Hey tai!
Yeah I agree with you on the primes. The zooms are good but the primes still have their place.
Does Nikon need to make prime lenses?
(66 posts) (29 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
WEIGHT!!
And subject. . .if you're travelling abroad and taking pictures of locals, sometimes a 17-55/28-70/24-70 hooded is a LITTLE obvious and intimidating. . .
a small prime usually is more discreet and less obtrusive. . .(esp on a D3)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Good point shivaswrath, I can't believe I didn't think about that when I wrote my post!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Jazmodo said:
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. =)I think you and Pete are saying the same thing. He's saying 50mm on a FF (film) camera is what he used to use, and so he would recommend 35mm on a DX camera.
Posted 3 years ago # -
It's not just prime lenses we need, we need well built prime lenses. Focus rings on new lenses suck. 35/1.4 would be simple enough to start with, they already have the optical formula (some hated the 35/1.4, others loved it, as with all lenses...), and they would just need to fit it into an AF-S barrel with appropriate electronics.
Posted 3 years ago # -
oh just to be fair as well, a NEG for the older primes are their tendency to flare. . .
a lot of the newer coatings give way to significantly less flare and slightly more fringing, but since most newer bodies already correct for the fringing, I think this was a deliberate move on Nikon's part. . .
I guess back in the film days, a lot of the issues with fringing were hardly noticeable (who pixel peeps 8X10's!) or the flaring was less of any issue?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Recording an image on film, a plastic sheet, essentially, doesn't take pixels and bayer patterns into account, so fringing was much less of an issue than it ever was on the pre-auto correcting bodies. Flaring really depends on the lens's optical formula, and less on the coating. My Nikkor-O 35/2 flares less than the AF-S 16-85/3.5-5.6.
Posted 3 years ago # -
No kidding - I didn't know the 16-85 was that prone (when I've used the 35 2.0 I noticed quite a bit more than the 35 1.8). . .hmmm, I guess it's just the lens formula then. . .
I find it odd that my 17-55 2.8 flares hardly at all compared to my Tokina 11-16 2.8 and 24 2.8. . .but I guess, it's a standard zoom vs. a WA zoom vs. a WA prime, so. . .(no point of comparison, lol!)
It's easy enough to adjust for, but thought it was worth mentioning if one was debating. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm not familiar with the newer Ai-S or AF-D 35/2, but mine is an Ai'd original F mount Nikkor-O, and for some reason it seems to outperform the more modern iterations! Who knows, maybe it's just a particularly good sample...
Posted 3 years ago # -
I thought the simpler (RE: prime) lens designs should be less prone to flare? Fewer elements lend themselves to fewer internal reflections etc...
Posted 3 years ago # -
They are less prone to flare... On the same note primes will not be dead until nikon makes an 15-300mm f/1.2 super zoom nanocoated AF VR lens (like it will ever happen!)
Posted 3 years ago # -
I love primes. So much lighter and easier to carry around. I just wish Nikon would only make primes with faster apertures than their awesome zooms. It's harder to justify purchasing a prime for the light weight for traveling when it only has f2.8 and you already have a zoom f2.8 that covers the same range
Posted 3 years ago # -
AaronFoto said:
I love primes. So much lighter and easier to carry around. I just wish Nikon would only make primes with faster apertures than their awesome zooms. It's harder to justify purchasing a prime for the light weight for traveling when it only has f2.8 and you already have a zoom f2.8 that covers the same rangetrust me, there's a huge difference in a 2.8 prime over a 2.8 zoom.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
The wide AF-D primes (20mm, 24mm, and 28mm) are not sharp compared to the modern zooms, partly because the designs are much older. They really need to be updated, but you have to wonder if Nikon sells enough of them to justify the R&D cost. If they do update them, the price goes up, which could lead to even fewer sales.
Posted 3 years ago # -
if nikon makes 24-70 f/1.4 or 1.8 and 70-200 f/2 then i'll stick to the zoom....:):)
well basically i buy their primes only for f/1.4 :)
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
