«

Well, I am sure Nikon frequents this group so I will just voice my
product development requests here.

I am a fan of primes and would really like to see more of them in AF-S
formats. I had not noticed how few primes exist in AF-S. It may force me
to get a better camera body sooner rather than later.

My wish-list.

For now:

A very fast 58mm prime. I want something that I can set with very narrow
depth of field and good bokeh. In case your curious this would be about
an 85mm equivalent on DX.

For later:

Fast 135mm lens.
Very fast 85mm, to rival Canon's

Well, I am sure Nikon will get right on this.
Just my 2 cents.

Steven G.

In message news:Rg89l.3798$(E-Mail Removed), Steven Green
<steven{dot}(E-Mail Removed)> said:

> In case your curious

"you're"

On 07 Jan 2009 21:02:30 GMT, Father Guido Sarducci wrote:

> > In case your curious
>
> "you're"

yellow!

"Steven Green" <steven{dot}(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Rg89l.3798$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Well, I am sure Nikon frequents this group so I will just voice my product
> development requests here.
>
> I am a fan of primes and would really like to see more of them in AF-S
> formats. I had not noticed how few primes exist in AF-S. It may force me
> to get a better camera body sooner rather than later.
>
> My wish-list.
>
> For now:
>
> A very fast 58mm prime. I want something that I can set with very narrow
> depth of field and good bokeh. In case your curious this would be about an
> 85mm equivalent on DX.
>
An 58mm is a cropped 58mm, it is not an 85mm. If it was a 58mm f:1.4, the
85mm f:1.4 on a FF body would have less DOF than a 58mm f:1.4 on a DX body
at the same aperture. Perspective will be different at the same subject
size.

Father Guido Sarducci wrote:

> In message news:Rg89l.3798$(E-Mail Removed), Steven Green
> <steven{dot}(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> In case your curious
>
> "you're"

Sometimes I type like I speak, didn't notice that one.
But I gather you know what I meant.

>> A very fast 58mm prime. I want something that I can set with very narrow
>> depth of field and good bokeh. In case your curious this would be about
>> an 85mm equivalent on DX.
>>
> An 58mm is a cropped 58mm, it is not an 85mm. If it was a 58mm f:1.4, the
> 85mm f:1.4 on a FF body would have less DOF than a 58mm f:1.4 on a DX body
> at the same aperture. Perspective will be different at the same subject
> size.
I understand that it is a cropped 58mm, but maybe I am missing something.

I want a picture that has the angle of view that an 85mm 35mm film camera
has. For a 1.5 crop factor FX to DX I gather that this would need to be
about a 58mm, now I request a 58mm as I expect to get a FX camera down the
road and would rather not loose this lens.

To get this FOV on a DX lens it wouldn't it need to be 58mm? If not I may
need to adjust my wishlist.

> An 58mm is a cropped 58mm, it is not an 85mm. If it was a 58mm f:1.4, the
> 85mm f:1.4 on a FF body would have less DOF than a 58mm f:1.4 on a DX body
> at the same aperture. Perspective will be different at the same subject
> size.

OK I think I see, I needed to reread this for it to sink in.

OK then I take it it would need to be faster than the 1.4 85mm to get the
equivalent effect.

My lack of knowledge here is why I didn't put in any apertures and left it
vague.

I'll gladly take an 1.2 or 1.0 58mm lens.
It is my wish-list after all.

Steven Green wrote:

>> An 58mm is a cropped 58mm, it is not an 85mm. If it was a 58mm f:1.4, the
>> 85mm f:1.4 on a FF body would have less DOF than a 58mm f:1.4 on a DX
>> body at the same aperture. Perspective will be different at the same
>> subject size.
>
> OK I think I see, I needed to reread this for it to sink in.
>
> OK then I take it it would need to be faster than the 1.4 85mm to get the
> equivalent effect.
>
> My lack of knowledge here is why I didn't put in any apertures and left it
> vague.
>
> I'll gladly take an 1.2 or 1.0 58mm lens.
> It is my wish-list after all.

OK maybe I can get educated here a little.

I historically preferred to take wide landscapes and was familiar with
aperture values needed to get good DOF, where I wanted a lot sharp in focus.

On the other end I understand that a fast lens is good in low light
scenarios and big apertures lead to smaller DOF.

Where I am not sure is this. My interest in a lens was to get a lens that is
sharp for a small distance then quickly goes out of focus creating a blurry
background, I too often hate an image not because of the foreground or the
subject but rather what is going on behind the subject,

Is the only thing that effects the DOF the aperture? Note that I am not
interested in low light conditions, although that might be nice too.

The reason I ask is that for macro photography I notice that the DOF is very
shallow when extension tubes are used. Would a very short extension tube and
the existing 50mm 1.4 AF-S lens accomplish this? ... OK now I am just
thinking out loud.

Steven G.

> The reason I ask is that for macro photography I notice that the DOF is
> very shallow when extension tubes are used. Would a very short extension
> tube and the existing 50mm 1.4 AF-S lens accomplish this? ... OK now I am
> just thinking out loud.

Or maybe the 60mm micro AF-S might accomplish this.
I feel like I am having a conversation with myself with all my posts

Steven Green <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> OK then I take it it would need to be faster than the 1.4 85mm to get the
>> equivalent effect.

To be exactly equivalent, yes, but it's not an important difference unless
you're actually trying to photographically duplicate something.

Note that there already is a 58mm f/1.2, but it is only available used and
is horrendously expensive. (It's also manual focus, of course.)

If you require autofocus, the existing 50mm lenses are close enough, really.

> Is the only thing that effects the DOF the aperture?

Focus distance, too. You get less depth of field when the focus is closer.

> The reason I ask is that for macro photography I notice that the DOF is very
> shallow when extension tubes are used. Would a very short extension tube and
> the existing 50mm 1.4 AF-S lens accomplish this?

No. The shallower depth of field is because of the shorter focus distance.
A short extension tube on a 50mm would only restrict your focus distance,
so you would only be able to focus on things very close to the camera.

--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly (E-Mail Removed))