|
50 mm f/1.8 can be a cheap lens or it can be a very high quality lens. There is more to price and quality of a lens than focal length and aperture. The large mount should be visible in things like: - Lenses are sharp in corners with little vignetting. The published lenses are according to charts published by Nikon. - Wide angle lenses are high quality and compact. At least the 14-30 f/4 to be published is compact.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
[Edit: I see the poster above laid out some additional advantages of the wide lens mount. I guess my question still stands, as it's specifically about wide aperture lenses.] drat, if the 58/.95 is going to be manual-focus only, will it really be much to get excited about when there's already the old manual-focus 58/1.2? Sure, there's the fractionally faster max. aperture, but that's already a very shallow DoF at 1.2. The costly 'old Noct' lens with all its collectors' market value appreciation goes for around $3,000. If the new Noct can't beat that price or offer autofocus...what's the point? Thinking about this, I guess it's also kind of weird to me that there's all this talk about how the new wide-throat S-mount is going to open up these new possibilities for superspeed lenses when there are a small gaggle of f/1.2 50's for F-mount already. Is it that they're hard to implement with autofocus? Speaking of f/1.2, I originally came here with a different question: what's the deal with the Fuji 56/1.2 versus the 56/1.2 APD? I guess I already understand that the APD version has smoother focus transition areas, but that this is achieved with a masking element that reduces the T-stop of any aperture wider than f/6.3 or so. I've also heard that the lens doesn't focus as quickly as the regular 56/1.2. Has anyone here used it? Do its compromises for the sake of bokeh seriously hamper its use for applications besides 'creative' portraiture? i.e. does low-light event or walkaround street/urban landscape photography become a much greater pain in the rear end relative to the regular 56? I'm curious, because my local camera shop has a lightly-used 56 APD on sale for the same price as a new non-APD. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Aug 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
APD is sort of (but not quite) similar to the idea behind Sony and Minolta's STF lenses. It's smoother bokeys at the cost of transmission, hence the slower AF. If you're a bokeh nut it might be worth it to you. If you don't like it, you can always flip it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
There were some rumblings that Z-mount 50 mm f/1.8 has lower T-stop than F-mount 50 mm f/1.8, closer to F-mount f/1.4, but I haven’t seen anything concrete about that. We’ll see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Speaking of f/1.2, I originally came here with a different question: what's the deal with the Fuji 56/1.2 versus the 56/1.2 APD? I guess I already understand that the APD version has smoother focus transition areas, but that this is achieved with a masking element that reduces the T-stop of any aperture wider than f/6.3 or so. I've also heard that the lens doesn't focus as quickly as the regular 56/1.2. Has anyone here used it? Do its compromises for the sake of bokeh seriously hamper its use for applications besides 'creative' portraiture? i.e. does low-light event or walkaround street/urban landscape photography become a much greater pain in the rear end relative to the regular 56? I'm curious, because my local camera shop has a lightly-used 56 APD on sale for the same price as a new non-APD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
cheese posted:Maybe those empty slots in the coming years will be 1.2 primes? That's exactly what its going to enable, yes. In the meantime, they're filling up the most commonly bought lenses to build an ecosystem asap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:"Guys, aren't you excited about our 58 f/.95 Noct that costs six grand and is manual focus only? Oh, and it weighs like a brick?" WTF the 0.95 lens is manual only? Didn't Canon launched the EF system with a 1.0 lens and its AF? Nikon put a medium format mount in there just to be 0.05 faster than EF mount? Also I reject this idea that 50/1.8 can be made in Rolex quality and ninja expensive. No. 50mm 1.8 used to be freaking kit lens, then they cheap out and kit the bodies with 50mm/2.0. Later they put out 28-70 f4.5-5.6 or whatever super slow kit lens. But the 50mm 1.8 was and has always been the first lens we recommend to beginner. How do you make a system with no price friendly 50mm prime lens. That's bullshit. tino fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Aug 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 10:58
|
|
|
cheese posted:In Fuji chat, how does the eye AF on newer Fuji bodies compare to Sony? I've been playing around with it on my X-E2s and its pretty hit or miss. It doesn't. At least, not from any of the videos I've seen.. It usually takes a full second or two to acquire a face and then a little while longer to cotton on to the fact that there might be an eye somewhere in it, and often plants the eye on a cheek or an ear. If you're slow and methodical and using a willing model, it may help, but for the most part the xtrans3 eye-af is just as likely to miss now as it did on the xtrans2 cameras.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 11:55
|
|
|
tino posted:Also I reject this idea that 50/1.8 can be made in Rolex quality and ninja expensive. No. 50mm 1.8 used to be freaking kit lens, then they cheap out and kit the bodies with 50mm/2.0. Later they put out 28-70 f4.5-5.6 or whatever super slow kit lens. But the 50mm 1.8 was and has always been the first lens we recommend to beginner. How do you make a system with no price friendly 50mm prime lens. That's bullshit. This is similar to how I feel too. Nifty fifties are supposed to be the gateway drug to fast lenses. Not to mention they're usually fairly compact to make for a great walk around kit. The new Nikon one is expensive and massive, which sort of defeats the purpose. I know you can just use the old Nikon one with the adapter, but if you want to buy into the new mount it kind of sucks. Both the 35 and 50 look like they took the mechanics of the old mount options and glued the adaptor to the back anyways. I guess I shouldn't talk too much poo poo since Fuji's options at that length aren't super cheap either, but it just feels different when the old system had that cheap option and now the "same" thing is 6x the cost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:00
|
|
Cat Army
|
Took the XF 16-55 to the zoo and so far favorably impressed even with the SOOC jpgs.    It's not as heavy or large as I had feared and the bokeh is pretty good! I clearly need to get used to not having IS anymore however.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
I'm not in favor of expensive kit 50's, and the history of photography in the 20th century is full of examples where extremely sharp 50/1.8/1.7/2 lenses were often the cheapest optics in a given system, but at this point the Z 50 is just following in the footsteps of Zeiss and their FF Sonnar 55/1.8 and APSC Touit 32/1.8.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
Saros posted:Took the XF 16-55 to the zoo and so far favorably impressed even with the SOOC jpgs. One of the best things about the Fuji system (to me) is how amazing the jpgs are. I love not really caring about doing post for 95% of what I'm shooting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Nikkor Z 50 mm f/1.8: Nikkor AF-S 50 mm f/1.8G (i.e. current DSLR 50 mm):  Nikkor AF 50 mm f/1.8D (i.e. older DSLR 50 mm): 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
oh man i haven't seen MTF charts posted here in ages
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
graphs are the true measure of a good photo
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Well, they do clearly show the benefit of the large mount and that the 50 mm is not just the current design with the adapter glued on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I'm not in favor of expensive kit 50's, and the history of photography in the 20th century is full of examples where extremely sharp 50/1.8/1.7/2 lenses were often the cheapest optics in a given system, but at this point the Z 50 is just following in the footsteps of Zeiss and their FF Sonnar 55/1.8 and APSC Touit 32/1.8. Nikon's kind of huffing their own farts about how they're an optics company first and that it's putting optical design FIRST. The reality is that they need more revenue and decided to make expensive lenses with high margins. No idea how much the 2019 50 f/1.2 is gonna cost. Turns out Sony's cheap 50 f/1.8, nicer 55 f/1.8, and spendy 50 f/1.4 strategy was the right one though. The cheap lens (when it comes) will probably be a 50 f/2. Same goes for Fuji's middle-prime lineup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Hope Olympus announce their rumored flagship whatever soon; I’m somehow feeling huge GAS pains and have started looking at Sony poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Another motivation for focusing on more expensive lenses may be third party manufacturers. Rokinon FE mount AF lenses appear very price competitive. May be difficult to maintain margin in that market. Nikon business development director stated that they expect that third party manufacturers will reverse engineer the Z-mount and release lenses. Shouldn’t be too difficult as at least Sigma F-mount lenses appear work with the adapter already. They just need to replicate the signals of the adapter and they are done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:Nikon's kind of huffing their own farts about how they're an optics company first and that it's putting optical design FIRST. FWIW the 3 Olympus f/1.2 primes are all $1200 so that may give you some idea
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
DJExile posted:FWIW the 3 Olympus f/1.2 primes are all $1200 so that may give you some idea Thise are M43 right? Full frame lenses will be much more I would guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
DJExile posted:FWIW the 3 Olympus f/1.2 primes are all $1200 so that may give you some idea DoLittle posted:Thise are M43 right? Full frame lenses will be much more I would guess. Correct. They cover a much smaller image circle. The Sony 50mm f/1.4 Zeiss is $1500. A 50mm f/1.2 will be a lot more. The ancient Canon 50 f/1.2 is on sale with an instant rebate at $1300. I'd bet it would be around $2K for a new 50 f/1.2 from Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Can you really make 3rd party AF lens for new mount without licensing? I thought you can only do it on old mounts after the patent and copyright expire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
tino posted:Can you really make 3rd party AF lens for new mount without licensing? I thought you can only do it on old mounts after the patent and copyright expire. If you black box reverse engineer it, you can. Sigma and Tamron have made third-party AF lenses for years on the simpler AF mounts. But the newer mounts are considerably more complicated in protocol, and until recently the variety of formats in the mirrorless realm makes applying across different mounts difficult.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Just like Compaq did with the IBM clone PCs. Third party manufacturers already know F-mount through and through and now Nikon has provided a fully functional adapter between F and Z. That should tell the third parties everything they need to translate the electric signals between Z mount and their lenses. DoLittle fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Aug 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
I think its more like making games for Playstation, you have to pay for the license and get approval. It's easy to add encryption to pure digital mounts. I am surprised we don't have definite answer yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
Yes, they could make it more difficult than just replicating the signals. Here’s Google translate of Nikon BDM comment on the topic, whatever that means:Nikon Japan BDM posted:At the recital, there was a comment that the specification of Z mount will not be disclosed to the third party. Actually, in Nikon it seems that the same correspondence was made even with the lens for F mount of single lens reflex. Mr. Ikegami says that lens makers are anticipating that they will independently develop Z mount lenses through reverse engineering. Although it can be said whether or not to develop a lens for Z mount depending on the lens maker, I would like to expect Nikon for an attractive product development that lens makers would like to develop together. Article: https://translate.googleusercontent...uvx-CGO889O9Znw
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
tino posted:WTF the 0.95 lens is manual only? Are there any f0.95 lenses available that have Auto Focus?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
The closest was the Canon 50mm f/1.0.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
When Nikon eventually implements 3x RAID XQD and 60fps continuous still burst on their mirrorless bodies we'll finally be back to shooting 35mm motion picture film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Father O'Blivion posted:When Nikon eventually implements 3x RAID XQD and 60fps continuous still burst on their mirrorless bodies we'll finally be back to shooting 35mm motion picture film. I giggled at this. The more things change, etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
Yeast posted:I giggled at this. Mirrorless will make it that much more difficult to shoot blind people. At least the shutter release provides a beat. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
tino posted:I think its more like making games for Playstation, you have to pay for the license and get approval. It's easy to add encryption to pure digital mounts. I am surprised we don't have definite answer yet. No. You buy a camera+lens and hook them up to an oscilloscope. If you can show that your engineers decoded the signals without doing industrial espionage/decompiling firmware code/flat out copying patent descriptions then you’re legally in the right. For instance, Canon being pissed at third party lens manufacturers (particularly at Sigma due to some dispute that started in FD days iirc) and slightly changing the body-lens communication from time to time is the reason that 3rd party lenses with their only mostly-complete reverse engineering of the Canon EF protocol used to stop working on newer camera bodies. None of these manufacturers bought rights from Canon. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Aug 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 01:58
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
*cough* crosspost  false advertising. This one has a mirror. But no reflex.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
the little cable that goes from the camera to the flippy LCD screen on my launch x-t2 is frayed and makes the screen gently caress up if it's not in exactly the right position. it just started and i was like oh hell yeah baby just under the wire on that 2 year warranty!! come to find out that starting with the x-t2, fuji only does a 1 year warranty on bodies. this stincks 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
if you have a small screwdriver and its just a normal ribbon cable, you can probably fix that yourself if you can find the part.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
underage at the vape shop posted:if you have a small screwdriver and its just a normal ribbon cable, you can probably fix that yourself if you can find the part. Yeah, definitely. If you're going to do more repairs or DIY stuff, I still have my set of Wiha drivers from ten years ago and they are excellent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 08:38
|
|
|
It's probably about $100-200 at fuji service. I've never had a complaint about them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
yeah i'm definitely too stupid and lazy to fix it myself, and i've had decent experiences with fuji repair on some lens issues before. i'm just bummed about the shorter warranty thing. i'm sure there was discussion about it at the time but it totally escaped my notice. live and learn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
If you bought it with a credit card, check your policy - some cards add a year to purchases, so you might still be in the clear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 22:24
|
|
