Just got my 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4... wow, these are huge lenses

Started Mar 19, 2012 | Discussions
fabgo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,294
Like?
Just got my 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4... wow, these are huge lenses
Mar 19, 2012

I have to admit I was surprised by how huge these lenses are. Not exactly for casual walking around. I haven't received the 85 f/1.8G yet. I hope that lens is of a more manageable size, similar to the 50 f/1.4G.

I'm intrigued by the rumored 28 f/1.8G, and hope Nikon will introduce more small, lightweight primes with (hopefully) excellent image quality in the future.

-- hide signature --

Fabian

nelsonal
Senior MemberPosts: 2,455Gear list
Like?
Re: Just got my 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4... wow, these are huge lenses
In reply to fabgo, Mar 19, 2012

Aren't they about the same size as the zooms like the 18-105 and 24-120? It's difficult to make a fast retrofocal lens with decent corner performance without giving it a fairly large front element. Some review sites give dimensional specs, or consider AF-D/manual primes lenses for fairly compact bodies.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Phil Flash
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,176
Like?
Here's the cure: Voigtlander 40mm F2!
In reply to fabgo, Mar 19, 2012

The Voigtlander is sharp, small, and pancakey!

I don't understand why manufacturers make such big honking lenses when the ISOs crank up so high now.

I'd love it if Nikon made a nice updated 35mm F2 for the rest of us.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

It's not the camera. It's you.

Stuff I own in my profile.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Palmguy
New MemberPosts: 23
Like?
Re: Just got my 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4... wow, these are huge lenses
In reply to fabgo, Mar 19, 2012

fabgo wrote:

I have to admit I was surprised by how huge these lenses are. Not exactly for casual walking around. I haven't received the 85 f/1.8G yet. I hope that lens is of a more manageable size, similar to the 50 f/1.4G.

I'm intrigued by the rumored 28 f/1.8G, and hope Nikon will introduce more small, lightweight primes with (hopefully) excellent image quality in the future.

-- hide signature --

Fabian

The 85/1.8G is kind of in between but feels to me closer in size to the 24 and 35 than to the 50. It is lighter than both though.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,311Gear list
Like?
Re: Here's the cure: Voigtlander 40mm F2!
In reply to Phil Flash, Mar 20, 2012

Phil Flash wrote:

I don't understand why manufacturers make such big honking lenses when the ISOs crank up so high now.

If you are used to kit zooms, perhaps then the 35/1.4G might seem big but compared to any f/2.8 zoom, it's fairly compact. The 67mm front element alone makes it seem small next to a 77mm front element lens.

As far as high ISO being a replacement for a fast lens, I'd have to disagree. If I don't mind the loss of DOF (or want less DOF), I'll gladly shoot at a lower ISO even with the best high ISO cameras on the market. Likewise, I'll take the faster shutter speed at the same ISO. If high ISO fixed everything, we'd probably all shoot our lenses at f/8 and get away with much smaller and cheaper optics.

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MrSkelter
Contributing MemberPosts: 630
Like?
Re: Just got my 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4... wow, these are huge lenses
In reply to fabgo, Mar 20, 2012

fabgo wrote:

I'm intrigued by the rumored 28 f/1.8G, and hope Nikon will introduce more small, lightweight primes with (hopefully) excellent image quality in the future.

Smaller, lighter, better-quality? So say we all.

The primes are about as small as they can make them. There's no money in making things bigger without purpose. With the D4 and D800 Nikon have shrunk things as far as they can within their own constraints. I'm sure if they can bend the science they will.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fabgo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,294
Like?
Re: Here's the cure: Voigtlander 40mm F2!
In reply to joejack951, Mar 21, 2012

joejack951 wrote:

Phil Flash wrote:

If you are used to kit zooms, perhaps then the 35/1.4G might seem big but compared to any f/2.8 zoom, it's fairly compact. The 67mm front element alone makes it seem small next to a 77mm front element lens.

Not really. The 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 are pretty much exactly the same size, both in length and width and weight. I don't understand why Nikon chose to put a 67mm thread on the 35mm. It would have been more convenient to keep them all at 77mm.

