luke_kaven

<p>The 24/2.8 AI is definitely an old school wide. Soft in the corners with lots of vignetting. But it's a subtle beauty with a painter's touch. Even though I have the 24-70 and 14-24, I still want the 24/2.8 AI back again after selling it. Same with the 28/2 AI. I have the 28/1.8G, but still reach for the 28/2.</p>

<p>The compact 200/4, the Nikkor P, never did anything for me but be compact. But the 180/2.8 ED-IF (AI, as well as AF, AF-D) is a bit of magic. Avoid the non-ED versions altogether.</p>

<p>The 75-150/3.5 Series E is the cult lens extraordinaire. I love the way it paints.</p>

<p>Wow! $400 for an Exakta VX with f/2 lens. In 1954 dollars! Same price as the Leica? That's like 4-6 weeks pay. I got my F3 in 1983 for $329 in 1983 dollars.</p>

<p>My favorite Nikon portrait lenses: 60/2.8 AF-S Micro, 85/any, 105/2DC, 105/2.5 AI(s), 135/2DC, 75-150/3.5 Series E., and 180/2.8D ED-IF.</p>

<p>The 60 because it is sharp and has near-zero distortion. The 135/2DC because it's look just amazing and it's pixel sharp from f/3.2 on. The 75-150E because it's the lens deal of the century.</p>

<p>RJ nailed it. The new Nikon f/1.8 primes actually do quite well wide open. By f/2.5, they are cooking. By contrast, the older f/2 and f/2.8 native primes really didn't do well until almost f/5.6.</p>

<p>The hypothetical 35/1.8g FX: Performs "excellent" in center at all stops, and minimum "very good" in the edges and corners, even at f/2 (using photozone ratings). [Contrast with 35/2d, which is "fair" to "poor" in the edges and corners from f/2-f/4.]</p>

<p>The Samyang 35/1.4 will match this for $450, but without autofocus. (Good job.)<br>

The Zeiss 35/2 will match this for $1117, and no autofocus. <br>

The Sigma AF 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM does it all for $899.</p>

<p>Where else would I look for 35 f/2-or-faster, critical performance, with autofocus, for less than $600?</p>

<p>Ilkka, that's a good question. </p>

<p>When people talk about "field curvature" I always want to ask: <em>as a function of what?</em> How much does it vary with distance? If I focus at a mile away, are the corners a half a mile off? If I focus at 5 feet, am I a few mm off, a few cm off, 20cm off?</p>

<p>Either way, if one is shooting at f/1.4 or even f/2, then one is selecting out a subject. Unless the subject is a brick wall or an Imatest chart, then it seems only a part of the frame is going to be in focus anyway.</p>

<p>Well, I didn't think we were going to get a 35/1.8g FX for the price of a 35/1.8g DX. But I do think it will compare well optically to the 35/1.4g at 1/3 the price of that. The 35/2D was an inexpensive design (obviously without AF-s) that had character but did not perform well, and not well /at all/ at f/2. I'd expect the 35/1.8g FX to perform nicely at f/2, and very nicely at f/2.8. </p>

<p>I have a feeling that those f/2.8 primes are not coming back in f/2.8 form, or at f/2.8 prices. We'll see though, if that same can be done with the 24mm and 20mm wides. As you say, those are long due for an update.</p>

<p>Melissa, if this is a 100% crop of #3, I don't think this is the same as the D3s issue. Good news really, since it means you probably don't have multiple issues showing. I'm still optimistic that Nikon can solve this for you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 50mm by contrast has much lower price, smaller size, and better corner sharpness stopped down than the 58mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> The reviewer at DPR noted that the 58/1.4 "noct novo" had significant field curvature which gave misleading results on corner sharpness when using test charts. The reviewer noted that there were no problems with corner sharpness on this lens.</p>

<p>I'm putting my bet down that the 35/1.8G (the new FX version) is going to be a real bargain, will outperform the 35/2D by a long way, and give the 35/1.4G a run for the money.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>@Luke were your issues with the D3S's comparable to what you are seeing my D700 doing? Nikon quoted me $225, which isn't too bad unless they have to replace a part and then they said that they would call with another estimate if need be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Melissa. In the D3s case, you would see striping every 12 pixels running vertically, pointing to a channel problem. In the first two images you posted, it looks like something else. In the third picture, I'd want to look at the lower right hand corner at 100%. </p>

<p>But if Nikon really can fix this for $225, that isn't too bad. I think they know what (few) issues to expect with these cameras very well by now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your lines are much more regular, but it reminds me of this posting "D3s - Strange lines in dark areas of photo"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a different problem. The problem you mentioned has to do with a channel amp/A-D. The OP should definitely unload this camera or have it fixed by the seller.</p>

<p>It really starts to look like Nikki might be reading the ISO indication, incorrectly, off of the black mark on the left of the PRISM. This is actually the reading for the exposure compensation dial. The indicator for ISO is the black mark closest to you (the photographer look through the finder). It looks to me that if the user reads off the wrong mark, it will appear just as Nikki described (but I don't have the camera in front of me, so I'm not positive except by rotating it in my mind).</p>

<p>Keep in mind that most modern lenses do change focal length as you change focus. At closest focus, near where most portraits are taken, the 135/2 DC is about 115mm. The 85mm lens at closest focus is actually a 77mm lens, which makes it equivalent to a 115mm lens on DX. </p>

<p>Owen: Do you mean the new "G"? Or do you mean a new-old "D"?</p>

<p>Perhaps you could tell us more about what you want to do? For me, the 24-70 is an event lens to use when I don't have time to change lenses. Otherwise, for portraits, I always use a prime. The 70-200 is much better as a zoom that can be used for portraits than the 24-70. I'm not sure why loose framing and cropping is a good approach for you, unless you think you already want this lens and are looking for support for a decision you've already made. </p>

<p>I didn't say anything about what "everyone" ought to do. The OP asked about head-and-shoulders portraits, presumably with the intent to do many of them. I have to factor distortion into the formula, as well as social working distance. A better 70mm might do well, but it isn't exactly a bold departure from common practice! I've never thought a great 70mm would give me something I couldn't already get. Feel free to suggest alternatives.</p>

<p>The 24-70 at 70mm close: pincushion distortion + nervous bokeh = looks very bad to my eye. I've made it work, but I wouldn't reach for it first.<br>

The 60mm AF-s micro: no distortion + good bokeh = looks great for fashion, etc., but less practical for head-and-shoulders<br>

The 85/1.8G: negligible distorion + good bokeh = great all-around for head-and-shoulders</p>

<p>The 24-70 does focus close enough for a full-face portrait at 70mm. I do not recommend using this lens for portraits, though -- (i) 70mm is not long enough for a flattering perspective, (ii) it has pincushion distortion, (iii) it has substandard bokeh. The lens is very sharp though, and has excellent contrast. But it isn't a portrait lens in any "pretty" sense. The 85/1.8g is a good tool for head-and-shoulders portraits (and a real bargain for a lens that performs in the upper tier). The 105/2 DC is a classic portrait lens. At closest focus, it would be a little shorter than 105mm. </p>

<p>Agree completely with RJ on the 75-150/3.5 Series E. It has a very special character. It'd be great at any price, but it also happens to be the biggest bargain in the used lens market. Also agree on the 85/2 AI. I don't know why that 85/2 gets a bad rap sometimes. I liked it a lot.</p>

<p>The 60mm micro is a favorite for fashion photographers. Besides being optically excellent (especially the AF-s), it has nearly zero distortion. </p>

<p>At "portrait length" the 85/1.8G is the deal of the decade. Is this what you meant by "non-D"? [A non-D could be any lens from history, AI, AI-s, AF.] Optical quality tops the charts. But for character, the 105/2 DC and 135/2 DC have a more refined look. </p>

<p>Jose, you are misleading the OP on a camera you admit you've never tried.</p>

<p>The fact that the D3s sensor tamed pattern noise and blooming is the difference between getting it and losing it in the low light situations the OP is interested in. I've had all the cameras named in the situations described. It's ALL the difference. </p>

<p>The D800 is a marvelous camera. If you want to go through the extra effort of taming the thermal noise issue at high gain settings, you can do some wonderful low light work with it. But it requires a black-frame subtraction and some manual labor. I sometimes do choose the D800, but only when I know I've got the time to invest in it, and know that I will benefit from some of the qualitative benefits it offers. </p>

<p>The D4 (and I'd assume the Df), and the D3s are the only two "no questions asked" low light cameras Nikon has ever put out. Everything else is a qualified answer at best.</p>

<p>The D3s sensor corrects some design deficiencies with the D3/D700 sensor. First, it reduces pattern noise to negligible levels. This will be apparent at anywhere from ISO6400 up. Second, it eliminates the awful blooming that its predecessor suffered from. If you shoot in low light with high contrast scenes (e.g., clubs, night shots handheld), then this will make an enormous difference to you as it did for me. These are qualitative improvements that are not reflected in published test numbers, but important ones.</p>

<p>I wonder sometimes whether Annie Leibovitz used a couple of these in <a href="http://fstoppers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/31_05065_001_CL_17_02414_001_17_02414_LOUIS_VUITTON-KEITH_RICHARDS1-1024x770.jpg">her hotel room portrait of Keith Richards</a>. </p>

<p>But it's IN A BOX!</p>

<p>Suggestions:<br>

- Obviously check for scratches, fungus, etc, as commonsense would dictate.<br>

- Be sure the zoom ring does not bind. If it does, there might have been impact damage.<br>

- Mount on a camera and test autofocus; listen for any squeals in the AF-s motor.<br>

- Take a test frame at around f/4-5.6, and check all four corners for quality. If one or more corners is noticeably degraded in comparison to the other corners, there might be some de-centering. </p>