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!

Nikon's D3x strategy decision - some thoughts

R

Ranger 9

Guest
Sony got mine by offering a better over-all value (same resolution, built-in IS and better lenses ...
And how do we know they're better? Because they have a German name on them, of course! Lenses designed by the Optical Master Race are always better, because they just are... right?
 

Lars

Active member
And how do we know they're better? Because they have a German name on them, of course! Lenses designed by the Optical Master Race are always better, because they just are... right?
And by that you mean (intervening a bit here to keep the discussion on track) that a strong brand name or reputation should not necessarily be taken as a guarantee for quality, right?

(My favorite lens says "Cooke Optics Ltd Leicester, England.")
 
Last edited:

douglasf13

New member
And how do we know they're better? Because they have a German name on them, of course! Lenses designed by the Optical Master Race are always better, because they just are... right?
I know of many dual Nikon/A900 users, and I've yet to hear of one say that the Nikon 24-70, 85, and 135 are a match for the equivalent ZAs. Granted, I'm sure there will be a debate once the 14-24 Nikon and ZA 16-35 have more comparisons, as that is a great Nikkor and should get the nod.
 

Lars

Active member
I know of many dual Nikon/A900 users, and I've yet to hear of one say that the Nikon 24-70, 85, and 135 are a match for the equivalent ZAs. Granted, I'm sure there will be a debate once the 14-24 Nikon and ZA 16-35 have more comparisons, as that is a great Nikkor and should get the nod.
If you are referring to the 135 DC Nikkor, it's a much more complicated design than a "straight" prime. Considering that, it holds up pretty well. That doesn't mean it's a match to the Zeiss, but the comparison is a bit flawed.
 

douglasf13

New member
If you are referring to the 135 DC Nikkor, it's a much more complicated design than a "straight" prime. Considering that, it holds up pretty well. That doesn't mean it's a match to the Zeiss, but the comparison is a bit flawed.
Oh yeah, I forgot that it was a DC. I guess it's more in line with the Sony 135mm STF, albeit they're very different designs.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
If you are referring to the 135 DC Nikkor, it's a much more complicated design than a "straight" prime. Considering that, it holds up pretty well. That doesn't mean it's a match to the Zeiss, but the comparison is a bit flawed.
That's part of Nikon's problem. They don't have a "straight" 135.

I find Nikon's slowness to develop ordinary, fast, new primes below 200mm increasingly frustrating. The last few years, there have been three PC lenses, two micros, one fish-eye but only one ordinary lens. On the other hand, they have discontinued their only fast WA and most of the manual focus lenses.

For prime users, Canon, Sony and Pentax have much more interesting choices. Even Sigma has a relatively extensive range.
 

Lars

Active member
Yes, Nikon seems to think that a good 300/400/600 supertele lineup brings in more revenue than a 35/1.4 AF. And they're probably right.

Sigma's product strategy is refreshing, if they could just get a reputation for consistent quality they'd be a an alternative at all levels.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Well, in truth no one should kiss off a whole lens line up, nor tout that just because it's Zeiss it has to be better.

A few observations from a dual user:

Since I use both Nikon and Sony at weddings, I cherry picked lenses for both. The Nikon 14-24/2.8 is one essential Nikon, and my favorite from Nikon is the 200/1.8. (freakin' LOVE that lens!)

To be fair, the Nikon 85/1.4 is an okay lens, but sorely in need of updating (AFS, Nano coating, APO? ... not holding my breath). By comparison, the Sony/Zeiss 85/1.4 is a better lens, but no world beater ... the Canon 85/1.2 is a better lens @ f/1.4.

Same for the 135s ... the Nikon was pretty good 10 years ago, but long in the tooth and is falling behind as the resolution of these cameras moves up ... the Sony/Zeiss 135/1.8 is a world class lens .... the equal to the Canon 135/2 in clarity, while beating it for color rendition, micro detail and bokeh.

