Discussion
Do any pros use this focal length?
I'm wondering whether to get one (the 2.8) or just use a decent prime instead... thoughts?
P.S. I tried the 50mm 1.4 prime and wasn't that impressed, it seemed to focus slower than the 1.8. If you use primes for people shots, what would be best, the 85mm 1.4? And is it that much better than the 85mm 1.8 to justify the price gap?
I'm wondering whether to get one (the 2.8) or just use a decent prime instead... thoughts?
P.S. I tried the 50mm 1.4 prime and wasn't that impressed, it seemed to focus slower than the 1.8. If you use primes for people shots, what would be best, the 85mm 1.4? And is it that much better than the 85mm 1.8 to justify the price gap?
Just about everyone I know with a FF Nikon body has the 24-70 as their first of three Nikon zooms (14-24 and 70-200 complete the trinity). It rates very highly amongst them, a couple of former prime enthusiasts have ditched their fixed lengths and opted for this/ these instead. Optical quality seems just about on a par and with excellent high ISO performance on the D700/ D3(x/s) the stop or two you lose at *only* f/2.8 seems manageable. That's before you consider the increased versatility.
As for the primes, the 50mm AF-S f/1.4 does focus more slowly but reportedly doesn't hunt as much in low light. That's not my experience though and I'm overall quite disappointed with its performance, having missed too high a proportion of candids due to poor/ incorrect focus acquisition. The f/1.4 AF-D seems to be having a renaissance in the same way as the SB-800 speedlight did once the SB-900 was launched. The 85mm f/1.8 is a rock solid lens (next on my shopping list). Don't believe the 85mm f/1.4 offers anything greatly over it in terms of IQ or build quality but that's an opinion based on banter rather than experience. Grays have a 1.4 on their used list atm.
As for the primes, the 50mm AF-S f/1.4 does focus more slowly but reportedly doesn't hunt as much in low light. That's not my experience though and I'm overall quite disappointed with its performance, having missed too high a proportion of candids due to poor/ incorrect focus acquisition. The f/1.4 AF-D seems to be having a renaissance in the same way as the SB-800 speedlight did once the SB-900 was launched. The 85mm f/1.8 is a rock solid lens (next on my shopping list). Don't believe the 85mm f/1.4 offers anything greatly over it in terms of IQ or build quality but that's an opinion based on banter rather than experience. Grays have a 1.4 on their used list atm.
I guess up untill recently nikon hasnt had either 24 or 35 decent prime..?
I had a play with the canon version which is supposed to be a fair bit inferior (for now) and its a stunning lens (may be a great copy), I just found it too long in general on a crop body, would have one in a blink on a FF.
I had a play with the canon version which is supposed to be a fair bit inferior (for now) and its a stunning lens (may be a great copy), I just found it too long in general on a crop body, would have one in a blink on a FF.
I haven't had experience of the 24-70mm. But then I have a "DX format" body and instead use a 17-35mm a fair bit of the time. If I could afford the 24-70mm I'd have one like a shot. In that range I have a 35mm, 45mm, 50mm and 85mm as well as the starting end of a 70-zoom.
I'm interested in the various comments about the 50mm and 85mm offerings. I've never tried either the 50mm f/1.8 or the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, but the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D is a great lens. I find it focuses quickly enough (although obviously not AF-Shhhhheeeeeeeetttt-that's-fast speed) and never hunts as far as I have noticed. (The three f/2.8 AF-Ss that I have all will do in low light.)
I don't like it stopped down so much. F/1.6-f/2 is where I usually try and keep it. The only downside I can comment on is that, without the beautiful Nikon AF-S clutch system, I do sometimes miss being able to grab control of focus quickly. Lens hood is vital, btw.
I have a 35mm f/2. That - partly because of design age and probably missing some of the newer coatings - is relatively "average". But then that's relative to the other lenses I now have. (I had a 20mm f/2.8 which was really disappointing compared to the 17-35mm, but that was because of the demands of the D2X sensor pixel density, which can really show up the less good glass)
With respect to the 85mm, I am surprised by the comments about f/1.4 v f/1.8 above. I had the f/1.8 for many years. A good lens, my most used alongside the 20mm, it is a lovely lens. I sold it and replaced it with a f/1.4 AF-D and I wouldn't go back. Not as fast as the 50mm to screw into place, let alone an AF-S, but not a dawdler. Sometimes this does need manual intervention, but the quality of the images, even though technically it is apparently a relatively poor performer, has to be seen to be appreciated. Plenty of people will tell you that the f/1.4 is not worth the premium over the f/1.8 - it's not on paper - but find someone with one, or go down to Greys with your own camera body, take some shots and see what you think. I can take pictures of my young nephew which just manage to bring out all the cuteness that the family expect to see. They think I am at professional standard. I know it's nothing to do with me, it's purely the 85mm f/1.4 what done it.
I'm interested in the various comments about the 50mm and 85mm offerings. I've never tried either the 50mm f/1.8 or the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, but the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D is a great lens. I find it focuses quickly enough (although obviously not AF-Shhhhheeeeeeeetttt-that's-fast speed) and never hunts as far as I have noticed. (The three f/2.8 AF-Ss that I have all will do in low light.)
I don't like it stopped down so much. F/1.6-f/2 is where I usually try and keep it. The only downside I can comment on is that, without the beautiful Nikon AF-S clutch system, I do sometimes miss being able to grab control of focus quickly. Lens hood is vital, btw.
I have a 35mm f/2. That - partly because of design age and probably missing some of the newer coatings - is relatively "average". But then that's relative to the other lenses I now have. (I had a 20mm f/2.8 which was really disappointing compared to the 17-35mm, but that was because of the demands of the D2X sensor pixel density, which can really show up the less good glass)
With respect to the 85mm, I am surprised by the comments about f/1.4 v f/1.8 above. I had the f/1.8 for many years. A good lens, my most used alongside the 20mm, it is a lovely lens. I sold it and replaced it with a f/1.4 AF-D and I wouldn't go back. Not as fast as the 50mm to screw into place, let alone an AF-S, but not a dawdler. Sometimes this does need manual intervention, but the quality of the images, even though technically it is apparently a relatively poor performer, has to be seen to be appreciated. Plenty of people will tell you that the f/1.4 is not worth the premium over the f/1.8 - it's not on paper - but find someone with one, or go down to Greys with your own camera body, take some shots and see what you think. I can take pictures of my young nephew which just manage to bring out all the cuteness that the family expect to see. They think I am at professional standard. I know it's nothing to do with me, it's purely the 85mm f/1.4 what done it.
I bought one to use on my D300 body which makes it a slightly uncomfortable focal length but will work great when I upgrade to FF. In my experience the lens is amazing. Super sharp right into the corners and with almost zero CA or distortion. I love the pictures it makes and in one year it's virtually never been off the camera.
The only thing I do not love is the physical size and weight and this is worth seriously considering. I've lugged my camera around Europe a few times with this lens and it's quite a commitment.
To be honest, when I get my D700 (s, x, whatever?) I'm going to have to think seriously about swapping the 24-70 for the 14-24 and sticking a 50 f/1.4 on it for walking around. So I'd also appreciate any thoughts you guys have on this strategy too.
dumbfunk
The only thing I do not love is the physical size and weight and this is worth seriously considering. I've lugged my camera around Europe a few times with this lens and it's quite a commitment.
To be honest, when I get my D700 (s, x, whatever?) I'm going to have to think seriously about swapping the 24-70 for the 14-24 and sticking a 50 f/1.4 on it for walking around. So I'd also appreciate any thoughts you guys have on this strategy too.
dumbfunk
I first used my 24-70 on a Dx bosy and it gve superb results but I felt I was missing out at the wide end a touch.
Since moving to full frame last year it's even better. Excellent focal length, build quality is superb, Af is the fastest of any lens i've ever used, sharp at all apertures, I can't remember the last time I noticed any chromatic aberation, very very versatile lens.
I'm hoping Nikon come out with a better 50mm prime, i'm just not happy with the results i've seen from the f1.4 G, sharpness wide open and CA are issues to me.
I've used the 85mm f1.8 and owned the 85mm f1.4. There is a definate difference in IQ from each, but AF on both is noisy and a little clunky (it can hunt sometimes)
Since moving to full frame last year it's even better. Excellent focal length, build quality is superb, Af is the fastest of any lens i've ever used, sharp at all apertures, I can't remember the last time I noticed any chromatic aberation, very very versatile lens.
I'm hoping Nikon come out with a better 50mm prime, i'm just not happy with the results i've seen from the f1.4 G, sharpness wide open and CA are issues to me.
I've used the 85mm f1.8 and owned the 85mm f1.4. There is a definate difference in IQ from each, but AF on both is noisy and a little clunky (it can hunt sometimes)
Happy to stand corrected on my 85mm comments even though I don't want to hear them as I can only afford the f/1.8 :lol:
As for the 35mm, maybe one of us has an extreme copy Beano as my 35mm AF-D f/2 is currently my favourite and most used lens. Tack sharp all the way open to f/2 and usable there too given the additional DoF from the shorter focal length. AF hunting is really, really seldom and coupled to my D300 it just feels right in every way: portraits, street, landscapes (to the extent that I do them) and night work/ long exposures.
As for the 35mm, maybe one of us has an extreme copy Beano as my 35mm AF-D f/2 is currently my favourite and most used lens. Tack sharp all the way open to f/2 and usable there too given the additional DoF from the shorter focal length. AF hunting is really, really seldom and coupled to my D300 it just feels right in every way: portraits, street, landscapes (to the extent that I do them) and night work/ long exposures.
AndWhyNot said:
... I don't want to hear them as I can only afford the f/1.8 :lol:
Didn't think I could go to the f/1.4. Secondhand about £400 in 2008, cosmetically a bit worn - I may have had to buy a new lens hood. Tempting eh? 
AndWhyNot said:
As for the 35mm, maybe one of us has an extreme copy Beano as my 35mm AF-D f/2 is currently my favourite and most used lens.
You may be right. And I still love my little 45mm pancake for the uses you describe. I am not saying the 35mm is "poor", just not as good as some of the other lenses in the kit bag (but I am v lucky with my current range). Again a s/h job at about £130, I would point out that Pounds-per-Pixel you get an awful lot from that little lens and if it was this or one of the typical lenses supplied with many Nikon bodies from new, then there's absolutely no contest! For DX I should really get a bigger hood, I suspect.
K12beano said:
AndWhyNot said:
... I don't want to hear them as I can only afford the f/1.8 :lol:
Didn't think I could go to the f/1.4. Secondhand about £400 in 2008, cosmetically a bit worn - I may have had to buy a new lens hood. Tempting eh? 
K12beano said:
AndWhyNot said:
As for the 35mm, maybe one of us has an extreme copy Beano as my 35mm AF-D f/2 is currently my favourite and most used lens.
You may be right. And I still love my little 45mm pancake for the uses you describe. I am not saying the 35mm is "poor", just not as good as some of the other lenses in the kit bag (but I am v lucky with my current range). Again a s/h job at about £130, I would point out that Pounds-per-Pixel you get an awful lot from that little lens and if it was this or one of the typical lenses supplied with many Nikon bodies from new, then there's absolutely no contest! For DX I should really get a bigger hood, I suspect.
I'm seeing the AF-D at £170+ (non-D is a few quid cheaper admittedly) - I'd love to know where you're buying
Edited by AndWhyNot on Wednesday 28th April 09:52
Muska said:
I'm hoping Nikon come out with a better 50mm prime, i'm just not happy with the results i've seen from the f1.4 G, sharpness wide open and CA are issues to me.
If you can live without autofocus have a look at the Zeiss ZF range, my Planar T 50mm kicks serious arseVoigtlander make a similar 58mm much cheaper, plus they do 20 and 40mm pancake lenses that I'd love to try
Reviews on photozone.de
http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/products.asp?PT_ID=44...
This is for a D700, thanks for the feedback so far.
My original strategy was the three pronged approach:
14-24 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
Then I thought, replace the 24-70 with a decent prime and walk forwards and backwards, so the strategy became:
14-24 2.8
50 1.4
70-200 2.8
But I wasn't impressed with the 50mm 1.4, so still use the 50mm 1.8 which is great, but hardly a pro lens.
Then I thought, what do I like to shoot, mainly landscapes, people and cars. The 14-24 covers the landscapes and cars bit, the 24-70 would be replaced with a prime (as above), and as for the 70-200, I was going to use that for people but have decided a prime might work better here too. So the strategy became:
14-24 2.8
50 1.8
85 1.4 or 135 f/2 DC
Thoughts?
My original strategy was the three pronged approach:
14-24 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
Then I thought, replace the 24-70 with a decent prime and walk forwards and backwards, so the strategy became:
14-24 2.8
50 1.4
70-200 2.8
But I wasn't impressed with the 50mm 1.4, so still use the 50mm 1.8 which is great, but hardly a pro lens.
Then I thought, what do I like to shoot, mainly landscapes, people and cars. The 14-24 covers the landscapes and cars bit, the 24-70 would be replaced with a prime (as above), and as for the 70-200, I was going to use that for people but have decided a prime might work better here too. So the strategy became:
14-24 2.8
50 1.8
85 1.4 or 135 f/2 DC
Thoughts?
For shooting cars I think you've got nothing in the middle for a FF body. 24mm is still pretty wide on Fx sensor, I find the 24-70 perfect for most situations and only wish occasionally I could go wider.
I have used the 135mm f2 DC and I really like it. I have a 70-200 f2.8 and i'll definately have that to.
Are you considering not having the 14-24,24-70,70-200 for budget reasons? If it were my money thats what id spend it on.
I have used the 135mm f2 DC and I really like it. I have a 70-200 f2.8 and i'll definately have that to.
Are you considering not having the 14-24,24-70,70-200 for budget reasons? If it were my money thats what id spend it on.
You could prob pick up an 85 1.4 and an 80-200 2.8 (both used) for the same price as a 70-200 VR II then you have the long end covered.
In the middle you're better off with the 50mm AF-D 1.4 than the AF-S 1.4 G IMO and if you've had your 1.8 for a while it'll probably sell for what you paid.
I'm with muska in thinking your wide end is not ideal for cars but if you have a style that works go for it. Otherwise maybe go for the 24-70 as your key glass and base everything around that
In the middle you're better off with the 50mm AF-D 1.4 than the AF-S 1.4 G IMO and if you've had your 1.8 for a while it'll probably sell for what you paid.
I'm with muska in thinking your wide end is not ideal for cars but if you have a style that works go for it. Otherwise maybe go for the 24-70 as your key glass and base everything around that
Muska said:
For shooting cars I think you've got nothing in the middle for a FF body. 24mm is still pretty wide on Fx sensor, I find the 24-70 perfect for most situations and only wish occasionally I could go wider.
I have used the 135mm f2 DC and I really like it. I have a 70-200 f2.8 and i'll definately have that to.
Are you considering not having the 14-24,24-70,70-200 for budget reasons? If it were my money thats what id spend it on.
Not for budget reasons, just for my style.I have used the 135mm f2 DC and I really like it. I have a 70-200 f2.8 and i'll definately have that to.
Are you considering not having the 14-24,24-70,70-200 for budget reasons? If it were my money thats what id spend it on.
I like wide so 14-24 is a must.
24-70mm I'm still not sure about as I was thinking about the 50mm instead, still deciding.
And the 70-200mm? I rarely zoom in on anything much these days, so would mainly use it for portraits, where I thought the 85mm 1.4 or the 105 f/2 DC might actually be a lot better. (And lighter)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff