I chose (did research and wasn't bound by equipment) Nikon because of much better support for work with off camera flash (CLS and better sync speeds).

I'm still heavily in DX. If Pantax had 1/250+ snyc speeds back then, I might have considered.

I love msmoto's Nikon F with its patina of use and love. Very nostalgic and romantic!

My last film camera was a Nikon F100 that I still have and I had several lenses for it that carried over into my first digital body- a D200. The F100 remains the best 35mm film camera I have ever used. What impressed me at the time was the seamless transfer to the D200, with almost all the controls being instantly familiar. I cannot comment on Canons as I have never used one but several colleagues of mine have them and they seem to produce very good results. They like them.

It might be worth remembering that before about 1990 or so, I don't think Canon really featured on the professional scene at all (mostly being used by keen amateurs) and therefore many photographers from the 60s, 70s and 80s grew up with Nikon as THE professional 35mm. camera and continued to use them after that. They had a reputation of being literally bullet proof- Don McCullin's Nikon F stopping a bullet in Vietnam that would have otherwise killed him as I remember.

My favourite camera is in my camera cupboard, unused for a couple of years now, my beautiful Horseman 5X4 monorail. I aim to shoot some B&W on it in the spring. I regret no longer having my stunning Nikkor lenses for it though!

Other than being heavily invested in Nikon-compatible equipment, my reason for sticking with Nikon is that I find the ergonomics better than the Canon-equivalent cameras, particularly at the semi-pro and pro end. Button and dial placement is much more comfortable to me on Nikon cameras.

Safyre.......don't worry about what "some people" think about K.R.; the guy's sharp as a tack on a lot of stuff; I just think he's "all wet" about "never needs no stinkin tripod"! Lotta people around who are just jealous of Ken; (how many guys you know who can make a great living with just a website ?) (answer: not many!)

Now;
Way back in "the day" I had a very nice Canon F-1; I loved that camera! I had a bunch of focusing screens for it, a REALLY cool flexible right angle "or straight through gadget that replaced the penta prism.......(wish I could use that thing on my D SLR); also had some VERY nice Canon FD lenses; then BAM! Canon went digital.....just like that ! "but what am I gonna do with all this "glass" that cost me a bundle ?" Canon: "Not our problem.....use 'em for door stops"!

I guess they figured if they came out with a new lens mount, everyone would just "run out" and buy all new glass ! I gotta tell you....that kinda pissed me off; (and please forgive my "course" language) So.......even before I went digital, I "upgraded" to a Nikon F-5; as far as I'm concerned, the thing has the finest view finder of any 35mm camera I have EVER looked through; I even bought a 300mm/ f:4 MF for it, an 80-200 / 2.8 , and about 4 more; guess what.........Nikon "went digital too"........and all that glass still works ! How's that ? Say you can't "get by" without auto focus ? Poor you! For some stuff, I prefer MF. (And I REALLY appreciate that Nikon didn't leave all of it's thousands of customers sitting with a pile of useless "glass" that they spent a fortune on !)

(I don't tell tell anyone who asks all of that; I just say "I prefer Nikon")

Charley

TaoTeJared, that example of the lights in the Sigma's bokeh is the one thing that I dislake about the lens... and from what I thought I saw on a review of the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens it does the same thing.

Dxo resolution test for Sigma on D7000 below. Same story.

and the Bokeh link given from Mansurov's Sigma 50mm f1.4 test also mentions how bad the sharpness is at apertures wider than f2.8.

I don't know how and why we started talking about lenses being "sharpest" wide open. What happened to our general knowledge on best results coming on around 1.5 to 2 stops above ?

Most wide aperture pro lenses are "very sharp" wide open but that doesn't mean they are "sharpest" wide open.

@ TaoTeJared...thanks... I knew my 17 year old 50mm f/1.4D Nikkor was fairly sharp wide open.

Interesting Paperman - Photozone correct? I love how different sites show different results. Maybe others have seen a few others and we can get a reference for each of the lenses.

Resolution... changes with each camera. Tends to be a moving bullet - speaking of which, so is Sigma's sample variation.

Sigma 50mm f1.4 giving best resolution at f1.4 - clearly not the case ... I wouldn't expect it from any lens.

@Corelli - I know what you are saying but I'm not sure you are expressing it correctly. Resolution would be max at maximum aperture due to diffraction laws , correct . But it is still "resolution" that is better at smaller apertures ; not correct to say "overall performance" as that includes lens faults, distortions, CA etc ... Those factors when put together determine the resolution so it IS the resolution that is better or worse.

Thought this was interesting - ran across it looking for something else. Bokeh examples from all the AF 50s
http://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-50mm-f1-4

TTJ and Correlli, thanks for explaining, I feel like I'm back on track now, I was a little lost :-)

TaoTeJared said:
From how I understand it, and some depends on lens design, but you can pull the optimum sharpness towards the widest aperture. That doesn't mean it will be the highest resolution though.

I would like to put this in a different way: you can pull the optimum overall performance towards the widest aperture. But the highest resolution will always be at the widest aperture.

An ideal lens has got its highest resolution at the widest aperture. If you take an image of an object every point of the object is "transformed" by the lens elements to a disk called the Airy disk. The diameter of this "image point" depends only on the wave length of the light and the aperture. This is one of the reasons why telescopes have got such a large diameter and why there is something called the "diffraction limit" if you close the aperture (which makes this disk's diameter larger).

Now that does not mean that a lens has got its best overall performance at the larges aperture. There are quite a number of optical errors in real lenses that need correction (coma, CA etc). Also what we call "sharpness" is really just a mix of resolution (what kind of small details can I see in the image) and contrast (how "clearly" can I see those small details).

In reality this means that a lens designer has to do compromises (e.g. cost, weight etc) when designing a lens. So even if a lens has got its highest resolution at the widest aperture it might be that other influences (e.g. CA, lack of contrast) renders this resolution useless and images taken at a higher aperture simply look better and show a better overall performance.

chris_weinert said:
Hm, I really feel like I'm missing the whole core of what you guys are talking about here... I've never heard of a lens that has its max. resolution at it's largest aperture, the rule-of-thumb with f/5.6 being the highest resolution so far has always worked, both in my personal experience and what I've encountered in lab tests like DxO. Sometimes (like in the Sigma case) it is shifted towards something like f/4. Might be that there are special-purpose lenses or the cinematography glass that is constructed differently, but don't even "NOCT" and the like lenses, which are optimized for wide-open sharpness deliver higher resolution when you stop down?

At least the lenses we're talking about here do, and I'd say, they do quite dramatically, which is normal, to my experience.

From how I understand it, and some depends on lens design, but you can pull the optimum sharpness towards the widest aperture. That doesn't mean it will be the highest resolution though.

What I have experienced is there is just a bit of focus shift in the lenses and most out of the factory lenses are calibrated at F/2.8. I have a Zeiss ZM 50 f2 prime (rangefinder) that I sent in to be set that way at F2 instead of 2.8. They did send a notice that the focus would be off a bit at F5.6+ but at that stop, the DOF should cover it enough for it not to make a difference. I had the option when I bought the lens to I took it otherwise I would have never bothered. I'm not sure exactly what they do, but I have read people sending their lenses in to have them "set" to their widest aperture.

Maybe someone here knows more.

70-300mm VR is the only one I would see as a possibility. It could be the AF Select (change to spot like HF said) and use the center spot. I would try the latter first before another lens. AF deals more with the camera and not the lens unless you do go for a f/4 or f/2.8. When my 70-300vr starts to hunt alot I changed everything to single servo, center focus point and spot metering. If I have the 3d 51-pt on it does go bonkers in low light.

HF: Have you actually shot all those?

Consider the new 18-300 DX or the 28-300 FX from nikkor.

For the range you mentioned the Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Lens would probably be suitable.

For low light, maybe the newer lenses will focus better .. or get a newer camera which has a better autofocus system? the D3200, D5200 seems nice.

Also try using the spot focus with the camera set at the center focus point, which is usually the most accurate focus sensor.

PS its nice too see my old pictures from early on in the thread! .. See the dragonfly in flight photo? with challenging subjects .. Manual is the way to go.. Maybe suggest that she try manual focus ..

PPS what about the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 vc. seems like a good option.

What you are asking for really doesn't exist, short of using a higher end camera body (D600/D800/D4). The only consumer zooms that don't weigh a ton are the 55-300 VR, and 70-300mm VR, both of which are variable aperture and wont solve the current problems your wife is dealing with.

Anything cheaper? :)

Sounds like the new 70-200 f4 would be perfect.

Warming over an old thread with a new question:

We just got back from Antarctica. My wife shoots a D90, and the only thing she wanted to shoot was the 55-300mm kit lens. Ok, fine. She uses autofocus and always will. She was annoyed that as soon as the light wasn't perfect, or as soon as the background grew complex, the 55-300mm started to hunt.

I was about as shocked as the dude in "Casablanca" was to find out the gambling was going on at Rick's. I offered her any/all of my primes, but she only wants to use a zoom lens. The 200-400mm I brought along was too heavy for her to handhold for any length of time. So she needs a new piece of glass and I need a suggestion as to what to get her (yes I'll be selling the 55-300 to help finance it).

REQUIREMENTS
--Something that zooms she can handhold for a 1-2 hour stretch
--Something that won't hunt in full-AF mode around f/5.6 to f/8 in light that isn't horrible but isn't perfect.

DON'T CARE ABOUT:
--Great IQ. She's going to be posting 2MB JPEG files on the Internet.
--VR

Yes I'd like nice IQ, yes I'd like VR, but I don't want to pay for it. There are a wide array of choices (with the new 70-200 f/4 at the very edge of the price range) but all I really want is "zoom, doesn't hunt". Maybe if IQ is nbd, a third-party solution is the way to go?