As for comparing them with zooms, they are almost the same size & weight as the 17-35 f/2.8. I certainly wouldn't pick the primes over the zoom because they are smaller & lighter.

-- hide signature --

Fabian

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,311Gear list
Like?
Re: Here's the cure: Voigtlander 40mm F2!
In reply to fabgo, Mar 21, 2012

fabgo wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

Phil Flash wrote:

If you are used to kit zooms, perhaps then the 35/1.4G might seem big but compared to any f/2.8 zoom, it's fairly compact. The 67mm front element alone makes it seem small next to a 77mm front element lens.

Not really. The 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 are pretty much exactly the same size, both in length and width and weight. I don't understand why Nikon chose to put a 67mm thread on the 35mm. It would have been more convenient to keep them all at 77mm.

The 67mm filter allows for a smaller diameter hood assuming you use one. The smaller hood does make the lens appear smaller (which is what I was referring to in my original statement).

As for comparing them with zooms, they are almost the same size & weight as the 17-35 f/2.8. I certainly wouldn't pick the primes over the zoom because they are smaller & lighter.

They are about 20% lighter and an inch shorter than the 17-35 (not much in the grand scheme, I agree). The comparison heavily favors the primes when you sit them next to the 24-70 though. Again, I agree that size and weight are not the reason to choose the f/1.4 primes.

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nathantw
Contributing MemberPosts: 904
Like?
Re: Just got my 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4... wow, these are huge lenses
In reply to fabgo, Mar 21, 2012

Heck yea it's big. I carried around the 24 f/1.4 and D700 one night and it was as heavy and almost as big as the 28-300. It's HUGE and certainly not like the 24 f/2.8 I used to carry around on trips.

fabgo wrote:

I have to admit I was surprised by how huge these lenses are. Not exactly for casual walking around. I haven't received the 85 f/1.8G yet. I hope that lens is of a more manageable size, similar to the 50 f/1.4G.

I'm intrigued by the rumored 28 f/1.8G, and hope Nikon will introduce more small, lightweight primes with (hopefully) excellent image quality in the future.

-- hide signature --

Fabian

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/
Always have a camera with you and make sure you use it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
r_k_t
Regular MemberPosts: 132Gear list
Like?
Re: Just got my 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4... wow, these are huge lenses
In reply to Palmguy, Mar 21, 2012

Here's a side by side of the 85 1.8G with the 105 VR ... and another of the older 85 with the 24 2.8D ... the new 85 is significantly larger ...
http://rohanthakursphotoblog.blogspot.de/2012/03/gear-big-new-85mm.html

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fabgo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,294
Like?
Re: Here's the cure: Voigtlander 40mm F2!
In reply to joejack951, Mar 21, 2012

joejack951 wrote:

fabgo wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

Phil Flash wrote:

If you are used to kit zooms, perhaps then the 35/1.4G might seem big but compared to any f/2.8 zoom, it's fairly compact. The 67mm front element alone makes it seem small next to a 77mm front element lens.

Not really. The 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 are pretty much exactly the same size, both in length and width and weight. I don't understand why Nikon chose to put a 67mm thread on the 35mm. It would have been more convenient to keep them all at 77mm.

Got it. I actually haven't taken the hood(s) out of the box yet.

-- hide signature --

Fabian

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fabgo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,294
Like?
Re: Just got my 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4... wow, these are huge lenses
In reply to r_k_t, Mar 21, 2012

r_k_t wrote:

Here's a side by side of the 85 1.8G with the 105 VR ... and another of the older 85 with the 24 2.8D ... the new 85 is significantly larger ...
http://rohanthakursphotoblog.blogspot.de/2012/03/gear-big-new-85mm.html

It's big, but surprisingly light weight. Lifting it, I get the impression it's all plastic. Even the 50 f/1.4 feels heavier, but probably only because it's more compact.

-- hide signature --

Fabian

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Windancer
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,732Gear list
Like?
Re: Here's the cure: Voigtlander 40mm F2!
In reply to joejack951, Mar 21, 2012

joejack951 wrote:

The 67mm filter allows for a smaller diameter hood assuming you use one.

I know as does Nikon you can't please everyone, but I have to agree the 67mm is an odd size and not a Nikon "standard" in years past (52,62,72 & 77).

I have had Nikon stuff for over 20 years and some of my many lenses are older than that, it has always be Nikon's practice to use filter diameters of 52,62,72 & 77, don't get me wrong I don't have a problem with 67mm size just means another polarizer needed

Terry

-- hide signature --

Graham Fine Art Photography
http://www.pbase.com/windancer
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham

Remember, it's not the CPU that's in your camera that makes great images, it's the one located about 4" behind the viewfinder that does.

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise.

 Windancer's gear list:Windancer's gear list
Nikon D100 Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon 1 V2 +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bogrod
Forum MemberPosts: 58
Like?
Re: Here's the cure: Voigtlander 40mm F2!
In reply to Phil Flash, Mar 22, 2012

Some photographers like shallow depth of field. To some, that may be a lost or dying art, but not to all of us.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,311Gear list
Like?
Re: Here's the cure: Voigtlander 40mm F2!
In reply to Windancer, Mar 22, 2012

Windancer wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

The 67mm filter allows for a smaller diameter hood assuming you use one.

I know as does Nikon you can't please everyone, but I have to agree the 67mm is an odd size and not a Nikon "standard" in years past (52,62,72 & 77).

I have had Nikon stuff for over 20 years and some of my many lenses are older than that, it has always be Nikon's practice to use filter diameters of 52,62,72 & 77, don't get me wrong I don't have a problem with 67mm size just means another polarizer needed

I would like to know the whole story behind the 67mm filter. Something tells me it's along the same lines as the design of the 14-24 front element. Nikon would rather inconvenience a few than compromise the design somehow.

Can't you use a step down ring to mount a 72/77mm polarizer on a 67mm filter thread?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/98934-REG/General_Brand_72_67_72mm_67mm_Step_Down_Ring_Lens.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/98936-REG/General_Brand_77_67_77mm_67mm_Step_Down_Ring_Lens.html

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
danidentity
Contributing MemberPosts: 737
Like?
Funny...
In reply to fabgo, Mar 23, 2012

Haha funny, I consider the 35 1.4G on my D700 my small and light walkaround kit. I guess it's all relative.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fabgo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,294
Like?
Re: Funny...
In reply to danidentity, Mar 23, 2012

danidentity wrote:

Haha funny, I consider the 35 1.4G on my D700 my small and light walkaround kit. I guess it's all relative.

You know, part of it is I recently switched to a Panasonic GX1. When you own some m4/3 lenses, anything 35mm looks and feels humongous.

Still, 1.5 pounds is pretty heavy for a prime lens. Carry around a bag full of these and you're schlepping quite a bit of weight around.

-- hide signature --

Fabian

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
whoosh1
Contributing MemberPosts: 980
Like?
67mm filter size
In reply to Windancer, Mar 26, 2012

Windancer wrote:

I know as does Nikon you can't please everyone, but I have to agree the 67mm is an odd size and not a Nikon "standard" in years past (52,62,72 & 77).

It looks like its becoming a standard size for Nikon - 35mm f/1.4G, 85 f/1.8G, 70-300mm VR, 24-85 AF-S (discontinued) - also DX zooms 16-85 VR, 18-70, etc.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CMalsingh
Senior MemberPosts: 1,557
Like?
...and do you like the quality?
In reply to fabgo, Mar 30, 2012

if the results don't justify the weight/size, it's an issue.
If they do, well...

I quite like the recent 35mm f1.4

-- hide signature --

Colin
-------------------
http://www.pbase.com/celidh

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fabgo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,294
Like?
No, I returned them...
In reply to CMalsingh, Mar 30, 2012

CMalsingh wrote:

if the results don't justify the weight/size, it's an issue.
If they do, well...

I quite like the recent 35mm f1.4

-- hide signature --

Colin
-------------------
http://www.pbase.com/celidh

Hi Colin,

I ended up returning both. The 24/1.4 had weird focus/sharpness issues and the 35/1.4 had very unsharp corners even at f/5.6 due to field curvature. I asked for an exchange, hopefully the 2nd copy will be better.

-- hide signature --

Fabian

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads