File :-(, x, )
Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
Discuss.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092201nikkor_50mm_1_4glens.asp

Odd, topic wouldn't post with a URL in the body.
>> Falldog !2qYdimqiHs
I just saw this an email sent to me by my local camera shop.

I presume the only benefit of this version is the built in focus motor for the lower end Nikon cameras?

I already have the older version so I don't plan on getting this.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>259870
Apparently there's a new optical design, though the effects of this of course are unknown so far.
>> Anonymous
what a shitty DOF scale
>> Anonymous
i thought it would never happen

price rumors, anyone?
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
I have the 1.4d and love it. I'm trying to nail down photo basics with a 50 on B&W, and I think I'd be better off sticking with my F3 and getting that zeiss 50mm 1.4 or a nikkor 1.2. Also, if anyone comes across a Nikon MK-1 <100 bones, hit me up.
>> Anonymous
no IR tick
>> Anonymous
58mm filter size wut
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
finally, nikon catches up to where canon was 20 years ago. christ.

new optical design, too. not shabby.
>> Anonymous
1.4? Shit's so pedestrian.
Seriously, why doesn't Nikon have more AF primes? I might have gotten one if they did.
>> Anonymous
>>259898
AF primes or AF-S primes?
>> Anonymous
Shit, no price?
>> Anonymous
>>259898

they have a shit load of AF primes and AF-S primes too.

They didn't need it until the D40/D40x/D60 came out without an inbuilt motor.

>>259891
Now if only Canon would catch up on decent ergonomics, build and not shitting on lower level cameras to protect the #Ds
>> Anonymous
I heard about this lense.. pretty nice. Can't wait.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Pre-Photokina 2008: Nikon has today announced a new standard prime lens, the AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.4G. Headlining the new features is a built-in Silent Wave Motor which enables autofocus with the D60/D40x/D40 DSLRs, but the lens also boasts a brand-new optical system with 8 elements in 7 groups for improved image quality, a circular aperture diaphragm for more attractive background blur, and a barrel design which does not change length on focusing. The lens will be available from December 2008.
====
Circular Aperture? Hrm. Old lens is circular wide open...
--------
Nice to see an AF-S update to the primes, but not too useful, since only the D40/D60 need AF-S, and this is not a 'standard' lens for those cameras, it is an awkward mid-telephoto. They needed a 1.4 DX prime at 30mm or less for the neutered cameras, but I guess they couldn't compete with Sigma??

Manual focus does look lacking, a bigger window and lots of precision would be nice because with short DOF the camera doesn't know what you want to focus on anyway...

Hopefully the optics will equal or even be sharper than the AF lens it is replacing, it got soft and lost contrast wide open.

Gimme a 8mm non-fisheye @ 1.4 for DX without going purple in the corners....that would be a defining moment to bring back the Canon converts.
>> Anonymous
>>259992
>>1.4 DX prime at 30mm

I can almost guarantee that you will never see anything like 30/1.4, 28/1.4 DX from Nikon. Pros and critical amateur running full frame don't need anything shorter than about 35 with that aperture, and guys with no sheckles owning consumer cameras don't have the bucks to back up their desires for crap like that.
Lastly, I think in the long term Nikon is going to fuck all owners of DX cameras by offering a sub-$1000 full frame. What's your D40/50 etc going to be worth then?

and BTW - even if they did offer a 30mm 1.4, it still wouldn't have the narrow DOF wide open of a 50 used full frame
>> Anonymous
>>259995

Who cares what it's worth? It's for taking photos, not for investing in for later sale to put the kids through college.

Cameras are not stocks and shares.
>> Anonymous
>>260004
what I love about most of the fags here is they complain again and again that everything sooooo expensive and then make an idiotic statement like that.

The point, JACKASS, is that you can spend some money now (and take pictures) and have the camera worth shit in 2 years, or you can spend a bit more (and take pictures) and have the camera still worth something in a few years. "Worth something" does not just mean $.
>> Anonymous
>>259995

i hope we do see full frame cameras at that price rage. i don't think its going to be any time soon though. they have to keep something for the higher price range of cameras and they are experts in cripple ware and holding back technology. So yeah, i give it five years.
>> Anonymous
>>260004

agreed.

>>260006

wtf are you talking about. the resell cost on most digital cameras is worth fuck all two years after they come out. the market moves too fast for anything to hold its value. the same cameras that you can but for a few hundred out perform those that cost thousands five or six years ago. the cost is lower for better technology.
>> Anonymous
>>260021
>>wtf are you talking about. the resell cost on most digital cameras is worth fuck all two years after they come out.

Dickhead - that was exactly the point. Read the whole thread. I was saying that there's no use dreaming about a 30/1.4 because:
1) it ain't gonna happen
2) lower cost full frame is coming
So investments in DX lenses are money down the drain
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>260006
>"Worth something" does not just mean $.
Okay, so "worth something" can mean either monetary worth or worth as an instrument for taking pictures.

Starting with the latter: My hoopty-ass D50 still takes pictures of the same quality as it did when it was first purchased (well, adjusting for the change in ownership and subsequent drop in skill. It's still *capable* of taking the same quality pictures, I mean). If you define "worth" in terms of usefulness and image quality, that's the same throughout its life until the sensor just up and dies.

So, we have to define it monetarily. So we're back to the previous poster's "Who cares?" question. I don't know about you, but resale value of my gear is almost never something that enters my mind. I shoot 'em until they won't shoot anymore.
>> Anonymous
>>260027

sorry how long till "lower cost" full frame comes out?

Canon/ nikon will pedal crop sensors as long as they can to define the difference between the lower and higher end of the market.
>> Anonymous
>>260037
>>Canon/ nikon will pedal crop sensors as long as they can to define the difference between the lower and higher end of the market.

Yes, that's correct, that is, until someone makes the first move. If the rumour that Nikon is going to have a 48x48 mf digital is true, it's only a short time before full frame "35mm" is available a lower prices. It has to happen, and it will.

>>260028
please shut up you idiot, you already have a long history of pedantic, irrelavant posts
>> Anonymous
>>260046
>It has to happen, and it will.

Why?
>> Anonymous
>>260046

I>>f the rumour that Nikon is going to have a 48x48 mf digital is true

source? why would nikon make a square format based system?

The availability of other medium format sensors hasnt effected the cost of digital slrs. its two completely different markets.
>> Anonymous
>>260050
google Nikon MX

Have you ever used a square format camera? There arre several practical advantages and a few technical

>>The availability of other medium format sensors hasnt effected the cost of digital slrs. its two completely different markets.

I am not aware of any company that makes a MF digital camera and a "35mm". Which company are you referring to?
>> Anonymous
>>260057

Im not referring to a company. That wasn't my point.

Its not aimed at the slr market so why would the price of full frame slrs drop? You say that like its a given.

yes ive used many square format cameras and loved them. I wasnt debating the usage of the square format, just the fact that its seems a bit of a left turn for nikon at the moment. Its all progress so i support that.
>> Anonymous
>>260050
Nikon coming out with a medium format setup seems unlikely to me too. But so did the idea of Canon coming out with a full-frame camera with video support. There is some evidence to support it, though it's still somewhat at the "crazy internet rumors" stage.

The reason that full-frame prices have to come down is that there are now three camera manufacturers competing in this space. Remember how groundbreaking it was when the original Digital Rebel came out for around $1000? Now you can get a DSLR for around $500 from either Canon or Nikon without even having to hit the used market. Canon's got the 5DII, Nikon's got the D700, and they're both going to be feeling the pull of the Sony A900 (and potentially any other full-frame cameras Sony comes out with).

It probably won't be for a while still, but I'm pretty sure that eventually we're going to see full-frames at around the 40D/D90/D300 price point.
>> Anonymous
>>260069
>>Its not aimed at the slr market so why would the price of full frame slrs drop?

First of all, I don't believe for the average user there is "a market". If there were, you would never see idiotic posts on forums like here where someone asks "Should I buy a Sigma DP1 or a Nikon D40?". Ten or more years ago, peddlers of technologies of all type stopped trying to sell you what you really needed. Don't believe it? Remember CD's? They were hawked base on the idea that they were perfect. Now 20 years after the CD took over the consumer market they are on the verge of becoming extinct. The consumer is be led around be the nose. Nothing makes guys with small penises run away from buying a product more than being told that it's been discontinued. That's why you don't see many folks here asking about buying a D200, now despite the fact it's better than almost everything else Nikon is pushing right now.

I didn't say "the price of full frame slrs would drop" I said they'd offer full frame at a lower price. It's not the same thing at all. It will be a cheaper camera but with full size sensor. It won't have the bells and whistles of a D3. If you don't think that Nikon couldn't produce a full frame camera for less than half of the price of a D3 right now, you are very naive
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
About time. I'll probably switch to this lens when I get a D700. Autofocus is great, and now that I've experienced the f/1.2, I think I'll be fine with f/1.4 too. Here's to hoping that they make an AF-S 35 1.4. They'll probably stick with the f/2, though. :/
>> Anonymous
>>260073
doesn't seem too remote to me. There's demand for a MF digital camera. The third party back concept is stupid and crazy over-priced. I have heard that the Mamiya ZD is good, and it's not that expensive, but I have not tried it. Anyone have any good experiences?
>> Anonymous
First off, if this means they'll discontinue the non AF-S version, shucks.

Second, 'bout time. I really hope this one has improved optics over the old model.

And regarding DX, FX & MX: I believe all brands will keep the DX (or equivalent) sensor for tools & soccer moms who just want a bigger p&s. Cheaper sensor, smaller cameras, plus enough lenses if anyone with suchs cameras is willing to use something else besides the kit lens.

FX will be aimed at professionals (reporters, etc) & advanced amateurs.

MX will be for medium format fags (like me), or pro's who do studio work.
>> Anonymous
(waits on 50/1.4 ZA)

<3sony.
>> Anonymous
>>260074

>>D200, now despite the fact it's better than almost everything else Nikon is pushing right now.

maybe in terms of cost to quality ratio but there are technically better nikon cameras.

>>260078
not that expensive? the back alone would cost you $7000.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
for all you nubs, the reason this lens is such a big deal for us nikonfags isn't that it can focus on the cheap compacts, it's that this more or less (finally) signals the beginning of instant override manual focus for nikon primes. if you wanted to focus manually on the old 50 1.4 (or any prime), you had to flip a switch on the body, which was the biggest pain in the ass.

the fact that this is a new optical design and not just an ai-s lens stuffed into a new shell also means that nikon is probably going to (finally) start updating their prime line-up. nikon's zooms are amazing, blah blah blah, but a lot of their primes have been hurting for an update since the F4.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>260168
>you had to flip a switch on the body, which was the biggest pain in the ass.
Could be worse. Us Canonfags, unless we have *real* USM lenses, have to flip a switch on the lens itself. And it's in a subtly different place on each lens. At least with the Nikons, you have an easier time learning to locate the switch by touch.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
son of a bitch. i just noticed this is a g lens. goddamn you, nikon!!
>> Anonymous
>>260217
What does G mean? Is it like Canon L?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>260226
Not at all. It means that the lens doesn't have an aperture ring on it. Which is all fine and good for modern AF Nikons which can't use the aperture ring (grumble) and will give you an error if you don't have it set anywhere other than the 'auto' aperture, but it means you can't take it and use it (other than wide open) on older manual-focus Nikons.

Best expansion of the letter I've heard is "Gelded".
>> Anonymous
>>260226
No aperture ring.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
I owned the 1.4, but even closed up, its still soft as fuck, so I sold and bought the 1.8. I found this much sharper, even closed to f/8~11.

Although a 50mm on a crop body is abit of an awkward length (75mm equiv) so I sold it. Saving up for the Sigma 30/1.4, which i've heard is a lens of pure genius.
>> Anonymous
>>260231
Actually, some modern Nikons CAN use the aperture ring. D2/3 (and I think D1), and the D#00 series have an option in the menus to allow it.

However, it's kinda pointless, as modern lenses don't generally have half-stop clicks and therefore make metering a pain, and on the D# series, the vertical grip makes it pretty awkward to work with the ring.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>260296
I was really hoping that I'd be able to set my D50 to manual mode and then use the lens-ring for aperture and the camera-dial for shutter speed. The whole reason I wanted to use the aperture dial is negated on the cameras that can use it.
>> Anonymous
>>260313
Why do you want to use it?

/curious anon here
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>260317
I don't know about ac, but I find it so annoying having to twist the stupid knob on top to change the aperture.
I think you'll only realise the difference after using a lens with an Apt. Ring.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>260317
Because having two physical controls to change aperture and shutter speed is a lot easier to having control and button+control. Especially with the 50D's layout--the EV adjust (and Aperture, in M mode) button is not well-placed in my opinion. Worse ergonomics than my old XTi, which was also crap at it.
>> Anonymous
>>260321
I've used both and I feel more comfortable with changing the aperture electronically.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
I've always wondered why aperture rings are being phased out. It offers better ergonomics IMO if it were a bit further from the body. It's also logical because the aperture is dependent on the lens so its controlling mechanism should be on the lens. Shutter is on the body so the shutter control should be on the body. I know there's no way they're going to phase out manual focus but will I be pissed if they phase out zoom rings.

I suddenly want a lens with a stopless aperture ring (it doesn't click around) and a body with stopless shutter control (I can manually set the distance between the two curtains). Shit's gonna be so manual.
>> Anonymous
>>260317

Focus, aperture and shutter speed are the two most important photographic controls. Focus has a dedicated control on the lens. Shutter speed has a dedicated control on the body. On old lenses, aperture also had its own dedicated ring. This was ideal because it meant you were never confused about what you were adjusting, and you could change all three simultaneously if you wanted to.

