Equipment If Nikon were to bring out a 24 and 35 1.4

Ok guys, this if for you Nikon shooters.

I was just checking the price of a 35mm 1.4L, and in the UK, that Canon lens retails for over £1000. The completely different lens, the Nikon 85 1.4, goes for around £900. When Nikon release a 24mm 1.4 and a 35mm 1.4, will you be in a big rush to drop more money than you could spend on an 85 1.4, on either one of these lenses? I realise you can't really compare the prices of two fast primes that will most likely be completely different in cost of production, complexity and so on, but here goes.

I know f2 is not 1.4, but as D700 user, I just can't see myself having the need, lust or money to satisfy either, for a 35 f1.4, if it actually is more expensive than an 84 1.4, or a 135 F2 DC. I'm more than happy with my 35mm F2D.

The only reason I ask this is because all of us, even me, have gone on and on about when Nikon are going to release a 24 and 35 f1.4, and yet I'd like to know what sort of money we'd all be prepared to spend, to have one or are we just moaning because we can?

 

I think we're probably moaning because we can, but I'd love a 35 f1.4. If I had the funds I'd spend (up to) £300 on it (though the most I've ever paid for a lens was £75, and that was my prime)

 

£300 eh You and me both. Too bad the 35mm F2 costs £250, and when Nikon release a 35 f1.4 it will cost over four times as much

 

If Nikon is ever to release a 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 they will likely charge more than the Canon counterparts--how much more no one knows, but its pretty much a guarantee. Canon's newer released have gone up in price considerably (including the 24II) so there may not be that large a difference. With that said I'd say they would cost somewhere between 1.7-2K (USD) if not more. If you think they'd charge any less you would be fooling yourself.

 

Err, no we haven't. I can't think of anything I couldn't do with a 17-55/2.8 or a 24-70/2.8. I would rather have a bullet proof f/2.8 zoom then a 24/1.4 and 35/1.4. In fact, I can't think of any shooter I know of that would. My money could be spent in better places. Hence the value pricing of the 14-24, 24-70, and the 70-200. Yes, I said value, since you can compare the prices of primes to cover that range with the same optical performance.

I rather think of those 2 as pointless. Shallow DOF rarely goes hand in hand with wide(r) angles. Lanscapers want DOF, as to architecture guys; PJs want robust, versatile lenses as do sports shooters. Portraits like to go wide, but hardly ever f/1.4 since you want the head in focus, besides you want longer there anyway; throw in some lighting and you need to be at least at f/4 most times. Which leaves? The emo art scene?

The 85/1.4 is a rather specialist lens, as is the 200/2 and both are legendary. But the current 24 and 35 aren't exactly known to be cracking lenses. I would much rather Nikon invested the time and pixie dust to bring out bullet proof, sealed and optically perfect updates to the 24/2.8 and the 35/2 at a reasonable price. Again, not that I would buy them, but f/1.4 comes with some compromises. Cheap, fast, quality; pick any 2. I would think that giving up the f/1.4 to get a cheaper, better lens makes sense.

 

*opps*

 

Funny how our photographic views/styles differ--the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 135/2 are the reasons why many Canon shooters won't switch to Nikon. FWIW there is a lot you can do with the 24 and 35 that you cant with f/2.8 zooms.

 

I'll bite. A lot, eh? Give me 5 realistic, day to day scenarios where a 24/1.4 or a 35/1.4 can get an image unobtainable at the same focal length with a pro level f/2.8 zoom.

Edit: and given the quality of Nikon's 24 and 35 in comparison to their 24-70, particularly with CA and flair, I think I would have to go with the zoom. Optical designs being what they are, good performing (wide open) f/1.4s simply are few and far between (or are made and priced by Zeiss). The 85/1.4 and 200/2 are legend because they are sharp wide open, free of CA and other distortions; they deliver at the advertised specs. but they cost, both in cash and size. Again, for me it makes more sense to design a lens that performs optically and is cost efficient at f2.8, rather then blow your cash on a lens that boasts f/1.4 and needs to be stopped down to 2.8 to get a sharp image free of defects. For me, at that point, it simply is a waste.

Or I could get a 24-70/2.8 for $1,800 and a 70-200/2.8 for $2,400 totaling $4,200 and have better build and a more versatile setup on 2 bodies.

 

LOL, I hope you didn't just say that the 85 1.4 is FREE OF FLARE wide open?! LOL. It may handle flare and CA very well wide open, but it is FREE of these things? I doubt it.

Different uses etc. As far as pro's go, wedding photographers will do just about anything to get as unique a look as possible.

 

As I mentioned above, the 85/1.4 is basically a specialist lens; a studio portrait lens, and in that situation it is free of flair, yes. I haven't met anyone that has used it for anything else except 2 people, and they mentioned that with a hood it was fine. I have only used it with strobes.

 

Well in that case I'll wack a hood onto an 18-55 and call that free of flare

Very resistant to flare, sure. But I'm pretty sure you can make a lens flare if you want to and avoid it if you want as well. As for being resistant to loss of DR, and showing no CA, again, not likely wide open. Anyway, I digress.

 

Err...yes, most people can do both.

 

I love using flare within pictures for dramatic effects, the only two times I've got it right though are incredibly blurred and a shot that's incredibly boring (I'm not keen on wildlife)

(Sorry to go off-topic, just breaking the argument up as far as I can)

 

Without getting into the never ending primes vs zooms argument--Yes, A lot. My question to you is have you ever shot with any of the Canon lenses I've listed? If you have you would know that there is an enormous difference between f/1.4 (or f/1.2) and f/2.8, specifically when shooting with ambient lighting ONLY (not only that but that they are quality primes that are very good performers even wide open). I don't know about you but in those cases I'd rather be shooting at ISO3200 with a decent ss than ISO6400+ with a inadequate ss--that one example is enough to equate to the five you're calling for IMO. Size and weight is yet another plus. In all honestly I believe this is one circumstance where we will have to agree to disagree on the importance of fast primes--clearly you have no use for them, others OTOH do. I believe there is a need for both of them in my kit for the type of photography I'm involved in.

 

Versatility goes far beyond FR.

 

Here are some things you CANT do with a f/2.8 zoom...I wont even get into MF lenses.
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/nikkor-af-85-1-point-4/pool/interesting/
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/20778516@N00/pool/interesting/
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/canon85mmf12l/pool/interesting/
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/311183@N25/pool/interesting/
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/24l/pool/interesting/
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/canon24mm/pool/interesting/
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/664291@N24/pool/interesting/
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/50mmf095/pool/interesting/

 

I'm not suggesting it's primes vs. zooms. Nor have I shot with canon primes, why would I, I rarely eve shoot with Nikon ones. I'm not saying they aren't good lenses. I actually have no issue with primes. The OP asked if anyone thought that the new Nikon primes would be worth the assumed price, and as I stated earlier, I would think that a good optical design, with good build and sealing @ f/2 or 2.8 would out weigh an over priced lens that has to make compromises to get to f/1.4, which needs to be stopped down again anyway.

You're the one that brought Canon primes into this, and how they are better then anything. I still honestly believe that there isn't any real life scenario that can't be accomplished with a pro quality f/2.8 zoom. Shooting at ISO 3200 @ f/1.2 isn't something I would do even if I had the lenses to do it. If I need to choose between extreme ISOs like 3200 and 6400 on a regular basis, then I would honestly take a long look at what I'm doing. Even with todays bodies, relying on that to get you through is sloppy. Sorry, but the truth. Good technique and some fast creative thinking will serve me better at f/2.8 then relying on OMG ISOs and f/1.2. If it works for you, good.

Focal range isn't all you get with simple 2 or 3 lens setup. you get sealing, for those of us that shoot in deserts, sind and in rain. You get a more robust build quality for those of us that shoot from land cruisers, helicopters and boats. You get better lens coating for those of us that have given up on lens caps and just toss them in the bag. Dollar for dollar, Nikon pro level zooms out perform primes in almost any possible metric. and whats left is easily adjusted for by a good thinking photographer.

 

Damn. I still shoot with the kit lens.

-monkey

 

First I never said Canon primes were better than anything--the reason I brought them up was because Canon DOES offer them while Nikon DOESN'T, this allows the OP to get a better idea of how much a Nikon variant may cost. Second YOU said there is nothing a prime can do that your f/2.8 zooms cant, which is total BS (how could you know anyway when you've never shot with them?). As for having to stop down for good performance, again that's total nonsense, the same applies to 'rethinking' what your doing and your 'good technique'/'creative thinking' statements--sometimes neither applies. IOW at times no matter how good your technique is or how creative you think you will not be able to get out of the jam your in. Believe it or not, sometimes you rely completely on the tools at hand for the shot, you can call is "sloppy" all you want. And WTH does sealing have to do with anything? If you don't own a prime that is sealed use a zoom--they are both useful. Coatings are irrelevant as well, most new prime lenses share the same coatings zooms do and some perform better even without them. If anything, since you chose to play this card, primes force you to become a better "thinking photographer" than a zoom ever will. So much for avoiding primes vs zooms... This is a simple case of 'I don't need em' so they're not useful to anyone else'...everyone uses different tools, some people have different shooting styles...why cant we just leave it at that? Just because the cost isn't worth it to you doesn't mean it isn't to others.

 

LOL, I actually aggreed with Vers here.