Strong resale prices of classic MF Nikon lenses are partly the result of Canon video shooters flocking to them via an adapter. OK, they were damn good in the first place.
Feeding the LUST...MF prime suggestions...
- Thread starter NEF Said
- Start date
24/2 for an extra stop at the wide end
55/1.2 (or 50 or 58 for more money) gathers more than twice as much light as the 50/1.8
105/4 micro
135/2 for a very fast tele
180/2.8 for longer fast tele
55/1.2 (or 50 or 58 for more money) gathers more than twice as much light as the 50/1.8
105/4 micro
135/2 for a very fast tele
180/2.8 for longer fast tele
So many are recommending the 24 f/2. The 28 f/2 AIS is a much better lens. Sharper, better contrast, better flare resistance, closer focus . . . Better.
Last edited by a moderator:
i have the 28mm f2.8, so I wonder if, at this time, the 24mm will buy me much (a few footsteps?). I'm thinking about filling in below 24mm, to replace the need of the 16-35mm zoom, I have. Wondering if 20mm would fit the bill...
see sig for lenses I have currently...
see sig for lenses I have currently...
The reason for the 24/2 would be the extra stop rather than the wider angle. If that isn't important to you, then I agree that a 20/2.8 would be more sensible, and it seems that the way to go for the extra stop would be the 28/2 anyway, leaving the 24/2 not very useful for you.
I think the 24mm f/2 AIS is going to be a major step BACK in IQ from your 16-35. Yes, it's one stop faster, but the corners are not usable until f/5.6, and even then both the borders and corners are pretty soft. You're actually LOSING a stop or more of usable aperture.
The 20mm f/2.8 AIS is a great lens, but I'd seriously consider the CVU 20 before the Nikkor. Color and contrast from the CVU lenses are quite distinctive. Some would argue that you're losing a 1/2 stop, but the truth of the matter is that with a D/700, you'll be able to hand-hold that puppy at about 1/8 second. Also, stop it down to f/5.6, set the hyperfocal distance to 8', and everything from about 3' to infinity will be in focus.
Not understanding why Zeiss has only been mentioned once. Both Voightlander and Zeiss lenses are manual focus and are updated for today's current digital technology. Zeiss? Expensive, yes absolutely. But they produce almost across the board. I think the only Zeiss lens I don't like is the 28 f/2. I think the ultimate gem, and I'm waiting for the new model to come out is the Voightlander 58mm Nokton. Well qualifies for the bang for the buck. I really wish Voightlander would come out with wider Noktons that reflect their rangefinder primes.
So for the wide focal length MF, I see:
1. Nikon 20mm f2.8 Ai-s ($680 new, hard time finding used other than eBay)
2. Nikon 20mm f3.5 Ai-s (~$300-400 used)
3. Voigtlander 20mm CS f3.5 ($550 new, didn't find any used)
4. Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ($430 new, didn't find any used)
5. Tokina 17mm f3.5 SL (didn't find anywhere)
Will need to research some on this...
1. Nikon 20mm f2.8 Ai-s ($680 new, hard time finding used other than eBay)
2. Nikon 20mm f3.5 Ai-s (~$300-400 used)
3. Voigtlander 20mm CS f3.5 ($550 new, didn't find any used)
4. Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ($430 new, didn't find any used)
5. Tokina 17mm f3.5 SL (didn't find anywhere)
Will need to research some on this...
:biggrin:
I've used the Tokina 17mm (D50) and the Voigtlander 20mm (D700). I had the newest version of the Tokina, and maybe mine was a dud, but I was not at all impressed. I've used the Voigtlander as my main wide angle for awhile now when shooting with the D700, and it's a likeable lens. Sure the corners don't get critically sharp, and it's not the fastest lens, but it packs a punch for its diminutive size. I was once asked how I was taking pictures without a lens :biggrin: The majority of the frame is plenty sharp, and the lens is best at the center at f/5.6 and edges at f/8. I like the colors and contrast, and it's pretty flare resistant.
