OK, so what number are you looking for, that this is closer to? <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif" border="0" alt="" > (inquiring minds, ET all)
Maybe I missed your answer... is Manual Focus an option for you?
I'm not sure what my number is. Eventually it's going to be "whatever it costs," but the specific price will determine how quickly I can pull the trigger on this. I've put my 70-300 VR and 35 f/1.8 up for sale so when those go it'll add another $500 to my existing slush fund.*
I don't think MF is an option for me. I don't think I'm good enough. Shooting in manual requires me to remember a great deal of stuff already (did I change that ISO back? is this shutter speed fast enough?) I'm afraid that I'd miss too many shots having to think about that plus getting the focus right. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno. I've never shot a MF lens. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif" border="0" alt="" >
*Incidentally, the plan for my full kit is this. Keep the 16-80 and 50-150 and add a wide prime. If I find myself in need of more tele I'll get a TC for the 50-150 in the short-term. My longer-term tele goal is to get the 300 f/4 again. I can live with a gap between 150 and 300 without frustration.
One thing that stood out to me was the distortion in some of the images - really big feet on the kid on the bunk bed, huge legs on seated people. Wide angle is great for bringing in context, but it does lend some oddity to the humans in the frame.
I have 28, 35, 50 on a crop camera and find 35 is plenty wide for toddler activity indoors. I think 24, with the subject large enough in the frame, would begin to introduce more distortion than I'd like. Obviously, YMMV, but before you bail on that 35mm, you might try to see how much room you really have to work, indoors, before going wider.
I will certainly give the 35 a second (fourth, actually) look. I see the distortion you're talking about but I think that's a small price to pay if you can get the context of the room in the frame.
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
KEH has the 24mm f/1.4G for $1739. We're getting closer...
It's funny that this thread started out with me looking for "exotic" glass that I didn't really need. Now, after reading the Family Photojournalist, I'm looking for what I expect to be the most important piece of glass in my kit.
$1740 is "cheap" for the 24 1.4, HOWEVER anything DX is going to cost just a few hundred dollars, you could save $1200-$1400 by waiting to see if Nikon does indeed make a DX 24 f/1.8
The bottom line is that yeah, using FX glass on a DX body is great, but is it worth the added cost and "throw-away" weight etc? Not for me. The only reason I'd ever buy the 24 f/1.4 would be if I specifically needed 24mm on full-frame. Otherwise it's just an over-priced, overweight 36mm DX lens that probably won't balance very well on any DX body less than a D300 / D400.
A manual focus lens is certainly not for everyone, however I manage it all the time when I need to. Mostly I'm shooting very still subjects at a fair distance, though, and at 24mm depth of field is pretty dang easy even on DX. I plan on getting a 24 f/2 AIS when I can, mostly so I can use it for stars on a full-frame D700 but also so I can use it as a light, cheap 36mm on DX. (I currently have the 24 f/2.8 AIS, so I would simply be switching up to the f/2 AIS) BTW I saw someone mention a 24 f/1.4 manual focus for Nikon; that does not exist. Nikon's fastest manual focus 24mm is f/2. http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#24 There are third-party 24mm f/1.4's, however (Samyang?)
I think your best bet is to hope Nikon does a 24 f/1.8 DX this year. There is a lot of rumbling about Nikon continuing to hit hard with primes this year, as they have been doing for the past couple years already. Nikon has f/2.8 zooms DOWN, and has only one or two f/4 zooms left to develop, (patents filed for a 70-200 f/4 already) ...so yeah, chances are good that we'll see a 24 f/1.8 from Nikon, soon.
Honestly, if I were you? Give the Sigma wide primes a try in the meantime. Just find a really good deal on a pristine copy, take good care of it, and re-sell it whenever you like. The 20 1.8 and 24 1.8 should fit your bill very well, although they're kinda large they're at least far less than the Nikon 24 f/1.4
Honestly, if I were you? Give the Sigma wide primes a try in the meantime. Just find a really good deal on a pristine copy, take good care of it, and re-sell it whenever you like. The 20 1.8 and 24 1.8 should fit your bill very well, although they're kinda large they're at least far less than the Nikon 24 f/1.4
=Matt=
This seems to be more difficult than anticipated. Neither LensRentals nor BorrowLenses has them to rent (or for sale). Also, GearSnapper can't find a single copy of either for sale on any of the forums. Amazon has them ($550 for the 24 and $630 for the 20).
I had some extra free time this afternoon (evening service cancelled because of weather) so I tried to use the 35. It doesn't work. It's just not wide enough. It seems close, like maybe a 28 would work but I'm thinking the 24 would be ideal. With a D7000 you have plenty of pixels to crop if needed.
I had some extra free time this afternoon (evening service cancelled because of weather) so I tried to use the 35. It doesn't work. It's just not wide enough. It seems close, like maybe a 28 would work but I'm thinking the 24 would be ideal. With a D7000 you have plenty of pixels to crop if needed.
