Nikon Wishlist

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Steven Green, Jan 7, 2009.

  1. Steven Green

    Steven Green Guest

    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.
    Steven Green, Jan 7, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. In message Steven Green
    Father Guido Sarducci, Jan 7, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Steven Green

    ASAAR Guest

    ASAAR, Jan 7, 2009
  4. Steven Green

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    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
    Nomen Nescio, Jan 7, 2009
  5. Steven Green

    Steven Green Guest

    Sometimes I type like I speak, didn't notice that one.
    But I gather you know what I meant.:)
    Steven Green, Jan 7, 2009
  6. Steven Green

    Steven Green Guest

    A very fast 58mm prime. I want something that I can set with very narrow
    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.
    Steven Green, Jan 7, 2009
  7. Steven Green

    Steven Green Guest

    An 58mm is a cropped 58mm, it is not an 85mm. If it was a 58mm f:1.4, the
    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

    I'll gladly take an 1.2 or 1.0 58mm lens.
    It is my wish-list after all.
    Steven Green, Jan 7, 2009
  8. Steven Green

    Steven Green Guest

    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.
    Steven Green, Jan 7, 2009
  9. Steven Green

    Steven Green Guest

    The reason I ask is that for macro photography I notice that the DOF is
    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, Jan 7, 2009
  10. Steven Green

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    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.
    Focus distance, too. You get less depth of field when the focus is closer.
    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, Jan 7, 2009
  11. Steven Green

    Steven Green Guest

    Note that there already is a 58mm f/1.2, but it is only available used and
    Note I also considered the Nikon 1.2 50mm manual focus lens, but the problem
    here is that I didn't intend to get a better body for a while ... I settled
    on a D40 near-term and wanted to focus on lenses first, then get a nice body
    when I have the lenses to use with it. It is my understanding that the
    manual focus lenses don't work with the D40.

    Further I have read that the viewfinders in the Digital SLRs are geared
    toward brightness and not focus, thus manual focusing with them is more
    difficult ... you can correct me here as it is only what I have web-read.

    Nice to know there is a 5.8mm F/1.2 though. Make an AF-S one and I would be
    happy :) Back on my wish-list
    Steven Green, Jan 8, 2009
  12. Steven Green

    J. Clarke Guest

    Even with a split image and microprism it's difficult to get precise
    focus by eyeball with a DSLR. A viewfinder magnifier makes a
    noticeable difference if you're trying to get exact focus.
    J. Clarke, Jan 8, 2009
  13. Steven Green

    ASAAR Guest

    More difficult with some lenses, but it shouldn't be a problem
    with a 58mm lens. I manually focused my 50mm lens while the camera
    was powered off, and when I turned it on, the green dot focus
    indicator lit up, confirming focus. Even without using extension
    tubes, the DOF is very shallow when focusing at close distances,
    especially since the aperture is wide open, so when looking at the
    subject while focusing, the image snaps into and out of focus
    quickly and can only be missed by those with really poor vision.

    A 58mm f/1.2 AF-S might be quickly erased from your wish list once
    you see what the price might be. I could see hoping and waiting for
    one to appear, but a 5.8mm version? What's your life expectancy? :)
    ASAAR, Jan 8, 2009
  14. Steven Green

    ASAAR Guest

    Some friends saw Yellow (maybe Blue too) but I opted out. I guess
    that I wasn't sufficiently curious. But I did see Pink Flamingos.
    That's for those that have finer tastes . . . uh, in their flicks.
    ASAAR, Jan 8, 2009
  15. Steven Green

    Steven Green Guest

    but a 5.8mm version? What's your life expectancy? :)

    A super wide angle with only a touch bit of distortion.
    Hell of a prime.

    People get on me over my spelling I could only imagine what they were
    going to say about this. I saw that after I posted it, I cringed. Then I
    thought I would just wait and see what happens.

    Maybe they will start making a micro-dx format sensor and then we will
    see this lens :)
    Steven Green, Jan 8, 2009
  16. Non-AFS' work fine except on the very entry level D40/60. The typical
    clientel for those cameras is more concerned with super zooms than prime
    It has been discussed to death many times over, but prime lenses are not
    the mainstay for entry level photographers, so just get a body one level
    up (D50/70/80/90).
    Oh, you know that already.
    Why not the venerable 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4? Those 8mm really don't
    make much of a difference at all. It's just one step forward if you zoom
    with your feet.

    Jürgen Exner, Jan 8, 2009
  17. Steven Green

    ASAAR Guest

    If they're curious enough they can check out
    ASAAR, Jan 8, 2009
  18. Whilst I appreciate why you are suggesting these lenses, it seems to me
    that today's push is higher sensor ISO rather than another fraction of an
    f/stop on lenses. Yes, I know it's not the same....

    David J Taylor, Jan 8, 2009
  19. Steven Green

    ASAAR Guest

    Nothing cringe-worthy about typos and this won was obvious. :)
    It's more enjoyable to have fun with them if a way can be found than
    to be critical. I realize that not everyone shares this outlook,
    such as pedantic snobs tinged with a touch of schadenfreudism.

    Hardly. The first three years it will only be licensed to Apple
    for use in their new I-Spy-Eye, and the only thing people will see
    if they look closely enough is an Apple logo.
    ASAAR, Jan 8, 2009
  20. Steven Green

    ASAAR Guest

    Why'd you have to say that. What a downer. An f/1.2 lens on a
    small sensor Coolpix that once again will produce their familiar
    grainy images at ISO 200. And I'll bet that the first three models
    that use that lens won't even have VR.


    Actually they're not all that bad. This Christmas I gave my L12
    (which has VR) to a very young niece who had a lot of fun using it
    to take many nice pictures. Compared with Nikon's DSLR lineup,
    their P&S cameras are a mess and need a big overhaul. I have a P60
    and it's ok, but it's far from the ultimate low light camera.
    ASAAR, Jan 8, 2009
    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.