OK, OK. I get all your hints. I suppose after being a member of the forum for a couple of years, it is about time I open a flickr account and try and post some pics. Leave it with me, hopefully it won't take me another two years to get round too.

SkintBrit said:
I have the trinity zooms, 24/50/85 1.4's and a 105 micro is the 400 2.8. However if you can convince my wife that a 400 2.8 is essential for wedding and portrait work, I'll more that happily return the favour with Mrs Sevencrossing! :-)

Forget the lens...where can I go to find a wife like yours? :P

I'm pleased to hear you are happy with your new toy: 24 1.4G. Hope to see some of your work on PAD :D As for the 400 2.8 good luck :D

On my D7000, this lens really likes to focus on the subject behind my target. This happens if I am using the contrast between a near and far subject as my focus point. I frequently use this lens on moving subjects, so for AF tracking I usually find an area to focus on with good contrast between items at the same distance.

When I am using this for landscape work, I'm usually just shooting at f/8 and not so concerned with the focus being off, unless I'm using a close foreground element.

I have the 50 1.4G and the 24 1.4G. I prefer using the 24 as my low light lens and rarely use the 50. I discovered that I had to do a good job of fine tuning the AF in order to get the most out of the lens. My 24 needed a -18 adjustment (I almost sent it back). With that shallow DoF the AF fine tuning was critical for me to get my copy performing properly.

Has anybody else had to run an AF fine tune on their lens, and if so, what values did you end up with?

Well gosh maybe I need one also...

sevencrossing said:
.....I have the 24 -120 which I seem use ether at 24 or 120 never @50mm... the 24 1.4 is moving up my shopping list, but who is going to give me permission to buy it ?

This has been my problem with zooms all along. For 30 years I have used primes, and I'm just not getting the hang of zooms: I tend to twist all the way one way or the other. I'm treating them like quick change primes.

Although i use my 50 prime all the time, with the D800 there is plenty of reason to take wider photos than you might, and then crop. I often find pleasant surprises at the sides or corners of my photos that I wasn't paying attention to when I was focusing. (this is another one of the joys of digital: taking lots of photos of the same thing and picking the best).

Msmoto, does your permission extend to all of us who read this thread? I really had to make a stretch my rationalizing muscles and count on an overseas gig that I haven't been awarded yet to pay for it. Your go-ahead would make me feel better when the bill arrives!

@Skintbrit: I'm looking forward to your PADs with your new lens.

sevencrossing said:
Having decided I can not afford and don't really need the 400 f 2.8, the 24 1.4 is moving up my shopping list, but who is going to give me permission to buy it ?

Funnily enough, the only lens left on my wish list now that I have the trinity zooms, 24/50/85 1.4's and a 105 micro is the 400 2.8. Even if I could afford (afford = have cash, as opposed to have room on card) it, I don't do enough work at that distance to justify the expense. For me it makes far more sense to rent one when I'm asked to shoot an air show or race meet. However if you can convince my wife that a 400 2.8 is essential for wedding and portrait work, I'll more that happily return the favour with Mrs Sevencrossing! :-)

Seriously though, thank you all for recommending the 24. If anyone is even thinking of buying one, in the words of NIKE, "just do it!" I think it might just be my new favourite.

@sevencrossing

Permission granted! You may now obtain the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED at your discretion.

SkintBrit said:
I the only one who feels that the 24mm focal length is far more 'as you see' than 50mm? Or do I just have wonky eyes?

unless i have wonky eyes too, defiantly not. I have the 24 -120 which I seem use ether at 24 or 120 never @50mm

Having decided I can not afford and don't really need the 400 f 2.8, the 24 1.4 is moving up my shopping list, but who is going to give me permission to buy it ?

Wataru said:
Thanks for permission, even though I only answered "yes" to b and "maybe" to the others. And of course I answered "Oh, Yeah!" to Msmoto's criterion.

I pulled the trigger on this lens today. Although I have the 14-24, I had completely forgotten how much I actually prefer to use primes. One of my most used lenses has been the 24 2.8 AiS, but now having gone digital, it's time for the latest.

I looked at the 28 1.8, which is so much less money, but I really like the 24 angle of view. I was taking product closeups at work yesterday and really got excited about using the 24 mm recreationally as well.

It seems the price has come down on the 24 mm by $200 since the 28 came out. Still, it's a lot of money. I hope my wife can get a good price for all these lenses after I die so she can buy groceries...

Congratulations Wataru, mine came last week after getting permission from Seven :-), and I'm having a blast with it. All your comments could have been written by myself. I managed to pick mine up for £1475, which is pretty good for the UK. I also have the 14-24, but this will definitely be my new 'standard lens'. Talking about standard lenses, am I the only one who feels that the 24mm focal length is far more 'as you see' than 50mm? Or do I just have wonky eyes?

sevencrossing said:
...Permission to buy the 24 is granted... may be sell the 50 ( i don't use mine ether )...