I don't know for sure about the cameras with a wheel on the back and the top, but those are close to having proper control of aperture. I'd still rather have it on the lens, though, since it's easy to change while your face is pressed up against the back of the camera.
>> Anonymous
>>260367
>two most important

should say three, obviously.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>260367
>I'd still rather have it on the lens, though, since it's easy to change while your face is pressed up against the back of the camera.
Also, 'cause it stays where it is. I shoot mostly Av mode, which means my top wheel is for aperture. When I shoot M, my top wheel changes shutter speed and the back wheel changes aperture. I wish Canon would give me a way to flip those, but I can't find one.
>> Anonymous
>>259878
Yes, that 50 f1.2 yes? I quite like mine, although lately been using the AiS 35mm f1.4 though, it is sharper and I prefer wider lenses.

And I have used both the AiS 50mm f1.2 and the AFD 50mm f1.4, both are good lenses, both have veiling problems wide open (which leads to low resolution figures) but it is actually sharp on the sides and edges for both lenses, although I prefer the 1.2 because it's a bit more useable wide open.

>>260004
Unless it's a Hasselblad, Zeiss lenses and Leicas... innit.

>>260078
It is good for the money, definitely blows away the 35mm DSLRs for low iso usage, and I've used it with the Mamiya 80mm f1.9 very very shallow DOF.
>> Anonymous
>Price • $439 (US)
¬_¬
>> Anonymous
>>260164
can you read? All the Nikon's that are better image-wise than a D200, cost more money

and as for 7 grand for a ZD? You can buy the body with a lens and back for $10K
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>>260540
>All the Nikon's that are better image-wise than a D200, cost more money.
No shit, sherlock.
>> Anonymous
D90 is cheaper than D200 and has better image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>260516

i cant believe everyone missed that and raged about no price

so an extra $150 gets an additional element, 9 blades over 7, and swm.
>> Anonymous
Where's my ED and Nano Crystal Coat?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>260577

another good question.

although, to be perfectly honest, i have no idea what those actually do. they're probably just marketing acronyms.
>> Anonymous
>>260589
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/scene/20/index.htm
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
     File :-(, x)
>>260591

awesome. what about ed? i want comparison pics.

also, look at this fucking suit. this is why nikon kicks canon's ass, and it's got nothing to do with photography.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D2XsCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern930Focal Length (35mm Equiv)30 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width4288Image Height2848Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:12:14 10:53:29Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/7.1Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating320Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFine WeatherFlashFlash, Return Not DetectedFocal Length20.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width257Image Height172RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#ed

ED=Extra Low Dispersion Glass
>> Anonymous
Nikon invented Nano Crystal Coat 2-4 years ago, and recently Canon copied Nikon with their own version of the Nano Crystal Coat for that new L lens to accompany the announcement of the 5DMK2.
>> Anonymous
>>260604

New L lens?
>> Anonymous
>>260623
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091704canon_ef24mm.asp
>> Anonymous
>>260629

Interesting. Thanks.
>> Anonymous
>>260082
because everyone using DX is fail?

Protip: Cameras are for photos; not specwanking
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>260540

I thought that was the 645 kit and not the ZD
>> Anonymous
>>260547
another idiot. Read the whole thread before you comment you sack of shit

>>260645
nope. Under 10G.
http://www.adorama.com/MYZD645AFD2.html?searchinfo=mamiya%20zd&item_no=3
>> Anonymous
>>260684

lol you keep getting owned and you think tiny comments like calling someone a sack of shit or a JACKASS is some sort of epic comeback for the fact you can really back up what your saying.
>> Anonymous
>>260701
no idiot, I don't think it's an epic comeback. I have pretty much come to the conclusion that 90% people here know nothing. The very strange part of it is, whether you deliver praise/good news or crit/bad news you get hammered by the same idiots.
I know, I know, you have something to say about that too!
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
in case we didn't get a price, here's a figure from popphoto

>>Bundled with a lens hood, front and rear lens caps and a soft case, the 50mm f/1.4G lens is scheduled for shipping in December 2008 at an estimated price of $439.95

Bout time it came with a lens hood,
>> Anonymous
>>261025

nah nothing to say about that, your right.

however your D200 statement made you look like a fucking prick and your retort, "yeah but better cameras are more expensive" was retarded. You got called out on it and avoided it because you couldn't back up what you were saying.