Just how important is a good lens? D300 and Nikkor 20mm 2.8 vs G1 and 20mm Lumix

[Matix]

As I have sold off my high end Nikkor lenses for the D300, and reduced the weight of my seldom used (Since the advent of the M4/3 gear) Nikon D300 kit by about 8Kg or so, I wanted a good light lens for the D300 which I wanted to keep for a while.

Too wet to go out today, so this afternoon I decided to try the new lens I got for the D300, a new Nikkor 20mm 2.8 AF D, full frame capable. Very impressed by the Nikkor 20mm, but how would it go with the G1 or GH-1?

This is how it looked,

and this is how it compared in my not too technical tests. Out of camera JPG, no tweaking at all, both cameras set to my normal settings. G1 with Vibrant Film setting +1 for S, +1 for Contrast. Nikon D300 at Vibrant, otherwise P mode.

There are two groups of 3 images here, one of a plate where flash was used, and one outdoors on a grey day. I did my best to frame the same, both at 400iso, f4.5 or close, and -1/3 Ev for the G1, which in my opinion always overexposes by about that amount.

The test shots are at: http://matix.zenfolio.com/p91387928

I think the G1 is very close in quality and contrast at that ISO, to the Nikon when both are using the same lens, and certainly both cameras do a very acceptable job when using their native lenses, although the D300 does seem to have a higher DR of course.

Regardless of whether I keep the D300, I will be keeping the Nikkor 20mm 2.8, and the Tamron 90mm 2.8 DiII which also brings out the best in the G1 and GH-1 cameras.

What do you think?

Phil

--
http://matix.zenfolio.com

 

[pellicle]

Regardless of whether I keep the D300, I will be keeping the Nikkor 20mm 2.8, and the Tamron 90mm 2.8 DiII which also brings out the best in the G1 and GH-1 cameras.

What do you think?

well I reckon the 20mm on either camera is not giving you what it could, I totally love my Olympus 21mm on full frame but on smaller formats its just an ordinary normal. I reckon you'd find the Nikon 20mm would be sweeter than a 9-18mm zoom on the G1

of course I love wides

I've been really pleasantly surprised with the Panasonic 14-45mm on the G1 and in playing with my f2.8 legacy lenses I've found that the OIS on the kit makes up for the extra light I get on the f2.8 plus one gains AF and all the nifty stuff there.

but yeah, its getting close to making the D300 redundant. While I'm answering I'd say that I myself see no advantage in the D300 for all its mass, but the D700 would be a different story ... but then that's not cheap

BTW after getting my G1 I've sold my 10D but I'm now contemplating picking up a 5D but its really hard to justify.

 

[m3photo]

Re: Comparisons

I've been really pleasantly surprised with the Panasonic 14-45mm on the G1 and in playing with my f2.8 legacy lenses I've found that the OIS on the kit makes up for the extra light I get on the f2.8 plus one gains AF and all the nifty stuff there.
../.. but the D700 would be a different story ...

I quite agree, the kit lens never ceases to please. I've done comparisons with it and the 24mm Nikkor for example and I'm pretty sure the camera's internals does a lot to get the best out of the kit lens.
The D700 is a different story - I wouldn't/couldn't live without it; it's a totally distinct tool.

 

[CPWarner]

I also agree. My GF1 blows away what I had in a compact camera with a Canon G9. It is very close to what I had with Canon XSi. My 1DsMkII still has an edge, but the gap is certainly closed a lot. I would not hesitate to take this lens along hiking. The days of my large SLR are becoming numbered.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

up above when I wrote:

I reckon you'd find the Nikon 20mm would be sweeter than a 9-18mm zoom on the G1

what I meant to say was -> I reckon you'd find the Nikon 20mm on a full frame would be sweeter than a 9-18mm zoom on the G1

sheesh ... I should learn to read what I write.