One More Reason for Rooz to Hate Me!

[JTL]

Whoomp, there it is!!!!

My brandy new Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4 G!!!

http://jtl.smugmug.com/photos/433732806_ELsnk-L.jpg

(BTW, taken with my AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 G ED)


It looks so bitchin' on my D700, I'm never taking it off! :cool:

http://jtl.smugmug.com/photos/433732479_vao7Z-L.jpg



And now...here's a sample shot to whet the appetite! A shot of my 24-85 taken with the 50mm. F1.4, baby!! Blur to die for! This lens is a MONSTER. The focusing is slient, extremely accurate and fast...though not as fast as I thought it would be. Taken under 400 watts of full-spectrum floods.

http://jtl.smugmug.com/photos/433731906_8pMDo-L.jpg

EXIF info...

Make = NIKON CORPORATION
Model = NIKON D700
Exposure Time = 1/60"
F Number = F1.4
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 200
Date Time Original = 2008-12-09 19:29:11
Date Time Digitized = 2008-12-09 19:29:11
Exposure Bias Value = ±0EV
Metering Mode = Pattern
Flash = Off
Focal Length = 50mm
White Balance = Auto white balance
Gain Control = None
Contrast = Normal
Saturation = Normal
Sharpness = Normal

The only real drawback so far...an anemic minimum focusing distance of 1.5 ft (or 0.45m for you metric minded folk).

[Visual Reality]

How does the speed of the AF-S compare to the AF primes?

[JTL]

How does the speed of the AF-S compare to the AF primes?Well, recently I've used the 50mm f/1.8 but currently don't have any primes to compare it to at the moment...but from my subjective recollection, it doesn't blow the f/1.8 lens away in speed. But, it is faster, no doubt.

I was just shooting in 150 watts, no problems with focus at all...in speed or accuracy...

I can't wait to street shoot with it...I won't be able to sleep a wink tonight!

Update: Alright...been playing around...at ISO 6400 and f/1.4 I can shoot in an almost completly dark room and get acceptable results. Will post some test shots tomorrow night...

[Honest Gaza]

It looks so bitchin' on my D700, I'm never taking it off! :cool:



I always feel inadequate when I go out in public with my 50mm attached to my camera body :o :D

[Rooz]

sonova....

lol nah, seriously , congrats mate. its a cracking lens. i got to use it at the d3x launch last week and it felt sensational. how much faster it is than the AF version depends on the lighting. in low light its MILES faster. in good light its a little faster. BUT, here's the rub...in AF-C mode its significantly faster cos there is very little to zero pause while refocussing. so for my purposes, its actually significantly faster, it may not seem so cos of how quiet it is.

BUT...it is not as fast as the 24-70 or 70-200. someone told me its cos it isnt an IF lens. dont know if thats the case or not. whatever, its cheap for what it is, has rounded blades, is whisper quiet and is now a 58mm front end. thats good enuf for me. :)

[tim11]

I always feel inadequate when I go out in public with my 50mm attached to my camera body :o :D

Gaz! It's not the 50mm. Anyone carrying a Canon brand would feel inadequate. Just ask JLT, why did he defect to Nikon?????

[Honest Gaza]

Gaz! It's not the 50mm. Anyone carrying a Canon brand would feel inadequate. Just ask JLT, why did he defect to Nikon?????

Ouch !!! I think I just got bitch-slapped :p

[Rooz]

Gaz! It's not the 50mm. Anyone carrying a Canon brand would feel inadequate. Just ask JLT, why did he defect to Nikon?????

lmfao
never seen Gaz at a loss for words. good job timbo !! :eek:

[K1W1]

Is this a Sydney thing or can anybody join in?

[ssil2000]

i think its a sydney thing... so kiwi you spending your rudd bonus on a d90?

[K1W1]

I'm not old enough to get a pension.
I'm not a knocked up solo mother.
I'm not poor enough for the Labor party
and
Despite my daughters best efforts at times she is not classified as disabled. :D

so in a word, no.

[Rasidel Slika]

looking forward to seeing the night shots :)

[JTL]

Gaz! It's not the 50mm. Anyone carrying a Canon brand would feel inadequate. Just ask JLT, why did he defect to Nikon?????Tim...you're always right on it. Notice how I never put a 50mm lens on my old Canon camera? :D:D:D

[XaiLo]

50mm AF-S for $2000 Chuck... The answer is... So JTL like where are the pictures? :p

[JTL]

50mm AF-S for $2000 Chuck... The answer is... So JTL like where are the pictures? :pLater, man! :D

It's pouring rain outside...so no street shooting today. Later on tonight I'll post some shots from inside a bathroom or closet (no jokes, please) with the door ajar and also some other low-watt shots and you'll see what a full frame camera with a great sensor and this fantastic lens can do...

[K1W1]

I'll post some shots from inside a bathroom or closet

That's the joke right there. :D:D

[JTL]

That's the joke right there. :D:DYou just made spit up my drink while laughing, you ba$tard! :D:D:D

[ssil2000]

I'm not old enough to get a pension.
I'm not a knocked up solo mother.
I'm not poor enough for the Labor party
and
Despite my daughters best efforts at times she is not classified as disabled. :D

so in a word, no.


alright, let me rephrase that, are you going to assist in the rebirth of our economy and spend some hard earned dollars on a d90?

[Visual Reality]

alright, let me rephrase that, are you going to assist in the rebirth of our economy and spend some hard earned dollars on a d90?
If you really think that's what will fix it...just so you know, our problem was never consumer spending...

A D90 would be good. Although a D300 would be even better. If you're going that far, why stop short of bliss?

[ssil2000]

its really an aussie joke, our prime minister has urged us to spend spend spend...

[K1W1]

If you really think that's what will fix it...just so you know, our problem was never consumer spending...

There is the problem. Once again we have an American who thinks that he knows what is best for the world. :(

[K1W1]

alright, let me rephrase that, are you going to assist in the rebirth of our economy and spend some hard earned dollars on a d90?

I'm vacillating. :D:D
I just paid enough in school fess for 2009 to finance most South Pacific island states for the year so I think I have done my bit for Kev this month.

[Visual Reality]

There is the problem. Once again we have an American who thinks that he knows what is best for the world. :(
Wait a minute, when did I say what was best for the world? :confused:

[nsjuice]

no offense to anyone but.. how about we stay on subject..


Awaiting 50 Milli pictures.

[Visual Reality]

no offense to anyone but.. how about we stay on subject..


Awaiting 50 Milli pictures.
I agree...

[e_dawg]

Just got the AF-S 50/1.4 today. Haven't spent enough time with it to be able to provide lots of details, specifics, or pics, but in a nutshell, it's good but not great in any particular area except for bokeh (which is very good -- smooth and corrected just enough, with no offensive qualities).

Sharpness and AF speed are good, but not up to the level of their top lenses. I suspect Nikon did not want to optimize for sharpness at the expense of the quality of the bokeh, so they didn't stray too far from the previous formula, which has been successful thus far. The AF-S motor did not strike me as that much of an improvement over the screw-drive in initial testing -- at least, not as much as I would have expected. That said, it's certainly fast enough to do the job.

Basically, IMO, what we have here is a very good lens designed mainly for portraits. Some will also like it for low light. Personally, I prefer the AF-S 60 macro overall in this focal length range for its superior sharpness (as in, if I had to choose one). But in reality, these are two different lenses with overlapping, but different capabilities. IMO, the 50 will be used for low light and portrait work; the 60 macro for everything else.

