Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: bernie west on May 31, 2014, 12:28:36 am
-
Hi all. I've had the original Canon 5D for 8 or so years now, and while it's served me well, it's time for an upgrade. I was originally looking at a possible 6D + 7D combo to cover both landscape and wildlife/amateur-sports. Unfortunately, most of my canon lenses have wound up with fungus in them, so I will be needed new lenses as well. So I figured there's nothing specifically tying me to Canon any more (other than the $500 or so 85mm f1.8 that is absolutely fantastic and fungus free). To be honest, I initially ignored looking at the Nikon D800(E), due to it's insane megapixel count, assuming it would gain little once noise is factored into the equation. Well, it seems I was wrong and it does display genuine resolution increases and good noise handling. What particularly attracted me to it was the ability to swap between Fx and Dx mode. In a sense, I have both a landscape and a sports camera in one. It's also cheaper than getting the two Canons. And while it's not a professional sports option, probably, it's going to be well good enough for the amateur stuff I want to do. Anyway, that was my decision process at arriving at the D800.
So my question is relating to the standard pro zoom ranges (i.e. 24-70mm and 70-200mm). I really know very little about Nikon lenses. With the Canons there is the "L" designation, and I knew very well the reputation of the 70-200 f2.8. What am I looking at in Nikon? Is there a pro-series lens designation? Are some renowned as better than others? While I was going the Canon route, to save money I was looking at utilising a Tamron for the 24-70 instead of the Canon (or alternatively the Tamron instead of the 70-200; which had the bonus that it wasn't bloody bright white!). Any thoughts on image and build quality in these two zoom ranges for the Tamron vs the Nikon (and perhaps Sigma and Tokina if they are up to class)? Another possible investment will be a 1.4x teleconverter. It seemed with Canon system that canon was probably well ahead of Tamron in that regard. What's the state of play in the Nikon system?
Finally, any other thoughts or hidden issues I need to know about swapping systems? I very rarely used the canon DPP software, and used Lightroom and Photoshop for most of my processing work. I assume I will probably not bother again with the Nikon proprietary software, unless it is unusually good.
Cheers all.
-
Hi Bernie,
I got bored with Canon and there video focus and changed over from a couple 1DsIII's to a D800e and a D7100 a few months back.
Generally, I'm very happy with both, though I want another 800e so I can shoot with matched bodies again.
The 800e is awesome and even at very high ISO walks right over anything I did with my last cameras.
The resolution gives lots of cropping options and the dynamic range is forgiving.
Nikon lenses, like Canon have good and bad points.
I have the 70-200 2.8 VRII and the 14-24 in zooms and both are very good and I want to get the 24-70 soon as well.
I also have one of the stabilised 2.8 Sigma zooms for the D7100 and it's pretty good as well, but really just a back-up.
In Primes I have the 28 1.8, 60 macro, 85 1.8 and 105 macro for studio use and my fishing stories all are light in the hand and easy to shoot with.
The 28 is stellar for the money and has great corner sharpness stopped down a bit - it's a very good wide for the 800e.
In Canon I used only L primes (17,24,35,50,85,135,200) and REALLY miss the 85 1.2 and 200 F2 and also wish Nikon had a lens like the 135 F2.
(Hello Nikon ??)
The Canon 85 1.2 is special and has a look all it's own that, IMHO, Nikon and the others have no answer to.
Obviously, Canon will at some point remember they're a camera company and make a new body with higher resolution and who cares whatever video crap.
At that point I'll have another look at them.
-
Nikon does not have separate designations for pro and non-pro lenses. The f/2.8 zooms 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 are all either extremely good (14-24) or good. The non-pro versions would be the comparable f/4 models, which are considerably cheaper but actually not any worse, slower lenses often are surprisingly good and excellent value for those who do not require speed. I changed from Canons (5D2 and 1D2) to Nikons (D4 & D800e) 2 years ago, absolutely no regrets. With modern cameras it is fairly easy to switch camps, it was quite different in the seventies-eighties when it took several months to de-learn and learn to turn everything the opposite way… I did spend a day with each camera reading through the 400 page manual, it was worth it.
Nikon DOES have 135 f/2 lens: AF DC Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D. It is an old design specially meant for portraiture; is has special defocus control. Of course it is usable as a general short telephoto also, but the AF is not as fast as on the new lenses. As a portrait lens for headshots it is superb and it is razor sharp stopped down a bit.
-
With Nikon (or any brand), don't be fooled into thinking that the wider aperture lenses are "pro" or better in any way. They are just wider aperture. They are also heavier and more expensive. I have the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 and it is one of very best lenses I have ever owned. I don't need the extra stop, so there was no reason to consider the f/2.8 version.
-
With Nikon (or any brand), don't be fooled into thinking that the wider aperture lenses are "pro" or better in any way. They are just wider aperture. They are also heavier and more expensive. I have the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 and it is one of very best lenses I have ever owned. I don't need the extra stop, so there was no reason to consider the f/2.8 version.
I've had the 70-200 f/4 for awhile and feel the same; I was amazed at its performance on the D800e...Sharp, contrasy, and beautiful color. It's also considerbly lighter and much easier to hand hold for long periods. The tripod collar is optional but it's light enough that I haven't felt the need to get it.
-
Yep, the 70-200 f4 is outstanding. Light, very sharp, incredibly effective VR, very well weather proofed.
Other Nikon lenses that are extremely good include:
- The 14-24mm f2.8,
- The 24mm f1.4, great look and also very sharp,
- The 85mm f1.8 (one of the best deal to be had short of Sigma Art series) and f1.4 AF-S,
- The 200mm f2.0 VR II, one of the best lenses ever designed whatever the make, but this is heavy.
The 58mm f1.4 is quickly becoming a cult lens in Japan for its bokeh and look (and got selected best lens in 2014 in Japan btw), but seems not to get the same admiration in the rest of the world.
Among third party lenses, the Sigma Art (35 mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.4) as well as some of the Zeiss lenses (namely at least the 25mm f2.0, the 100mm f2.0, the 135mm f2.0 and Otus 55mm f1.4) are outstanding, the other ZF lenses are very good too. The Tamron 24-70 f2.8 stabilized is getting good reviews too.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...also wish Nikon had a lens like the 135 F2.
They do have a wonderful 135 f/2 DC (Defocus Control), which is a very refined portrait lens. Nikon has had a patent out for the last year and a half on a new 135 f/1.8 AF-S design, but we have no idea if/when we'll see it.
I love the current 135/2. It's sharp across the frame from f/3.2 on. Bokeh to beat the band, especially when fine-tuned with the defocus control.
[PS: I realized later that Petrus said just this earlier. Oops.]
-
In regards to software, I repeatedly read that Nikon's own RAW converter is best for processing RAW.
I was, by the way, tempted by the Nikon D800, but I also liked the way Canon displayed skin tones and colors and I had all kinds of Canon specific equipment like Canon Pocketwizards (with the high speed sync).
The one think I envy Nikon photographers is the 14-24. Canon has nothing in the wide angle area, and just keeps on bringing out more and more tele zooms.
That and the great resolution of the D800 are both very tempting to leave Canon behind.
-
They do have a wonderful 135 f/2 DC (Defocus Control), which is a very refined portrait lens. Nikon has had a patent out for the last year and a half on a new 135 f/1.8 AF-S design, but we have no idea if/when we'll see it.
I love the current 135/2. It's sharp across the frame from f/3.2 on. Bokeh to beat the band, especially when fine-tuned with the defocus control.
I think I tried one of those on my F4's about 75 years ago ?
Time for a new model perhaps ? :o
-
I see there's a rumour for a new D800 coming soon. I hope that's correct as I might be able to save some money on a run out existing model.
It's good to see Nikkor have a 14-24mm zoom. Nice complement to the other zooms. But WAY too expensive for me, I guess (although, given I'll be shooting mainly landscape, it might make sense to spend money at that end of the focal length scale, and maybe skimp at the 70-200 end). I was probably just going to go with the cheapie Samyang 14mm. But having said that, that was for the Canon. Am I right in thinking that Nikon can use all the old manual focus lenses, and lenses from other systems as well?
-
I think I tried one of those on my F4's about 75 years ago ?
Time for a new model perhaps ? :o
105mm f/2 DC is still one of the sharpest Nikkors available, and the 135mm f/2 DC is very good. Optically there is little to better, and they are solid all metal old school lenses. The only complaint could be the pin driven AF, but with slow portraiture shooting that is not a problem.
I have been shooting portraits with the new 58 f/1.4 for a week now, and I like it a lot for the creamy bokeh. It is not perfectly sharp at full open especially towards the corners, though, so I am getting the Sigma Art instead and return the Nikkor to the rightful owner (it has been on loan while he was vacationing).
-
Am I right in thinking that Nikon can use all the old manual focus lenses, and lenses from other systems as well?
The D800(E) can handle all AI or AIS F-mount manual focus lenses. Focusing them accurately...that's a trickier thing. As for non-F lenses...no, Nikon uses a longer register than other brands. This makes F lenses easily adaptable to other camera systems but is a large obstacle in adapting lenses with other mounts to Nikon cameras.
-Dave-
-
My condolences on the fungus attack. May I suggest that before you buy a new camera and lenses, you 1. bag the old gear and get it out of the house 2. purchase a dry cabinet to store your new gear. Most are made by companies in the Far East.
http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2013/05/how-to-look-after-your-lenses-aka-summer-is-coming/
http://www.aipo.com.my/product.html
http://www.eurekadrytech.com/
http://contrastly.com/photo-gear-dry-box/
-
The Zeiss 135 f2 APO is stunningly sharp and well corrected.
-
Having just shot some portrait assignments with both the new Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 and Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 I have to say Sigma is just unbelievably sharp at full open, downright unreal!
-
My condolences on the fungus attack. May I suggest that before you buy a new camera and lenses, you 1. bag the old gear and get it out of the house 2. purchase a dry cabinet to store your new gear. Most are made by companies in the Far East.
http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2013/05/how-to-look-after-your-lenses-aka-summer-is-coming/
http://www.aipo.com.my/product.html
http://www.eurekadrytech.com/
http://contrastly.com/photo-gear-dry-box/
Yeah, I'm giving all my old gear to my ex-wife. :D
I will definitely look into some gear to keep the new equipment dry. I'm moving to the coast, so will definitely need it.
-
Bernie,
Am I right in thinking that Nikon can use all the old manual focus lenses...
Check out this (http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility). Hope it helps.
-
I see there's a rumour for a new D800 coming soon. I hope that's correct as I might be able to save some money on a run out existing model.
It's good to see Nikkor have a 14-24mm zoom. Nice complement to the other zooms. But WAY too expensive for me, I guess (although, given I'll be shooting mainly landscape, it might make sense to spend money at that end of the focal length scale, and maybe skimp at the 70-200 end). I was probably just going to go with the cheapie Samyang 14mm. But having said that, that was for the Canon. Am I right in thinking that Nikon can use all the old manual focus lenses, and lenses from other systems as well?
Hi Bernie...
I don't know if you've gotten your Nikon yet...but like you, I'm moving over from Canon to Nikon....
It's not a stretch of a move as I've been using Nikkors and Nikkor mount 3rd party lenses on Canons for 8 years now...
....This week I took my first shots ever with a Nikon dSLR....very impressive JPEGS @ ISO 2500 off the D610
...Nikon default settings...so SOOB...taken at BBuy with MF Vivitar Series1 28-90/2.8-3.5, so yes vintage MF lenses work well on the Nikon FX sensor
full frame and modest crops...Since this forum resized them....here's a link to the original uploaded images
http://forum.mflenses.com/nikon-d610-1st-shots-t68822.html
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/907/UQxJlJ.jpg)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/901/5v3k9s.jpg)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/537/WkuzlC.jpg)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/745/OioUfD.jpg)
VERY impressed....even at ISO 2500 the full 35mm size sensor is a great canvas....
The focus confirmation LED works well, unobtrusively, when you get used to it...
The lens is pretty good too, eh....
(I hope this larger size pix are okay...)
-
Has anybody compared Nikon 70-200 F4 with Sigma 70-200 F2.8? Both are priced very similarly.
-
With Nikon the pro lenses will be faster, i.e. f2.8 as with the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 zoom lenses and f1.4 with the primes except for the 105mm f2 DC lens and the tilt shift lenses. The hobby level lenses are the ones with 4x or greater zoom ranges and almost always a f5.6 at maximum zoom as with the 28-300mm f4.5~5.6 lenses.
I have shot professionally with both systems and Canon has some great primes and the best tilt shift lenses but falls short when it comes to zoom lenses with the possible exception of the 17-40 f4 and 24-105 f4 zooms which excellent. I used the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens on my Canon cameras as the autofocus with the 24-70mm f2.8 L lens was not consistent. When I had a chance to go back to Nikon with the introduction of the D3 and the 14-24mm and 24-70mm lenses I did not hesitate to make the switch back, though it was expensive.
Some excellent wide angle Nikon lenses include the 14-24mm f2.8 and the 18-35mm f3.5G and to a lesser degree the 16-35mm f4 VR lens. If you shoot with the 14-24mm you will find it difficult to accept anything less.
Something to be aware of is that the majority of Nikon lenses have a 77mm filter size which is very convenient. If you use third party lenses you will need multiple filter sets. There is also a problem in using Nikon telephotos with teleconverters from Sigma and others and in using Nikon teleconverters with Sigma and other lenses.
Mildew comes from poor ventilation and moisture buildup. Keep your lenses out of their cases and in a space where there is adequate air circulation. Damprid is an inexpensive way to remove moisture from a closet or cabinet and it works very well. Also do not use leather lens cases or camera bags as they are a great growth media for mildew spores.
-
Mildew comes from poor ventilation and moisture buildup. Keep your lenses out of their cases and in a space where there is adequate air circulation. Damprid is an inexpensive way to remove moisture from a closet or cabinet and it works very well. Also do not use leather lens cases or camera bags as they are a great growth media for mildew spores.
Here in south Florida I keep a fan facing my gear to keep air moving...stagnant air is the devil's breeding ground for mildew....
-
Been shooting Nikons for 30 years. Skip the 800E and go to the D810. The D810 has probably 80 refinements to it and operates faster.
The easiest way to tell "pro" lenses in Nikon is to look to see if they have Crystal Nano Coat. Only top of the lines lenses get an element with NCC. There are other Nikon lenses that might be weather sealed and durable as well.
The 24-70mm f/2.8 is awesome. Same with the 70-200mm f/2.8. The 12-24mm f/2.8 is the 3rd member of the Holy Trinity, is an awesome lens, but has a bulbous front element prone to flare and most find the 16-35mm f/4 VR more functional even with bad distortion at 16mm and not being quite as sharp. Also the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 well outperforms it's $750 price point but is not weather sealed.
The micro Nikkors are the lenses that pretty much made Nikon. The discontinued 70-180mm Zoom Micro Nikkor is awesome as well. The 58mm f/1.4G is magnificent. None of the 50mm lenses are all that special. The f/1.4G is the best, but the f/1.8 AF-D model is fine and can be bought around $100! The new AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is sharper than the 70-200mm f/2.8 with the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. And the 200mm f/2 and 200mm-400mm f/4 are both great.
-
Any Nikon lens with a gold ring can be considered "Pro". Almost all of them have the nano coating too.
-
Why does it matter if a lens, camera or other piece of gear is 'pro' or not? I care about the results, not the category of gear used to make it. That's why I shoot landscapes with 'pro' Canon tilt-shifts, Nikon 14-24, some Zeiss and Sigma lenses and a number of Canon and Nikon longer zooms, on a decidedly non-pro Sony A7r. Because it gives me the results I want, which I can't get from another combination of gear.
-
Why does it matter if a lens, camera or other piece of gear is 'pro' or not? I care about the results, not the category of gear used to make it. That's why I shoot landscapes with 'pro' Canon tilt-shifts, Nikon 14-24, some Zeiss and Sigma lenses and a number of Canon and Nikon longer zooms, on a decidedly non-pro Sony A7r. Because it gives me the results I want, which I can't get from another combination of gear.
In Nikon's case, it can mean a few things that might be meaningful to one, or not.
It generally means a certain level of build quality, able to stand up to heavy daily use for years at a time. It means weather-sealing. It does not always mean optical quality.
Case in point: the Nikon 85/1.4G versus the 85/1.8G. The 1.8 is optically on a par with the 1.4. The bokeh on the 1.4 is just a bit better. But the 1.4 has metal construction and weather sealing. As a value proposition, it really does make a difference what your uses are. The cost per use of the 1.4 is very low, but the cost to buy in is high. If you are a professional who is making money from using it, it is worth the price as an investment, otherwise, less so.
In the case of, for example, the D4, it means speed and connectivity, as well as durability. Other cameras match or exceed it in image quality for less money.
-
Mildew comes from poor ventilation and moisture buildup. Keep your lenses out of their cases and in a space where there is adequate air circulation. Damprid is an inexpensive way to remove moisture from a closet or cabinet and it works very well. Also do not use leather lens cases or camera bags as they are a great growth media for mildew spores.
Thanks for the tip! I haven't got around to getting a dry cabinet yet. Naughty, I know. The humidity is bad here.
So I ended up getting the new D810 with the Nikkor 14-24 and the Tamron SP 24-70. VERY happy with my purchase. There's a lot to like about this camera compared to the old 5D. So much control over the capture. And of course the bigger images and better IQ are definitely good! :)
-
Why does it matter if a lens, camera or other piece of gear is 'pro' or not? I care about the results, not the category of gear used to make it. That's why I shoot landscapes with 'pro' Canon tilt-shifts, Nikon 14-24, some Zeiss and Sigma lenses and a number of Canon and Nikon longer zooms, on a decidedly non-pro Sony A7r. Because it gives me the results I want, which I can't get from another combination of gear.
I wanted the best weather sealing and build construction for out in the field. Better IQ doesn't hurt either, obviously.
-
Thanks for the tip! I haven't got around to getting a dry cabinet yet. Naughty, I know. The humidity is bad here.
So I ended up getting the new D810 with the Nikkor 14-24 and the Tamron SP 24-70.
I have had 14-24 for 2 years and it has found actually surprisingly little use. It is big and heavy and have to be careful with the bulging front element. So it is going to the gear closet for special use only, replaced by the new 20mm f/1.8 in the bag. 95% the time 24-70 or 24-120 is wide enough for me, but the new 20mm would be nice when doing artsy shooting with 20, 35, 50 , 85 and 135mm Nikkor and Sigma (35 & 50) fast primes.
-
I have had 14-24 for 2 years and it has found actually surprisingly little use. It is big and heavy and have to be careful with the bulging front element.
I agree and tend to use the 28 1.8 over the 14-24 most of the time - it's a fantastic lens and light.
-
Been shooting Nikons for 30 years. Skip the 800E and go to the D810. The D810 has probably 80 refinements to it and operates faster.
The easiest way to tell "pro" lenses in Nikon is to look to see if they have Crystal Nano Coat. Only top of the lines lenses get an element with NCC. There are other Nikon lenses that might be weather sealed and durable as well.
The 24-70mm f/2.8 is awesome. Same with the 70-200mm f/2.8. The 12-24mm f/2.8 is the 3rd member of the Holy Trinity, is an awesome lens, but has a bulbous front element prone to flare and most find the 16-35mm f/4 VR more functional even with bad distortion at 16mm and not being quite as sharp. Also the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 well outperforms it's $750 price point but is not weather sealed.
The micro Nikkors are the lenses that pretty much made Nikon. The discontinued 70-180mm Zoom Micro Nikkor is awesome as well. The 58mm f/1.4G is magnificent. None of the 50mm lenses are all that special. The f/1.4G is the best, but the f/1.8 AF-D model is fine and can be bought around $100! The new AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is sharper than the 70-200mm f/2.8 with the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. And the 200mm f/2 and 200mm-400mm f/4 are both great.
I mostly agree but the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 is not a lens I would recommend. I really needs an upgrade with better sharpness in corners and in the sides of the image. Center sharpness is awesome. Although not ideal I chose the Sigma 24-105 f/4 for the D810. And the two other zooms are the Nikkor 70-200 f/4 VR which is better than the f/2.8 VRII (which I sold again) and the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8. The latter is not without flaws though.
-
the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8. The latter is not without flaws though.
Optically it is an amazing lens, as good or better than almost all equivalent primes. Flaws: size and weight, flare, exposed front lens.
-
Optically it is an amazing lens, as good or better than almost all equivalent primes. Flaws: size and weight, flare, exposed front lens.
And focus shift. I have had some cases where sharpness was not that great and possibly focus shift could have caused it.