Does Nikon need to make prime lenses?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Does Nikon need to make prime lenses?

(66 posts) (29 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

« Previous 123 Next »

Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

nau said:
- weight - oh plz go to gym get some muscles

Thank you for saying that, I agree!

tai said:
Short answer: Yes.

Less short answer: With the odd exception (12-24mm, I'm lookin' at you) primes still deliver superior IQ. Plus, big apertures! I love all things fast, and f/2.8 is not that. Good luck trying to pry my 85mm f/1.4 out of my cold, dead hands.

The 12-24 I think is a tad soft and I wish I'd gotten the Tokina version as I hear it's IQ is a bit better.

moregan17 said:
I started photography using the kit lens, and I have used a few friends nicer zooms like the 17-55 as well.
However, I have fallen in love with my 35 1.8. I find the lack of zoom limits my speed in some ways but overall I feel it has made me a much better photographer.
I like the shallow dof (and probably overuse it) but I also just like zooming with my feet.. I didn't think it would be true but primes really do force you to think more about composition. I feel like with a zoom I can take a snapshot of anything, but with the 35 1.8 I have to think a hell of a lot more before I really "make" my picture.
I want to try an 85mm prime sometime and see how it feels!

Primes tend to do that and I've noticed this too even with my 300mm prime. I really have to plan those shots even earlier than with my zooms.

Posted 3 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

Whoops, I meant 14–24mm f/2.8 You're right, the 12–24 isn't the greatest performer, which is why I have the Tokina 11–16mm f/2.8. It's also faster which is a plus. The 14–24mm is magnificent, I just don't have the money for it right now.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

I think I might actually get the 14-24 eventually. I know it will be 2mm less wide but I want that sharpness.

Posted 3 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

Plus, if you use it on full frame, it's 1mm wider as the Tokina only cover's full frame from 15–16mm.

Edit: Realized you're probably talking about the 14–24 in comparison to the Nikon 12–24, not the Tokina 11–16, I'm not sure at what focal lengths that lens covers full frame.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

The Nikon 12-24 isn't good FF. It's cuts off the corners. I would be using it on DX though. Wide shots are not a big part of my shooting style so the loss of the 2mm wouldn't be such a big deal. I want the better IQ more than anything.

Posted 3 years ago #
Panamon_Creel

senior member
Joined: Jun '09
Posts: 95
offline

tai said:
Plus, if you use it on full frame, it's 1mm wider as the Tokina only cover's full frame from 15–16mm.

Edit: Realized you're probably talking about the 14–24 in comparison to the Nikon 12–24, not the Tokina 11–16, I'm not sure at what focal lengths that lens covers full frame.

I think your math might be flawed. Lens focal length is expressed for full frame even if it is a DX lens.
Thus your Tokina 11-16mm DX lens equals to 16.5-24mm on APS-C and also Full frame since a FX camera would go in DX crop mode with the lens.
So with it a 14-24 FF lens on a FX camera has a wider focal length than the 11-16 DX lens on a DX camera.

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

P_C, I think tai is right since you can override the DX crop settings on the FX cameras and the image circle for zooms can change at different focal lengths. I don't know about this particular one, but it's the reason why people measure vignetting as a function of focal length when they do zoom lens reviews (vignetting is due to an image circle that is too small for the sensor). I think tai is claiming that from 15-16mm the tokina has a 35mm image circle.

Posted 3 years ago #
Panamon_Creel

senior member
Joined: Jun '09
Posts: 95
offline

Maybe you're right Jonny and I may have misunderstood it.
Only tai can explain what he really meant ;)

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

You can override DX crop. Or are you guys just talking about the vignetting? Too many numbers for me to follow...my head hurts now :^(

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

It's the same issue, Niko. The question is at which focal length with that 11-16 do you get an acceptable image with the DX crop overridden. I think tai is claiming at 15 it's okay. Like P_C said, we're waiting (patiently) for tai to explain himself.

Posted 3 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

@Panamon_Creel — jonnyapple is right, I was talking about using the Tokina 11–16 on a full frame camera, as I do on my D700. The image circle is large enough to cover the full frame from 15–16mm. Here's a sample at about 15mm on my D700:

http://taishimizu.com/216/Downtown-Sunset

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

That's beautiful, tai. Even at the wider focal lengths, you could probably use it for effect. Vignetting is kind of in fashion these days.

Posted 3 years ago #
Panamon_Creel

senior member
Joined: Jun '09
Posts: 95
offline

Thanks for the clarification and apologies for my misunderstanding.

Posted 3 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

@Panamon_Creel no problem, I've certainly had the experience of confusing effective focal length and actual when it wasn't necessarily clear from context.

Posted 3 years ago #
PatMann

member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 37
offline

In general the primes have simpler formulas and the out-of-focus areas are cleaner as a result (examining my old slides compared to my current digital files). On my zooms, the out-of-focus areas change character with the focal length, and sometimes are quite distracting, particularly with things like grass, leaves and branches in wildlife shots, or specular highlights on water drops or water. I unloaded nearly all my primes when I went to medium format for all but snapshots, then picked up AF zooms when I went back to Nikon with digital.

The quality of the light in the images I get with the new 50mm f/1.4 G (my only new prime - I still have the 28 f/2.8 AI-s and the 28 PC but rarely use them) encourages me to beef up the prime collection - the rumors of a new 24 f/1.4 and a new 135 f/2.0 just set my heart aflutter.

Posted 3 years ago #
Demisthene Akatsuki

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 115
offline

I do keep a few primes in my collection, one can't say no to what an 50/1.4 can do for ya.
Its really nice to play around with, wouldn't want to be without it.

Posted 3 years ago #
rhodium

member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 46
offline

Most importantly (for Nikon, at least), primes will sell. And for good money too. It would make business sense for them to make more primes.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

I have seen some magical images with the 50 F1.2 . Hope they make a modern version of that soon... Yup Looking forward to that 24 F1.4 too.. (flutter .. flutter :)

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

heartyfisher said:
I have seen some magical images with the 50 F1.2 . Hope they make a modern version of that soon... Yup Looking forward to that 24 F1.4 too.. (flutter .. flutter :)

They would both be great but if Nikon went all out on them with Nano coating and all would you be ready to pay close to $2000.00 for each

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

Nikon needs to make primes as long as there is a 85/1.4 and 50/1.4, even more so if we are blessed with the 24mm/1.4 and 35mm/1.4 in the upcoming months.

depth of field character is something hiking iso won't change.

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

ChrisLange said:
depth of field character is something hiking iso won't change.

You are 100% right, could not be told any better, their is also something about the feeling of using a prime lens, that sadly lots of people just don't get

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

What I would really like is a 28mm F1.4 dx but I would settle for the 24mm1.4 and crop...If they are going to cost 2000 then its outside my budget. (More realistic for me would probably be a 28-80 F2.8 VC Tamron. Hope that comes out soon.). Yeah.. I think I could live with only a 28mm 1.4 prime for my DX camera.

Posted 3 years ago #
Jazmodo

new member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1
offline

If you can stretch your budget to it, the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens(35mm eqv. 27-300mm) is absolutely excellent. It can be used in almost any situation, gives VR, and can even work well as a 200mm macro lens! You may also be able to pick one up a little cheaper 2nd hand if you wanted as they recently refreshed this lens, but made very little differences to it.

bmxdad said:
They are lighter and a less costly option to get a fast and sharp lens. Alright you are shooting something inside, like a function with moving people, that 1 or 2 stops can make all the difference, your flash can expose a bigger area

I used to go out and shoot with my old 50mm on a film camera, I enjoyed the challenge of only having that lens to work with. That would be 35mm on DX cameras. I think I am going to try that with my new 50mm (75mm ff) and see what kind of shots I can find

Pete

Just a quick thing Pete, I think you've got your focal lengths a little mixed up =P! A 50mm "film camera" lens would be the Eqv. of a 75mm on a DX sensored camera. And likewise, the 50mm F/1.4G would simply be that, a 50mm lens on a FF camera. =)

The 35mm F/1.8G DX lens is designed to give a film/FF focal length of 52.5mm - thus creating a cheaper, lighter version of the FF 50mm lens for DX sensor owners who want 50mm effective lens (Rather than the FF 50mm lens giving a more portrait suited 75mm eqv.)

Posted 3 years ago #
CassiusRoads

member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 15
offline

nau said:
- weight - oh plz go to gym get some muscles

This is a little simplistic. Leicas aren't just used by people who are unable to lift Nikons.

For me, both primes and zooms are useful in different situations and I think there definitely is a place for primes within Nikon's lens lineup.

Posted 3 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

@Jazmodo — I have the 18–200, and It's a great walking around & holiday lens, but I use it much less than almost any of my primes. The reasons are it's slow and DX only. The IQ isn't as good as my primes, either, but it's certainly good enough.

Posted 3 years ago #