If you had £3000 / the lens porn thread

[lobster]

I ordered from camerworld the 10.5 fisheye on Thursday, when they get it back in stock their send it to me, after hearing Nikon are not bringing out a 9mm DX lens, this will most likely be the widest that they will offer apart from non-DX 14mm and as mauvais mentioned the quality on Sigma varies, unlike Nikon. The distortion can easily be corrected to make it look like a ultra-wide lense except perhaps the close-up shots.

 

[mauvais]

To be fair to Sigma, they are about half price for the same quality, Nikon aren't without QC issues, and if you send kit off to Sigma UK they'll test it and if necessary recalibrate/replace it.

 

[Pie 1]

For my RZ, a 75mm f/4.5 shift Lens would be nice.

 

[Firky]

Carl Zeiss, ZF (Nikon) planar 50mm f/1.4 would be nice - although I think they do a 35mm too which would get more use. They're quite cheap too - about <£300 on ebay which isn't bad.

I Don't like Sigma lenses, mauvais. Always find that they're quite soft on the edges, have loads of vignetting (even when you knock it down a couple of stops) and IME they're far more likely to suffer frm chromatic aberration. Which you don't really find on Nikkor lenses. I don't know if it is because Nikkor use more fluorite in their glass or what. Good lenses for their prices and their top end lenses are very good but they're a few yards behind.

Never played much with Canon lenses but when I have I liked them!

 

[mauvais]

I Don't like Sigma lenses, mauvais. Always find that they're quite soft on the edges, have loads of vignetting (even when you knock it down a couple of stops) and IME they're far more likely to suffer frm chromatic aberration. Which you don't really find on Nikkor lenses. I don't know if it is because Nikkor use more fluorite in their glass or what. Good lenses for their prices and their top end lenses are very good but they're a few yards behind[/img]

Which ones?

I've a 70-300 which is shite. It's slow in both senses, noisy, and soft. However it only cost about £100, beats the even more shite Nikon G version (same price now, wasn't at the time), and apparently the more expensive ED version.

From a bit of reading the Sigma 105mm and Tamron 90mm macro lenses beat the more expensive Nikon 105mm VR which a lot of people aren't happy with.

The 10-20 is solidly built and feels quite nice - though you can't take the lens cap off with the hood on By all accounts and reviews it rivals the Nikon 12-24 at £650, so I can't really complain. Like I've said, QC can be probably more varied with third party, but there's nothing to moan about this time.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I've certainly no complaints about the 105 VR.

It's not a full-on dedicated macro lens designed to be used manually on a tripod with a focusing rail and cable release, but the 200/4 is, if that's what someone wants.

For what it seems to be designed for though, as a one-lens solution for moderate telephoto nature/macro photography in the field, the 105 VR works extremely well. There's no better tool that I know of for a walk in the woods.

 

[Firky]

I think Zenie had the 10-20 but I never used it - the 18-50, 70-300 and the 50mm f/2.8 was AWFUL really really really stunk. Did like the 15-30 but I wouldn't have used it.

In the end I saved a wedge of cash and bought a Nikkor prime and spent said wedge of cash on stuff for the kitchen

 

[Firky]

The 10-20 is solidly built and feels quite nice - though you can't take the lens cap off with the hood on

My 18-50 sigma is like that

Its such a shite lens that I don't bother with the cap anymore and just whacked on an old hoya filter.

 

[mauvais]

I've certainly no complaints about the 105 VR.

It's not a full-on dedicated macro lens designed to be used manually on a tripod with a focusing rail and cable release, but the 200/4 is, if that's what someone wants.

For what it seems to be designed for though, as a one-lens solution for moderate telephoto nature/macro photography in the field, the 105 VR works extremely well. There's no better tool that I know of for a walk in the woods.

DPReview search is down the pan as per usual, but a few people seemed to be moaning which put me off, e.g.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=24141856

Everyone complains about something though, so it's very likely nothing.

 

[mauvais]

I think Zenie had the 10-20 but I never used it - the 18-50, 70-300 and the 50mm f/2.8 was AWFUL really really really stunk. Did like the 15-30 but I wouldn't have used it.

I'm surprised you didn't like the 50 f/2.8 - it gets good to excellent reviews, e.g. http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=133&sort=7&cat=38&page=1

The 18-50mm gets very mixed reviews - literally - some say it's sharp, some say it's shite. That seems to go back to what I was on about.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Looking at that thread it sounds like the OP is disappointed that "VR does NOT produce critically sharp shots at close range."

VR doesn't work at macro range. That much is true. It works fine at moderate closeup range and the lens itself is extremely sharp, so if you're doing 1:1 macro, all you need to do is use it as such. I.e. use a good tripod and MLU.

If you ignore the obvious wide-angle shots, the rest of these are from the 105 VR in what I'd call its native environment.

Edited to change link to the set I meant to link.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here are some using it on a crap tripod.

Frosty Flowers

... and some after it made me buy it a decent tripod

Spring Flowers

 

[kerb]

Carl Zeiss, ZF (Nikon) planar 50mm f/1.4 would be nice - although I think they do a 35mm too which would get more use. They're quite cheap too - about <£300 on ebay which isn't bad.

[/img]

i was looking at these today and was wondering something...

The Distagon 2/35 on a digitial sensor it is infact 50mm?

however the Planar 1.4/50 is quicker but on a digital sensor it would be 50 times 1.5 wouldnt it?

im looking for a lens that is true to human field of perception sooo the correct lens would be the distagon wouldnt it?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I've never been sure what the factual basis of '50mm on a 35mm camera is close to the human field of perception' is. To me it seems like our field of perception is subjective, wide-angle when we survey the totality of a scene and telephoto when we focus our attention on something particular within it.

Oh well.

The most fanciable ZF lens, based on some web shots I saw recently, is the 100/2 Makro-Planar, but it costs a stupid amount of money from what I recall.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

This isn't the set I had in mind, but it'll give the general idea about the 100/2.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=24449221

 

[kerb]

not sure either bernie, but the general consensus of talking to people in camera shops is that its 1.5. then again i agree with you about the subjectivity of what we are looking at.

yeah that makro planar is a beauty. a bargain at 1600 euros. talking of which i recently bought a nikkor 105mm zoom with in built macro between 50mm and 105mm and was impressed with it especially since it was the first time i used macro and i got it with 50% discount... brand new.

ooh if money wasnt an object

 

[Bernie Gunther]

If you're using the Nikon system there are some ace s/h bargains to be had.

The best bargain of the lot in my view is the older model 180/2.8 ED. You can find a non-D version for a couple of hundred quid but you won't better the image quality with the £1.5k pro zoom (and it weighs so little you can put it in your bag 'just in case') The 50/1.8 (less than £100 used!) and 85/1.8 (about £200 used) are also outstanding bargains, given that both are superb lenses.