« How To Make A Chapbook (Part II) | Main | 35mm and 40mm Lens Size Comparisons »

Thursday, 16 September 2010

Comments

I'm MUCH more interested in the Samyang 35mm F1.4 announced today. No autofocus, probably stop-down metering, by F2.8 it'll almost certainly be indistinguishable, results-wise, from the Nippon Kogaku, and I probably won't have to sign up for third-party conjugal trailer visits to afford it.

Does anyone else hate the new Nikon lens design as much as me? I find the D lens series much more attractive than the G series (and as the wise author points out, the D series has aperture rings).

I eat humble pie after my nasty remark about the Zeiss 35 1.4 and its obscene high price tag. Nikon can only better it by $100? And for a lens made of mostly plastic compared to the nice quality of a Cosina MF.

Anyway I'll just keep my AF 35mm F2 D. The $1400 I save can take me on a pretty decent vacation. :)

At least they left in those incredibly useful depth of field markers. Am I safe in saying that at this point those are totally vestigial?

I wish Nikon would provide its less wealthy hobbyists with a decent 24mm f/2.8 or a similar 28mm lens.
The impression I get is that they plan to sell these pricy primes to the professionals and more affluent amateurs, and let the mere mortals use zooms for everything.
It's just plain sad one can't get a decent prime wider than 50mm without selling an organ, or at the very least, sacrificing autofocus.

I had categorized "Samyang" as some upstart with no hope, but I'm starting to see them make lenses that have interesting specs. Well, I think competition is good, so good luck to them! For me, I need AF, though, especially for ultra-fast lenses (I use them wide open).

(Lately I've seen Vivitar with a new lens or two, again of possible interest; they seemed to have mostly died off for a while, but they were one of the leading 3rd-party lens makers when I was getting started, and I've owned at least two of their 28-90 Series 1 lenses over the years.)

You know, if Nikon really wanted to addict a new generation of DSLR enthusiasts, it'd release updated primes in the $4-600 range, rather than the $14-1800 range...

I think the DX 35mm f1.8 is an excellent idea, and I hope they follow up with it, just don't make the things DX only...

(At this point, I'm using my 50mm f1.4 D exclusively to capture my daughter. I'd love to have a 35mm and an 85mm to 'round out' the range, but at this point, I refuse to waste my few $ on a lens I won't be able to use one day on a full frame camera.)

--Jason

Christ, I'm spamming these Nikon posts again, but ... Well, the second I read the 35/1.4 press release a few weeks ago, I knew I had to go Nikon. I mean, for fornication's sake, it even has a "subtle groove" for easier grip. One of those things that just makes you think "Hey, this company will charge me an arm and a leg, and a kidney and a lung, for a lens that is way too big and heavy for what it does, but they may actually have a photographer involved somewhere in the design process."
Unlike Canon, who seem to design for dpreview staff - a thorough and methodical bunch they are, but they could not be called photographers even with a good measure of nigh-saintly benevolence.

It seems F-mount 35 mm f/ 1.4 lenses are like buses...
you wait for ever, and then three come along at once.

Mr Rockwell is little less than ecstatic at this new heavyweight replacing the venerable 35/1.4 AIS. But does he not remember his own maxim that sharpness does not matter. Many of us love the dreaminess that the 'coma and fall off' create at large apertures with the old Nikkor. The new Nikkor reminds me that a perfect world is a boring world.

Am I the only one who thinks Nikon camera's are prettier than Canon's, but Canon lenses look much better than Nikon's?

I'd love to see a side-by-side shot of it next to a Summilux 35/1.4, just to get a sense of scale.

I bet, like Tom Servo, IT'S HUGE!!!

And my wife wonders why I have that faraway, wistful look on my face.

67mm filter size? Does Nikon make 52mm filter size lenses any more?

afaik the nikon D300/D700 and up (and now also the D7000) are weatherproof, maybe not as good as the e-3 but still, quie some o-rings and stuff.

Actually the lens won't be available until next fall for those that aren't interested in paying the $400+ premium that you will have to pay just to get a special early copy that has paint flaking off inside of it or a zoom ring that freezes up, or even the dreaded "ghosting" that haunts all new lenses from Nikon and Canon. Personally I'll wait until next fall when B&H is selling it for $25 over dealer cost, and all the "bad copies" are serial number logged over on the photo forums.