Opinions?

hmmm or we could all just stick with nikon glass and never worry about any of anything any one of you just said :)

TaoTeJared said:
If you do the comparison or look at the scores, DXO places the highest score settings in the title. "Reached for xxxx" is the title for the scores. From DXO that is where the highest resolution was met.

Hm, I really feel like I'm missing the whole core of what you guys are talking about here... I've never heard of a lens that has its max. resolution at it's largest aperture, the rule-of-thumb with f/5.6 being the highest resolution so far has always worked, both in my personal experience and what I've encountered in lab tests like DxO. Sometimes (like in the Sigma case) it is shifted towards something like f/4. Might be that there are special-purpose lenses or the cinematography glass that is constructed differently, but don't even "NOCT" and the like lenses, which are optimized for wide-open sharpness deliver higher resolution when you stop down?

At least the lenses we're talking about here do, and I'd say, they do quite dramatically, which is normal, to my experience.

(What you actually see of all that when you look at the image in small resolution, small prints etc., that's a separate issue of course, and I'm totally with TTJ and others who state that you wouldn't see (much of) a difference. But we're talking about the mere technical perfomance here.)

But as I said, I seem to be misunderstanding what you guys are talking about.

TaoTeJared said:
On the "who makes what for who" I find the statements to be a loaded derogatory slam at some country/region/company that has no basis on actual performance or quality. Any company's manufacturing no matter what country they reside in, or if it is farmed out to another company, can make the best products in the world.

Just to make that clear, I wasn't suggesting that the Zeiss lenses (or any lenses, for that matter) are worse because XYZ makes them in country ZYX. I was just specifying Cosina vs. Contax because I wasn't sure what lens Adamz was talking about, and because Adamz was asking what Cosina had to do with Zeiss.

And I don't think the 50mm f/1.4 Zeiss is bad because Cosina makes it. The 85, 15 and many others seem to be top notch, and they're made by Cosina, too.

It's more the other way around, just because there's Zeiss on it, doesn't mean it's guaranteed excellence. Or, for some of the really cheap Nikkor consumer zooms: Just because it's all plastic and cheap, it doesn't mean it's a bad lens. Didn't Donaldejose even start a thread about that recently?

TaoTeJared said:
BTW from what little I have seen examples, the CP.2 prime 50mm f/1.5 probably is the sharpest 50 created for Nikon. I guess we will see what the new 55mm one is like as well shortly.

That CP.2 stuff, is that cinematography-related? Ah, nevermind, I'll do a bit of research myself :-)

(Not @ Chris - just in general)
On the "who makes what for who" I find the statements to be a loaded derogatory slam at some country/region/company that has no basis on actual performance or quality. Any company's manufacturing no matter what country they reside in, or if it is farmed out to another company, can make the best products in the world. The only time the quality suffers is when WE THE CONSUMER demand prices that can not sustain the highest quality. Quality suffers because WE ARE NOT Willing to pay for it, not because they do not posses the skill to create it.

If the desirability of the Zeiss ZF lenses are any indicator, I would say they have done a masterful job. Cosina makes Zeiss glass for SLRs, Voigtlander products, the Nikon FM-10, and has made Rollei branded lenses and bodies, Vivitar, Canon lenses, Nikon lenses, as well as lenses and cameras for damn near everyone that has been in the photography business in the last 60 years. To make the leap that they are incapable of producing quality products is unfounded in fact. If you want to see what it costs to have Zeiss branded made in the desired Germany, just look up the prices for the CP.2 prime series. A 50mm f/1.5 lens is $4,500 and the zooms are almost $20,000.

Rant over

BTW from what little I have seen examples, the CP.2 prime 50mm f/1.5 probably is the sharpest 50 created for Nikon. I guess we will see what the new 55mm one is like as well shortly.

chris_weinert said:
Where did you see that? In the DxO field maps, the Nikkors all get better until f/5.6 at least, the Sigma get's better until (I'm speculating) f/4 or so, it loses slightly between 2.8 and 5.6, but gains dramatically when stopped down from f/1.4, too.

Or what did you mean?

Edit: DxO Database, Camera: D3X, Measurements -> Resolution -> Field Map

If you do the comparison or look at the scores, DXO places the highest score settings in the title. "Reached for xxxx" is the title for the scores. From DXO that is where the highest resolution was met. Maybe that has changed since I last read the "how we test" section.

adamz said:
spraynpray - sure You can live, but for 2.8 You have zooms, and I at least would expect 1.4 prime to get it's maximum wide open (f2 the most)

So are you saying that the lens doesn't actually achieve f1.4 or that it needs to be sharper at the largest apertures? I find 2.8 to be quite wide enough to give me decent bokeh in portraits without worrying about which eye to focus on. As for the 2.8 zooms - what a price difference - I got my 50 1.4G for £250!