roman_thorn1 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Hi! Just a simple question. Lately I have been ranting about nikons limited range of modern lenses, (primes). I love my D300 but I really need a fast wide prime for it, hmm a 24 1.4 comes to mind. Unfortunately, nikon has no such lens, I can't figure out why? I have considered picking up the 24 2.8 AF D but 2.8 is hardly fast. At 2.8 I would still be forced to use 3200 iso to get atleast 1/160. I also have considered the 35 1.8 but it's just not wide enough, although this may be the way to go until nikon comes out with that 24mm. I could switch to canon, and believe me I have been fighting off the urge. So, is anyone else in this situation? Is nikons dated line up limiting your photography, if not...what is?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Is nikons dated line up limiting your photography, if not...what is?</p> </blockquote> <p>There is one primary factor that is limiting my photography, and that is the person behind the camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>The number of hours in a day, days in a week, weeks in a month, months in a year, and years of my life are limiting my photography.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdied Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Shun sums it up very nicely.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wogears Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Hi! Just a simple answer :)</p> <p>Lenses don't limit my photography, vision does. I cannot yet get all of my prints to look as I imagined they would when I made the exposure. Photographers whose cameras I am not fit to load made thousands of enduring images in the days when f3.5 was considered super-fast. And when you may have had one lens at your disposal. Shakespeare wrote almost no poetry outside the sonnet form--was he 'limited'? I rather think not.</p> <p>Since you have no portfolio, here or elsewhere, so far as I know, I cannot be certain, but would still posit the following: You are not limited in your work by lenses, but by the (entirely mistaken) belief that more fancy gear will make you a better photographer. You appear to have made 140-odd postings on this site, ALL of which relate to equipment in one way or another. This is perhaps a way to improve basic craft skills, but it will have little effect on anything besides technical details. Now if you are strictly an indoor, no-flash photographer, lens speed is useful but hardly necessary.</p> <p>I suggest you post some images for critique. Yes, you will get the inevitable 3/3s, but you will also IME get some useful advice that will go beyond whether or not you have a 'good copy' of a given lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phototransformations Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Here, too. Not equipment, but lack of time and not as much skill and inspiration as I'd like. Although new equipment (including some old Nikon AI lenses I'm using with a G1) are adding some fun! Since Nikon's trend seems to be toward getting out increasingly noise-free high ISO cameras, it seems unlikely that the demand for fast wide angles will be large enough to get them to create one for what is probably a diminishing market.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>I am not limited by gear. A 35mm and a couple of good lenses, tripod and flash covers it most of the time. I would say that my limitations are mostly because of free time. I have lots of ideas but little time to put them into place. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyinca Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>EF24 * 1.6 = 38.4mm, Nikkor 28 * 1.5 = 42mm, the FOV difference is less then 10%.</p> <p>There are two 28/1.4 AFD Nikkor in stock at KEH. Don't let a little cash limit your photograhy :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Time, money, talent - limits everything.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Try the Sigma 30/1.4 HSM. Close to 28mm, and also closer to a rational amount of $ for a fast, quiet AF-S (HSM) lens that is beautiful wide open, deadly sharp when stopped down even a touch, and reders OoF elements in a lovely way. No, it's not a 24mm. But those 6mm aren't nearly as dramatic as the difference between, say, 16mm and 24mm, or 10mm and 16mm on a DX body.<br /><br />Of course, my photography wasn't terribly limited by the lack of that lens before I got it. Though I use it for things I couldn't do well before hand. The actual quality of what I do is far more limited by the fact that I never have enough time to do it as well as I'd like.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_fassman Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Switch to canon</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_chadney Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>I was very tempted by a Canon 24/1.4 and a 1d mark3. The pairing had issues with getting correct focus more than 75% of the time. I still keep that combo in the back of my mind though. It is a really nice set up in my eyes. Wider than my 30mm sigma on my d2x by quite a bit considering both the focal length of the lens and the lower crop factor of the Canon camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_thorn1 Posted December 12, 2009 Author Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Hi Les! <br> Equipement or lack of it can limit photography. We also need to live in the present. The bar has been raised and the standards are much higher these day's. Photography had more limitations 50 years ago and people worked within those limitations. I beg for you to find me an example of a fast moving subject in dim light from that time, that is also captured well. I consider myself a very competent photographer Les. I also don't require praise for my work or any kind of reassurance so I don't post much. Yes time and talent are alway's going to be limiters, however these are things I continue to work on and in some way have control over, equipment on the other hand...? Also, if equipement has no bearing on your work, you must be quite happy with you old FM and 50 Ai?