The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

D700 + ?

rayyan

Well-known member
If you would travel with a D700 and one lens, which would it be..

a) zf 35mm

b) zf 50mm f/2 Makro

For everything. And why?

I am very very undecided :confused:

Thanks.

p.s i have a trip in mid sept: alcase vin route ( hiking = wife..me = car ; budapest ; maybe slovenia ).
 

ibcj

Member
I have both Zeiss lenses, and find myself reaching for the 35 more often than the 50. I haven't had the 50 as long though. If I thought there might be any type of closeup shots, then the choice would be the 50. They are both stellar lenses and will shine on the D700.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Hey Chris, how you keeping?

Both are stellar..true, very true. And therein lies my quandary!

Thanks for stopping by.

I have both Zeiss lenses, and find myself reaching for the 35 more often than the 50. I haven't had the 50 as long though. If I thought there might be any type of closeup shots, then the choice would be the 50. They are both stellar lenses and will shine on the D700.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
My assumption is that if you have room for one then you can make room for two lenses...

However as an exercise I would favor the 50 macro as it is better corrected and has macro and portrait advantages at closer distances.

Now if you plan a lot of inside work without the ability to move back and need the 35 for framing a bit wider your choice is clear...I assume that the majority of the time you will be able to adjust distance from subject so that the wider perspective of the 35 is somewhat marginalized.

The 50 works so well on the FF Nikon....no shade needed as the front element is so far recessed you save a bit of room in packing.

Sounds like another great trip...cannot wait to see the pictures and read the associated story.:thumbup:

Bob
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Hi Bob. Thanks for the response. I don't think I shall be doing any crammed interiors, this trip. the 50 is appealing for the makro and the non-ca. not so good for quick focus, though.

we do 3 days in Murren ( she does! I relax ), then drive into Colmar ( she does ) to join the vin route. I shall be driving to each following stop, she meets me after a day's hike. Then off to Budapest for some spas and massage ( me, me )

Don't feel like carrying anything else. Getting old and tired of travel and driving. Just want to see the world go by.

Best.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
My last few trips have used Canon S70 or Canon G10. I would love FF small size for these as I too spend majority of time watching and reflecting not capturing.

Life here is too short......


Bob
 

rayyan

Well-known member
My last few trips have used Canon S70 or Canon G10. I would love FF small size for these as I too spend majority of time watching and reflecting not capturing.

Life here is too short......


Bob
Bob, you are too right there my friend. I shall spend the day eating grapes:ROTFL:
 
My friend...

I just returned from the Baltics with the following kit:

D700
Zeiss 21
Nikkor 35 2.0
Nikkor 50 1.4
Nikkor 105 DC

50% of the pics were with the 21, 35% with the 35, 10% with the 50 and the rest with the 105.

I wish I had the 35 in a Zeiss, but the Nikkor is a surprising little gem. I tend to shoot pretty wide tho.

If I would say just one, it would be the 35 or 28. That being said, my wife got some cracking shots with her Lumix FX-150. I mean really good stuff.

I also had my Mamiya 645 with the 80 1.9 and 45 2.8, but that's another story all together. :D
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
If only one lens, I would choose the 50 for sure. It's the classic "normal", and I lived with a 50mm f/1.8 as the only lens for my OM-1 for years. The close-up capabilities makes the ZF 50 even more usable.

But if it was me, I would have brought one wide, one normal and one long, something along the lines of 25 + 50 + 85. But that's me, and I do eat two appetizers, or even two desserts, sometimes :D
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Jason, Jorgen..Firstly thanks for your input.

I have one problem ( ? ) which you have not encountered..yet. Age.

My wife shall be carrying her d-lux4. Honestly that too would be fine for her and me.

But, I need to have some stories to tell too, no?

Already I am approaching 1.4 kg:eek: The M won't do for low light for me.

I am tending towards the zf 50/2. Heavier than the nikon 50/1.4 I did Sweden with!!

Best.
 
Then I would say the 50. Or the Nikkor 1.4G is wonderful as well.

You may have me on age, but your eyesight must be solid with all the manual focus work! That's why the 21 is a gem shooting hyperfocal and the 35 AF-D is a decent auto focus lens. That being said, I still would love the 28 1.4. It might be all I need!
 

m_driscoll

New member
Rayyan: I don't have any manual focus lenses for the Nikon. I guess when I'm using it, I want fast AF - point, compose, shoot. Medium large lens, it'd be the 24-70mm f/2.8. Take only one smaller, all-around lens? Then I'd take the 50mm f/1.4G. Your pictures from Sweden were excellent! Whatever you take, we're looking forward to the results. Cheers, Matt.

http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
 

Don Hutton

Member
Between those two options, I'd probably opt for the 35mm. However, as a single lens, I'd actually grab the 50mm f1.4 planar in preference to either of those two - anywhere beyond macro distances, my copy is definitely a little better than the 50mm Makro Planar and it is also much smaller and lighter than the 50mm MP or the 35mm - a no brainer for me if I were wanting to go light and simple. Obviously, if you envisage shooting a lot of macros, the 50mm MP is the way to go. I owned both and frankly was a bit surprised when I tested the two next to each other - I really loved the MP, but the planar was simply a clear step ahead at normal distances. I have subsequently sold my makro planar - I find the 100mm a much better real macro option; and the 50mm f1.4 a better lens for everything outside of macros (as well as being half the size and weight of the MP and a stop faster).

Here's an example with the Zeiss ZF 50mm f1.4 Planar on the D700. Full size original is here:http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=10862&original=1&c=5
 
Last edited:
T

tokengirl

Guest
I would definitely take the 35mm. But I'm not you... 50mm is probably the focal length I use least.

Why don't you take your 100 favorite photos and see what focal length you used most?

OTOH, you could get a Sony NEX with the kit zoom. Lightweight, one lens but some diversity, very good low light capability. A pretty good travel cam if you ask me.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Then I would say the 50. Or the Nikkor 1.4G is wonderful as well.

You may have me on age, but your eyesight must be solid with all the manual focus work! That's why the 21 is a gem shooting hyperfocal and the 35 AF-D is a decent auto focus lens. That being said, I still would love the 28 1.4. It might be all I need!
Jason, the focus confirmation helps a lot...a very much lot:D
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Rayyan: I don't have any manual focus lenses for the Nikon. I guess when I'm using it, I want fast AF - point, compose, shoot. Medium large lens, it'd be the 24-70mm f/2.8. Take only one smaller, all-around lens? Then I'd take the 50mm f/1.4G. Your pictures from Sweden were excellent! Whatever you take, we're looking forward to the results. Cheers, Matt.

http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
Matt, thanks for the input. my fls are 24-70/100. but the zoom is HHeavy for me. And walking thru the vineyards won't make it lighter! ;)
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Between those two options, I'd probably opt for the 35mm. However, as a single lens, I'd actually grab the 50mm f1.4 planar in preference to either of those two - anywhere beyond macro distances, my copy is definitely a little better than the 50mm Makro Planar and it is also much smaller and lighter than the 50mm MP or the 35mm - a no brainer for me if I were wanting to go light and simple. Obviously, if you envisage shooting a lot of macros, the 50mm MP is the way to go. I owned both and frankly was a bit surprised when I tested the two next to each other - I really loved the MP, but the planar was simply a clear step ahead at normal distances. I have subsequently sold my makro planar - I find the 100mm a much better real macro option; and the 50mm f1.4 a better lens for everything outside of macros (as well as being half the size and weight of the MP and a stop faster).

Here's an example with the Zeiss ZF 50mm f1.4 Planar on the D700. Full size original is here:http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=10862&original=1&c=5
Don. that's a super shot indeed. I don't do macros as such. but like to get close up once in a while; not for macro but for emphasis of the subject.

Hmmm. 50/1.4 Planar you say. Hmmm.

Don, has the CA or background rendition on the Planar 50mm bothered you?

Regards.
 
Last edited:

rayyan

Well-known member
I would definitely take the 35mm. But I'm not you... 50mm is probably the focal length I use least.

Why don't you take your 100 favorite photos and see what focal length you used most?

OTOH, you could get a Sony NEX with the kit zoom. Lightweight, one lens but some diversity, very good low light capability. A pretty good travel cam if you ask me.
tokengirl, thanks for stopping by. Appreciate it, much. Analyzed > 100 pics I took. Majority range is 28-85mm. mostly around 35 and 50. I need both, but can't carry both!!!

The Nex ( or anything else ) means no holiday!!

Thank you for your considered suggestions.
 

Don Hutton

Member
Don. that's a super shot indeed. I don't do macros as such. but like to get close up once in a while; not for macro but for emphasis of the subject.

Hmmm. 50/1.4 Planar you say. Hmmm.

Don, has the CA or background rendition on the Planar 50mm bothered you?

Regards.
My sample has basically no CA worth worrying about. The background blur issue is really a personal preference - I prefer the Zeiss to the Nikon 50mm AFS. BTW, you may also want to have a look at the Voigtlander 40mm f2 Ultron - a very handy, tiny lens which performs very well - it also has a useful close-up lens which comes with it.

The 50mm Planar is also no slouch close-up - http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=10863&original=1&c=5 This was shot at f4.
 
Last edited:

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Interesting dilemma, Rayyan.
One i'd never have. :rolleyes:








I'll pick the black one. :p


Seriously, though i concur with many things said above, here's a couple of personal thoughts on the matter:

- focal length: it really depends on what you're shooting. For most people i'd naturally say "take the 35 or 28 if you'll be mostly shooting landscapes, 50 for portraits". A portrait with the 50:




But we're all well aware that you're a master of the ZF 35 for portraits (including sweet talking your way up close), so... the focal length wouldn't matter much here, for you.

While the 35mm will prove a more flexible FL, 2/50 is still an option for monuments when the extra elbowroom in composition is not needed. Couple examples:








- rendition: IMHO the two lens render somehow differently on the D700. I'd definitely take the 2/50 for a late summer/early fall trip in Alsace and/or Slovenia, for the subtle contrast and richer hues.

- i disagree with Don on the topic of ZF (sorry Don, just MHO) 1.4/50 vs. 2/50. A recurrent discussion on the board, but i'll stand my ground on this one: apart from the extra stop and maybe a tad faster focusing ring in favor of the 1.4, the 2/50 is superior in all ways. Geometry, CA, local contrast, color rendition... and in particular, bokeh.





Plus, bokeh is not only about rear OOF, and very few lenses have a nice "front bokeh". Here's an example:



Discussion on bokeh can be found here, with more examples:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=216734&postcount=32

Roger ("glenerrolrd") made a note saying that the transition from in focus to OOF zones were "quick". I guess it's a matter of personal taste, though after the discussion i kinda agree with him (not in a negative way). Bokeh is nice on all the ZF glasses, but the smoothness of the 2/50 is pretty much unmatched by anything out there in the 24-to-70mm range -except for some Middle Format, and maybe a couple of primes from Leica and one Canon, and then it's more a matter of taste.


As a conclusion, both ZF 2/35 and 2/50 are stellar.
In the end, if both are available, it's more of a choice between the obvious wider view of the former, and the slightly more puchy look and better geometry of the latter.
I'm personally used to carrying only the 2/50 as a one lens kit on the Nikon FF, but i know you do that a lot with the 35 with great results.
In the end, the "trip with one lens" exercise will be lotsa fun with either one of these. (insert smile)



P.S. i only posted D700+ZF 2/50 photos here (quickly picked from the existing board gallery for availability reasons), since they're more on point here. As said earlier, you're such a specialist of the 2/35 that you'll find every reference needed in your own stack! (insert another smile)


Oh by the way, depending on when you're travelling, at some point we might not be too far away from each other... maybe our paths will cross, who knows? (insert another smile) (limited to 10 images per post)



.
 
Top