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!

Leica S2 delayed and possible price?

carstenw

Active member
24PCE, 28/1.4, 35/2.0, Sigma50/1.4 (I prefer it to the Nikon 50AFD and also compared to the new Nikon 50AFS), 85/1.4 , 105/2.0DC, 135/2.0DC, 180/2.8, 200VR all excellent lenses IMO. I agree about the 70-200VR though - I sold it since I have not found that lens great. Plus you have all the MF-options like Zeiss or Leica (with Leitax adapter)
Interesting that you include the 28/1.4. I do not know the lens personally, but came across someone who thought that it had finally met its master, when used on the D3x. Do you find that it has enough resolution for the D3x, even wide open?

I also remembered the specs of the 105 VR Macro wrong, thinking it was a 100/2.8. In any case, some tests have shown it softer than the previous version. I think some people on fredmiranda were testing this, but I don't recall any more.

Anyway, my impression is of a system with a few fantastic lenses, and some of the very best DSLRs ever made, but with a lens lineup full of older glass which really needs to be refreshed. If the lineup was fully modern and top-notch, I would probably give up on my idea of a MF camera, but between Canon, which I personally do not like, Nikon, with their lens lineup and boke issues, and Sony, which really isn't up to speed yet, I feel more comfortable with the Contax 645. I also have a strong preference for primes, whereas some of Nikon's best glass is currently zooms. Probably sounds weird to some, but hey, that is my conclusion :)
 

dhsimmonds

New member
Inte
Anyway, my impression is of a system with a few fantastic lenses, and some of the very best DSLRs ever made, but with a lens lineup full of older glass which really needs to be refreshed. If the lineup was fully modern and top-notch, I would probably give up on my idea of a MF camera, but between Canon, which I personally do not like, Nikon, with their lens lineup and boke issues, and Sony, which really isn't up to speed yet, I feel more comfortable with the Contax 645.
I also went down this road of argument with myself before selling my R9/DMR and glass, almost going for the Contax 645 and Phase 25 mpx back, until I saw and tried out the Sony A900. It's very weak AA filtering and gorgeous Zeiss lenses is what did it for me together with a very portable package aka the Contax/Phase set up.

Sure the lens line up needs bolstering but the G lenses are also way better in the bokeh department than Nikon IMHO. I also like the intuitive handling after coming from the Leica which is REAl intuitive!
 

carstenw

Active member
Yeah, the A900 is the way I would go at this point if I decided not to go for MF. I would probably just start with the 24-70, and maybe later add the 85/1.4 and 135/1.8. I don't need that many lenses and prefer primes for most things.
 

Graham Mitchell

New member
... There are some other lenses in the range with the same high quality, but there are also many which are older or problematic in some way....
Ok, thanks for your reply. I haven't looked into it, mainly because I wouldn't get this camera for the IQ, I would get it for the ultra wide zoom when needed, and the rest of the time for lower IQ work like events where you just want speed, convenience and high ISO.
 

robmac

Well-known member
Graham,

My opinion of the D3x vs 5DII MUCH favors the D3x, but to each his own. From what I've seen the X has amazing clarity. I STRONGLY suggest subscribing to Lloyd Chambers site if either is of interest. He loves the D3x, but also does side-side tests of both, the D3, etc. More importantly he does so with the same lenses and only the very best (Leica 90, 100 and 180 APO converted to Nikon, CV APO AiS and Zeiss ZF with Canon adapters) using best RAW software for each type. This keeps things on an even keel. Looks at all forms of noise, handling, lens focus shift, etc- all in real world vs test shots of martini bottles.

Lots of large test images, mouse-over comparisions, etc. He's a member here and very easily reached by email via his site.

The $40 odd annual fee is WELL, WELL worth the coin.
 
Last edited:

carstenw

Active member
Ok, thanks for your reply. I haven't looked into it, mainly because I wouldn't get this camera for the IQ, I would get it for the ultra wide zoom when needed, and the rest of the time for lower IQ work like events where you just want speed, convenience and high ISO.
If you look through the Nikon lens range, and find that all the lenses you want are highly regarded, then go for it; I doubt there is a better 35mm camera on the market today.
 

robmac

Well-known member
What is nice about Nikon is you have a HUGE selection of glass to pick thru w/o necessarily having to use adapters, etc:

Native mount
----------------
1. Nikon Ai and Ais
2. Older AF and AFS glass
3. The new G AFS zooms
4. CV SL and growing SLII line

Convertible or Adaptable
-------------------------
A large number of Leica R units (www.leitax.com)
Hassy Fx, CFx
Mamiya M645
etc

Many of the older Nikon glass does suck (same can be said for Canon as well know), but part of that is the age of the mount and the huge variety of lenses produced.

While Nikon does really need to get some fast AFS/VR primes re-designed, many of the Canon units that are so famous for their resolution (e.g. 35/1.4, 85/1.2) are also famous for their CA, so it's always a trade off.

A good site for Nikon lens evaluations based on Nikon body used is:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/

That said, please ignore if I'm telling you what is already well known ;> I'm a bit enthused at the moment re: Nikon as while I use a 1Ds2 with adapted glass (Leica, CZ, CV, Mamiya, Hassy), I'm migrating my lenses to only those usable on Nikon as my replacement for the 1DS2 will be a Nikkor unit (unless Jono et al cam twist my arm on the A900 first).
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Ok, thanks for your reply. I haven't looked into it, mainly because I wouldn't get this camera for the IQ, I would get it for the ultra wide zoom when needed, and the rest of the time for lower IQ work like events where you just want speed, convenience and high ISO.
Exactly! "Horses for Courses" applies to Cameras AND lenses.
 

carstenw

Active member
At Robert White, sort of the B&H of England, (robertwhite.co.uk), the D3x is £4782 and the 1Ds3 is £5120. That makes the D3x about €1700 cheaper there than in Germany. Insane.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
What is the price difference if I may ask?
The figures Carsten quotes don't include VAT.

They are also far from the best deals to be had on the D3x here in the UK

Robert White (inc. VAT)

D3x = £5499

1Ds MK111 = £5888

Park Cameras (inc. VAT)

D3x = £4979

1Ds MK111 = £5899
 

robmac

Well-known member
Oops - before any Zeiss fans get upset, just realized I forgot to mention an obvious Nikon-mount alternative - Zeiss ZF (also becoming avail of course in Canon ZE mount).

Canon does give the ultimate in lens usage, but other than EF and ZE, it's all stop-down and adapters; some of the latter being excellent, many being utter crap.

You do have to wonder who prices gear within markets. The above price delta between the UK and EU is nutty to say the least, but so if the fact that the A900 costs less here in Canada than in the US - despite the stronger US$.

A900 (body only) Sony Store Canada: A900 C$3100 or US$2425 (maybe $150-200 more than a used D700)
A900 B&H: US$2999.95

Not that we're complaining mind you - about time we came out on the better end of a deal ;> At least we don't pay any duty on gear - just (in my case) 13% VAT - if they bother to charge it.
 
Last edited:

carstenw

Active member
Keith, true about VAT, but although I would have to pay it, Marc wouldn't, since he doesn't live in Europe. I don't know how easy it is to get around that, but it ought to be possible.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Folk from the USA wouldn't have to pay VAT but would probably be clobbered with import duties.

The fact is, for folk here in the UK, the D3x is looking very attractive!
 

robmac

Well-known member
US import duty on gear is 2.9%. State sales tax is iffy. No one I've ever sold used gear to in the US has ever been charged either (US Customs being more concerned about contraband and nasty stuff).

That said, I always ship by Canada Post/USPS. Postal system in Canada only samples items for VAT (no duty) and USPS doesn't seem to care. Courier firms are another matter.

UPS in particular can be nasty @#$%^ - charging 'brokerage fees' as a percentage of value (class action case over that in Canada) for crossing border (in either direction) - something not charged by USPS or Canada Post. Couriers are also legally bound to charge duty or in Canada VAT.

So - if you can it shipped Royal Mail, etc into US you're laughing. Warranty on the other hand is another matter.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Carsten,
I havent used the 28/1.4 that much on the d3x so far. Probably that lens doesnt show the highest resolution, but it shows a very nice tonality, a very smooth bokeh, it allows interesting effect to have a wideangle with shallow DOF, IMO it is fully usable wide open.
I could see room for improvement for a nice Nikon 50/1.2, but even though I am not a Sigma fan I like what I see so far from the 50/1.4 Sigma.
Cant comment on the Nikon 105Macro.
The 105 DC and 135 DC are older designs but great lenses IMO.


Interesting that you include the 28/1.4. I do not know the lens personally, but came across someone who thought that it had finally met its master, when used on the D3x. Do you find that it has enough resolution for the D3x, even wide open?

I also remembered the specs of the 105 VR Macro wrong, thinking it was a 100/2.8. In any case, some tests have shown it softer than the previous version. I think some people on fredmiranda were testing this, but I don't recall any more.

Anyway, my impression is of a system with a few fantastic lenses, and some of the very best DSLRs ever made, but with a lens lineup full of older glass which really needs to be refreshed. If the lineup was fully modern and top-notch, I would probably give up on my idea of a MF camera, but between Canon, which I personally do not like, Nikon, with their lens lineup and boke issues, and Sony, which really isn't up to speed yet, I feel more comfortable with the Contax 645. I also have a strong preference for primes, whereas some of Nikon's best glass is currently zooms. Probably sounds weird to some, but hey, that is my conclusion :)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
There are a number of decent optics for the Nikon line-up ... depending on what your applications may be.

The 14-24/2.8 is excellent ... and just as good or better than the Canon 14/2.8 & 16-35/2.8 MKII I sold along with all my Canon gear.

The 24-70/2.8 :thumbs: whips the Canon version ... which was a lens I hated.

I had the Sigma 50/1.4 ... then got the newer AFS 50/1.4 which focuses faster, so I sold the Sigma.

The 85/1.4 needs to be replaced with an AFS Nano coated version, but isn't all that bad for now.

I'm not a fan of the Nikon 70-200/2.8VR and sold mine when I got the Sony APO version which is better optically, but for some use it's fine.

The 100/2.8 macro is quite good :thumbup: ... not Leica R 100/2.8 good, but still very good, and IMO optically better than the Canon 100/2.8 I had ... and adds VR as a bonus ... which ALL general use macro lenses should be IMO.

Didn't like the 135/2DC for my applications, but I've seen some shots from this lenses that are excellent. Waiting for the rumored AFS 135.

The 200/2 VR barks with the big dogs, and out barks the older Canon 200/1.8 I had ... plus has VR. Worth having Nikon just for this lens IMHO :thumbs:

The newer T/S array of lenses look to be very good, I know from direct use that the previous 85/2.8 T/S was VERY good, and the new one is touted as being even better. (Don't know anything about the other two New T/S lenses).

IMO, Nikon has waaaaay to many odd focal length zooms that are difficult to even sort out ... some only slightly different than the next. A good AFS 24/1.8 and 35/1.4 and an updated 85/1.4 are desperately needed to run with the FF cameras.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I had the Sigma 50/1.4 ... then got the newer AFS 50/1.4 which focuses faster, so I sold the Sigma.

The 85/1.4 needs to be replaced with an AFS Nano coated version, but isn't all that bad for now.
Mmh, dont you find that the Sigma is sharper wide open, shows less vignetting and nicer Bokeh? I compared the 2 and decided for the sigma.

For those not being happy with the 85/1.4 I can suggest the 105/2.0DC. I really like that lens and think it shows alittlw warmer color, more contrast and eventually a little more detail than the 85 (at least when using wide open)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Mmh, dont you find that the Sigma is sharper wide open, shows less vignetting and nicer Bokeh? I compared the 2 and decided for the sigma.

For those not being happy with the 85/1.4 I can suggest the 105/2.0DC. I really like that lens and think it shows alittlw warmer color, more contrast and eventually a little more detail than the 85 (at least when using wide open)
Don't get me wrong, the Sigma 50/1.4 is a nice lens, and it depends on your criteria which is the lens for you.

For me, it was clearly the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50/1.4G ... for 3 reasons:

1) The Nikon is smaller and perfectly balances on the D700 which is the camera I use for available low light. Plus, I wanted a smaller 50 to fit my bag, but the previous 50/1.4 was to small and not nearly as good optically..

2) Both Sigma's I tried (bought one, sent it back, got another) showed to much halation around specular highlights and way too much of it around things like white type. The Nikon shows some but very little. So rim lit things and such looked better from the Nikon.

3) The Nikon AF-s simply focused faster in the same lighting conditions ... this is very important to me in the type of work I do.

I categorically disagree that the Bokeh is better on the Sigma. The Nikon I have is great .... just as good as the Sigma without the Halation issue. Vignetting is there on both lenses, maybe more from the Nikon, but that's low on the criteria list for me.

Could be both the Sigma copies I got. You never know.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Don't get me wrong, the Sigma 50/1.4 is a nice lens, and it depends on your criteria which is the lens for you.

For me, it was clearly the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50/1.4G ... for 3 reasons:

1) The Nikon is smaller and perfectly balances on the D700 which is the camera I use for available low light. Plus, I wanted a smaller 50 to fit my bag, but the previous 50/1.4 was to small and not nearly as good optically..

2) Both Sigma's I tried (bought one, sent it back, got another) showed to much halation around specular highlights and way too much of it around things like white type. The Nikon shows some but very little. So rim lit things and such looked better from the Nikon.

3) The Nikon AF-s simply focused faster in the same lighting conditions ... this is very important to me in the type of work I do.

I categorically disagree that the Bokeh is better on the Sigma. The Nikon I have is great .... just as good as the Sigma without the Halation issue. Vignetting is there on both lenses, maybe more from the Nikon, but that's low on the criteria list for me.

Could be both the Sigma copies I got. You never know.
I have to admit that I didnt look for halation when I compared the lenses.
The Sigma balances very well on a D3 but I can see that it might be a little big on a D700.
It feels tiny though after having used the Rollei 110/2.0 on the Hy6 ;)
For now I really like to bring the 50 prime (with 2 or 3 other primes) more often instead of carrying the 24-70.
Regards, Tom

Sorry for the Nikon talk in a MF thread
 
Top