Nikon D800......

pmac said:
Im going to wait and see how the sigma 35mm compares then will probably shift my 24-70 and buy that or the nikon 35 1.4g and maybe the 28 1.8G as thats supposedly very good for the price.

Heres hoping they bring a new 135 f2 out soon, thats one canon lens I've lusted after,as the nikon seems to get mixed results and supposedly suffers from bad CA.
Click to expand...

trust me - if you get the 28 1.8g, you'll just end up lusting after the 24 1.4. That's what happened to me any way! Had the 28 for about two weeks and loved the wide fast prime thing so much that i sold it and sourced a mint second hand 24. I won't be selling that in hurry!
 
inkiboo said:
Were you dropped on your head as a child?

I said:

I didn't mean from, I meant at least. Something that is 2.8 fits the description of being "at least 2.8".

I really have no idea why are arguing this; it's quite strange.
Click to expand...


Because you strolled in in a typically uninformed internet poster kind of way and called a bloody good lens average an an effort to look like you know what youre talking about. Strange indeed. Well , not strange at all, just ignorant of what's out there.
 
rampanthamster said:
trust me - if you get the 28 1.8g, you'll just end up lusting after the 24 1.4. That's what happened to me any way! Had the 28 for about two weeks and loved the wide fast prime thing so much that i sold it and sourced a mint second hand 24. I won't be selling that in hurry!
Click to expand...

Your probably right, was only looking at the 28 due to the cost,weight and size.I do love my 85 a lot.
 
Someone mentioned third party grips. I've the dste grip which is very nice, good solid build, only negative is the dial that moves the focus point is a little small and I find it too easy to accidentally press it and re centre it the focus spot.

The pixel and meike get some good reviews so would be worth considering.
 
essexash said:
Because you strolled in in a typically uninformed internet poster kind of way and called a bloody good lens average an an effort to look like you know what youre talking about. Strange indeed. Well , not strange at all, just ignorant of what's out there.
Click to expand...

I'll take my chances that I know what I am talking about.
 
essexash said:
Just a shame other people with money to spend might think so too.
Click to expand...

You really are a very tiresome little man. All I've done is have a different opinion to you and you get all ****y and childish, the best of which was your fundamental misunderstanding that when one says "at least 2.8" you seemed to think that couldn't include 2.8 itself.

Congratulations though as you have now been added to my ignore list.
 
inkiboo said:
You really are a very tiresome little man. All I've done is have a different opinion to you and you get all ****y and childish, the best of which was your fundamental misunderstanding that when one says "at least 2.8" you seemed to think that couldn't include 2.8 itself.

Congratulations though as you have now been added to my ignore list.
Click to expand...

please stop, both of you :)
 
essexash said:
Someone mentioned third party grips. I've the dste grip which is very nice, good solid build, only negative is the dial that moves the focus point is a little small and I find it too easy to accidentally press it and re centre it the focus spot.

The pixel and meike get some good reviews so would be worth considering.
Click to expand...

I went ahead and ordered the Pixel one. Will report back on it when it arrives.
 
Last edited:
essexash said:
Because you strolled in in a typically uninformed internet poster kind of way and called a bloody good lens average an an effort to look like you know what youre talking about. Strange indeed. Well , not strange at all, just ignorant of what's out there.
Click to expand...

Given what IIRC inkiboo does as a job, this comment is unintentionally hilarious.

In a more constructive manner, have a read of http://bythom.com/nikkor-telephoto.htm

While it's an article about superteles, a lot of the comments about user choice and behaviour apply to all lenses. Something worth keeping in mind when filtering user comments is what they're comparing to.

Your opinions on a 16-35's IQ will differ coming from a 24 PC-E or 24 1.4 or 14-24 or 20 3.5 as a daily driver than if coming from a 10-20 or 24-120 or even 24-70.
 
inkiboo said:
It's bloody sharp and the AF is super quick. Really, really good lens.
Click to expand...

How would you say it compairs to the 16-35mm in terms of stopped down boarder to boarder sharpness?

I do somewhat agree with your f2.8 vs stabalisation point, with a longer lens I might favour the former for my uses as I do often take landscape shots without a tripod but in the UWA range I'd guess the advanatge would mainly be for sunrise/sunset and indoors were I do use one.
 
I choose 2.8 over VR every time. It's nice to have both if you can get it, but with a 2.8, you get a couple of stops of light benefit for all situations, not just still subjects.
 
Cagey75 said:
I choose 2.8 over VR every time. It's nice to have both if you can get it, but with a 2.8, you get a couple of stops of light benefit for all situations, not just still subjects.
Click to expand...

Most of my useage is still subjects but equally most of my very low light useage where VR on an UWA would be of use is also on a tripod.

Most of the time your going to be paying more or having a smaller range with 2.8 over VR, in this case though with foreign stock its almost the same range and only £100 more.

I'm a bit divided out the build quality aswell, the 17-35mm sounds like its tougher with better manual focus but weather sealing on the 16-35mm would be useful for me.
 
On a tripod you turn VR off - so it's no use there.