The mainstay lens for my wedding work is a 24-70/2.8 ... it's here that the Sony/Zeiss walks away from the pack ... IS is one contributing factor to that over-all impression which neither the Nikon or Canon version offer ... but even with the camera's IS turned off, the lens clearly out performs both the Nikon and Canon versions in all respects concerning IQ. However, it still exhibits visible distortion at the wide end, so is far from perfect.

IMO, the stand out lens from Sony isn't a Zeiss optic! The 70-200/2.8G APO is without a doubt the best version of that focal length zoom I've ever encountered.
The Sony doesn't have the IS advantage here as both Canon and Nikon offer IS and VR. Both competing lenses are excellent performers but the edge goes to the Sony IMHO.

Why Nikon refuses to produce at least 3 fast primes baffels me. A 35/1.4 ASPH, 50/1.4 with AFS and Nano coatings, and a new 85/1.4 ED, AFS, Nano-Nano would be most welcome.

I personally don't care if they don't do a fasterer wide angle ... the 14-24/2.8 is a world class lens (except for flare), and if size is an issue there's always the often forgotten Nikon 18/2.8 ( a lens I haven't used for years, so I don't really know how it would stack up today on a high res. DSLR)

Lastly, when the Sony/Zeiss 16-35 hits the shelves, it should be conmpared with the Nikon 17-35 and Canon 16-35 ... not the 14-24/2.8. I can already guess how that comparison will shake out since the Nikon version is also quite long in the tooth.

When Sony produces a camera that shoots to dual cards and is better weather sealed with a wider array of AF points ... the game will be over for Nikon and me. Until then I'm content to cherry pick the best for both. Being a gear whore, if I could hack it financially, I'd like a 5DMKII and 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.2 and 135/2 to cherry pick from also.:ROTFL:
 
T

TimF

Guest
Why Nikon refuses to produce at least 3 fast primes baffels me. A 35/1.4 ASPH, 50/1.4 with AFS and Nano coatings, and a new 85/1.4 ED, AFS, Nano-Nano would be most welcome.
The original Swedish version of this page was linked to here last year, suggesting that 35mm/1.8 and 135mm/1.8 are in the pipeline, together with an update of the 80-400mm.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
While we are on the subject of lenses, how about 50mm primes?

Nikon AF 50mm f1.4D vs. Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.4G vs. Zeiss 50mm f1.4 ZF?

Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar? How does it perform at distance?

Nikon 45mm f2.8 ED PC-E? How does the performance compare (un-shifted) with the standard primes?

Obviously I'm not concerned about AF performance and neither am I concerned about wide open performance or bokeh. Any hands on comparisons would be appreciated.

So many questions, perhaps I should have started a new thread?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
The original Swedish version of this page was linked to here last year, suggesting that 35mm/1.8 and 135mm/1.8 are in the pipeline, together with an update of the 80-400mm.
35/1.8 when EVERYONE else has a 35/1.4 ... the 135/1.8 sounds promising because making a decent fast 135 is apparently not that hard ... who cares about a slow mega zoom ... not me.

Bring back the 28/1.4 ASPH with AFS and Nano-Nano and I'm there cash in hand ... never should have sold that lens :cry:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
While we are on the subject of lenses, how about 50mm primes?

Nikon AF 50mm f1.4D vs. Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.4G vs. Zeiss 50mm f1.4 ZF?

Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar? How does it perform at distance?

Nikon 45mm f2.8 ED PC-E? How does the performance compare (un-shifted) with the standard primes?

Obviously I'm not concerned about AF performance and neither am I concerned about wide open performance or bokeh. Any hands on comparisons would be appreciated.

So many questions, perhaps I should have started a new thread?

Nikon 50/1.4D: not as good as the Canon version.

Nikon AFS 50/1.4G: haven't used one.

ZF 50/1.4, pretty sharp ... you may not be concerned with bokeh, but that may change if you get this lens ... worst bokeh in the Zeiss line up, Nikon is better.

ZF 50/2 Macro: superb at all distances, beautiful bokeh. A gem of a lens.