James McDermott wrote:

"I'm MUCH more interested in the Samyang 35mm F1.4 announced today. No autofocus, probably stop-down metering, by F2.8 it'll almost certainly be indistinguishable, results-wise, from the Nippon Kogaku, and I probably won't have to sign up for third-party conjugal trailer visits to afford it."

If the Samyang's 35/1.4 follows the pattern of their 85/1.4, the lens will be spectacular wide open, at the expense of performance at smaller apertures (vs. the more well-known competition).

"I wish Nikon would provide its less wealthy hobbyists with a decent 24mm ƒ/2.8 or a similar 28mm lens."

Nikon sells full frame 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, and 35mm f/2 lenses, all but the 20mm for under $400. If you've an APS sensor, there's the highly regarded 35mm f/1.8 DX.

USD 1,800? I thought you must be mistaken, but B&H confirms your figure.

Just to give you an idea of how much the current yen-dollar imbalance screws things up for those of us who do our shopping in Japan, the announced retail price of the AF-S Nikkor 35mm F1.4 G here is JPY 241,500 (although the price listed at Yodobashi.com is JPY 205,200).

At today's exchange rate USD 1,800 = JPY 154,359.

It would almost be worth it to fly over to the U.S. on a cheap ticket, buy the lens, and do some fun shooting with it while there. If only there was time ... and if only flying in and out of the U.S. hadn't become a royal PITA since 9/11.

"Nikon sells full frame 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, and 35mm f/2 lenses, all but the 20mm for under $400."

All aging legacy lenses, none optimized for the DX format, none optimized for digital, none with ultrasonic focusing or full-time manual-focus. All rather pedestrian designs, "good for their time." (Except for the 28, which is descended from the E lens and was considerably poorer-performing than Nikon's best lenses of that same specification, even when it was brand new. All somewhere between pretty good and adequate on DX DSLRs (the 35/2 is the best of the four you mention IME). All serviceable, certainly. Like hand-me-down clothes. But none desirable. None lust-worthy, pride-inducing, or exceptional....

Mike

What do people think of the Nikon 20mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor? I've been thinking of getting one (for about $500) to be my main walking around lens on my D300 (as opposed to the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 I've been using for the last year or so). I want something wider than a 35mm will be on my crop sensor, but not quite so wide as I've got now.

It's in that juicy midrange: not the $200 crap lens I won't use; nor the $1,200 high-end lens I can't afford. Just right, price-wise and reasonably fast.

Adam

I'd actually like to see Nikon make a series of pancake lenses for DX the way Pentax does.

For street photography, even the D90 and the 35mm/1.8 can seem a little cumbersome.

I'm guessing these huge new 1.4 lenses are aimed at studio and portrait photographers who want more control of depth of field and perfect technical quality.

For street photogrpahy, a 35mm prime that weighs a pound and a half is ludicrous.

No wonder Leica still gets big bucks for its rangefinders and tiny lenses.

FWIW, the 28mm/2.8 non-D is descended from the series E design. The 28mm/2.8D is a newer design on a par with the 24mm and 35mm D lenses.

I agree with this guy on the 24mm/2.8

http://dantestella.com/technical/2428.html

To be honest I only breezed through the comments (too busy making ChapBook to afford Turnley print), so excuse me if this has already been mentioned. While I am not in the market for this lens, even though I shoot Nikon, I note that the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM goes for a cool $1479. Apparently, these lenses are not cheap to produce. I'll stick with my Zeiss 35mm f/2.

Sorry for a second comment, but just read the the post (as I said...). Jim Reed rates the D700's weather resistance as excellent. Read it at http://www.jimreedphoto.com/content.html?page=5

Wow, at that price, I'll pick the Zeiss, it has an aperture ring.

And people complain about the cost of Olympus SHG glass.

Now I can dream of having a 35mm f1.4 AIS in one hand and an 85mm f1.4 AF-D in another...hopefully soon everyone own an old copy will go with the newest and best...

"None lust-worthy, pride-inducing, or exceptional...."

But you can't single out the lust-worthy, pride-inducing, and exceptional lenses and then complain that they're expensive.

"Does Nikon make 52mm filter size lenses any more?"

Yes, the more than capable 35/1.8 AF-S DX. It's a great lens...but only good for DX. But it sells for only $200.00.

I, for one, welcome our new 35mm overlords.

Funny, for med the 35 mm has always been a little bit in between. I mean, it's either not wide enough or not long enough.
My "journalist-kit" used to be two FM2s, 24, 35, 85 and 180 lenses. The 35 was definitely the least used lens.

