Nikkor 28mm f1.4D - the day after - what to buy instead?

[dave_gold]

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>Following previous thread opened regarding Nikkor 28 1.4D insufficient sharpness wide open on D7000<br>

<a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00ZTGU">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ZTGU</a><br>

the lense was sold for the amount of 2450 USD.<br>

Now i am looking for fast lens (1.4) which will give me more sharp results wide open.<br>

I azmready own 35 1.8DX, but I want something faster.<br>

No limitations on cost, the quality is the only important thing.</p>

<p>Thanks all:)</p>

<h1></h1>

[zlight_b]

<p>the person who bought your lens - was s/he aware of the thread ? :)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>is the money burning a hole in your pocket? you dont have to spend it you know. the only three lenses faster than the 35/1.8 are the 24/1.4G, the 35/1.4G and the sigma 30/1.4. IMO the 24 isnt really worth the price on DX. neither is the 35/1.4. if i were you, i would try the sigma 30/1.4, which is only about $500 new, and bank the rest. in my experience it's much better than the 35/1.8, especially in terms of bokeh.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>more sharp results wide open</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As explained in the previous thread, you're wanting something that's not really going to happen. You seem to want to deny what people explained to you over and over, but the 28 f/1.4 you had, was about as good as you can expect from a f/1.4 lens "tested" in the worst case scenario you gave it. So please reread the thread and think again what you are asking for.</p>

<p>Well, for the money, I'd get a D700; FX will give you that bit more shallow DoF (about 1 stop under most circumstances). Mount a 50mm f/1.4 and done.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, for the money, I'd get a D700; FX will give you that bit more shallow DoF (about 1 stop under most circumstances). Mount a 50mm f/1.4 and done.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>THIS!</p>

<p>That said, please make sure you're cool with the razor thin plane of focus you're going to be getting shooting these lenses wide open.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 24/1.4 center is very sharp wide open, and so is the 35/1.4. But I think they're too expensive for what you get on a DX camera. If you're interested in fast wides, get a D700.</p>

<p>BTW Wouter, these new AF-S f/1.4 primes (the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4) are better wide open than what used to be available in the previous generation. In the past with AF D fast primes I would have to stop down at least 2/3 stops to get useable image quality while these new ones I shoot probably more than 50% of the time wide open. They're expensive but very, very good. I have not used the 28/1.4 but from what I've seen it's typical of what used to be the norm in fast lenses. Very sharp stopped down a bit, and that was what people expected and were happy with. Things have changed; now wide open shooting is what you buy these lenses for in many cases.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>To add, the difficulty with the 24/1.4 (and to an extent, the 35/1.4) is not their wide open sharpness but the tendency of the autofocus system to be a little uncertain with what to focus on, in many situations, when using them. I've got many 24/1.4 shots where the D3 AF focused on some detail in the wall behind the main subject and I didn't notice it in the viewfinder. I typically shoot several frames so I get some that work out well but the timing / expression of the (human) subject may be less than optimal if some of the shots are out of focus.</p>

<p>But it's very good optically and the bokeh is also very beautiful. I've come to think that excellent bokeh actually tends to correlate with less than stellar AF capability.</p>

[blumesan]

<p>Might be worth looking at a Zeiss Distagon (ZF2) 35mm/1.4. (if you don't mind manual focua)<br>

I have the Zeiss Macro Planar ZF2 100mm/2.0, and can't imagine anything sharper at all apertures. </p>

[dave_gold]

<p>WW,<br>

I am not denying what was said in previous tread.<br>

I've tested 24 1.4G and it is much sharper wide open than 28 1.4.<br>

I respect your opinion and thank you for your feedback, but it seems that the things may differ from what you've described - there is at least one lens wide open sharper in the same conditions than 28 1.4 I owned.<br>

The only issue now - should I buy the expensive 24 1.4 or maybe I should look for another options, like Sigma 30 1.4 , as EA suggested?</p>

 

[dave_gold]

<p>MB,</p>

<p>Thank you for your answer,</p>

<p>Actually , I am looking for something to take pictures of dynamic environment, thats why MF will not be the easiest choice.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>dynamic environment wide open?</p>

<p>Good luck to you, sir, with any lens...</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I would select the lens by meeting the required working distance and FoV. If 28mm worked then a 30mm f1.4 would be the closest. For max sharpness wide open look at test results from a reliable source. I wish you good luck with AF being spot on. You might want to rent lenses to see what works.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>"Dynamic environment" and wanting to shoot at f1.4 seems rather unobtainable. Just how far away are these moving targets ? The depth of focus could be very slim and changing a lot. There is NO perfect auto focus and instant focus lens to slap on it.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Dave,<br>

OK, fair enough.<br>

As for getting a 30 or 24 mm - which length do you <em>need</em>? What are you going to use this lens for; dynamic environment can mean a wide variety of things, so it's hard to judge what's better. I frequently use a 24 and 35 mm prime, and find them distinctly different focal lengths (using a DX camera). Can you post examples of the usage scenarios of this new lens? That will give a much better idea which problem you are actually looking to solve.<br /> And do mind the point that Peter and John make: f/1.4, AF and dynamic do not go all that well together.<br>

Either way, I can only repeat my earlier advice: get the D700 if shallow DoF is what you're after. Apart from the larger sensor, it has a better viewfinder (which makes it easier to work with fast lenses) and a better AF system. It's no miracle cure either, but if you really do not care about spending money to get a very shallow depth of field, I think you are better off with a FX camera to start with.</p>

<p>Ilkka,<br>

Point taken; unfortunately my budget does not stretch to these new ones, I take your word on how good they are. My earlier reply was much influenced by the previous thread where the 28 f/1.4 was "tested" in a way where I think no fast lens will ever be able to perform somewhat decent. I doubt if one tests one of the new primes in the same way, they will show much better results - with only ambient scattered light, a lens can only do so much.</p>

[dave_gold]

<p>WW,<br>

I think you right regarding D700, but I have a problem with the fact it is much bigger and heavier than my D7000.<br>

Thats why I thought about staying with my current D7000 and buying a new lens instead of replacing the body.<br>

Regarding the term "dynamic environment" I used - I meant mainly the movement of people faces , definitely not sports.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Could you post an example photo, because it sounds like portraits to me now? For which I wouldn't really use a 30mm lens, or shorter.<br>

If weight and size matter, then the Sigma 30mm is surely going to be a lot nicer than the new f/1.4 Nikkors - they're not exactly small.</p>

[dave_gold]

<p>WW,<br>

I dont have an example to post now (I am currently overseas),</p>

<p>but few people standing in row would be a good direction.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>"Dynamic environment" and wanting to shoot at f1.4 seems rather unobtainable.</em></p>

<p>Well, I do it a lot at 85mm but with the wide angles it can be tricky because if the subjects move laterally it can cause the focus system to find something in the background. Here is an example of a reclaim the streets event. The acceptable depth of field is almost 1 meter or so. (I could have used a smaller aperture, which I did for most wide angle shots at that event.) Pity for the lack of light on the left.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The sharpness isn't earth-shattering but given that it's a dance shot at f/1.4 I think it's ok.</p><div></div>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Dave, for what reason do you want the f/1.4 aperture? If it's for low light then a D700 will give you an IQ equivalent to a DX camera at twice the ISO setting, or if it's to get a shallow depth-of-field, then again a D700 will reduce the depth-of-field for any given angle of view and aperture number. In other words you could fit a 35mm f/2 lens to a D700 and get near identical results to a 24mm f/1.4 on DX.</p>

<p>The D700 and 35mm f/2 would cost you only a little more than the ridiculously overpriced Nikkor 28mm f/1.4 lens.</p>

[ad12345]

<p>Hi Dave,<br>

While I agree that a D700 with a 35/1.4 seems to be what you are looking for, a couple of smaller and lighter suggestions might also fit your needs:<br>

1) Fujifilm X100 - wide angle, small, light, fast, reliable AF etc. Would still leave you with quite a few $$$ in your pocket after cashing in on the 28/1.4D. It is wider (21mm) than what you sold, but I'm guessing you would find that to be a benefit for the type of photography you are describing.<br>

2) A Pentax 31/1.8 limited coupled with a K-5 camera. The K-5 has a sensor that is essentially identical to the D7000, but is housed in a slightly smaller and more rugged body. It also offers a very effective in-camera shake-reduction that comes in handy in low-light situations where you need the longest shutter possible while still handholding. The 31/1.8 limited is as good as it gets in the moderately wide category for a non-rangefinder lens. Although it is slightly longer than what you sold, it might be close enough. This kit would still come in under what you received for the 28/1.4D lens.<br>

Best of luck!</p>

 

[leicaglow]

<p>I have owned numerous Nikkors that were unacceptable to me. But for some reason, I kept trying other samples of the lens. For example, I went through two samples of the 60mm Micro before I got one that was good. Same for the 50mm f/1.2. My 24mm f/2 is a fantastic lens, yet I hear others pan it. In this case, maybe I just got a good one. Some are not thrilled with the 45mm GN, but mine is a great lens. Maybe you just got a bad sample.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Michael, could you show some examples of side by side comparisons between two samples of some of those prime Nikkors which you had both good and bad copies of? Comparisons Live view focused on tripod, of course. I would like to see what you considered a bad copy. Thanks.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I had written a very detailed and (to me) useful response, but Internet Explorer just freaked out and it went away. So here's the shorter version:</p>

<p>It doesn't sounds like the problem is your gear at all. I mean no offense when I say this, but it sounds like the problem is you. You need to be ready to take the photo, or the camera won't be. The good news is that this is free to fix. The bad news is that it's harder than just buying a new lens. I recently shot a roller derby bout using nothing but a Nikon FG-20 (only automation is aperture priority with a decent, but not great meter) and a 50mm f/1.4. I mostly did this for practice, because I have a similar problem in that I'm not always prepared to take a good photograph when it presents itself.</p>

<p>All of my good candid photos were taken the old-fashioned way: I preset my focus, jammed the camera in the subject's face, and took the photo and was off before they had a chance to react to having a camera there. Yes, many of these were just slightly out of focus ... but I had no fewer 'keepers' than I would have had if I was relying on an AF lens to catch focus before the subject changed expression or moved.</p>

<p>The best thing you can do is look at Garry Winograd and other street photographers, and look into their techniques. Shooting in a 'dynamic evironment' is first and foremost about seeing and about being prepared. Technical aspects like IQ are secondary to whether or not you caught the moment as it happened.</p>

<p>Another piece of advice I'd give is to shoot a few rolls of film with that lens on a camera like my FG-20. If the camera (more-or-less) lacks automation, then the ONLY factor involved in whether or not you get the photo is whether or not you are <em>prepared </em>to get the photo. I strongly recommend this advice to anyone that wants to be a street or 'scene' photographer.</p>

<p>As it stands now, you are currently blaming your successes and failures on your equipment, when the fact is that far better photographs have been taken on far worse equipment. Shoot, I <em>wish</em> I had a D7000 with a 28 f/1.4!</p>

<p>Again, I hope you don't see this as a personal attack, because it isn't meant as one. But if you want to improve, you have to spend a little more time figuring out where to point the finger.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I've tried the Nikons 35mm f2 and 35mm f1.8G, and the Sigma 30mm f1.4. The Sigma was the best of the bunch, so that's what I kept. Fast AF, very sharp wide open, very minimal CA, and yes definitely f1.4. I'm not aware of any lens wider than the Sigma that has AF and is really outstanding. Other than the Nikon 24mm f1.4G, of course.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>