Nikon D850: Announcement of an Announcement of Development

[Jim Kasson]

A 105mm lens is useless if you need 100mm or 120mm, let alone 70mm or 200mm. You need a lens that fits the scene and angle of view you're shooting. If you have to go looking for a scene that fits your lens each time, you won't get very far and will miss a lot of shots.

I am speechless. The only situation in which I can imagine a 105 being useless in which a 100 would work fine is a subject where getting further back is not possible and I needed the slight additional FOV to get what I wanted into the picture.

I've been using 105's on FF cameras since the 60s. In all that time I have never said to myself, "I wish I had a 100 on the camera now." I suppose it could happen tomorrow, but I think that's a big, big reach. I use primes about 85% of the time.

Jim

[Guillermo Luijk]

And having a 120mm from a 105mm is even easier: slight crop (keep 88% of the original frame). In digital imaging the only implication of changing the FOV, i.e. cropping, is the loss of Mpx. And the D850 has tons of that! you'd still have a 35Mpx 120mm image if I did the calculation right.
 

Regards

[BernardLanguillier]

The application drove the choice of the lens this time around, I was on a sailing boat and wanted to benefit from stabilization.

But the 70-200 f2.8 E FL is better than most primes I have used anyway, in the very same ballpark as the 105mm f1.4.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jim Kasson]

The application drove the choice of the lens this time around, I was on a sailing boat and wanted to benefit from stabilization.

But the 70-200 f2.8 E FL is better than most primes I have used anyway, in the very same ballpark as the 105mm f1.4.

My copy of the 70-200 is excellent, but it's not quite as good as the 105 at f/1.4. 

[NancyP]

It's pretty simple. What is the role of the new camera? Do you like shooting with primes, even if you have zooms available, and are you shooting in situations where you have enough time to switch primes? Or, are you shooting fast-moving subjects or shooting in harsh weather conditions where you really don't want to change lenses?

[Ray]

A 105mm lens is useless if you need 100mm or 120mm, let alone 70mm or 200mm. You need a lens that fits the scene and angle of view you're shooting. If you have to go looking for a scene that fits your lens each time, you won't get very far and will miss a lot of shots.

Shadowblade is obviously exaggerating the situation with his choice of FL examples, but the principle is still valid.

If you are using a prime in order to get the best resolution from your camera, then cropping the image to get a longer focal-length-equivalent, defeats the purpose of using a prime in preference to a zoom.

Likewise, if the FL of your prime is too long for a particular scene, and you have to spend time walking backwards, if you can, trying to avoid tripping up and smashing your camera on the ground, then you could quite easily 'miss the moment' and lose the shot.

[Stephen Starkman]

A 105mm lens is useless if you need 100mm or 120mm, let alone 70mm or 200mm. You need a lens that fits the scene and angle of view you're shooting. If you have to go looking for a scene that fits your lens each time, you won't get very far and will miss a lot of shots.

Sorry, that's just ridiculous - sounds like an argument for the sake of arguing.
Just my opinion.

Stephen

[shadowblade]

I am speechless. The only situation in which I can imagine a 105 being useless in which a 100 would work fine is a subject where getting further back is not possible and I needed the slight additional FOV to get what I wanted into the picture.

I've been using 105's on FF cameras since the 60s. In all that time I have never said to myself, "I wish I had a 100 on the camera now." I suppose it could happen tomorrow, but I think that's a big, big reach. I use primes about 85% of the time.

Jim

I run into that problem all the time.

If I have a 100mm lens and actually needed 95mm, I can't just reverse into the side of a mountain, or off a bridge, to increase the field of view. If I needed a slightly longer focal length, I can't walk off a cliff or fly into the air to get closer. Staying in the same spot and cropping costs resolution. And changing position changes the relationship of objects in relation to each other - it's not the same as changing focal length.

If you're shooting macros, portraits or other subjects where you have more freedom to move around the subject without adversely affecting composition, it would be a different situation.

[shadowblade]

Sorry, that's just ridiculous - sounds like an argument for the sake of arguing.
Just my opinion.

Stephen

So, what are you going to do when you're shooting from a bridge or a cliff-hugging trail, and need 90mm or 100mm? Shoot with your 55mm and crop? Or shoot with the 105mm and end up with a composition that's too zoomed in (possibly even losing the edges of it if it's tight)?

[kers]

So, what are you going to do when you're shooting from a bridge or a cliff-hugging trail, and need 90mm or 100mm? Shoot with your 55mm and crop? Or shoot with the 105mm and end up with a composition that's too zoomed in (possibly even losing the edges of it if it's tight)?

make a stitch

[BernardLanguillier]

make a stitch

Indeed, I carried only my Zeiss 100mm f2.0 and a pano head for a few years back in the days.

Some of my favorite images were captured with the set up. Once you get used to stitching this way it becomes so easy that you just do it.

Cheers,
Bernard

[S@W]

Making most of my photography as a hobby, missing a shot because I couldn’t frame it perfectly won’t be a drama.
Having a perfectly framed shot that lacks the crispness of a prime lens on the other side could become one 

Moreover I find zoom lenses distracting and far prefer the ‘liberating constraints’  of shooting with a prime.
When a prime is mounted on my body my eye start to frame like it and it makes it easier to find a nice shot.
Of course sometimes I miss some opportunities but the balance is still far more positive.

However to get better AF and low light capacity when needed and also more flexibility during paid jobs time I’ve decided to buy the D850.
If the 70-200mm FL is that good on it, I won’t bother with primes in that range for the Nikon.
What Bernard says is very encouraging but I guess I’ll still have to see by myself what IQ gap (if any) there is between the zoom @105 & f2.8 and the 105 f1.4  at the same aperture f.i.  My idea is to go for the Nikon 70-200mm Fl or the Tamron G2 + Nikon 105mm f1.4 depending on the IQ packages.

I perfectly understand and respect those that prefer the zoom flexibility and suppose they’ll do the same for the prime lovers 

[BernardLanguillier]

Just to be clear, I own both the 105mm f1.4, that I consider to be the best portrait lens on the market, and the 70-200 f2.8 E FL.

They are close optically but the 105mm f1.4 has a magic at f1.4 and close reach that is unique, while remaining excellent technically. The 105mm f1.4 caused me to sell my beloved Otus 85mm f1.4.

The 70-200 is faster AF wise, as fast as the super teles in my experience, stabilized and obviously offers the flexibility of the zoom. It is also fully weather proofed and is really a no brainer for the kind of sailing applications I was dealing with. Per my quick initial assessment, my hit ration of perfectly focused images on a moving platform is in excess of 90%... and that is without having had to do any focus calibration.

I have found my copy of the 105mm f1.4 to require some focus calibration on all my bodies and the AF isn't as fast unfortunately.

Two amazing tool standing at the very pinacle of optics.

If I were to pick one I'd probably get the 70-200 f2.8 E FL, it is that good.

Cheers,
Bernard

[S@W]

Many thanks for this feedback Bernard !

[Bo_Dez]

I think the new Nikon 70-200 is widely acknowledged as the best zoom going by many of the very top photographers around. The positives outweigh what is lost from a prime for those who need to flexibility a zoom offers.

Stitching, moving around, or what ever focal length workaround you can think of is often not an option for some people in some situations. Especially so for those that require a 70-200.

[Bo_Dez]

D850 + 70-200mm f2.8 E FL

The D850 colors may be its strongest point!

Cheers,
Bernard

Absolutely stunning colour and sharpness, the best I have seen in a 35mm camera.

I am still seeing the brittleness of the smaller sensor aesthetic though.

[Rob C]

Just to be clear, I own both the 105mm f1.4, that I consider to be the best portrait lens on the market, and the 70-200 f2.8 E FL.

They are close optically but the 105mm f1.4 has a magic at f1.4 and close reach that is unique, while remaining excellent technically. The 105mm f1.4 caused me to sell my beloved Otus 85mm f1.4.

The 70-200 is faster AF wise, as fast as the super teles in my experience, stabilized and obviously offers the flexibility of the zoom. It is also fully weather proofed and is really a no brainer for the kind of sailing applications I was dealing with. Per my quick initial assessment, my hit ration of perfectly focused images on a moving platform is in excess of 90%... and that is without having had to do any focus calibration.

I have found my copy of the 105mm f1.4 to require some focus calibration on all my bodies and the AF isn't as fast unfortunately.

Two amazing tool standing at the very pinacle of optics.

If I were to pick one I'd probably get the 70-200 f2.8 E FL, it is that good.

Cheers,
Bernard

Was it here, or was it on the Online Photographer that there was a breakdown of how lenses are tested, the variations found between individual ones of the same spec and name? It explained how variations are measured, where many of the lens problems lie and originate. The fact that zooms usually carry even more separate lenses than primes multiplies the chance of manufacturing and assembly errors hugely. Taking one good example of a lens, and of a zoom in particular, as a norm applicable to all of the others bearing the same name is a massive leap of faith and probably far from sound.

I have only once bought a zoom - in my second life as an amateur - and it was the Nikkor G 24-70mm which I'd imagined would give me a wonderful walkaround glass. What a mistake! Even on a D200 with its small sensor, thus using only the central area of the lens's circle, the results were hopeless at any focal length. And I wasn't thinking in terms of big prints, just A3+ maximum. Yet, Russ posted a few shots of images he'd made in a café with the same lens (obviously, not mine) and they were beautifully crisp. And to think I'd been using a heavy Gitzo and he not. But one way or another, even had it been perfectly wonderful, the reality is that it's just too damned big and heavy to cart around all morning on a string.

Of course, it might just have been the body and/or lens didn't love one another; fortunately, the body seems happy to have mechanical sex with the remaining lenses I own, manual ones and also the af pair.

[hogloff]

Moreover I find zoom lenses distracting and far prefer the ‘liberating constraints’  of shooting with a prime.
When a prime is mounted on my body my eye start to frame like it and it makes it easier to find a nice shot.
Of course sometimes I miss some opportunities but the balance is still far more positive.

This is exactly my feelings ad well. I love shooting primes as my focus and vision gets in tune with that one focal length and I feel I get better images because of this focus rather than continuously thinking maybe a different focal length of the zoom would be better.

When I go out street shooting, I'd have something like a 25mm prime in the morning and look at closeup environmental type of images with in your face photos and change to an 85mm lens in the evening for more candid images.

[BernardLanguillier]

Zooms certainly require more brain power since U have one additional degree of freedom to play with.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

Indeed, I carried only my Zeiss 100mm f2.0 and a pano head for a few years back in the days.

Some of my favorite images were captured with the set up. Once you get used to stitching this way it becomes so easy that you just do it.

Cheers,
Bernard

Works very well when it's an option - I do it myself all the time - but that isn't always the case.

Try making a good stitch while standing on a narrow suspension bridge over a Himalayan gorge. It's not going to happen - the bridge is always moving and vibrating slightly. A slight breeze is enough to shift an image by a few pixels, even when there are no other people or yaks crossing the bridge at the same time. And the real problem isn't translational movements - parallax shifts don't come into play when shooting distant subjects (I don't even use a nodal pano head most of the time, because the nearest subject is many metres away and a parallax error of a few cm isn't recorded) - but rotational movements leading to objects pointing in slightly different directions between frames.

Then there are locations which just don't let you use tripods.