Of the Zeiss offerings, the 21mm f/2.8 Distagon is the king of microcontrast, and offers more depth of field at a given aperture than other lenses of this focal length. It's a set it and forget it lens. Really it's only issue is the moustache distortion. That said, on a D700, you won't be taking advantage of the finest details the lens can render. The 25mm f/2.8 lens is interesting. Superb performance at a distance for landscapes, and it can focus very close to near macro. But it has wicked field curvature for close subjects and isn't as sharp there. The 21/2.8 is pricey, but the 25/2.8 can often be had for a lot less, in the $600 range. The only other wide angle that approaches the 21/2.8 is the Nikon 14-24.
And I second what others have said about the Nikkor AI and AI-S 28/2.0. Outstanding lens, I've used it on DX and FX. Really quite sharp and contrasty for a classic, very flare resistant.
I've used the Tokina 17mm (D50) and the Voigtlander 20mm (D700). I had the newest version of the Tokina, and maybe mine was a dud, but I was not at all impressed. I've used the Voigtlander as my main wide angle for awhile now when shooting with the D700, and it's a likeable lens. Sure the corners don't get critically sharp, and it's not the fastest lens, but it packs a punch for its diminutive size. I was once asked how I was taking pictures without a lens :biggrin: The majority of the frame is plenty sharp, and the lens is best at the center at f/5.6 and edges at f/8. I like the colors and contrast, and it's pretty flare resistant.
Of the Zeiss offerings, the 21mm f/2.8 Distagon is the king of microcontrast, and offers more depth of field at a given aperture than other lenses of this focal length. It's a set it and forget it lens. Really it's only issue is the moustache distortion. That said, on a D700, you won't be taking advantage of the finest details the lens can render. The 25mm f/2.8 lens is interesting. Superb performance at a distance for landscapes, and it can focus very close to near macro. But it has wicked field curvature for close subjects and isn't as sharp there. The 21/2.8 is pricey, but the 25/2.8 can often be had for a lot less, in the $600 range. The only other wide angle that approaches the 21/2.8 is the Nikon 14-24.
And I second what others have said about the Nikkor AI and AI-S 28/2.0. Outstanding lens, I've used it on DX and FX. Really quite sharp and contrasty for a classic, very flare resistant.
Interesting choices. The only negative thing I've heard about the tokina 17 3.5 is that it flares. Alot. But I think they're pretty cheap. I wouldn't bother with the 20 f/2.8 AIS unless you need the bigger aperture, myself I'd rather have the 20 f/3.5 AIS. The samples from the voight 20 look pretty sweet. But it's a little spendy, as compared to the others.
If you like UWA you'll love the rok 14 f/2.8. The IQ is similar if not better than you 16-35. In fact I like my rok 14 better than the 16-35 at 16mm. I think the corners on the rok are better than the corners of the 16-35 on the wide end. At least on my 16-35 and my 14 rok.
I think, depending on how you shoot the 14 would fit best into your kit. Plus it will offer you something that you don't already have in your bag. I'm a UWA junkie and to me the difference between 16mm and 14mm is not subtle. At all.
Thanks for the suggestions. I was seeing that there are two versions, one with "automatic chip". Is that to allow it to signal focus confirmation?
I also see there is a Nikon 18mm f3.5. Any thoughts on that lens?
On canon yes, with nikon no. All the automatic chip does is tell the camera what the focal length and what not is. With your D700 you can enter it into the non-cpu data, although nikon does not have a 14mm designation, probably because they never made a non-cpu 14mm lens. I just enter in 13mm. If you want your exif data to show up perfectly and don't want to go menu diving when you use the lens then get the chipped lens, if you don't care save yourself the money and get the non chipped.
I have never seen one, I've never talked to someone who has used one, nor have I ever seen any samples. Rorslet doesn't like it though:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html
bjorn said:
I don't think these lenses are cheap, I'd just pass unless someone can post some outstanding samples. According to Rorslett you've got flare, you've got ghosts, you've got CA, and it doesn't do well at infinity. A lens only a mother could love???
Thanks for the link! I saw that once before and couldn't find it recenty. Good reference info.
Similar threads
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemojiForum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/