Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question! (II)

peterbj7 wrote in post #13980578
I'm seriously considering replacing my 5D with a D800E. What lens would people suggest as a replacement walk-around zoom lens for my 24-105L?

The 24-120 VR is the one you want.

http://www.nikonusa.co​m …120mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html

24-120 F4 is meant to be a good lens.

Where does that fit in the quality lineup, and what does "S" mean in AF-S?

peterbj7 wrote in post #13980733
Where does that fit in the quality lineup, and what does "S" mean in AF-S?

AFS mean the lens is equipped with a silent wave motor for fast autofocus operation. Nikon lenses that are not AFS are focused by a motor in the camera body. AFS lenses focus faster and quieter than non AFS lens. They are more expensive, but they are usually top end pieces of glass.

Thanks. I wondered whether it had any relationship to the "S" in EF-S, and it doesn't.

I haven't decided on this course of action yet. I have someone interested in buying my 5D and the lenses that would really go with it, so I need to see what happens there. I see my 5D only has 7600 clicks, so my usage isn't exactly demanding.

If I go Nikon, I'll also get the Nikon-mount Sigma 12-24, unless someone persuades me of a better. For the time being I won't go longer than 120, as I'll have the 7D and my 100-400L. But if I did want to get a long telephoto for FF Nikon, what would you suggest? I'm tempted by the Bigma II, but I'd research a lot before I bought it.

peterbj7 wrote in post #13980835
Thanks. I wondered whether it had any relationship to the "S" in EF-S, and it doesn't.

I haven't decided on this course of action yet. I have someone interested in buying my 5D and the lenses that would really go with it, so I need to see what happens there. I see my 5D only has 7600 clicks, so my usage isn't exactly demanding.

If I go Nikon, I'll also get the Nikon-mount Sigma 12-24, unless someone persuades me of a better. For the time being I won't go longer than 120, as I'll have the 7D and my 100-400L. But if I did want to get a long telephoto for FF Nikon, what would you suggest? I'm tempted by the Bigma II, but I'd research a lot before I bought it.

What's the FL range of the Bigma II?

50-500. It has a pretty good name, and the pictures I've seen posted here in the relevant thread seem pretty good. Of course, being Sigma it will probably be necessary to get it calibrated, but the potential seems good. I'm just wondering whether a 36mp sensor might show up whatever flaws it has?

peterbj7 wrote in post #13980913
50-500. It has a pretty good name, and the pictures I've seen posted here in the relevant thread seem pretty good. Of course, being Sigma it will probably be necessary to get it calibrated, but the potential seems good. I'm just wondering whether a 36mp sensor might show up whatever flaws it has?

Idk to be honest. I guess your best option is to rent it before you buy it.

Can't rent down here.

Peter, I see you have a 100-400L. For me the biggest weakness in the Nikon line-up is the lack of a high quality, affordable lens to compete with Canon's 100-400. Sure the 200-400 f/4VR II is excellent, but it's also $7000! Also, IMO the Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 isn't in the same league IQ wise as the Canon 100-400 and neither are the Sigma options.

If the Nikon 300mm f/4 with a 1.4X t-con produces good IQ it might be the best economical option to get to 400+mm. AF might be a bit slow though.

I just have to ask, why are so many Nikonites choosing the 14-24 over the 16-35 II? The 14-24 cant take filters, which is kinda "important" when shooting landscapes.

Question number 2. Why are there no real high quality 50mm lenses from Nikon? I mean high end stuff like Canon's 50L..

I just want to figure some things out, in case I want to switch brands after Canon's 5D3 announcement, which will probably disappoint me to no end.

If I do switch, then I'll probably start with the 85 1.4G, and one of the two wide angle lenses. After summer, I'll pick up the 35 1.4 or a 50mm.

Tonyz wrote in post #13981525
I just have to ask, why are so many Nikonites choosing the 14-24 over the 16-35 II? The 14-24 cant take filters, which is kinda "important" when shooting landscapes.

Question number 2. Why are there no real high quality 50mm lenses from Nikon? I mean high end stuff like Canon's 50L..

I just want to figure some things out, in case I want to switch brands after Canon's 5D3 announcement, which will probably disappoint me to no end.

If I do switch, then I'll probably start with the 85 1.4G, and one of the two wide angle lenses. After summer, I'll pick up the 35 1.4 or a 50mm.

I'll answer your first question. The 14-24 does take filters. Due to it's bulbous element, it's impossible to use a CPL but, it can take GNDs.


Second question. Nikon has good 50 MM lenses. It doesn't have to be high priced like the 50 L but, the 50 1.4 G and 50 1.8 G are very good.

Tonyz wrote in post #13981525
I just have to ask, why are so many Nikonites choosing the 14-24 over the 16-35 II? The 14-24 cant take filters, which is kinda "important" when shooting landscapes.

f2.8 vs f4....that means a lot to many

Tonyz wrote in post #13981525
Question number 2. Why are there no real high quality 50mm lenses from Nikon? I mean high end stuff like Canon's 50L..

They have a 50/1.2 that's wonderful BUT it's all manual. Nikon has failed to offer a newer 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 like Canon has. The 85/1.4G is still rather new so I don't think a 1.2 version will be coming out anytime soon. Maybe they'll decide to update their 50/1.2 sooner rather than later.

I'm on the hunt for the 50/1.8G now. The 85G on my crop body is a bit long. If anyone knows where one is in stock give me a heads up. Thanks.

dgrPhotos wrote in post #13981721
I'm on the hunt for the 50/1.8G now. The 85G on my crop body is a bit long. If anyone knows where one is in stock give me a heads up. Thanks.

How about Nikkor 35mm F/1.8G DX / B+W UV F-Pro MRC?

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/....php?​t=1141991