[JTL]

Did some fooling around this evening...just to push the lens (and camera) to ridiculous extremes.

Here's a shot...the light source is a 100-watt incandescent bulb in the other room about 10-ft away...needless to say, the bathroom was very dark...

I'm impressed...

http://jtl.smugmug.com/photos/434413156_kPmQw-L.jpg

Check out the EXIF Info...

Make = NIKON CORPORATION
Model = NIKON D700
Exposure Time = 1/20"
F Number = F1.4
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 6400
Exposure Bias Value = ±0EV
Metering Mode = Pattern
Flash = Off
Focal Length = 50mm
Color Space = sRGB
White Balance = Manual white balance
Digital Zoom Ratio = 1x
Focal Length In 35mm Film = 50mm
Scene Capture Type = Normal
Gain Control = High gain up
Contrast = Normal
Saturation = Normal
Sharpness = Normal


Here's a close-up of the countertop...

http://jtl.smugmug.com/photos/434413128_Wrq4C-L.jpg

Exact same settings as above


O.K....here's where it gets nuts. No room light at all. The only light source was from 3 40-bulbs in a light fixture down the hall approximately 20-ft. away and leaking into the room through the open doorway. Shot at ISO 12800. The fact that a shot in these conditions can be taken at all, let alone hand-held with reasonable results opens up all kinds of possibilities that did not exist before the advent of the D700 and D3 with a fast prime attached...

Oh...and BTW, no NR or any other PP at all...

http://jtl.smugmug.com/photos/434498999_MnMct-L.jpg

Check out the EXIF...

Make = NIKON CORPORATION
Model = NIKON D700
Exposure Time = 1/10"
F Number = F1.4
Exposure Program = Normal program
Exposure Bias Value = ±0EV
Metering Mode = Pattern
Flash = Off
Focal Length = 50mm
Color Space = sRGB
White Balance = Manual white balance
Contrast = Normal
Saturation = Normal
Sharpness = Normal
ISO Speed Used = 12800

Something very strange...when shooting at ISO HI 1.0 (12800), the regular ISO speed rating field does not get populated but the ISO Speed Used and ISO Speed Requested fields get populated. I wonder why this is? I have to ask some Nikon tech some day...

Once the weather clears (not for 3 days), I'll really start putting the lens through it's paces. BTW, I agree with most of e-dawg's assessment...but he seems a little harsher on the lens than I am...;)

[Rooz]

hopefully i'll have mine next week. i'll run it side by side with the 50/1.4 for an AF test. i'm not gonna bother with image tests cos i cant be stuffed and i want the lens for AF speed and quietness not for any huge improvment in IQ. i've always been satisfied with the IQ from the 50/1.4.

[Rooz]

Exposure Time = 1/10"
F Number = F1.4
ISO Speed Used = 12800

thats 2 stops better than anything i've ever seen from any camera. quite remarkable.

[nsjuice]

apoligies if I missed it, but are all these shots handheld?

[K1W1]

apoligies if I missed it, but are all these shots handheld?

Yes.
It's in the text between the second and third photos.

[e_dawg]

Rooz,

If you're happy with your AF 50/1.4D, you will certainly be happy with the AF-S 50/1.4. But IMO, you owe it to yourself to try the AF-S 60 macro, especially if you are going to FF next year. The extra 10 mm reach will come in handy when your "crop factor" is gone, and with the shallower DoF of FF systems, you'll rarely want to go larger than f/2.8 for your aperture anyways.

But besides that, it is so sharp, clear, and smooth that everything seems a little more realistic. IMO, it sets a new benchmark for IQ from Nikkor primes. If you're used to the 35/2 and 50/1.4 and you thought they were good, the new 60 will blow your mind. It's that good.

As I said before, if portraits and low-light are your thing, then the AF-S 50/1.4 is probably the better choice. But for everything else, the AF-S 60 macro owns. IMO, it's the only Nikon-mount lens I have that can touch my better Olympus ZD glass.

[Rooz]

Rooz,

If you're happy with your AF 50/1.4D, you will certainly be happy with the AF-S 50/1.4. But IMO, you owe it to yourself to try the AF-S 60 macro, especially if you are going to FF next year. The extra 10 mm reach will come in handy when your "crop factor" is gone, and with the shallower DoF of FF systems, you'll rarely want to go larger than f/2.8 for your aperture anyways.

ha ha ! i;m way ahead of ya mate. :D i was talking to andy about this not long ago on flickr after seeing the IQ from the 60/2.8. when i go FF and nikon updates its 200/4 macro. then i'll be selling the 105 and grabbing the 60 and 200/4 micro's. thats really my ideal setup, if only nikon would come to the party. :mad:

by this time next year i'll have a pretty full lens lineup again i hope. but i suspect that i may be waiting a bit longer for some of them.

d700/d300
14-24/2.8
24-120/afs VR
24/2.8 afs
35/2 afs
50/1.4 afs
60/2.8 afs micro
85/1.4 afs
70-200/4 VR
200/4 afs micro
300/4 afs VR

it all depends on how my run goes with the 5dMkII aswell. cos i may end up running 2 systems. if the MkII is as good as i think it might be then i think it will look like this...

d300
14-24/2.8
24-120 afs VR
50/1.4 afs
60/2.8 afs micro
200/4 afs micro VR
300/4 afs VR

MkII
35/1.4 L
135/2 L
70-200/4 L IS

[erichlund]

[SIZE=2]Something very strange...when shooting at ISO HI 1.0 (12800), the regular ISO speed rating field does not get populated but the ISO Speed Used and ISO Speed Requested fields get populated. I wonder why this is? I have to ask some Nikon tech some day...


Nikon does not consider any hi or lo settings to be "official" ISO ratings. They let you use them, but they make no guarantees or certifications, so they do not populate that field. What they are essentially saying is, "You requested 12800, here it is, but it's not a true rating, just an estimate".

[trackin951]

Rooz that is just retarded... very jealous

My 35 f/2 should be here in a few hours! Cannot wait

[JTL]

Nikon does not consider any hi or lo settings to be "official" ISO ratings. They let you use them, but they make no guarantees or certifications, so they do not populate that field. What they are essentially saying is, "You requested 12800, here it is, but it's not a true rating, just an estimate".Thank you, Eric! Mystery solved! :)

[JTL]

Rooz that is just retarded... very jealous

My 35 f/2 should be here in a few hours! Cannot waitPlease start a thread and post images! Very interested...

[JTL]

Hey Rooz...

Do you know something we don't know...or is it just (very) wishfull thinking? You don't think Nikon is really going to give us some high-quality f/4 lenses now, do you? Look how long it took for the AF-S 50mm 1.4. What was it...something like 15 years before an upgrade? But, if they ever do come out with an f/4 series, you'll be able to get some really good shots at the old age home...:D:D:D

So, I'm teetering back and forth on the next lens...70-200mm f/2.8 VR or 80-400mm...do I want AF-S and a constant f/2.8 or do I want a lens with more reach, although slower? Hmmmmmm....

What I really want is a AF-S 24-120mm (or 105) f/4 VR...but, they're not smart enough to make it...

[Visual Reality]

Hey Rooz...

Do you know something we don't know...or is it just (very) wishfull thinking? You don't think Nikon is really going to give us some high-quality f/4 lenses now, do you?

Hey, we can dream right?

See my sig...:(

It makes financial sense to produce those lenses. Look at Canon.

Plus if they had this middle ground covered people wouldn't even bother going to Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina.

[JTL]

Hey, we can dream right?

See my sig...:(

It makes financial sense to produce those lenses. Look at Canon.

Plus if they had this middle ground covered people wouldn't even bother going to Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina.Maybe that youtube video will finally push them over the edge and they'll get the message! :D:D:D

[Visual Reality]

Hmm...link?

[K1W1]

The Hitler one Rooz posted in the thread a few days ago about the D3x.

[JTL]

Hmm...link?Here ya goes...

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42165

[Rooz]

Do you know something we don't know...or is it just (very) wishfull thinking?

wishful thinking. lol

BUT, in saying that. they have to release some new glass. not even nikon would be arrogant enuf to release an $8k D3x and expect pro's to be using existing glass without an expectation for some updates to their core lens'. the other reasoning here is that their goal of a complete body lineup is now complete.

entry level DX - d60 CHECK (but will be updated aswell)
mid level DX - d90 CHECK
hi end DX - d300 CHECK
consumer FX - d700 CHECK
pro fast FX - D3 CHECK
pro hi MP FX - D3x CHECK

imo nikon will release 5 new lens' in 2009. here;s what i think they'll be.
85/1.4 afs, (i HOPE its not a 1.2 but this is a possibility)
24/2.8 afs, (or 35/1.4 or 28/2.8)
FX 24-120 VR update
80-400VR afs or 300/4 afs VR
70-200/2.8 VR update
outside chance of a 135/1.8

at least 2 of these will be at PMA. 70-200 and 85, possibly 3 with the short prime. the 24-120 will come in with a new FX model late in the year. the 70-200 is the wierd one here. the facts are that, it's super fast AF, VR is exceptional, hadling is brilliant, its sharp as hell in the centre. so is ther really a need for an update ? its main "issue" is vignetting on FX. but have you noticed how much work nikon have put into vignetting control in-camera ? i think thats quite significant. i wonder if thats a sign that the 70-200 is here for some time longer.

they will also release 2 bodies.

d60 replacement
d400, DX higher MP, video etc


You don't think Nikon is really going to give us some high-quality f/4 lenses now, do you? no, i don't. dickheads. i kind of understand their positioning, i just dont like it.


So, I'm teetering back and forth on the next lens...70-200mm f/2.8 VR or 80-400mm...do I want AF-S and a constant f/2.8 or do I want a lens with more reach, although slower? Hmmmmmm....

have you ever used a canon 100-400 ? if you have and were happy with it then you'll be more than pleased with the 80-400. its a better lens all round than the canon version but personally, i think it sucks. i'd strongly recommend the 300/4 over it. with a 1.7TC its 450mm and is superb. MUCH better than the canon equivalent.

[K1W1]

have you ever used a canon 100-400 ? if you have and were happy with it then you'll be more than pleased with the 80-400. its a better lens all round than the canon version but personally, i think it sucks. i'd strongly recommend the 300/4 over it. with a 1.7TC its 450mm and is superb. MUCH better than the canon equivalent.

Depends on what you shoot surely.
For me a decent and affordable 80-400 would be far more useful that a 300 anything.
I guess there lie tha problem. No matter how many lenses are in the line up from any manufacturer there will always be a group of people who are looking for something else for their particular application.

[JTL]

have you ever used a canon 100-400 ? if you have and were happy with it then you'll be more than pleased with the 80-400. its a better lens all round than the canon version but personally, i think it sucks. i'd strongly recommend the 300/4 over it. with a 1.7TC its 450mm and is superb. MUCH better than the canon equivalent.Actually I was a fan of the Canon 100-400 and came within one day of buying it when I decided to make the move to Nikon instead...

I guess I'm pretty set for now. I get acceptable results out of the Tamron, so I really don't need a new tele zoom. I think your logic has swayed me to wait until PMA and beyond before dropping another couple of grand on lenses...


Depends on what you shoot surely.
For me a decent and affordable 80-400 would be far more useful that a 300 anything.
I guess there lie tha problem. No matter how many lenses are in the line up from any manufacturer there will always be a group of people who are looking for something else for their particular application. Therein lies the problem indeed...its even harder when you have multiple priorities and a limited budget...;)

[erichlund]

<snip>
imo nikon will release 5 new lens' in 2009. here;s what i think they'll be.
85/1.4 afs, (i HOPE its not a 1.2 but this is a possibility)


I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for not wanting a 1.2 (there's a question in there somewhere). Frankly, I don't expect one, given the current high ISO capabilities of the Nikon "Pro" lineup, but you never know.

I've only seen the output from the Canon 85 f1.2, and while I think the world of the Nikkor 85 f1.4, I don't think the Canon takes a back seat to anybody.

So, is it added weight, added cost, or do you just think Nikon can't successfully pull off a 1.2?

[Visual Reality]

It's probably added cost over the 1.4...just a guess.

[Rooz]

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for not wanting a 1.2 (there's a question in there somewhere). Frankly, I don't expect one, given the current high ISO capabilities of the Nikon "Pro" lineup, but you never know.

I've only seen the output from the Canon 85 f1.2, and while I think the world of the Nikkor 85 f1.4, I don't think the Canon takes a back seat to anybody.

So, is it added weight, added cost, or do you just think Nikon can't successfully pull off a 1.2?

cost, weight, size.

[Rooz]

i doubt this lens will be coming off my camera anytime soon. :D as you can see, giving it a workout today will be difficult cos its pissing down rain.

shot #1....f1.4

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3100995155_9445222554_o.jpg

[e_dawg]

"this lens" meaning you got the AF-S 50/1.4 already or the old AF 50/1.4D

[Rooz]

G baby. :)

[Rooz]

first shot of Lucas. 30 odd shots. around 25 nailed focus, this is in comparison to around a 50% hit rate with the af-d. for anyone who suggests that this lens is not a MASSIVE improvement in the AF dept, i suggest you track a moving object in af-c mode. its a totally different lens. optics so far seem sharper to me aswell.

straight out of camera.
sb400, f2.8, iso500, 1/50s.

[Rooz]

even stopped down to f4, the bokeh, (top right), remains soft and circular. no sharp corners.

[K1W1]

Don't wear it out too quick. :)

I like the brokeh.

[Rooz]

B&W conversion, otherwise untouched.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3245/3101493693_5a96c51053_o.jpg

[JTL]

even stopped down to f4, the bokeh, (top right), remains soft and circular. no sharp corners.Da'yam! That is something. If I didn't already own one, I'd be pissed! ;)

Great shot of Lucas, BTW, regardless of the lens. The B&W shot is also fantastic. Do you love the lens yet?

Hey, do you think Nikon will send us some commission money? We're helping to sell this thing...:D:D:D

[Rooz]

D
Hey, do you think Nikon will send us some commission money? We're helping to sell this thing...:D:D:D

lol :D

as happy as i am about this lens, and i'm VERY happy, this is what pisses people off. such a simple thing to add af-s to a lens and its completely changed the characteristics of it. its an absolute pleasure to use. there is no more frustration for me.

when they get things right, geez it feels good to shoot. :)

[JTL]

I haven't taken it off the camera either. I really think it stays on until a situation arises where I need more reach...and that won't be anytime soon.

