so by the time it becomes obsolete, you probably already get your money's worth of shooting.
There are a lot of DX cameras and DX lenses around, it's not easy for Nikon to just simply abandon this format.

By the way Hayduke, got any cactus pictures yet?

 

[dj_mocok]

Anyone uses the CBL white balance lens?

I am interested in getting one to have as a backup when the AWB of my camera in incorrect. But I am not sure if it's worth the money though.