« Do You Ever Feel This Way? | Main | There Goes Another $4,924,366.19 »

Thursday, 10 March 2011

Comments

I'd love to give you a boost buying it through you link Mike but I can't afford it either though I can drool quite well..

So then, the new nikkor or the Zeiss 35mm f2.0 Distagon? Hypothetically of course :)

Oh dear, this looks hard to resist, my old 35mmf/1.4 grates like a pepper mill when I focus and now has the beginning of mould deep inside yet it's still by far the most used lens on my nikons, which these days I save for velvia, but then I notice that there is no aperture ring so that's a decision made. I'll be looking for another old one to be compatible with my F2SB, probably the nicest nikon body I've ever owned.

Damn, too bad. I just bought a 40mm f/2 Voigtlander as per a review I read somewhere on this site. I gotta say though I'm glad, it truly is a Goldilocks lens - just right. And $1300 less to boot.

Talking of which...any chance you want to sell that Minolta 35/2 of yours? I've checked the whole internet and I'm pretty sure it won't fit on that Pentax of yours. Meanwhile, I've got an A900 with only an extreme telephoto 50 and extreme wideangle 28 to play with.

And an F80 to go with it can be had so cheap now ;)

I have been using this lens for a few weeks here in Canada for executive portraits and it is just lovely to use, it fits my eye perfectly when i view a shot and then raise the camera to my eye my feet have me in the right spot. Cost is not an issue as the LOOK it gives is worth the price. My only problem was dialing down the strobes to shoot wide open but now I shoot a lot available light without strobes on my D3s. I hope the new D4 has is and this combo would be unbeatable.

Yummy and tempting indeed but i'm saving my dough for the Nikkor 24mm f1.4. Combined with my D700, there will be sweet all-light street journalism photos soon.

Oh yes. It will be mine.

You could afford one of these though - and it comes in Pentax mount (and covers full frame)

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samyang_35mm_f_1.4_as_umc_final_version_announced/

glennbrown,
The D4 better not have IS. I can't afford another new camera.

[g]

Mike

"I am not going to admit how many times I have bought cameras in my life just to use specific lenses I'm enamored with, so don't even try to make me."

I couldn't even keep track of it back when that was my job. I could remember a 1000 pieces of used stock, but not all the cameras you had owned.

:)

The new Samyang 35mm f1.4 lens looks very interesting and more importantly, affordable. The 85mm f1.4 and the 14mm f2.8 from this Korean company have been very good.

I already have the Pentax Limited triplet of 31mm f1.8, 43mm f1.9 and 77mm f1.8, but it doesn't stop me drooling over this special Nikon set: http://www.petapixel.com/2011/02/18/nikon-selling-limited-edition-set-of-three-f1-4-lenses/
Not to mention I'd also have to by a D700 to use them on....

$1,799.95 for what I consider to be a "normal" lens and no lens hood? Nikon must know that they're not going to be selling a lot of these primes. Wonder what the production run[s] will be . . .

To be clear, Mike, didn't you buy a 35mm lens with the intent of eventually buying a (Sony) body?

Has anything come of that? Just on the subject of buying cameras just for certain lenses...

glenbrown,
the D4 better not have IS, I spent all my money on VR lenses...

(not so big a [g])

I shot this lens last week just to try it out. I got it through lensrentals. No question it's worth the bucks.

"To be clear, Mike, didn't you buy a 35mm lens with the intent of eventually buying a (Sony) body? Has anything come of that? Just on the subject of buying cameras just for certain lenses..."

Will,
Unfortunately I chickened out. My cheap gene apparently puts up a stink whenever the brain starts considering spending large sums on digital compucameras with their 3-5 year lifespans. I spent the same amount of money on a view camera, the only difference being that the view camera will lose zero functionality over the next half century (not that I'll need it that whole time, however). The idea of spending too much on a digital camera knowing how fast I'll lose it makes me jittery, I guess.

On the good side, I like the K-5 very much, even though the lens I really want for it doesn't exist. I hope to do more photographing with it if Spring gets here this year.

Mike

I bought the Zeiss Distagon 35mm T2 for my humble Canon last year and it is by far the most used lens in my bag and at half the cost of the nikkor,sweeet.

Joe,
Yes, I think that all things considered, that's the best 35mm lens I know of. And 35mm is my most-used focal length, and I've tested and/or used literally dozens of them.

Mike

Mike,
The image of the salamander on my smugmug site was taken with the Zeiss Distagon. Gotta love that lens!

Have to say I'm completely happy with my Zeiss 35f2, and it's not even chipped.

"To be clear, Mike, didn't you buy a 35mm lens with the intent of eventually buying a (Sony) body?..."

"Will,
Unfortunately I chickened out. My cheap gene apparently puts up a stink whenever the brain starts considering spending large sums on digital compucameras with their 3-5 year lifespans. [...]

On the good side, I like the K-5 very much, even though the lens I really want for it doesn't exist."

But doesn't the K-5 cost almost as much as a Sony A850? Money is money, but would it make sense to save up a couple hundred bucks more to have the lens you've always wanted?

Sure, the Pentax is cheaper, but if they don't make the main lens you really wanted, is that really worth the savings?

The comments to this entry are closed.