Thanks for permission, even though I only answered "yes" to b and "maybe" to the others. And of course I answered "Oh, Yeah!" to Msmoto's criterion.

I pulled the trigger on this lens today. Although I have the 14-24, I had completely forgotten how much I actually prefer to use primes. One of my most used lenses has been the 24 2.8 AiS, but now having gone digital, it's time for the latest.

I looked at the 28 1.8, which is so much less money, but I really like the 24 angle of view. I was taking product closeups at work yesterday and really got excited about using the 24 mm recreationally as well.

It seems the price has come down on the 24 mm by $200 since the 28 came out. Still, it's a lot of money. I hope my wife can get a good price for all these lenses after I die so she can buy groceries...

Good answers Skint

Permission to buy the 24 is granted

may be sell the 50 ( i don't use mine ether )

the money is better in the Bank of Glass

Than the Bank of Scotland

sevencrossing said:
Skint

A few Questions

1. How often do use your 50 1.4?

2 When shooting low light what ISO do you typically use

3 If you did have the 24 1.4 do you expect:

a) take photographs you simply cannot get with your existing kit
b)lower the ISO and increase colour fidelity
c)use a high shutter speed to reduce subject movement
d) use it to reduce DOF creatively
e) none of the above just think my pictures would be better if I had the 24 1.4

No I don't read MTF charts I use use a combination of the mark 1 eyeball and feed back from my clients

1) Not often, but I don't use that lens very often full stop. I don't remember ever using it professionally, and really only have it as a light/small traveling lens when I go on holiday. I do however use the 85 wide open and regularly professionally.

2) Depends on which camera, but normally I try to limit myself to high hundreds - low thousands.

3) "B" & "D" Seven, and I think most of us would have to admit if we're honest when buying a new piece of equipment, a little bit of Tommie's "F".

ms moto

I think that appies only to the 400 f/2.8 or the 600 f 4

@sevencrossing.... you forgot the "I think this is such a prestigious lens, I have to have it to impress all around I have every lens they make." I use this excuse all the time, ha, ha, ha.

Skint

A few Questions

1. How often do use your 50 1.4?

2 When shooting low light what ISO do you typically use

3 If you did have the 24 1.4 do you expect:

a) take photographs you simply cannot get with your existing kit
b)lower the ISO and increase colour fidelity
c)use a high shutter speed to reduce subject movement
d) use it to reduce DOF creatively
e) none of the above just think my pictures would be better if I had the 24 1.4

No I don't read MTF charts I use use a combination of the mark 1 eyeball and feed back from my clients

Let's see, MTF is My Thinking is Fine.....oh, yeah, I put a lot of faith in this....ha, ha, ha. As NIKON says, these charts are useful as a starting point. And in comparing similar lenses of the same manufacturer they are nice. One cannot compare the MTF charts from different sources as the techniques are not exactly the same and this affects the results.

If, I were deciding on a lens, based on technical performance data, I would think like this. Low light, people in the scene, often needs a shutter speed of 1/125th or 1/250th, and best is 1/500 if action is present. My settings are usually "manual" with a check to see where the ISO goes...i.e., what limit do you place on the high ISO of your body, and then if too high, adjusting the f/stop so as to bring the ISO down. Or, I will set the shutter speed, and allow the f/stop to go wide open, and limit the ISO.

If, one decides not to shoot the lens wide open, as Adam pointed out in his point with" if You ain't gonna shoot it at 1.4 than there's no need for this lens in Your collection", do not get it. However, if you do want the low light ability which this will give, purchase this ASAP.

Thanks for your suggestions guys, I really appreciate them, my rationale for buying the lens and expecting to use it at f2-f2.8 came from the published MTF results, which show the 24mm reaching 0.3 cycles at f2 and the 24-70 needing to be stopped down to f4 to achieve the same result. So still a 2 stop advantage. Do you guys hold much truck for MTF results? Seven, it's not that I'm terribly dissatisfied with my zoom, more that these results would SEEM to indicate that I would be better of with the 24.

adams said:
... so basically, get 24 1.4 and use it at 1.4-2.0.

+1

If your 24- 70 is not sharp enough, then something is wrong

I don't have this lens but it always gets excellent reviews

golf007sd said:
. A friend of mine has the 24mm 1.4 and the issue I had using it was when the subject's eye's were not in the same plane, in post I found that one eye was tack tack crazy sharp, while the other was not, due to the DOF being so shallow. FYI...when I was using it I was like 4-5' from the subject.

the non extinct DOF can be an advantage

I was taught portraiture using a 5x4 plate cameras ( many many years ago)

you focused on the eye closed to the camera the eye furthest away was deliberately soft

skintbrit - no, if You ain't gonna shoot it at 1.4 than there's no need for this lens in Your collection. You buy 1.4 to shoot at 1.4, both n14-24 and n24-70 are excellent on 24mm wide open so there's no need to replace them, also the size and weight issue is not that significatnt to be a deciding factor. so basically, get 24 1.4 and use it at 1.4-2.0.