Sigma 50/1.4: sharp, blooming around highlights @ f/1.4, but crisp at f/2.8 on ... very nice for portrait work.

Voigtlander 58/1.4 Nokton: odd lens with odd bokeh ... quite sharp stopped down.
 

Lars

Active member
Latest rumour is that the 35/1.8 is a DX lens, something equivalent to the 50/1.8 on FX, and aggressively priced. Makes sense if it's at least as good as the Sigma 30/1.4.
That makes sense, to fill the need for a normal prime in the high volume DX market. Aggressively priced must mean sub-$150. A lens like this is a fairly simple design, so it will quite possibly be a decent performer and a good value like the 50/1.8.

BTW Nikon in Sweden has 35/1.4 manual focus in stock, as well as 24/2.0 and 50/1.2.
http://www.nikonstore.se/Product/SectionList.aspx?s=8216
 
M

marknorton

Guest
I think Sony have achieved something of a coup by introducing Carl Zeiss lenses which are fully integrated into the camera unlike the basic manual focus, aperture priority only primes for Nikon (and, I assume, Canon). Sony have had some sort of alliance with Carl Zeiss - along the lines of the Panasonic/Leica arrangement - for some years so the top end lenses seem a given. Sony get CZ's lens designs, CZ get access to the interface which beats reverse engineering it.

I can understand therefore why some are dumping Nikon/Canon in favour of Sony or as an alternative and am impressed - could never happen for me though, just too deeply invested in Nikon to throw it all away and start again. Cameras, lenses, flashes, wireless, just too much.

I don't think there's any chance we could see CZ lenses fully integrated into Nikons and Canons - I'm sure Sony will have some sort of exclusive arrangement - but I'd like to see Leica use their lens expertise to do an "up-market Sigma" and produce a series of top quality lenses which integrate fully with Nikon and Canon, even Sony.

Too often, we read comments "improves on stopping down" which makes me wonder what the point of buying a fast lens is if it's not fully usable wide-open. I've bought the AF-S 50mm/1.4 and it's a nice lens, but it's no Leica 50mm Summilux-M ASPH...
 
Last edited:
M

marknorton

Guest
I think at least the 35/1.4 and 50/1.2 are still being made, although in small batches.
I bought both on ebay after I got my D3 and they're nice lenses, especially the 50/1.2 which has a Noctilux look about it. Very soft at the edges on FF though... The 35/1.4 is an amazingly long lived lens design by Japanese standards, haven't really gelled with it, more likely to pick up the 28mm/1.4 AF-D instead.

I do think Nikon need to get back into primes in a big way after a steady procession of worthy but oh so dull consumer zooms.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Latest rumour is that the 35/1.8 is a DX lens, something equivalent to the 50/1.8 on FX, and aggressively priced. Makes sense if it's at least as good as the Sigma 30/1.4.
DX? No joy there.

Is the Sigma 30/1.4 an FX ... and more importantly is it any good wide open?

It's odd that there isn't a killer AF 50/1.4 Pro spec lens in Nikon mount. Canon's 50/1.4 is really quite good, and the 50/1.2L is a great lens.
 

Lars

Active member
DX? No joy there.

Is the Sigma 30/1.4 an FX ... and more importantly is it any good wide open?

It's odd that there isn't a killer AF 50/1.4 Pro spec lens in Nikon mount. Canon's 50/1.4 is really quite good, and the 50/1.2L is a great lens.
Sigma 30/1.4 is a normal lens for DX.

While a cheap DX normal might not make anyone here happy, if it's priced like the 50/1.8D or Canon's equivalent (<$100) it's bound to become a best seller. That's the target market, D40/D60 owners. Not people here. From a revenue standpoint that's not a bad move.

Re 50/1.4, the new G seems to match the Canon in performance as well as price. The Canon isn't exactly stellar, and Canon can always fall back on the 1.2L for reputation. If it wasn't for the 1.2L then Canon's offering would be a bit lame (i.e. like Nikon's). But at a price point of 12x the 50/1.8, the 1.2L is hardly relevant WRT revenue.
 
Top