ANyone else shot or planning to shoot gigs with their D800? I've got a big gig upcoming. A 20 - piece Soul band, the works. Sax players, backing singers, guitar/keyboard/bass players, drummer, bongo player! - it's on a stage, and I've shot in the venue before. That was with the D90, and I know I had to push to ISO 3200, and had to clean a lot of noise in post. Can't wait to see how this beast handles it. I have shot one gig with it to date, and messed about with different settings, but that was just personal use/testing. Next one is for the group, they also want promo shoots before the gig. No problems there .I'll bring my stands, brollies and flashes and can set up a proper shoot. It's the actual gig I'm looking forward to shooting more so.

I'd love to see some sample pics if any of you have any from recent gigs? especially in the 4000 - 10K ISO range.
 
Picked up a special little piece of glass:

n4bi44.jpg
 
They're fetching big money now.
 
Cagey75 said:
I choose 2.8 over VR every time. It's nice to have both if you can get it, but with a 2.8, you get a couple of stops of light benefit for all situations, not just still subjects.
Click to expand...

I think the f2.8 vs f4 advantage is often overstated, it's only one stop difference actually, the number of times it's described as a couple of stops is surprising.
 
It's not over-stated enough IMHO. One stop of light can be the difference between ISO 3200 and 6400 for example ... at extreme ends, one stop is gigantic. Shoot a gig in bad lighting and stick to f/4, you'll soon wish you had 2.8. Same at a wedding where flash isn't allowed. Or even an indoor portrait where you have only available light or just don't want to use flash.

So what some say one, or two stops. The difference to the actual image is all I'm concerned with really. And I'll choose 2.8 every time.

Outdoors of course, f/4 will win 99% of the time, unless you really desire extreme shallow DOF - people tend to love that, even though it's an artistic thing, our eyes don't see 'bokeh' :D
 
It's a lens you you buy if you have a need only though. At f1.2 it's pretty damned terrible, with coma like you wouldn't believe. When this lens was introduced, you needed an aperture like this... these days though, you'd just shoot at a higher ISO.

It's a superb lens for shallow depth of field video work though, and it's this demand that has made them so expensive. 5 years ago you could get these for 1/3rd the price on Ebay.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's a lens you you buy if you have a need only though. At f1.2 it's pretty damned terrible, with coma like you wouldn't believe. When this lens was introduced, you needed an aperture like this... these days though, you'd just shoot at a higher ISO.

It's a superb lens for shallow depth of field video work though, and it's this demand that has made them so expensive. 5 years ago you could get these for 1/3rd the price on Ebay.
Click to expand...

This contradicts most of what you're saying:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/58.htm
 
Regrettably (for all of us) this is another occasion you don't know what you're talking about Cagey.
 
Bit defensive of ol' Ken are we?

No need to be insulting about it. Ken Rockwell is a hack. You keep linking to him thinking all you like, but don't insult me over it thank you.

Don't know what I'm talking about how exactly? I've read his 'reviews' many times, whenever I bought a lens or body, of course his site comes up top of searches. Many believe he is paid off by Nikon, he blows smoke up them so much. And it is odd he is top of searches every time.

Anyway, when I was after a D200 years back, I read his magnificent, glowing review on it. Best DX camera EVER!! Until I looked further and noted he had updated this and basically said to ignore everything he said about it because the D300 was out, and the D200 no longer mattered. He's done the same with the D90/7000 and pretty much everything else that's been updated - bar his favourite old manual lenses. I bought an old Vivitar 70-210 manual lens on his rec, and it turned out to be nowhere near as good as he said. My copy was mint.

So please, elaborate on what it is I don't know what I'm talking about? And try not to stain this thread while doing it because you just bought an old manual lens and are getting all defensive about it. Also, don't speak for anyone but yourself.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
This contradicts most of what you're saying:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/58.htm
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but first.. Ken Rockwell???


Secondly, I'm not slagging the lens off at all.. it's glorious! At f1.2 though, it's pretty poor. The coma is astonishingly bad at the edges. Any point light source that's not in the centre will be really distorted.

This lens was designed in an age when shooting at the ISO we do today was unheard of, and shooting at ISO 1600 was considered extreme. Back then, 1.2 was very desirable, even with the optical defects. At least you bought the right one though.. the 50mm 1.2 is a travesty! Seriously, I'm not slagging off the lens... I'd love to own one. It's just not that great at 1.2 is all.


[edit]

Just to add context to my opinions... This is the D800 thread... a camera that demands perfection in lenses. This isn't a thread about the Nocto-Nikkor 58
 
Last edited:
Laudrup, you come across as a bit of a snob at the best of times, but just because you found someone to agree with you on an old lens, doesn't mean you can come back insulting others. Read my last post, I've had more than enough experience with good old Ken.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm sorry, but first.. Ken Rockwell???


Secondly, I'm not slagging the lens off at al;.. it's glorious! At f1.2 though, it's pretty poor. The coma is astonishingly bad at the edges. Any point light source that's not in the centre will be really distorted.

This lens was designed in an age when shooting at the ISO we do today was unheard of, and shooting at ISO 1600 was considered extreme. Back then, 1.2 was very desirable, even with the optical defects.
Click to expand...

It was a lens designed specifically to eliminate coma, which it does a good job of. Look at the photos of it in the corner vs the other f/1.2, it's pretty clear to see. As for f/1.2 there is no lens that's super sharp that wide. When it was designed is not a credible argument otherwise we'd see lenses getting slower, not faster if it was related to increases in ISO performance.
 
Pookeyhead said:
[edit]

Just to add context to my opinions... This is the D800 thread... a camera that demands perfection in lenses. This isn't a thread about the Nocto-Nikkor 58
Click to expand...


Precisely.

And the one other thing Laudrup is referring to , that I don't know what I'm talking about, was range finders. Also back in this thread ... nothing to do with the D800. So apparently you know nothing if you don't have a rangefinder and don't take Ken Rockwell's word for it ... and I'm the clueless one??
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Laudrup, you come across as a bit of a snob at the best of times, but just because you found someone to agree with you on an old lens, doesn't mean you can come back insulting others. Read my last post, I've had more than enough experience with good old Ken.
Click to expand...

Cagey if only you knew half of what you thought you did. Remember you were given 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason.
 
Pookeyhead said:
[edit]

Just to add context to my opinions... This is the D800 thread... a camera that demands perfection in lenses. This isn't a thread about the Nocto-Nikkor 58
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a perfect lens Try getting your 24-70 to shoot @ f/1.2
 
PaulMW said:
What is it with all the petty oneup-manship around here lately..... :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Tedious in the extreme isn`t it. Some people need to accept that they are not always right, indeed they may be wrong on occasion and that because somebody has a differing opinion does not automatically make them wrong.
 
Cagey75 said:
Bit defensive of ol' Ken are we?

No need to be insulting about it. Ken Rockwell is a hack. You keep linking to him thinking all you like, but don't insult me over it thank you.

Don't know what I'm talking about how exactly? I've read his 'reviews' many times, whenever I bought a lens or body, of course his site comes up top of searches. Many believe he is paid off by Nikon, he blows smoke up them so much. And it is odd he is top of searches every time.

Anyway, when I was after a D200 years back, I read his magnificent, glowing review on it. Best DX camera EVER!! Until I looked further and noted he had updated this and basically said to ignore everything he said about it because the D300 was out, and the D200 no longer mattered. He's done the same with the D90/7000 and pretty much everything else that's been updated - bar his favourite old manual lenses. I bought an old Vivitar 70-210 manual lens on his rec, and it turned out to be nowhere near as good as he said. My copy was mint.

So please, elaborate on what it is I don't know what I'm talking about? And try not to stain this thread while doing it because you just bought an old manual lens and are getting all defensive about it. Also, don't speak for anyone but yourself.
Click to expand...

Did you think a lens that cost £20 would be that impressive? Looking into it he even said: "Skip it for DX digital cameras and get at least the 55-200mm AF Nikkor instead". As for the review of newer cameras, mostly all supercede the previous model, Rockwell just puts it across in more flowery language. His technical data is sound though.
 
Laudrup said:
This contradicts most of what you're saying:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/58.htm
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be quoting KR for anything. :shake: What he writes can depend if he's in a *********/traffic attracting frame of mind or not. :nono:

I don't rise to the bait/take the chance, so steer clear. :shrug:

Just my 2p. He seems very popular. :LOL:

Each to their own.
 
His technical summation is accurate which is what I'm interested in. Buying a lens only because X, Y or Z said so isn't ever a wise idea anyway. Pookeyhead I suggest searching for Sandro Bravo shooting the Noct wide open.
 
Laudrup said:
Cagey if only you knew half of what you thought you did. Remember you were given 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason.
Click to expand...

There you go again for no reason, imagining I think I know it all. You keep believing that ;)

I never claim to know anything, half of that isn't too hard. And it seems I'm not the only one thinks KR is a bit of a tool. And since when did the price of older lenses matter? It's called a bargain, I looked up more reviews on it than his. He says the 55-200 is better for DX than just about any zoom ... it's not. I actually owned one and hated it.

Now, can we get back to the actual camera, you could create a new thread about the lens, and I swear I wouldn't touch it, leave it to the experts ;)
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
It was a lens designed specifically to eliminate coma, which it does a good job of. Look at the photos of it in the corner vs the other f/1.2, it's pretty clear to see.
Click to expand...

Compared to the 50mm 1.2, yes, it's incredible. It's still poor compared to the 1.4 or 1.8 though.

Laudrup said:
As for f/1.2 there is no lens that's super sharp that wide.
Click to expand...

Well.. this is a D800 thread, so I'm assuming whatever you post in here is in relation to your D800. I just thought it a strange lens to partner with a camera with such great high ISO performance. Personally I'd have bought a 50mm 1.4. It's not THAT much slower, and performs better wide open.

Maybe you bought it because you need 1.2 for another reason.. or just because you want it - I've no idea.. but this is a D800 thread so maybe you're posting this in the wrong place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top