Friday, August 20, 2010

New Nikon lenses

Nikon has announced four new lenses. For many, the most interesting may be the new, expensive ($1,700) high-performing 85mm F:1.4 lens for full frame format.

I'm sure it's a fantastic lens. I would get it if I didn't already have the older F:1.8 version. As well as the Canon F:1.2 lens, actually. So I'm OK.

A pity that it does not include image stabilization, though. I wonder if they can't build it into very fast lenses?

Mike J drools a little about this lens today. I like his talent of drooling and making a little fun at the same time, a tightline few can walk. 


TC [Girl] said...

Eolake said...
"A pity that it does not include image stabilization, though. I wonder if they can't build it into very fast lenses?"

I'm confused: are not ALL the NIKKOR lenses not VR that different from the "image stabilization" that you are talking about? Or...are you just referring to the prime lens not having it?

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

VR (Vibration Reduction) is indeed Image Stabilization.

Only some Nikkors have VR, and most of them are zooms. (Though some long teles have it, and the 200mm macro.)

TC [Girl] said...

Eolake said...
"VR (Vibration Reduction) is indeed Image Stabilization."

OK. Thanks. Double-checking.

"Only some Nikkors have VR, and most of them are zooms."

OK. Thought that it was a "given" that it would have VR if in a Nikkor housing, hence my confusion. Thanks, again.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

I wish!!

Or I wish they would just give in and put the friggin thing in the camera house too.

(This goes for Canon as well. It's such a waste of good lenses not to have it.)

TC [Girl] said...

Yes...I agree, now that I know what I need to look for! ;-) (bummer to have to find these things out via "trial and error.")

Miserere said...

TC Girl, just join us Pentaxians on the Dark Side, where all lenses are stabilised thanks to in-body IS.

And Sony doesn't have the level or breadth of IS support for old glass that Pentax has.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Yes, it's a pity to have to invest again, but I do admit that even the "little brother" Pentax K-x is excellent (as blogged before). And many of the lenses are outstanding too. (The prime lenses. But surely the zooms are good as well.)

One might say that it's debated if the in-body stabilization is *quite* as efficient as in-lens. But if the lens doesn't have any, it's no contest.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Many posts, pictures and technical, with the K-x here.

TC [Girl] said...

Miserere said...
"TC Girl, just join us Pentaxians on the Dark Side, where all lenses are stabilised thanks to in-body IS.

And Sony doesn't have the level or breadth of IS support for old glass that Pentax has."

Is that right?! Well, durn it! I had been told - YEARS ago - that Nikon was the *IT* camera to get, when I finally could! Ever since then, I have REGRETTED the "package deal" that I bought at 'The Big Box Store' (Costco!)! They include TWO lenses so I was pretty psyched! Came to discover, after talking w/Eo, that NEITHER dang lens had VR!!! ALSO discovered, recently, that it looks like I might have gotten a bad 55-200mm because ALL pics come out like SHIT w/that lens! (sigh) So...those were a couple of items that have annoyed me w/my Nikon stuff!

I had the Sony Mavica, back in 2000. LOVED the Zeiss glass; LOVED doing macros w/it. It wrote to disc but was WAY TOO SLOW to catch anything remotely on the move! Spent $1K on that deal! On its last legs, now, but MISS being able to do macros. Discover that I have to spend a GOB just to get more lenses for the Nikon (I have the D80). Bought the 70-300mm (have a LOT of wildlife where I live; trying to capture some of that.) and, now, would like to get some sort of prime lens for macros ALL costs a BOATLOAD! :-(

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Nikon may still have a bit of the reputation left from when they were pro king in the seventies and eighties. But it seems to me now that all the DSLR brands are good quality.

TC [Girl] said...

And, sadly, I'm not able to afford switching anytime soon, so...I will just wonder about it until (and IF!) I ever can! :-( Of course, there are those "borrowing" sites/locations. That is always tempting as ever, too! :-P

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Hmm, I don't think I've heard of those.

