New 50mm Lens From Nikon

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Manzoorul Hassan, Jan 17, 2008.

  1. Manzoorul  Hassan

    Pete D Guest

    Still from B&H or Adorama you will still probably save more than $100. Last
    lens I bought I saved at least $150.
     
    Pete D, Jan 19, 2008
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Oh. Sorry, when I see "$" I think U.S. unless it says otherwise.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 20, 2008
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Manzoorul  Hassan

    N Guest

    My reply containing the price was to a fellow Australian :)
     
    N, Jan 20, 2008
    #63
  4. Buy Canon, get a 50mm f/1.8 (I:1987-03, II:1990-12), f/1.4
    (1993-06), f/1.2 (2007-01) and f/1.0 (1989-09).

    Of course, if you want to wait one-and-a-half decades for a
    standard lens ...
    You could have a 85mm f/1.2 or f/1.8 ...
    If you need tilt and shift, you know where to look.
    I hear that all these mobile phone cameras are also not exactly
    using old optical formulas. You may want to buy some for your
    "new is gooood becaus it's new" sweet tooth.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 20, 2008
    #64
  5. They are always usable. It may be, however, that you don't
    know how to use them. Which would explain a lot of things.
    I have heard that trees and buildings are very very agile.
    Some of them jump aside before you even manage to point the camera.
    Others wiggle their window shutters at you at the drop of a hat.
    The fatter the lens, the better?
    Strange logic.
    Especially when you do macro shooting and want some sort of
    sharpness beyond the thickness of a sheet of paper --- air mail
    letter paper, extra thin, that is.

    Of course, a fast lens and high ISO and IS trumps a fast lens
    and high ISO without IS every time, but that's sort of complicated.

    .... with the same shooter. Aye, and I'll be the King of China.

    Did noone ever explain to you that IS doesn't mean you should
    aquire tatters to offset it? Oh, a new idea! Run, Rita, run!
    It's creeping up on you!
    I'll take an intelligent comment over 100 unthingink Ritas
    any day of the week.

    Although unlike you I don't have a religion that tells me you
    cannot change, ever --- just that it's unlikely.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 20, 2008
    #65
  6. The old saying about "more lenses than photographic knowledge"
    comes to mind. At least when one sees the images Rita deigns to
    show to us mere mortals.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 20, 2008
    #66
  7. According to Rita that's the way to go.

    OTOH, maybe one should have an f/11 open aperture 20 or 35mm lens
    just for such cases ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 21, 2008
    #67
  8. Not really: all those who never handled a camera will still
    be raising their hands, down to the newborn babe.
    No, the whole point is that tripods are a bear to carry and
    set up, and even monopods are not that mobile (and IS can
    stack with monopods, and even with some tripod shakes).

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 21, 2008
    #68
  9. For a very, very long time all photography was done with
    tripods, on account of the rather low sensitivity of the
    material and the rather slow lenses.

    And even though removing the tripod for some types of
    shooting certainly has many drawbacks, people seem to enjoy
    the positive sides of it ...
    IS expands the borders of tripodless photography, and people seem
    to enjoy it.
    Sure, you can lug around all the tripods you like, noone's
    gonna stop you. But for me, I'll prefer to be able to not
    use the tripod, even if it's LV 3 and 300mm equiv.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 21, 2008
    #69
  10. Do you have some sort of actual graph that shows this?

    I don't think anyone disputes the fact that VR is more beneficial at longer
    focal lengths -- largely because that's where camera shake becomes most
    apparent; at shorter focal lengths it's still there but is simply less
    visible. But your repeated insistence that 50mm is some short of
    metaphysical dividing line between what's useful and what isn't has no basis
    in fact that I can see.

    I'm sure others have found as I have that VR (etc.) gives improved sharpness
    at wide angle too. The difference isn't as dramatic because at shorter focal
    lengths there wouldn't be as much blur from camera shake anyway, but there
    is still a noticeable and useful difference. I don't believe there is any
    "nosedive at 50mm."

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 21, 2008
    #70
  11. That it does help (and greatly) sometimes is all that's asked of it.

    Contrariwise, good technique is not usually a substitute for VR.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 21, 2008
    #71
  12. Wants a lens, not a copy machine.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 21, 2008
    #72
  13. Manzoorul  Hassan

    user Guest

    The "50mm is limit" person has a correct point, he just
    overuses it.


    There is a limit at how long the usual IS/VR system can function
    without "wandering". That is, even if it were sitting on
    a rock solid tripod, at some point the system itself would
    cause the aim point to wander about. That point begins to
    intersect the time the typical person can handhold a camera
    without obvious shake at about 50 mm. But its not a sharp line.
    It simply means that IS will improve a smaller percentage of shots
    at wider angles.

    I did a lot of tests of this, and found that statistically,
    the IS system on my 24-105 f/4L Canon lens was more likely than
    not to produce a better picture when turned on, even at
    speeds like a/4 second and even at settings like 24mm, than
    if turned off. But only at 50mm or longer was it living up
    to the usual hype that it would double or triple the usable
    exposure time .... reliably. The key word is reliably.
    But even at 24 mm, taking 5 shots and praying is more likely to
    turn out happily with the IS on than off.


    Doug McDonald
     
    user, Jan 21, 2008
    #73
  14. Who needs a graph to show us that a lens isn't performing? Take yours for a
    test drive and you'll see what I mean.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 21, 2008
    #74
  15. I got one of those sitting in a shoebox. It's not one of the sharpest
    lenses out there. Even with VR on it does nothing to improve 50mm and wider
    shots. Turn VR off if you don't believe me.






    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 21, 2008
    #75
  16. Not with ISO-6400 and above, baby! The old 50 just works so well at any
    aperture in the most challenging situations on the D3. Very deep DoF is
    just a turn of the thumbwheel away.






    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 21, 2008
    #76
  17. I have, many times, and my experience does not support what you say. VR
    still helps at shorter focal lengths, if not as dramatically.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 21, 2008
    #77
  18. I'm sure you get similar results from sugar pills in a double-blind test as
    well?




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 21, 2008
    #78
  19. Manzoorul  Hassan

    user Guest


    Then there is something wrong with the VR.

    Doug McDonald
     
    user, Jan 21, 2008
    #79
  20. Nope, it works per designed specification. And the VR works much better on
    this lens than it does with equivalent Canon lenses with IS.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 21, 2008
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.