One thing you can do is just rent the 24 f/2.8 AF-D and pretend it's a stop or so brighter than it actually is Also rent the 20 f/2.8, and see if you like the FOV more than the thought of having an extra stop or so at 24.
I shot an entire vacation using the Pentax version of this lens, galleries here: http://markrouleau.smugmug.com/Vacation/2010. Not sure if that helps or hurts this lens's cause.
One big advantage is that there is essentially no minimum focus distance-- no backing up because you are too close. One bad part is that it relies on the screw-drive motor to af. And of course, if you just don't like the framing distance of 35mm ...
Comments
I'm not sure what my number is. Eventually it's going to be "whatever it costs," but the specific price will determine how quickly I can pull the trigger on this. I've put my 70-300 VR and 35 f/1.8 up for sale so when those go it'll add another $500 to my existing slush fund.*
I don't think MF is an option for me. I don't think I'm good enough. Shooting in manual requires me to remember a great deal of stuff already (did I change that ISO back? is this shutter speed fast enough?) I'm afraid that I'd miss too many shots having to think about that plus getting the focus right. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno. I've never shot a MF lens. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif" border="0" alt="" >
*Incidentally, the plan for my full kit is this. Keep the 16-80 and 50-150 and add a wide prime. If I find myself in need of more tele I'll get a TC for the 50-150 in the short-term. My longer-term tele goal is to get the 300 f/4 again. I can live with a gap between 150 and 300 without frustration.
There is some good stuff in there, for sure.
One thing that stood out to me was the distortion in some of the images - really big feet on the kid on the bunk bed, huge legs on seated people. Wide angle is great for bringing in context, but it does lend some oddity to the humans in the frame.
I have 28, 35, 50 on a crop camera and find 35 is plenty wide for toddler activity indoors. I think 24, with the subject large enough in the frame, would begin to introduce more distortion than I'd like. Obviously, YMMV, but before you bail on that 35mm, you might try to see how much room you really have to work, indoors, before going wider.
$1740 is "cheap" for the 24 1.4, HOWEVER anything DX is going to cost just a few hundred dollars, you could save $1200-$1400 by waiting to see if Nikon does indeed make a DX 24 f/1.8
The bottom line is that yeah, using FX glass on a DX body is great, but is it worth the added cost and "throw-away" weight etc? Not for me. The only reason I'd ever buy the 24 f/1.4 would be if I specifically needed 24mm on full-frame. Otherwise it's just an over-priced, overweight 36mm DX lens that probably won't balance very well on any DX body less than a D300 / D400.
A manual focus lens is certainly not for everyone, however I manage it all the time when I need to. Mostly I'm shooting very still subjects at a fair distance, though, and at 24mm depth of field is pretty dang easy even on DX. I plan on getting a 24 f/2 AIS when I can, mostly so I can use it for stars on a full-frame D700 but also so I can use it as a light, cheap 36mm on DX. (I currently have the 24 f/2.8 AIS, so I would simply be switching up to the f/2 AIS) BTW I saw someone mention a 24 f/1.4 manual focus for Nikon; that does not exist. Nikon's fastest manual focus 24mm is f/2. http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#24 There are third-party 24mm f/1.4's, however (Samyang?)
I think your best bet is to hope Nikon does a 24 f/1.8 DX this year. There is a lot of rumbling about Nikon continuing to hit hard with primes this year, as they have been doing for the past couple years already. Nikon has f/2.8 zooms DOWN, and has only one or two f/4 zooms left to develop, (patents filed for a 70-200 f/4 already) ...so yeah, chances are good that we'll see a 24 f/1.8 from Nikon, soon.
Honestly, if I were you? Give the Sigma wide primes a try in the meantime. Just find a really good deal on a pristine copy, take good care of it, and re-sell it whenever you like. The 20 1.8 and 24 1.8 should fit your bill very well, although they're kinda large they're at least far less than the Nikon 24 f/1.4
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
This seems to be more difficult than anticipated. Neither LensRentals nor BorrowLenses has them to rent (or for sale). Also, GearSnapper can't find a single copy of either for sale on any of the forums. Amazon has them ($550 for the 24 and $630 for the 20).
One thing you can do is just rent the 24 f/2.8 AF-D and pretend it's a stop or so brighter than it actually is Also rent the 20 f/2.8, and see if you like the FOV more than the thought of having an extra stop or so at 24.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Have you looked at the Tokina 35mm f2.8 macro? Not as fast, but one that The Online Photographer's Michael Johnston called "An Optical Paragon" when reviewing the Pentax version of this lens. (Optically identical, build quality of the Pentax is superior.) http://photo.net/columns/mjohnston/pentax-35mm-lens/optical-discussion/
I shot an entire vacation using the Pentax version of this lens, galleries here: http://markrouleau.smugmug.com/Vacation/2010. Not sure if that helps or hurts this lens's cause.
One big advantage is that there is essentially no minimum focus distance-- no backing up because you are too close. One bad part is that it relies on the screw-drive motor to af. And of course, if you just don't like the framing distance of 35mm ...