Thanks golf007sd, I understand now what you were trying to say. You, Adam and others who have mentioned the crazy shallow DOF at 1.4 are of course spot on with your warnings, and although I stated that I was looking to buy this lens for the 2 stop advantage it would give me over my 14-24 or 24-70, maybe I wasn't making that statement coherently, rather than thinking I would regularly use it at 1.4, I was thinking that I would use it most often at 2.8 which would obviously give up its light collecting advantage over the zooms, but I am hoping it would give me supirior results over using the zooms constantly at their widest aperture? The question is, is that potential sharpness improvement worth the outlay......I suppose only I can decide that.

Thank you for your thoughts.

SkintBrit...sorry for not clarifying myself better amigo. A friend of mine has the 24mm 1.4 and the issue I had using it was when the subject's eye's were not in the same plane, in post I found that one eye was tack tack crazy sharp, while the other was not, due to the DOF being sooo shallow. FYI...when I was using it I was like 4-5' from the subject.

I do not question your skills or you ability to put this lens to use as you see fit, I just found that this lens is such a very very special purpose lens that for me and the type of photography that I do, it would not be put to it true potential. If I want wide my 14-24 2.8 does all I need it to do and much much more.

I am not a pro, but if I am, this is exactly my thought on the topic :)

elvishefer
"If you're GOING to buy a wide prime, get the f/1.4. As a working professional, if you're ever in a situation when you need f/1.4, and you don't have it, you're letting yourself and your clients down. To me, pro = no compromises."

Just to share an experience.... in 1970 I was in Europe on holiday with an F and PhotomicT body, and 85mm f/1.8 and 24mm f/2.8. Shot about three hundred exposures with the 24mm, about ten with the 85mm. I love the 24mm on full frame. And I am lusting after the 24mm f/1.4, but actually for me, I purchased the 24mm f/3.5 PC instead as I like to do the architectural stuff.

In the late 1960's I shot with the 24mm in furniture showrooms during High Point's International Home Furnishings Market, and a couple were published in House Beautiful magazine, the first ever 35mm transparencies of furniture ever used for the magazine, I was told.

One cannot beat this focal length. And, I think the 28mm just does not do it. The 24mm gives about 70° horizontally, which if used judiciously can be a very effective lens for close quarters. And the 28mm will only give about 64° horizontally.

So, if I can help you spend £1500, plea allow me......just remember I do not have great judgement when it comes to money....ha, ha, ha.

shawnino said:
You're probably not going to like this:

Hey, not at all, I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want your opinion. I'm fortunate to have a network of moles, who hand out my business cards, and keep me pretty busy.

golf007sd said:
Given the DOF of 24 1.4G, I believe your 50 1.4G is sufficient. Thus, I would pass on this lens. You also don't need the D4, your D3s kicks ass...save the cash buddy.

I'm not sure I understand your comments golf? The problem I'm having sometimes, is not being able to fit everything in the frame with the 50. 90% of the time the 24-70 & 70-200 give me what I need, I just feel I lack in the wide low light department sometimes. Regarding the D4, you're right at the moment I can't justify £11,000 on changing my equipment, but maybe when the next round of cameras comes out I'll be able to?

tcole1983 said:
But then you don't get to buy anything ;)

Are we twins? :-)

elvishefer said:
If you're GOING to buy a wide prime, get the f/1.4. As a working professional, if you're ever in a situation when you need f/1.4, and you don't have it, you're letting yourself and your clients down. To me, pro = no compromises.

Yes I suppose they were my thoughts also.

elvishefer said:
And finally, (not that you asked), get one D4 and replace the D700.

I'd love to do just that, but the cost to change at the moment I just don't feel can be justified. It would involve me changing not just the camera, but so many other items of equipment (Power supplies, leads and cables, new memory cards etc), at the moment I really like the fact that I can use the same batteries/charger/cards in both cameras. Without a doubt the D4 would offer me some great advantages, maybe when the D4 S comes out I'll take the plunge and buy a couple? The thought of that expense is making my eyes water already.

adamz said:
option A skintbrit, You will regret any other options :) 1.4 is 2 stops faster than Your current setup, though it's gonna be paper thin DOF

Thanks Adam, it's interesting that no one has recommended the 28mm option. I think you're right that IF I buy one, I would always regret not buying the 1.4. You're right about the depth of field at 1.4, but obviously a 1.4 stopped down to f2, or even 2.8, will be sharper than my 2.8's wide open.