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_hooper1 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Health limits my photography. </p> <p>Nikon more than provides all the tools necessary for most photographers. Sounds like you need a speciality lens, Roman. You might consider an after market product like <a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3281&navigator=4">this</a>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_thorn1 Posted December 12, 2009 Author Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Hi Les! If you are that interested:<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dstocksamples/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/dstocksamples/</a> or you can check out romankphotography.com, although it is under revision..cheers!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuasigar Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Limited time. Do I want to take a day off to go on a vacation or a photo trip? No, vacation and photo trip don't go together for me. But I'm not worried much--can't have everything. So what if I don't have any unique pictures and all I got is golden gate bridge (san francisco was my first and only photo trip)?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>True, Nikon doesn't have an extensive fast wide angle range at the moment, and none for DX. If you need the speed to stop movement in low light, get an FX camera and use the 24-70/2.8. This is very effective. If you really, really need f/1.4 or f/2, you can then get manual focus 28/2 from Zeiss or Nikon Ai-S, the 35/1.4 Ai-S. If you need it to be autofocus, and wish not to pay $5000 or something for it on E-bay (the 28/1.4) get a Canon 5D Mk II or Leica M9 with their fast wide angle primes.. Of course, with their cameras you're likely to lose quite a bit in high ISO performance, negating the advantage in lens speed. Tough luck.</p> <p>I moaned for fast wide angle primes with AF-S for a long time when I was a DX user, and gradually found that the D3 with the 24-70/2.8 is adequate almost always, and when it is not I use the 28/2 Ai-S and 35/2 ZF to go the extra mile. I will still buy any AF-S Nikon wide angle prime between f/2 and f/1.4 that they make as soon as they come out but I've stopped moaning about its absence. I think Nikon takes their time but they'll eventually do what is needed. Early reviews suggest 70-200/2.8 Mk II for example seems to solve its predecessors' problems in terms of FX coverage and flare/ghosting. I am sure the wide angle primes are on the line somewhere.</p> <p>I would in your shoes just get a D3s or D700 and acquire the 24-70/2.8 along with a couple of manual focus wide angle primes, f/1.4 or f/2. Works well until Nikon finishes their 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 AF-S designs and lets them out the door. If you need fast wide angles, DX is the wrong type of camera platform to use. Even when Nikon comes out with a new 24/1.4, it's unlikely to be very sharp wide open on DX. On 12MP FX things are different because of the larger pixel spacing (and correspondingly lower spatial frequencies sampled) and this kind of lenses work better on it. Plus you might find you don't actually need faster than f/2.8 that often because of the high SNR of these cameras.</p> <p>In answer to the literal question you posted, like others the time I can spend on my photography is by far the most limiting aspect. Gear certainly not; I have way better equipment than is needed to do what I really need to do.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Time mainly, is the most limiting factor for me. I just don't make enough time to get out and photograph as I would like to. I feel I have the gear and lenses I need to make good photos, I just don't go out enough and make it happen!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_b.1 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Time, is my 1-st limiting factor !. Even when I "go out" to take some pictures for my own, I'm in the hurry ! Talent may be the other one, but is my hobby and my profession and is what I do best.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>I do believe the lack of certain lenses can limit your photography. For example, I shoot local college football games at night and the lack of a fast Nikon telephoto zoom is a real problem. However, put a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 on a D700, and poof, problem solved. Wind the ISO up to 24,600 on the D700 and F2.8 on the Sigma and enjoy, even with the worse stadium lighting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikolo5 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Time does.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramon_v__california_ Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>pretty good summation above on time and talent!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albins images Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <ul> <li>Time<br />- To take images<br />- To improve my technique<br />- To come up with new ideas</li> <li>Money<br />- To get myself an FX sensor camera<br />- ..for more convenient use of wide angle lenses<br />- ..with a better viewfinder to use my old MF lenses</li> </ul> <p><em>Yeah</em>.. That's about it.<br />My old lenses are fine.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alin_daju Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>While I totally agree that the photographer and the time dedicated to taking photographs is what kills creativity, those that keep pushing the myth "no matter what camera you have" are partially mistaken. I challenge all those experienced photographers including Ansell Adams (God rest him is peace) to pick up my P.A.S 2004 Panasonic Lumix and do what I do with my Canon 40D having the 1.8 50mm lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 <p>Strictly lack of time and money enough to let me drive around the US, and afford slide film and pancakes.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now