But...just wait to you slap it on an FX camera...it will change your entire perspective on shooting...no joke...

[achuang]

The images are looking good, hope you're both enjoying the new lens.

[Rooz]

a "mini review"...more like initial impressions...

i bought this purely for the AF speed and have been pleasantly surprised that the rounded blades have more impact than i thought and i may be wrong but it does seem to have a bit more contrast and is a bit sharper than the 1.4D. EDIT: actually the contrast increase makes sense cos i have the hood for it now, (comes in the box and is excellent btw), i suspect that's the main reason for the improvement.

there has been much debate and talk about the AF improvement. some say there isnt much improvement at all. my assessment is this...the amount of improvement depends on the focussing situation. if you focus to infinity from MFD then the focus speed is slightly better. where the big difference is, and i mean HUGE, is shot to shot adjustments in af-c mode where the subject makes slight movements and you are tryign to track and keep up with limited dof. the G lens handled this marvelously. very few OOF shots and it kept up extremely well in an average lit room, so in good light its going to be outstanding.

the adjustments in focus are fast, whisper quiet and go from very good for really fast movement to instantaneous for small movements. a far cry from the slow ass screw drive annoying shitbox drive mechanisms on the existing nikon primes.

bokeh is still smooth and rounded even stopped down.

specular highlights are rounded and very smooth for this focal length, not hexagonal and angular. backlighting does not render the issues i used to have with the 1.4D

i paid $585 from ECS. to me this is money well spent. imo this lens is a steal. which leads me to my next question...given its not as fast in the AF stakes as say the 70-200, 14-24 et al apparently due to the fact that this is not an IF lens, (apparently this is the reason its not as fast ??), one wonders...why leave IF out ? i suspect it was to keep the cost and weight down ? well, i would happily have paid a couple of hundred more for it to be blazingly fast. you also have to wonder...if the 85/1.4 gets the same afs treatment and its not super fast BUT you have to pay $1500 for it ? well...thats starting to stretch the friendship and i dont know if they could get away with that. i'd seriously thik twice about it.

the other slightly disappointing thing is that the MFD was not improved. its still 45cm. the 35/2 is 25cm. that extra 20cm MFD is so cool to have. not sure why this could not have also been improved.

so given an amazing opportunity here to really get this SPOT ON...i think Nikon fell short of hitting one out of the park. its close, its a home run...but it should have been sailing out into the stands.

bottom line ? its currently the only "must have" prime in Nikon's line up. at least until nikon give us a 35/2 afs. it seems optically brilliant, it handles like a dream and finally...afs. :)

[e_dawg]

i may be wrong but it does seem to have a bit more contrast and is a bit sharper than the 1.4D. EDIT: actually the contrast increase makes sense cos i have the hood for it now, (comes in the box and is excellent btw), i suspect that's the main reason for the improvement.

And there's also the extra lens element and slight improvement in lens design learned over the last decade or two.


bokeh is still smooth and rounded even stopped down.

specular highlights are rounded and very smooth for this focal length, not hexagonal and angular. backlighting does not render the issues i used to have with the 1.4D

I would say that this is one of the strengths of this lens (unlike what some have said on DPR), and that this is why they made the design decisions that they made (more below).


one wonders...why leave IF out ? i suspect it was to keep the cost and weight down ?

Another reason is that sometimes (according to Klaus at Photozone, IIRC), adding IF increases the propensity for longitudinal (bokeh) CA at large apertures as you move away from the plane of focus to the OoF areas.


the other slightly disappointing thing is that the MFD was not improved. its still 45cm. the 35/2 is 25cm. that extra 20cm MFD is so cool to have. not sure why this could not have also been improved.

This is probably a result of the low power symmetrical-ish optical design, lack of aspherics, and a non-IF design. If they used a pure-IF design, the MFD would have improved somewhat, but keep in mind that the effective focal length and aperture decreases the closer you get.

I think their primary goals were (1) not to mess up the bokeh and rendering characteristics, and (2) to keep the cost and size down. They probably could have designed a lens 50 with everything you wanted, but it would have been at odds with those two goals. If you wanted a grand slam home run, it would have cost a lot more.


bottom line ? its currently the only "must have" prime in Nikon's line up.

For me, it's the AF-S 60 macro, but I definitely think the new 50 has its place (esp. for portraits & low-light) and it really depends on what your preferences and typical usage would be.

[e_dawg]

ha ha ! i;m way ahead of ya mate. :D i was talking to andy about this not long ago on flickr after seeing the IQ from the 60/2.8. when i go FF and nikon updates its 200/4 macro. then i'll be selling the 105 and grabbing the 60 and 200/4 micro's. thats really my ideal setup, if only nikon would come to the party. :mad:

Clearly, way ahead indeed! You are like a photographic yoda ;)

[JTL]

Rooz is right about one thing...any sacrifices made in the name of keeping the cost down were a mistake. The target audience for this lens should have been the serious enthusiast and the pro. To this group the difference of $100-$200 doesn't figure into the decision. I fully expected this lens to cost around $649. U.S. That's probably what it would have cost if Nikon pulled out all the stops (no pun intended). There was really no need to cut corners to cut cost. As good as it is, we all know it could have been even better. I simply will never understand camera company marketing practices.

That being said...the lens stays on the camera...

[e_dawg]

It's not just about saving cost... it also has to do with maintaing favourable rendering characteristics and good bokeh. This "simple" design delivers great rendering and bokeh, which were arguably two of the top goals of this lens. Change the design, and there's no guarantee that you'll get the rendering, bokeh, flare resistance, etc... or at least it might be a lot harder to pull it off. Perhaps it was a case of the "Law of Diminishing Returns". I would have preferred a "better" 50, but how many people would be happy if Nikon released an $800 normal prime?

[erichlund]

I don't know about that. On my first camera, a Canon A-1, I knew I wasn't going to be able to add lenses for a while, so I got the 50 f/1.4 instead of the f/1.8. I never regretted that decision. The 50 f/1.4 ED was an incredible lens. But, if it had been priced like the 50 f/1.2 (yes, Canon had a 50 f1.2), I would not have been able to afford it, being the young married Second Lieutenant that I was. Back then, a Second Lieutenant was just barely above being eligible for food stamps.

I don't think Nikon wants to price the lens so only pros and serious enthusiasts can buy it. They want mass appeal. Otherwise, they would have put the AF-S on the 1.8 instead. I think making the lens perfect, by Rooz' standards, would have doubled the price and sent sales into the toilet. As it is, all those bazillion D40, D40x and D60 owners now have an affordable choice for an outstanding lens that will AF on their cameras. So, their choices make perfect sense to me.

[JTL]

Ah..but there's the compromise...

As both e-dawg and Eric point out...the lens is trying to serve two constituencies...the D40 and D60 shooter who desperately needed an AF-S prime and the pro/enthusiast shooter who has been waiting over 10 years for a fast 50 update.

Thanks guys...I get it now. I wish it were different...but I get it.

Hell, it's a great lens none-the-less! What am I complaining about! ;):D

[erichlund]

BTW: This is not a "normal" lens to the primary target market, which is why I expect the next prime update to be to the 35mm.

When the 85 is updated, I expect the first one will be the f/1.8, since that has more general appeal, and is in greater need of AF-S. The 1.4 is a studio portrait lens. I suspect most pros have the camera focus switch on manual with their 85 f/1.4.

[eddie_dane]

If nikon is walking the line between consumer and enthusiast/pro with a f1.4 lens then they made a mistake. Nikon should have release an AF-S f1.8 first then to shut the D40/D60 guys up if that was their design priority. The 1.4 version should be the no-holds-barred version like the 85mm. I admit it's a tough spot to be in but they put themselves there with bodies with no drive motor and a lack of updating the lens lineup

[JTL]

If nikon is walking the line between consumer and enthusiast/pro with a f1.4 lens then they made a mistake. Nikon should have release an AF-S f1.8 first then to shut the D40/D60 guys up if that was their design priority. The 1.4 version should be the no-holds-barred version like the 85mm. I admit it's a tough spot to be in but they put themselves there with bodies with no drive motor and a lack of updating the lens lineupHa, ha! I was thinking the same thing about their decision to leave out the motor on the D40/D60...but couldn't find a way to express the connection between that decision and the AF-S 50 f/1.4 design design/cost decisions in a succinct way...but you did, so thank you! :)

[erichlund]

It seems vaguely bizarre to criticize Nikon for not including a drive motor on the cameras that made them the #1 seller by unit volume. By any measure the D40/60 series cameras have been a resounding success for Nikon.

Wait for it. The day is coming when none of the Nikons will have a drive motor. Canon went through it years ago when they killed FD (I called it ED, in error, earlier), to create the EF series cameras and lenses. I imagine that people familiar with the Canon lineup screamed bloody murder at the time. They got over it. Nikon users will also.

[Rooz]

If nikon is walking the line between consumer and enthusiast/pro with a f1.4 lens then they made a mistake. Nikon should have release an AF-S f1.8 first then to shut the D40/D60 guys up if that was their design priority. The 1.4 version should be the no-holds-barred version like the 85mm. I admit it's a tough spot to be in but they put themselves there with bodies with no drive motor and a lack of updating the lens lineup

agree 100%. except i dont think no drive motor in their bodies have anything to do with it. canon don't either.


I would have preferred a "better" 50, but how many people would be happy if Nikon released an $800 normal prime?

lets be a little realistic here. a 50/1.4 afs with IF was never gonna be $800USD. it probably would have come in at around the $600 mark. its only $440 NOW, so it didnt even double in price with a complete redesign of the elements, construction, blades and lens motor. PLUS they throw in a hood. so by what logic would it have almost doubled again with IF ?


I don't think Nikon wants to price the lens so only pros and serious enthusiasts can buy it. They want mass appeal. therwise, they would have put the AF-S on the 1.8 instead.

precisely. why didnt they ? mass appeal could have been available to the "general public" by putting it in the 1.8. make the 1.4 the real enthisiast lens. imo, this is lazy by not releasing both with af-s.


making the lens perfect, by Rooz' standards, would have doubled the price and sent sales into the toilet.

i didnt say to make it PERFECT. making it perfect would have been to also dramatically improve the optical quality up there with the 14-24 or 24-70 and adding ED glass and VR. all i'm asking for is an IF mechanism to improve the speed. thats it. this is not a big ask considering the whole lens was overhauled.

i dont think a $600 50/1.4 would have sent sales into the toilet. slowed them down ? sure. but this is their flagship prime lens for DX format and their "top of the range" 50mm. make it special i say.


As it is, all those bazillion D40, D40x and D60 owners now have an affordable choice for an outstanding lens that will AF on their cameras.

as per above, this could have been done by making the 50/1.8 af-s. now lets have a close look at this statment aswell...the bazillion d40/x/60 owners are not in the market for a low light 1.4 prime. there is a small element of them that are sure, but the VAST majority of them wouldnt know what the hell a prime lens is.

people that buy entry level dslr do so for a reason. they are ENTRY level cost. a d60 with kit lens is $550. a d90 with the same kit lens is around the $900 mark. thats the price of the 50/1.4G. so if people arent prepared to shell out that cost difference for a vastly superior body, what makes you think they'd shell out that same difference for a fixed focal length lens ?? lets step inside a camera showroom as a salesman with a d40 buyer. what do you think you have more chance doing, selling a 50/1.4 at $440 or selling a 50/1.8 afs for $200 ? sorry, but your form of reasoning doesnt make sense to me at all.

nikon, as with all manufacturers have "levels" of lens'. they have a 55-200VR and they have a 70-200VR. they have an 18-55VR and a 17-55/2.8. they have a 300/4 and a 300/2.8. an 85/1.4 and a 1.8 etc etc etc lots of people would LIKE to have a pro lens but cant afford it for one reason or another. why is this prime segment any different ? why not make a 1.8 for the amateurs and a kickass 1.4 for the pros ? what reason is there NOT to offer that ? none i can see. further to this point, the 50/1.8 is, in itself, an entry level low light lens and by not having af-s they have effectively ruled out the market to which it is MOST appealing cos it wont AF.


The 85 1.4 is a studio portrait lens.

its actually also a wedding photographers bread and butter lens.


I suspect most pros have the camera focus switch on manual with their 85 f/1.4.

wedding photographers have it on manual cos its AF is slow as molasses.


So, their choices make perfect sense to me.

perfect sense ? hmmmm. no i dont think anyone could say it makes PERFECT sense. sure, i can see your reasoning despite the fact i dont agree with it, but its not PERFECT sense.

this is a lens, not a body. its not gonna get updated for a long, lonnngggggg time. hell, it took 20 years to update the old one ! so, if you're a high level enthusiast of a pro you'd have to sit back and think, this is the best 50mm nikon are going to offer. lets step forward a few months...the 85/1.4 gets released with the same issue. again, as a pro you;re thinking "this is it, this is the best its gonna get." that in itself, should give them at least a moment of pause.

dont get me wrong here. i;m wrapped with the lens. i love it and am very happy with it. BUT that doesnt mean i dont see a way for Nikon to have offered a better product without too much more effort. it doesnt mean that as a consumer, i dont have a right to question the logic of Nikon's direction here.

so...you tell me...whats a better direction ?

a 50/1.8 afs for $200 making it a MASS appeal lens due to its low cost and ability to AF on the d40 PLUS a top end 50/1.4 with the lot for $600 for the pros.

OR

a $100 50/1.8 that has zero appeal to the mass market of d40 owners cos its got no afs AND a 50/1.4 for $450 with comprimises.

i know what makes "perfect" sense to me, and its not what they released. :)

[e_dawg]

If nikon is walking the line between consumer and enthusiast/pro with a f1.4 lens then they made a mistake. Nikon should have release an AF-S f1.8 first then to shut the D40/D60 guys up if that was their design priority. The 1.4 version should be the no-holds-barred version like the 85mm. I admit it's a tough spot to be in but they put themselves there with bodies with no drive motor and a lack of updating the lens lineup

I know what you guys are saying with respect to needing a 50/1.8 AF-S for the D40/60 crowd... several people have said this on the DPR and FM forums too. But I don't think there's a lot of D40/60 buyers who really care about this stuff. 90% of D40/60 buyers are new to dSLRs who get their kit lens and they are pleased as punch that they now have "one of those big professional cameras" At least that's what everyone I know calls any dSLR with any lens. And for that market, Nikon has every single 18-whatever zoom under the sun, as well as 55-200 and 70-300 zooms if they want to go all out ;)

The few D40/60 buyers who want a fast prime are usually directed to go buy a Sigma 30/1.4 and can now buy either Nikon or Sigma's 50/1.4. Or, they can use the 50/1.8 and manual focus. I mean, if they're serious about this stuff, then they wouldn't be above manually focusing, right? ;) For a tiny segment of the market, I think they've got quite a good selection now, relatively speaking.

[e_dawg]

lets be a little realistic here. a 50/1.4 afs with IF was never gonna be $800USD. it probably would have come in at around the $600 mark. its only $440 NOW, so it didnt even double in price with a complete redesign of the elements, construction, blades and lens motor. PLUS they throw in a hood. so by what logic would it have almost doubled again with IF ?

I guess $600 is more reasonable... although I was thinking of a "more perfect" lens with IF, great bokeh, nano-coat, etc. And I was also thinking that it could (not saying it would necessarily, but there is the possibility) be very difficult to retain the great bokeh without excessive longitudinal / bokeh CA or problems with under/over-correction of SA at specific apertures with an IF design, and that it might be costly and complicated to engineer it out of an IF design. ... But it's not like I have any background in optical engineering, so who knows...


this is a lens, not a body. its not gonna get updated for a long, lonnngggggg time. hell, it took 20 years to update the old one ! so, if you're a high level enthusiast of a pro you'd have to sit back and think, this is the best 50mm nikon are going to offer. lets step forward a few months...the 85/1.4 gets released with the same issue. again, as a pro you;re thinking "this is it, this is the best its gonna get." that in itself, should give them at least a moment of pause.

[...]

so...you tell me...whats a better direction ?

a 50/1.8 afs for $200 making it a MASS appeal lens due to its low cost and ability to AF on the d40 PLUS a top end 50/1.4 with the lot for $600 for the pros.

OR

a $100 50/1.8 that has zero appeal to the mass market of d40 owners cos its got no afs AND a 50/1.4 for $450 with comprimises.

i know what makes "perfect" sense to me, and its not what they released. :)

You make good points, there Rooz... can't argue with you there!

[JTL]

why not make a 1.8 for the amateurs and a kickass 1.4 for the pros ? what reason is there NOT to offer that ? none i can see. further to this point, the 50/1.8 is, in itself, an entry level low light lens and by not having af-s they have effectively ruled out the market to which it is MOST appealing cos it wont AF.I really believe that they were going for a "two'fer". Like I said, we don't have to like their strategy (or lack thereof)...but that's their reality...obviously they don't think they can afford to serve both markets with two separate lenses. What they really need is more photogrpahers in decision making positions, because any half savvy photog would have told them to make two AF-S 50s...one cheap f/1.8 and one no-holds-barred f/1.4. Look, let's face it...they've had a really confusing and frustrating lens strategy for a long, long time. They cheaped out on this one. They did. No one can effectively argue otherwise. Thankfully, even with cheaping out, they produced an excellent lens. But...if they do come out with an AF-S f/1.8 after this, then I'll be really seriously pissed...because then the compromises they made on the AF-S f/1.4 would really make no sense whatsoever...

But, now it's time for me to shut up, shoot the lens and be happy...;):)

[erichlund]

Except for macro lenses, you might notice that none of the Nikkor primes are internal focus lenses, at least in the shorter lengths. I don't know if anyone has already pointed this out, but when focused to less than infinity, an internal focusing lens actually has a shorter focal length than published (longer lenses, like the 300 f/2.8 do have IF, so you don't really get 300 unless you focus to infinity, but you don't care, you want speed to shoot wildlife). I'm not sure IF on short focal length lenses would go over too well with prime purists. That, in itself, may be the driving reason for not using internal focus.

As for the argument that they should have done the 1.8 as AF-S also, Nikon does lenses in batches. I'm certain it's in the works, but what order it will come in is not up to us.

We should also consider that many of those people that bought all those cheap cameras are probably looking to move up sometime. When they do, will they want a cheap prime or a moderately priced prime to go with their moderately priced camera? You see, we can argue business decisions all day, but they are not our decisions.

Nikon has really never made a "premium" 50mm. It's a normal lens. There was an f/1.2 50mm at one point, and it was a pretty decent performer, but it's a manual AI lens. There's also the fact that they really don't have any serious competition. The new Sigma could give it a run, but it's a couple of hundred dollars more for a third party lens, and it also takes 72mm (or is it 77mm) filters, so it's definitely not compact. The Zeiss doesn't AF at all, and has horrible bokeh.

The 60mm micro has the internal focusing (which helps achieve close focus) and a macro is not about actually being the focal length specified, but about being able to achieve a particular magnification (1:1, in this case). It seems this, though, in a faster 1.4, is what you, Rooz, really wanted. But Nikon has never produced a lens that has all those characteristics, and I just don't see them doing so.

If you want a direct comparison, this lens now matches the Canon 50mm f1.4 almost identically, but with more modern diaphram and newer optical formula. Interesting that Canon doesn't use internal focus on their short primes, either.

[Visual Reality]

Eric, you and I both own the 35 f/2 so you should know that non-IF primes change focal length with focus distance as well.

Otherwise, I believe Nikon has their reasons and I'll let the engineers do their job.

[Rooz]

Except for macro lenses, you might notice that none of the Nikkor primes are internal focus lenses, at least in the shorter lengths. I don't know if anyone has already pointed this out, but when focused to less than infinity, an internal focusing lens actually has a shorter focal length than published (longer lenses, like the 300 f/2.8 do have IF, so you don't really get 300 unless you focus to infinity, but you don't care, you want speed to shoot wildlife).

so what ?


I'm not sure IF on short focal length lenses would go over too well with prime purists.

so what ?


That, in itself, may be the driving reason for not using internal focus.

i doubt it. basing that kind of decision on a minuscule number of prime "purists" ? hmmm i think not. lol


As for the argument that they should have done the 1.8 as AF-S also, Nikon does lenses in batches. I'm certain it's in the works,

agreed. they've had 5-10 years though. and a full 2 years since the d40 was stripped of the AF motor. ie: they've been lazy.


but what order it will come in is not up to us.

therein lies the problem.


We should also consider that many of those people that bought all those cheap cameras are probably looking to move up sometime. When they do, will they want a cheap prime or a moderately priced prime to go with their moderately priced camera? You see, we can argue business decisions all day, but they are not our decisions.

they can get a cheap prime or they can get a great prime. just like they can get a cheap zoom or a great zoom. besides which, those people you are talking about could buy a cheap afs 1.8 NOW. why gamble on when/ if they upgrade to a better body ?


Nikon has really never made a "premium" 50mm.

so what ?


There's also the fact that they really don't have any serious competition. The new Sigma could give it a run, but it's a couple of hundred dollars more for a third party lens, and it also takes 72mm (or is it 77mm) filters, so it's definitely not compact. The Zeiss doesn't AF at all, and has horrible bokeh.

so on one hand you argue that nikons strategy is perfect...but on the other you say that a main factor is the lack of competition ?? so nikons strategy is based on not giving its consumers what they want because the competition doesnt ??


But Nikon has never produced a lens that has all those characteristics,

so what ?


I just don't see them doing so.

why ? to me thats the arrogance i was talking about in my other thread a while ago. why wont they ? what reason is there ?


If you want a direct comparison, this lens now matches the Canon 50mm f1.4 almost identically, but with more modern diaphram and newer optical formula. Interesting that Canon doesn't use internal focus on their short primes, either.

i'm not basing my arguments on what canon have. is this about keeping up or surpassing ? i think it should be about surpassing what canon are offering. this is nikons time to roll over alot of their lens'. lens that will not be updated again for a long period of time. so in effect what will happen will be nikon matches the canon 50mm, but then canon trump them with their update soon...then...behind again.

i already think nikon made a mistake by not inlcuding VR with the 24-70 cos you can bet your ass that canons new pro 24-70 will have IS.

anyway...yes, we can keep arguing all day and i quite enjoy it sometimes. lol but you are right about one thing, we dont have control over it and no manufacturer makes my ideal set up. so maybe the onkly solution is to do what edawg does and pinch the best of every system and run more than one setup.

[K1W1]

I have one word to say to you guys.

Pentax

or

Olympus

or

Sony

or

Lieca

:D :D

The POTD thread has virtually died in the last few days while you lot argue around in ever increasing circles. Why don't you all just grab a camera and a lens, any lens and go take some photos to post.

:D:D

[e_dawg]

The POTD thread has virtually died in the last few days while you lot argue around in ever increasing circles. Why don't you all just grab a camera and a lens, any lens and go take some photos to post.

:D:D

Will you buzz off already, camera geek? We're busy arguing about minutiae with personal opinions presented every so deftly as facts with regards to Nikon's lens strategy and the ramifications thereof. :rolleyes: ;) :p :D

[K1W1]

Will you buzz off already, camera geek? We're busy arguing about minutiae with personal opinions presented every so deftly as facts with regards to Nikon's lens strategy and the ramifications thereof. :rolleyes: ;) :p :D

I would reply with a suitably acerbic comment that displays my complete mastery of the English language in it's written form but I can't as I'm currently going for a walk in the rain through the forest with my camera and tripod.

[e_dawg]

i already think nikon made a mistake by not inlcuding VR with the 24-70 cos you can bet your ass that canons new pro 24-70 will have IS.

Yep, not thrilled about Nikon's lack of VR in too many lenses where it could be useful. While you may harp about Nikon not putting AF-S and IF in various lenses, omitting VR from various lenses is one of my biggest pet peeves. The other is the f/4 gap issue.


so maybe the onkly solution is to do what edawg does and pinch the best of every system and run more than one setup.

A major benefit is never having to worry if a mfr will produce the lens or body I want in the future and have to plan around things because I can always get it from another system. I don't get too upset about any one manufacturer's failings now, but I do wish somebody would step up and run the table for once (and I don't care who that is, really).

I don't think it's the only solution (at least not the most cost effective one), but it is a pretty good solution if:

1. You have a pragmatic philosophy about these things

2. Evaluate equipment solely on merit and without regard to brand loyalty.

3. Evaluate purchasing decisions, worth and value by looking at much more than just the nominal cost of a particular piece of equipment.

I feel that the third point is important and merits explanation:

There is a cost inefficiency in supporting more than one system. If you are all about nominal cost and nominal value, don't need to waste your time thinking about this. It is not cost efficient. End of story. For me, I look at things differently... not in terms of nominal cost of equipment, but more in terms of photographic value that the equipment provides (to me). If a particular piece of equipment from a particular manufacturer isn't doing it for me, its photographic value to me is zero (regardless of what others consider its photographic value to be).

I may have to spend another $500 to use a particular lens from another system that I enjoy (assuming that system's "extra" body's cost is amortized over several lenses), but if it provides the satisfaction and happiness that I didn't get from sticking to a lens that I didn't really like from my lone system, then what I am doing is dumping a non-performing asset but acquiring something that is providing much greater returns and value (photographic value), and that makes the money I spent on it worth it. I may have to incur a bit of cost to do so, but again, the value of something that isn't doing it for me is precisely zero, so I'm really turning around a poor investment into something better.

After all, I spend the money on this stuff to make me happy. If it doesn't make me happy, what's the point? And to me, using only one system for no other reason than to minimize cost is like doing something for the money and not for the love of it. That attitude may be appropriate for one's work life (because sometimes, you gotta make a living... you got a mortgage, car payments, and mouths to feed), but I don't see why one has to have that mindset for one's hobbies. A hobby should be the opposite of work... decisions made on the basis of enjoyment and sastisfaction. After all, isn't that what got you into the hobby in the first place?

Of course, this attitude likewise ignores some of the realities of adult life: I can do this partly because I am single and do not have all the (greater) responsibilities and financial obligations that others may (so I may have to change my tune in due time). Nevertheless, this is my mindset and rationale at this time.

Set yourself free from the shackles of a single brand, my friends! Rise like a phoenix from the photographic ashes from whence you came. Soar like an eagle to... oh, who the he*l am I kidding? My name is Shawn. I am an equipment junkie, I have NAS, OAS, and SAS, and I need help. ;)

[e_dawg]

I would reply with a suitably acerbic comment that displays my complete mastery of the English language in it's written form but I can't as I'm currently going for a walk in the rain through the forest with my camera and tripod.

You know I was joking, right? (sorry, can't tell with the absence of smilies in your post, and being North American, my reading comprehension skills are relatively poor at picking up subtleties ;) )

BTW, are you really reading the DCRP forums while walking through a wet forest with your camera gear?

[K1W1]

You know I was joking, right?

Gottcha. :D:D:D:D

[K1W1]

BTW, are you really reading the DCRP forums while walking through a wet forest with your camera gear?

I wasn't actually walking I was sitting in my car in the pouring rain thinking about what a silly idea the walk was. I replied on my iPhone.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I wasn't actually walking I was sitting in my car in the pouring rain thinking about what a silly idea the walk was. I replied on my iPhone.

Too much time on your hands and too much technology.

Oh and if you're going to be bombastic you were perambulating not walking - but perhaps I'm just being pedantic:D

[erichlund]

so on one hand you argue that nikons strategy is perfect...but on the other you say that a main factor is the lack of competition ?? so nikons strategy is based on not giving its consumers what they want because the competition doesnt ??

I've never said it's perfect. I understand their thinking, and I don't have the huge problem with it you do. If I don't like it, there are other camera companies. Their strategy is to maintain their competitive position with the least possible effort. Their job is to serve the shareholders, not the customer. You and I, we are the schill to be fleeced of our hard earned money. Nikon makes a nice product, so I allow myself to be fleeced, but I don't fool myself into thinking for one second that they are doing it for me.

why ? to me thats the arrogance i was talking about in my other thread a while ago. why wont they ? what reason is there ?

My belief is that it is simply resource allocation and conservative path. You believe they can do a lot more, but can they? Can you prove it? They never have. Should they, really? Is that the guaranteed route to providing the greatest profit for their shareholders? Changes are always incremental. Occasionaly they surprise us with a big jump, but that is the exception. Just because they did it with the D3/D300 and the lens grouping at that time doesn't mean that is a sustainable effort.

i'm not basing my arguments on what canon have. is this about keeping up or surpassing ? i think it should be about surpassing what canon are offering. this is nikons time to roll over alot of their lens'. lens that will not be updated again for a long period of time. so in effect what will happen will be nikon matches the canon 50mm, but then canon trump them with their update soon...then...behind again.

