Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53

Thread: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

  1. #21
    Senior Member Ansel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Land Downunder
    Posts
    2,207

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Go for it mate! No such thing as waste of money.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    If that FX lens is a damn good lens and cost that u jolly well can afford and to u, worth every single cent, why not?

    I, for one, believe in getting good prime lens rather den body. As mentioned b4, price for CAM body only goes down, whereas, lenses, prices can be very stable even after yrs.
    Ain't too clever but definitely not stupid. Hey guys, just wanna learn....

  3. #23

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Very simple they not going to make another 24mm F1.4 DX , 50mm F1.4 DX or 85mm F1.4 DX for you to use in DX bodies only.. so go for the best... If you still feel too drastic get the sigma 30mm F1.4 or the nikon 35mm F1.8

  4. #24

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega23 View Post
    Very simple they not going to make another 24mm F1.4 DX , 50mm F1.4 DX or 85mm F1.4 DX for you to use in DX bodies only.. so go for the best... If you still feel too drastic get the sigma 30mm F1.4 or the nikon 35mm F1.8
    Thanks for the input really i do have the 35 1.8, but i find it too restricting. Not that wide enough for my liking. Mostly because i tend to take ppl upclose. Thus i prefer a wider lens, which retaining quality and speed. Yup so there i am thinking, or rather dreaming, about the 24 1.4.

    Btw i have NO plans of going FX for quite a long time. I cant justify the weight, let alone the price of the d700. So the 24mm f1.4 will be my 36mm equivalent on a daily basis.

  5. #25
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    go for it hotchoco1ate. As long as u have rationalized ur purchases, it doesn feel so bad at the end. ( I myself am guilty of making plenty of purchases on the spur of the moments )

    And of course use it often!

    Ryan

  6. #26
    Member sf_kang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    642

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Quote Originally Posted by hotchoco1ate View Post
    Mostly because i tend to take ppl upclose. Thus i prefer a wider lens, which retaining quality and speed.
    35mm on a DX body is about the field of view for a 50mm on FX body (which is considered as the standard lens simply because it offers about the same field of view of a human eye).
    I frequently mount only one lens (AF-S 50mm/f1.4G) on my D700 to shoot just about anything including portraits, etc.

    Since you mentioned you 'tend to take ppl upclose', getting a 24mm may exagerate the distortion when shooting poeple upclose, i.e. the nose may appear exceptionally large in relation to the rest of the face. In fact, if you plan to shoot 'close up' portraites, e.g. only face shots, or head only, or head n shoulder only, a longer lens like a 85mm would produce a more balanced perspective and more natural.

    Thinks carefully about what you expect the lens to do before you spend your hard earned money.

    For me, when shooting portraits (half body, full body, small groups of up to 5 people), I use the 50mm lens on my D700. Head only, or head and shoulders, or even closer, I use the 100mm lens that produces a more natural perspective. When shooting larger groups, I then use 24mm or wider if necessary.

    Fred

  7. #27

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Quote Originally Posted by sf_kang View Post
    35mm on a DX body is about the field of view for a 50mm on FX body (which is considered as the standard lens simply because it offers about the same field of view of a human eye).
    I frequently mount only one lens (AF-S 50mm/f1.4G) on my D700 to shoot just about anything including portraits, etc.

    Since you mentioned you 'tend to take ppl upclose', getting a 24mm may exagerate the distortion when shooting poeple upclose, i.e. the nose may appear exceptionally large in relation to the rest of the face. In fact, if you plan to shoot 'close up' portraites, e.g. only face shots, or head only, or head n shoulder only, a longer lens like a 85mm would produce a more balanced perspective and more natural.

    Thinks carefully about what you expect the lens to do before you spend your hard earned money.

    For me, when shooting portraits (half body, full body, small groups of up to 5 people), I use the 50mm lens on my D700. Head only, or head and shoulders, or even closer, I use the 100mm lens that produces a more natural perspective. When shooting larger groups, I then use 24mm or wider if necessary.

    Fred
    Wow Fred thanks for your take on the whole matter. I feel that it is going to be a general purpose lens, especially for indoor and in the night. Im aware of the distortion factor, but i hope its not going to be a problem because i intend to take half body shots at a relatively close range.

    For you what is your fave FL for walkabout on a prime?

    @giantcanopy: I might rent out this lens first to see if its really my cup of tea. I like the deep depth of field on this lens (since its 24mm) when im at a distance, and wonderful bokeh when im upclose. This is what im going for. I do hope you justified your exorbitant purchases as well

  8. #28

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Quote Originally Posted by hotchoco1ate View Post
    Wow Fred thanks for your take on the whole matter. I feel that it is going to be a general purpose lens, especially for indoor and in the night. Im aware of the distortion factor, but i hope its not going to be a problem because i intend to take half body shots at a relatively close range.

    For you what is your fave FL for walkabout on a prime?

    @giantcanopy: I might rent out this lens first to see if its really my cup of tea. I like the deep depth of field on this lens (since its 24mm) when im at a distance, and wonderful bokeh when im upclose. This is what im going for. I do hope you justified your exorbitant purchases as well
    What kind of shots you take doesn't affect the distortion. The distortion may not be that obvious if you shoot half body shots than when you shoot more close up, but it will still be there.

    By the way 24mm on DX is not really that wide, but I suppose for walkabout purposes, it's fine.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    This 24mm f1.4G has the worst bokeh compared to other focal length primes like 35mm, 50mm and 85mm f1.4G because the wider the lens, the worse bokeh it has. People don't buy this lens for its bokeh but its sharpness, low light performance and "wow" wide perspective on FX body. A cheap 50mm f1.8d has better bokeh than this expensive lens. I would recommend you to rent this lens for one day to try out. Rental is only $30-60 but the price of this lens is $2800. For a general purpose lens on DX body, it would be too costly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hotchoco1ate View Post
    Wow Fred thanks for your take on the whole matter. I feel that it is going to be a general purpose lens, especially for indoor and in the night. Im aware of the distortion factor, but i hope its not going to be a problem because i intend to take half body shots at a relatively close range.

    For you what is your fave FL for walkabout on a prime?

    @giantcanopy: I might rent out this lens first to see if its really my cup of tea. I like the deep depth of field on this lens (since its 24mm) when im at a distance, and wonderful bokeh when im upclose. This is what im going for. I do hope you justified your exorbitant purchases as well
    Kent Wong Photography |Leica Q & Leica M-P 240 | 75 & 28mm Summilux

  10. #30

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Quote Originally Posted by kentwong81 View Post
    This 24mm f1.4G has the worst bokeh compared to other focal length primes like 35mm, 50mm and 85mm f1.4G because the wider the lens, the worse bokeh it has. People don't buy this lens for its bokeh but its sharpness, low light performance and "wow" wide perspective on FX body. A cheap 50mm f1.8d has better bokeh than this expensive lens. I would recommend you to rent this lens for one day to try out. Rental is only $30-60 but the price of this lens is $2800. For a general purpose lens on DX body, it would be too costly.
    Actually no. Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the out of focus areas, and not how blur the background can become. I don't know about the 24/1.4, but some longer lenses can also produce crap bokeh, where the out of focus areas are distracting or suffer from CA and things like that.

  11. #31

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    I didn't say how blur the background can be, but I meant the bokeh quality of this lens is worst. As a wide angle lens, the quality of bokeh is always worse than a standard and tele lens. You may go check it out and compare if there is any exception.
    I rented this lens for 2 days before and its bokeh is not as nice as the 35mm and 85mm.

    Quote Originally Posted by brapodam View Post
    Actually no. Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the out of focus areas, and not how blur the background can become. I don't know about the 24/1.4, but some longer lenses can also produce crap bokeh, where the out of focus areas are distracting or suffer from CA and things like that.
    Kent Wong Photography |Leica Q & Leica M-P 240 | 75 & 28mm Summilux

  12. #32

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Quote Originally Posted by brapodam View Post
    Actually no. Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the out of focus areas, and not how blur the background can become. I don't know about the 24/1.4, but some longer lenses can also produce crap bokeh, where the out of focus areas are distracting or suffer from CA and things like that.
    Then in that case kent is probably refering to the OOF areas that the 24mm renders. Which is why i specifically mentioned "wonderful bokeh/OOF areas upclose" Will be renting the lens soon to test it out, perhaps at the same time renting the 24mm f2.8.

    Personally i really dislike the 50 1.8, possibly because the sharpness wide open is kinda crappy with the copy i got. Then again, it could also be because the depth of field is too thin.

    But to reply kent, the reason i specifically wanted a lens that has a deep depth of field because i wanted more of the foreground and background to be in focus for general purposes. And when i wanna take food photos, or photos of my gf, she complained that the depth of field at 1.8 is too thin such that her eyes are sharp but her nose onwards is OOF. So with a wider lens, i can negate this effect, at the same time obtain good sharpness.

    However im still intrigued at how some CSers use a long telephoto lens wide open ie f1.4, and still obtain sharpness from the head to the upper body area. Is there something i dont understand about "plane of focus", especially with fast glass?

  13. #33

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Hi hotchoco1ate,

    Below might be useful.

    http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...h-of-field.htm
    Last edited by kentwong81; 29th January 2011 at 04:00 PM.
    Kent Wong Photography |Leica Q & Leica M-P 240 | 75 & 28mm Summilux

  14. #34

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Hi 2100,

    I meant compared to 35mm, 50mm and 85mm, I think 24mm has the worst bokeh or doesn't has the pleasant and smooth buttery bokeh as I see in other longer prime lenses. Maybe just my personal preference though. The best is to rent one and try out.
    Kent Wong Photography |Leica Q & Leica M-P 240 | 75 & 28mm Summilux

  15. #35

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Err...Kent, your thinking of "what is bokeh quality" is not correct. The def of DOF (fundamentals), is correct. Bokeh is a quality/term, DOF is yet another term.

    People get the 24/1.4G for the bokeh. Same for the 24/1.4 ASPH. Its very well known for many many years for the latter.

  16. #36

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Quote Originally Posted by kentwong81 View Post
    Hi 2100,

    I meant compared to 35mm, 50mm and 85mm, I think 24mm has the worst bokeh or doesn't has the pleasant and smooth buttery bokeh as I see in other longer prime lenses. Maybe just my personal preference though. The best is to rent one and try out.
    Yep, it just manages to POP for 4-8 pax grp pix, general stuff. The thing is not easy to use.
    That is the whole point for some guys, not easy to use, not many of those pix floating around. It challenges you. Esp for those making money with it - they have to produce something special every now and then to climb up. In a nutshell, the 24mm is a 24mm, and needs to be used like a 24.

    To illustrate the importance of the last point.

    This is what happens when you do not use a 24mm as its supposed to be used.

    http://www.babimete.com/Family/Kay/C...61_nWN4T-L.jpg


    Photo from babiMETE in FM forums


    This is good
    http://kelvinkuo.com/wp-content/uplo...1/KKK_5560.jpg

    This is excellent
    http://kelvinkuo.com/wp-content/uplo...1/KKK_5572.jpg

    copyright to nismoxr34 in FM forums for the last 2.

    So you see there might not be much DOF (blur) for the last 2, but the bokeh is still excellent. Its intended not to be blurring too much out.

    Ultra low light @ 1.4. (by AndreasE) f1.4, ISO800, 30 seconds.
    http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/...7/original.jpg
    Last edited by 2100; 29th January 2011 at 04:31 PM.

  17. #37

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Hi 2100,

    Yeah, for me, the 24mm prime is a special lens on FX, rather than a general purpose easy lens to use. It's good to have one in your bag if you sell photos to clients. Too bad it is too costly for me that I have to put it to the bottom of my lenses wanted list.
    Kent Wong Photography |Leica Q & Leica M-P 240 | 75 & 28mm Summilux

  18. #38

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Quote Originally Posted by 2100 View Post
    Yep, it just manages to POP for 4-8 pax grp pix, general stuff. The thing is not easy to use.
    That is the whole point for some guys, not easy to use, not many of those pix floating around. It challenges you. Esp for those making money with it - they have to produce something special every now and then to climb up. In a nutshell, the 24mm is a 24mm, and needs to be used like a 24.

    To illustrate the importance of the last point.

    This is what happens when you do not use a 24mm as its supposed to be used.

    http://www.babimete.com/Family/Kay/C...61_nWN4T-L.jpg


    Photo from babiMETE in FM forums


    This is good
    http://kelvinkuo.com/wp-content/uplo...1/KKK_5560.jpg

    This is excellent
    http://kelvinkuo.com/wp-content/uplo...1/KKK_5572.jpg

    copyright to nismoxr34 in FM forums for the last 2.

    So you see there might not be much DOF (blur) for the last 2, but the bokeh is still excellent. Its intended not to be blurring too much out.

    Ultra low light. (by AndreasE)
    http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/...7/original.jpg
    Wow the 2nd pic posted by kelvin kuo looks like it has been taken on a green screen I nv thought that it was supposed to used like that. Very nice effect for portraits with a nice landscape as a background. Though its kinda likely i will take pictures like the 1st example you posted.

  19. #39

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Points to note

    1) On DX the 24 f1.4 G becomes a 35mm fov equivalent ( DX is a 1.5 x factor )
    2) The 35mm angle is a "normal" wide angle. Not a dramatic wide-angle,Natural to look at
    3) If you want to go wide, i would urge you to consider looking at the 2 ultra-wide angle zooms nikon makes, the 12-24f4 and the 10-24f3.5-4.5. This way you can experiment and see which focal length suites your fancy.
    4) If you can afford it, sure go ahead buy the 24 f1.4. If you don't like it, sell it...i'm sure you would sell it easily here on CS

  20. #40

    Default Re: Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?

    Quote Originally Posted by kentwong81 View Post
    Hi 2100,

    Yeah, for me, the 24mm prime is a special lens on FX, rather than a general purpose easy lens to use. It's good to have one in your bag if you sell photos to clients. Too bad it is too costly for me that I have to put it to the bottom of my lenses wanted list.
    Yeah man.... I told one of the wedding videographers (actually charging much much higher than me, near a top range WPJA photographer in SG) who is using a Canon 24/1.4L version 1 for his 5DII for wedding video, that I got it close to 3k and literally none on sale second hand. His eyes popped. He got his for half the price of mine.

    Sometimes I also don't know why am I sticking with Nikon (coz I do spoil lenses, most ex is 17-55 spoilt liao but luckily 2nd hand)

    But then again, all his Merlins like Steadicam & Pilot and other stuff, active + wireless mics and tripods, costs much more than the lens and body liao.
    Last edited by 2100; 29th January 2011 at 04:41 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •