« Like a Sack of Bricks | Main | WORM Cards »

Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Comments

Which photos are you going to make if you have a 35/2 IS instead of a 35/1.4 non-IS?

:)

I read that it vignettes until f4 has that, been your experience?

But what's the report on the BW capabilities of the 800? You know, the real reason you bought it? ;)

No, be happy with what you bought. Turn on Auto ISO, set the Auto ISO Minimum Shutter Speed to Auto/Faster and you will get two stops extra hand holdable shutter speed stabilization. The good news is it'll also stop subject movement, unlike IS. The bad news is you get a tiny bit of extra noise, which on the D800 isn't worth worrying too much about.

Also, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 I got last week is optically excellent on the D800E. Too bad I can't get the Auto Focus adjustment set to work at all distances. Hopefully it's just my copy. To satisfy your apparent need for change this lens my warrant a look from you. And it's cheaper than switching systems.

The IS bit and the autofocus are of course clear advantages, but isn't the Zeiss 2/35 ZF.2 right up your alley?

[[as nobody else seems to be buying them]]

Maybe it has to do with the fact that they took a $300 lens and added $550 to the price tag. Never-you-mind that the 18-55mm kit lens comes with IS and sells for $200 (now on sale at B&H for $165). Clearly IS technology is very, very costly for Canon... **eye roll**

At least you didn't buy into 4/3 right before Olympus made it clear that they would focus on micro 4/3.

Is there a Canon lens-Nikon body adapter out there? If so that's one solution. Of course the internal IS might not work. Still...

I think that Canon 35 is a good example of the principle you posted about earlier. It's higher tech, higher spec, and new, but it still seems way too expensive since its predecessor is selling for $289. That price is of course a rock-bottom bargain, but the new one is going for almost three times that much.

Canon also has that new cheap 40mm lens that I would love to have for my Nikon. I also thought that the more compact 24-70 f4 IS lens would be ideal for me, but the reviews haven't been as positive as one would expect with the price and more limited range in comparison to the older 24-105.

The D800 is near-perfect, as far as I'm concerned. I've been using it for a year now and the image quality, even hand-held, is spectacular. Plus it has the cool ability to shoot 5:4 aspect images with the viewfinder masked off, something that I am not sure I would want to give up. It's nice to get away from 3:2 for some work, especially with 30 megapixels.

Just buy yourself the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and enjoy.

...but didn't you primarily buy the BD for the sensor's dynamic range? How does it stack up against Canon's cameras?

The real question, Mike, is why do you need IS with a 35mm f2 lens? Wide-angle lenses and camera shake usually aren't a problem when you can have beautiful, noise-free images from ISO 800-3200. The 35mm lens is simple lens design and one that was perfected a long time ago. Nikon makes both a 1.8 and 1.4. The 1.8 is cheap.... and then, you would probably mostly use it between f2.8 and f8, This lens is reported to excellent lens and a good value. It will take marvelous photos in good light...and you know that that it is less about finding the perfect the lens than it is about finding the right light and subject. $500 semolions for a 35mm f2 lens? Wow...

I own a K-5, I needed a "normal" lens for the cropped sensor, so I picked up a 35mm f2 FA. It is beautiful lens and very sharp. During my research is where I learned about the Nikon lens.

Did you make a mistake by buying the D800? How could that ever be a mistake? Nikon? Nikon optics? the Nikon system? 36mp sensor?

Little on the heavy side? maybe...

Buddha said that desire was the source of suffering in the world.

Funny thing. I plan to win the lottery this week and will buy a prosumer body from each of the players as each have a sweet piece of glass or 2. And I'll also get a few of those nifty NEXy Fuji, thingies with their individual killer lenses.

Then when I want to take a picture, I'll have analysis paralysis and take even less pictures, but will know in my heart that I definitely have the camera/lens for the shot ...that i missed.

b

I have paid many times the retail price of the 35 2.0 IS for many of my canon lens, but this one just felt cheap. Maybe $499 retail but not $850. I yes I really wanted it. In this case IS was just not worth three times the price of a standard 35 2.0.

"Which photos are you going to make if you have a 35/2 IS instead of a 35/1.4 non-IS?"

1) The photos I want to take at f/5.6 to get more DOF but can't because I drank too much coffee.

2) The videos that aren't going to look good with shaky-shaky, no matter how fast the shutter speed.

3) The shots I get on the $500 vacation that I pay for with the savings? ;)

Mike, I use my d800 with a dx 35 1.8 lens from Nikon less than $200 from b and h. It works fine in crop mode and it is a whole lot lighter than the 1.4 g 35 lens. Great for travel and low light situations. That lens and the 28-300 is all you will ever need for that desert island and maybe forever.

Sell the dragoon. Move on to the next thing. It won't actually help your pictures, but it will generate mucho site traffic (Johnston switches from Nikon to Canon!).

Ah yes, camera envy... Welcome to the club!

Mike,
I have a Canon 35mm F2 IS it is worth the money, mostly been using it on a 6D but it also works well on the 1Dx.

Also have the 24mm F2.8 IS, another stalwart performer.

This is what happens when you get old/kids out of house and still working.

Go for it ........

A fast 35mm prime with IS, on a camera that laughs in the face of high ISO's is very appealing. If only that was an option in 2004 when I bought my 20D

Had my 35mm F/1.4 for about seven years now. Half of that time I had it on a 20D. Cameras laugh in the face of ISO 3200 now, but that was the 20Ds limit (and more than you'd want to go if you could help it). It's one of the reasons why I chose the f/1.4 over over the f/2.0. I have used it on my 1Ds Mklll for last 3.5 years now (it's my only camera) and there's plenty of cameras with better ISO performance than my camera and the new 35mm f/.2.0 looks like a very good lens. But I think I'll have to stick to the old girl, she's been good to me.


Just to make the comments clear: Nikon's current 35mm f/1.8 AFS lens does not cover the 135 (or FX or full frame) format. Every other Nikon 35mm lens does, including the 35/2 AF-D that I was happy with but (seemingly) no one else ever was. (And since Mike and I agree about only 1 lens,* he's probably wise to steer clear of the 35/2.)

* Rodenstock Apo-Sironar.

Remember:
Buy a system for the lenses not the body.

"The 35mm lens is simple lens design and one that was perfected a long time ago. Nikon makes both a 1.8 and 1.4. The 1.8 is cheap...."

The 35 f/1.8DX is an APS-C (crop sensor) lens. It isn't a wide angle when shooting in that format.

"Mike, I use my d800 with a dx 35 1.8 lens from Nikon less than $200 from b and h. It works fine in crop mode and it is a whole lot lighter than the 1.4 g 35 lens."

Hmm, if you have a D800, why don't you use a 50 mm f/1.8 lens instead so that you can use the entire sensor (and pick up yet another stop of light)?

X100/X100s..? Just askin'

and there's a new rumor about a 2k full frame dslr from pentax. this could be "the one!"

Mike, for what it's worth, here is my recent journey from the cute 40mm Canon pancake back to the old-in-the-tooth plain old 35mm F2 while taking a good look at the new "IS" model. Like many I fell in love with the neat little "body cap" 40mm, and it was my main lens on a trip to Burma. What I found out very quickly though, was that it focused both slowly, and inconsistently, resulting in missed shots and out of focus pictures. I then visited the Canon showroom here in the Ginza as soon as the 35 IS came out and tried it out on a Canon 6D. On that camera it became kind of top heavy (it is pretty hefty for a 35 F2) and really far too expensive. Conclusion: I went back to the reliable plain vanilla 35 F2 which is very light, responsive and sharp, and one of Canon's best bargains. Your mileage may vary, as they say...