TC [Girl] said...

You've probably got something similar to this, on your side of the pond. ;-) (they'd be RICH off of me, IF I could! lol! :-)

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Wow, three days for only around thirty bucks! That's a good deal.

Philocalist said...

Same facilities over here, but usually only available to a 'proper' pro photographer, and at a much more expensive price.
Even then, unless you have a big name, reputation, or a long history as a client, they generally want a deposit equal to the value of the equipment hired!

I've got mixed feelings about image stabilisation, never having felt the need for it, as I can take sharp pictures without, and have done for years.
If the necessary shutter speed is so slow as to make this impossible, then it NEEDS a tripod ... STILL the best way by a contry mile to get sharp pictures, if that's what you REALLY want.
If it's simply convenience, then IS or whatever serves a purpose, but at a price, as it produces images that APPEAR to be sharper, but in reality are not ... a little like Photoshop?
It may also be part of the reason why manufacturers generally do not offer this on (expensive) prime lenses ... why compromise on a product that is so sharp to begin with?
I own the Canon 85mm f1.2L, and other 'silly' lenses like this, including an unbelievable 200mm f1.8L ... yes, that IS correct!
In my capacity as a pro photographer since the mid 80's, I've never actually 'needed' lenses like this, but they ARE great toys a/ if you can afford them and sometimes have more money than sense (me? :-) ) amd b/ actually know how to use them, AND their unique attributes, to gain a result that is probably unobtainable with other lesser lenses ... get you head around how shallow the depth of field is on the 85mm f1.2 wide open ... its gorgeous, but pales in comparison to that offered by the 200mm f1.8 which, (obscurely enough) makes a fabulous lens for fashion work and even 'tight' portraits!
Is there any real difference between the glass produced by Canon / Nikon / Pentax etc?
In the lab, yes: in reality to an end user?
Probably not!

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Wow, I thought that the 85mm 1.2 was expensive and big, but the 200mm 1.8 beats it in both categories, and well.

Like you say, the 85 has a unique quality wide open. I wonder how you compare that to the 200mm?

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

... Woa, I just now see that the 200mm weighs three kilos!! Damn. I guess you can't hand-hold that well, huh?

Philocalist said...

DOF on the 200mm CAN be brutal, if you work it that way: to give an extreme example, a tight head shot cropped in-camera from collar-bones upwards with the lens wide open, if critically focused on the eyes, will often leave the tip of the nose (and sometimes even edges of the ears!) out of focus!
It's a lens that was primarily developed as a 'sports' lens, and has its own dedicated converters / extenders: a 2x which gives you a 400mm with 2 stops of light loss from f1.2, so still hideously fast for a lens of that length at f3.5, and a 1.4 x, effectively giving you a 280mm f2 lens ... and because the extenders were developed specifically for this lens series, they had trouble showing any image degradation during use, even in the lab!
My 'excuse' for treating myself at the time was the fact that I was working a lot in the music industry: very often dark-skinned performers (often wearing black outfits!)under coloured lighting, often moving about quite quickly ... and no flash allowed either! :-)
Yes, they ARE a great tool for that type of work, but I pointed them much more frequently at pretty girls :-)
The size issue was evident, though perhaps surprisingly, not the weight! ... it was almost as though it aided in keeping the camera still when hand-held ... or perhaps that was because I was just a little more cautious than usual about dropping it?:-) ... the lens hood alone is the size of a small bucket ... I had to buy a replacement once: I've paid less for compact cameras! :-)
And 'bokeh'? ... in a class of its own!

Robb in Houston said...

Actually, if you use the right shutter speed and sensitivity (ISO) combination, and hold the camera correctly, you have just achieved vibration reduction.

Just like real photographers do and did with film.

Philocalist said...

Yep, Ive no problem at all with THAT particulaer assertion! :-)

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Are you interested in selling the 200mm lens?