But if I only could bring one lens it would be the 35. Mixed feelings...

To the TOP contributors: can you please, perhaps in a subsequent post, dedcribe the state of weather-proof cameras among the top manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony)? There seems to be not enough information to compare them on their websites, and forums are full of contradictory comments. 

I agree with Chad. The cost here in Canada of new glass, is rather high,
so high that one may well be discouraged from purchasing any lenses ever again.

And did you notice the Large "N" on the lens? Nikon seems to be increasing the on lense advertising!

"All aging legacy lenses, none optimized for the DX format, none optimized for digital, none with ultrasonic focusing or full-time manual-focus[...] All serviceable, certainly. Like hand-me-down clothes. But none desirable. None lust-worthy, pride-inducing, or exceptional."

What do you really need? I own the 20mm 2.8 and it's plenty good. It might not be "lust worthy", but it focuses better and faster than the 24mm 1.4 with its super duper ultrasonic motor and full time manual focus. I'd take pedestrian over flashy any day of the week, because I use lenses to shoot, not to show off.

Btw, the 35mm 1.4 is a very specialized lens. I can see two possible uses for this: weddings - where low light performance is essential and 24mm might be too wide and environmental portraits (for the shallow DoF). Possibly PJ work, although the 24mm might be a better choice there. The pricing reflects its niche use; you have to really need it to justify getting it. There are plenty of other options at that focal length for 'normal' shooting.

Can't Nikon for once come up with a series of lenses that have the same filter size?

24 F1.4 - 77mm
85 F1.4 - 77mm
35 F1.4 - 67mm???
The lense is 83 mm in diameter anyway, so why not standardize the filter size?

"And people complain about the cost of Olympus SHG glass."

You will never hear me complain about the price of any f/1.4 SHG Olympus lens.

Johan Grahn- I totally agree with you on the 35mm focal length. However, I’ve always assumed this was the “Fleet Street” and paparazzi’s preferred lens as it is wide, with little distortion, thereby improving the odds of a usable photograph- even after the photographer had spent most of the day in the pub!

Now this is certainly off-topic and probably objectionable - in which case I accept the harsh moderation coming my way - but focal length, aperture, manufacturer etc notwithstanding, the singular of "lenses" is "lens", not "lense".
The persistence and near ubiquity of this, er, aberration, is astonishing. Apologies, bit of an obsession...
Roy

I just realised; the recent Nikkors seem to have ever shrinking focus distance windows and DOF scales. I like to see my focus distance scales easily, thanks. -.-

Mike, I gotta agree with Nick and Joe on this one. I've been really happy with my "serviceable but not pride inducing" 35mm f/2 Nikkor. Maybe aging, but small, light and reasonably priced. I let the images from those lenses induce the appropriate amount of pride instead.

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just do a write up about the Minolta 35mm f/2? Doesn't the description of the Nikons parallel the Minolta? To paraphrase and edit--

--an aging legacy lens, not optimized for the DX format, not optimized for digital, not with ultrasonic focusing or full-time manual-focus[...] Serviceable, certainly. Like hand-me-down clothes. But not desirable. Not lust-worthy, pride-inducing, or exceptional.

I'm just saying....

What do you really need? I own the 20mm 2.8 and it's plenty good. It might not be "lust worthy", but it focuses better and faster than the 24mm 1.4 with its super duper ultrasonic motor and full time manual focus.

I have the 20mm/2.8.

Unlike the 24m/2.8 and the 35mm/2.0 I'm not entirely satisfied with the 20mm's image quality.

I have an 18-70 and a Sigma 10-20mm/4.5-5.6 and both are noticeably better than the 20.

But neither are 2.8 and both are much bigger than I'd like. So I use the 20 all the time. For street photography, you don't really need the image quality of a 14-24.

But I'm constantly tempted to pick up a Pentax K-7 and their 21mm pancake.

I'm afraid if Nikon makes a new 20mm it will be closer to the size of the Zeiss distagon than to a pancake.

Jason

Don't be so hard on the DX lenses.
I have a DX camera the D40 and started off buying FX lenses (the AFS 50mm F1.4) but quickly realised that
1/ It's going to be ages before I can justify an FX camera
2/ If I do buy an FX camera I can sell the DX lenses (they don't lose as much value compared with a camera over time)
3/ I was missing lots of shots because the 50 is too long, especially inside.
The F1.8 35mm DX is cheap, good and lots of fun, try it.
Gavin

The comments to this entry are closed.