@Dennis Mook: The 6D's dynamic range at lower ISOs is about the same as an Olympus E-M5. At ISO 800 it catches up to the D800/600 and above that starts pulling ahead (according to DxOMark). Paired with the 35/2 IS, it's a dream setup for wandering around at night. Including the 40mm pancake, it costs about $3K and all fits in a Domke F-5XB along with a little EX 270 II flash. Could not be happier.

Same here ...too many cameras and so little time.

I have used my D800 only for a day - premature to pass any comments. However, I ordered a Summicron 35/2 R from eBay this weekend so that I can use it on my Leicaflex. I realized that I didn't have a 35 for my Nikon or R system.

Seriously, I need to make time.

Hugh, until Canon makes a digital rangefinder, no digital Canon is going to beat an M at street photography. All of this obsession with IQ is overblown. Any if the FF cameras in the past several years are capable of excellent results, and I'd say we've reached an IQ plateau, where upgrades aren't necessary as often. I choose cameras based on handling and shooting style, and an SLR is a completely different animal than a rangefinder.

Eh Mike, you have an OM-D right.....wel you have a 17 mm lying around......there you go old chap....35 mm with IBIS (which is more like adding a steadycam to you camera). Now add DxO and learn to tweak it in a day....

Now the only thing I need in a camera is a pre-heated body....-4 in march in Holland right after 18 degrees last week.

Greets, Ed.

I recently treated myself to the Zeiss 35/2 ZM for Leica, which I currently use on my OM-D and Nex. It's the right size, looks good, excellent mechanical feel and produces very pleasant images. Of course the angle of view on those cameras is not what you're looking for, but the lens is full frame...

I'm still a bit undecided on in-lens IS, as while useful, it may involve other design compromises. D800 and a good 35/1.4 is more my cup of tea, although the size is in medium format range.

The new EF 35/2 IS isn't just the old 35/2 with IS bolted on. It's a new optical design and appears to be a substantial improvement on the old one, particularly in the corners (important to some people, not at all to others). The new lens also adds USM and somewhat better build quality.

I'm not saying that it's worth the difference in price, but there's more to it than just the IS.

Now that you have maxed out the image potential of the D800 its only logical to move up to the 6d for its obviously better image quality;-)

You know, Mike, I'm a "plus-one" on that 35mm lens stuff, and I like the fact that Canon is making those elegant little replacement lenses for 24mm and 35mm, I really wish Nikon had quit playing the "superfast" game with their prime re-introductions, and had made G series f/2.8's right away in 24mm and 35mm. If they had, I wouldn't be testing my M4/3rd's system right now...

Mike,

When you can't replace -or get into- a whole system only for a fast 35mm lens (or equiv.), look at the Fuji X100S :-). Ok, it doesn't give you IS* and it might look as a clear step back from your FF heavy artillery, but seems to make very good & clean files in an affordable, small & funny package suitable for your 35mm cravings!

just an idea,
-Sylvain

*Let that auto iso bump up?

You just have to wait for the 5DMkIV to come along, by which time the hype and the price on the 35mm are likely to cool a bit, then pick up a 5DMkIII for a song. then you'd be set :)

Mike: I have been a devoted Canon (now 5DII - which I still love) user for decades and I have far too many Canon lenses to justify... However, since I primarily shoot landscapes and print big, when the D800E came out I had to have one since I already had the Nikon 14-24 superb zoom. I have to say the (wide)landscapes from that camera are magical - the foliage detail is awesome. No regrets here. That's the "big gun" and the two systems together make me happy. No desire for the 5DIII as no resolution improvement over 5DII. Keep using the D800- it is a really great camera and the cropping ability allows you to "simulate" just about any lens!

"Hugh, until Canon makes a digital rangefinder, no digital Canon is going to beat an M at street photography."

My first serious camera was a Leica IIIc with 50mm Elmar. This was followed by an M2 for several years. I shot only one film (HP5+) for maybe 10 years.

The comments to this entry are closed.