Again, you assume some sort of megacorporation that can just roll out whatever they want. Prove it? You can't prove they have the capability any more than I can prove they don't. More to the point, they will never have the reserve to hold a position against Canon unless they are bought by a mega-corporation. The big Japanese electronics companies are now mostly in. Sony, Panasonic and Canon are in. JVC and Hitachi are still out there. They have the resources to compete with the big boys. There may be others I'm not thinking of, but Nikon doesn't have the size to go toe to toe with any of them, so they have to play the conservative game.

The company I work for IS a mega defense contractor working for an even bigger mega defense contractor. Yet I have to make small, incremental changes in the software we are developing, because the budget won't support any more than what we are doing. It's not about lazy. We want to do more, but the money just isn't there (and is likely to get smaller still).

i already think nikon made a mistake by not inlcuding VR with the 24-70 cos you can bet your ass that canons new pro 24-70 will have IS.

And if you haven't been paying attention, you would realize by now that Nikon is an extremely conservative company that only does what it must. They will put VR in when they have to, just as they came out with full frame when the demand became impossible to ignore. If you don't like it, c'est la vie. It's not arrogance, per se. It's conservative business. Olympus is due to go out of business because they chose 4/3, a risky proposition. In retrospect, that will turn out to be a fatal decision. Nikon took the conservative path, and followed the leader. And yes, Canon is the leader. Nikon has given them a nudge from time to time, even sold more cameras for a while, but they don't have the corporate muscle to hold onto that position, and if Canon makes a concerted effort to take it back, Nikon will take their proper place and be happy to survive where Olympus and Pentax fail.

anyway...yes, we can keep arguing all day and i quite enjoy it sometimes. lol but you are right about one thing, we dont have control over it and no manufacturer makes my ideal set up. so maybe the onkly solution is to do what edawg does and pinch the best of every system and run more than one setup.

The last bit I have to really disagree with, but only for myself. I would rather make do with one system than try to keep up on, what is it, 4 as he is doing. So much wasteful duplication. I'd rather put together one good system, and then spend my funds going places where I could put it to use. I could probably take one exceptional or several regional trips on his excess camera equipment. But I don't make that argument for anyone else. That's my choice.

So, why would I choose only one system? I do this for a hobby, and a very part time hobby. I have enough trouble keeping up with one system. I really don't want to have to figure out several. I feel like I can do a better job with one system that I understand than four where I don't remember what button does what.

[JTL]

I actually am enjoying this conversation very much.

People have been arguing hard but fair. Thanks guys.

O.K...so we've been arguing back and forth here for a few pages and several areas of frustration for some have been emerged. And, they are the same things you read all across the web about Nikon's lens (so called) strategy and about the following frustrations expressed by many customers:

Lack of AF-S primes
Lack of VR on some lenses
Lack of f/4 lenses
Slow to refresh old designs
Do we think that Nikon is actually aware of the frustrations out there? Do they discuss the gaps internally? Do they even see them as gaps as their customers obviously do? Has anyone seen any interviews where their lens strategy was discussed and these criticisms raised?

It's nicer out today so hopefully I'll get out for shooting and less gabbing! :D:D:D

[e_dawg]

Good consolidation post, JTL... I'd have to say that Nikon doesn't really care about the blathering on of a few enthusiasts out there in cyberspace. It only represents, what, 10% of their customer base? Okay, maybe it's more like 20%. Anyways, the vast majority of their customer base either doesn't know or doesn't care enough to make it a strategic concern at Nikon or any other big company.

The massive mainstream consumer group is happy with their 18-whatever zoom kit lenses, and will maybe buy a second lens like a 55-200 or 70-300. The small but significant pro group wants their usual f/2.8 zooms, some tele primes for wildlife and action, and some normal/short-tele for portraiture (which don't necessarily need AF-S). The rest is in the middle somewhere, with a small but insignificant super-enthusiast group who are demanding and vocal, but don't carry enough market clout to truly matter.

In business, you generally manage for the majority, not for the exceptions.

[K1W1]

I'd have to say that Nikon doesn't really care about the blathering on of a few enthusiasts out there in cyberspace.

Agreed, with something like 4.7 million lenses sold last year the overall market must think they are doing things correctly.



It only represents, what, 10% of their customer base? Okay, maybe it's more like 20%.


Try maybe more like 0.0001%

[JTL]

... I'd have to say that Nikon doesn't really care about the blathering on of a few enthusiasts out there in cyberspace.Damn...did really you have to go and remind us what geeks and nerds we really are? Gee, thanks! :D:D:D

[Rooz]

Good consolidation post, JTL... I'd have to say that Nikon doesn't really care about the blathering on of a few enthusiasts out there in cyberspace. It only represents, what, 10% of their customer base? Okay, maybe it's more like 20%. Anyways, the vast majority of their customer base either doesn't know or doesn't care enough to make it a strategic concern at Nikon or any other big company.

The massive mainstream consumer group is happy with their 18-whatever zoom kit lenses, and will maybe buy a second lens like a 55-200 or 70-300. The small but significant pro group wants their usual f/2.8 zooms, some tele primes for wildlife and action, and some normal/short-tele for portraiture (which don't necessarily need AF-S). The rest is in the middle somewhere, with a small but insignificant super-enthusiast group who are demanding and vocal, but don't carry enough market clout to truly matter.

In business, you generally manage for the majority, not for the exceptions.

all true. howveer they already made the 50/1.4 afs. if they didnt care about that market they never would have made it. the issue is they could have made it much better.

[K1W1]

they already made the 50/1.4 afs.


the issue is they could have made it much better.

So you have had the lens for 72 hours and now you are announcing to the whole world that it's rubbish. Nice one Ken. :D:D:D

[Rooz]

lol, no, i love it to bits, i really do. BUT...what could have been...
i guess i just dont understand the logic behind it, thats why i'm annoyed.

[RichNY]

In these economic times I'd rather be focused on the high end of the market where people aren't balancing purchasing decisions with things like housing, heating, or clothing expenses.

What's all the complaining about not having f/4 lenses? Every Nikkor I own has an f/4 setting if I'm willing to stop down that far :)

[Rooz]

main reasons: size and weight.
not that either seems to bother you much. lol

[JTL]

main reasons: size and weight.
not that either seems to bother you much. lolI'd like to see Rich lug all his gear around on a hike...:D:D:D

He must have a van with straps attached so he can carry the whole thing on his back! :D:D:D


In these economic times I'd rather be focused on the high end of the market where people aren't balancing purchasing decisions with things like housing, heating, or clothing expenses.If it weren't for the release of deadly chemicals, people could always burn their gear for warmth...and some of us have A LOT more gear to burn than others...:D:p:D

[XaiLo]

main reasons: size and weight.
not that either seems to bother you much. lol

Nikkor 14-24mm 2.2 lbs
Nikkor 24-70mm 2.0 lbs
Nikkor 70-200mm 3.2 lbs
Nikkor TC-17E II 8.8 oz
Nikon D700 33.6 oz
Total 9.9 lbs
Toss in the 300mm in the pack
Total 16 lbs give or take
I lose 20 excess lbs and it's a wash, no biggy :p

[e_dawg]

Damn...did really you have to go and remind us what geeks and nerds we really are? Gee, thanks! :D:D:D

I know... but might as well accept reality. Come out of the closet, man! :D

BTW, at least you don't need to add "fairy" to that description anymore ;)