Its Official! New Nikkor AF-S 24 mm f/1.4 and Nikkor AF-S 16-35 mm f/4.0G ED VR Re
- Thread starter Shutterlance
- Start date
Woow, these are highly poisonous & most toxic! I like the HDR shots...time for me to think:sweat:...
Better in what sense? I really don't think the examples shown here illustrate that having a new lense made them any better in taking photos.....
Well I suppose every man for himself. I'm just into this for a hobby & not going pro anytime soon to make a living so not too concerned with the technical jargons or whatsoever. Just want to live the moment while I can by buying so far 2 bodies & 13 lenses. Mayb you can classify me as one who uses technology to get where he wants to in his mind:bsmilie: Cheerio:devil:
BTW, before anyone label me as a ASk. I'm not. In fact I'd made my $M thru sheer hard work and all and I guess now is the time for me to enjoy a bit...
BTW, before anyone label me as a ASk. I'm not. In fact I'd made my $M thru sheer hard work and all and I guess now is the time for me to enjoy a bit...
Last edited:
No lah, I dun think will get this one until mayb see in B&S 1 yr from now. You enjoy this new toy & lookin fwd to your pictures to poison me lah.
Now my attention diverted to macro liao...:lovegrin: kena poison from SBWR outing
:bsmilie: good good.. we can go shoot oneday together, i still hunting down the highly sought after but nt readily available AF 200 Micro f4
OT a bit.:bsmilie: good good.. we can go shoot oneday together, i still hunting down the highly sought after but nt readily available AF 200 Micro f4
I think there is an outing on 6th Mar morning for macro but I may not join cos visitors in town. Getting the Raynox cm2000 to go with my Tm90mm for super duper macro shots!:lovegrin:
My problem with all these samples is that they are all shot with tons of supplementary lighting.
Really? Is that the best way to show off the available light quality of a f1.4 lens?
Even Bob Krist's shots are all lighted, with assistants and all. I know that he's shooting commercially for an ad agency, and studio lighting and setup shots are all the norm and rage..... but.....
this is a 24 f1.4 lens, for crying out loud. I would rather see TRUE and real available light PJ style shots shot in horrible light conditions, up close and personal which would really extoll the virtues of a f1.4 optic matched with the highest ISO camera known to man, the D3S.
Instead, we get "pretty" pictures of well lighted subjects, posed and smiling for the camera. I'm not quite sure that would be a typical application of a 24 f1.4 lens. This is not a knock on Bob Krist, who is a talented photographer in his own right. It's rather the style of the shoot that bothers me in pictures meant to sell a 24 f1.4.
I have said it before - the Nikon culture is not one of available light. Even in the D3 brochure, one of the ISO 6400 shot meant to show off the high ISO qualities of the camera is supplemented with additional lighting. The "heroes" of Nikon - the likes of people like Joe McNally, Bob Krist etc are flash-type shooters who do wonderfully work with supplementary lighting and have no qualms about pullng out their SB900s. Not just one, but a few of them.
It is no wonder Nikon does not see the need to fill in its lens gap with the likes of a 35 f1.4. Why would they need to, when the photographers who champion the system don't really need a f1.4 lens?
I would love to see a Jeff Ascough, a Gary Knight, a James Nachtwey or a Pablo Pellegrin put this lens through its paces in a real gritty reportage environment, situations which would show us the applications of a fast and wide angle lens.
Maybe along a dimly lit street of Iraq among embedded marines doing a house to house search. Or at dusk in Haiti, photographing people still searching desperately through the rubble. Even a simple shot of a family having a quiet meal by a single candelight, enjoying the quiet solitude of a family moment.
These are what fast lenses are made for!
Eh, I agree, and those shots don't tell us anything about the quality of any lens really.
This I'm not sure is a fair call though BH. You show me any camera manufacturer's brochure that shows anything other than well lit sample images, at any ISO... I vaguely remember some Canon sample images posted online for one of their 1D bodies now, can't remember specifically which one, and they're all studio lit at ISO whatever too.
I'm not saying Nikon > Canon in any way shape or form. Just that Canon's the first thing that comes to mind and they're also the main rivals in the high ISO quality stakes. Although I'm sure doodah will take offence anyway at what I've just said once he reads this.
And also I'm not sure about the culture not being one of available light, if for the last 1-2 generations Nikon have been the ones really pushing low light performance rather than megapixels.
I'm also not sure they champion the system, if anything Nikon's to blame because they'll be the ones who target these photographers and say, who can make my stuff look good? That'll be someone who can take stunningly lit images that have impact so people will look at a 500 pixel image on a screen and go buy buy buy... looking at this thread they've certainly succeeded
On the other hand someone who wants it for low light, isn't going to need to see all those pictures you describe. They'll know like you that that's what an f1.4 lens does. What would you gain in any way if Bob's images were shot at f1.4 under available light at the same sizes as those linked? Maybe something about the quality of the camera that took them (or lack thereof) but I'm not sure you'd gain anything about the lens.
As to needing an f1.4 lens; I find myself questioning that more and more in all honesty. Yes I'm not a war photographer, but I shoot news and weddings. In the former I never ever bring any of my f1.4 lenses around, in the latter I still do but I never feel the need to use it because of light issues anymore. If I do it will be purely for DoF reasons. And I'm not using a D3s either. Or a 1DIV.
Maybe I'm not a "hard" or "true" PJ because I'm not using primes only, but if you disregard that, I personally find having a zoom far more productive than the light gain. And with the quality from cameras these days f2.8 is plenty good enough in sooo many situations.
Last edited:
Similar threads
