Reading mode: Light Dark

Is 5D really my only option?

Go to last post
Digital Imaging Technician said:
rrcphoto said:
get a 20mm sigma .. just sort through the sample variations that
may occur. especially for a fast lens.
Click to expand...
A bit big, larger than the 18-50 2.8.
Digital Imaging Technician said:
another lens that isn't that big that might work for you is the
tokina 17mm - small and compact but not as fast.
Click to expand...
Slow but perhaps acceptable if it performs good at 3.5 and is
reasonably small. Can't find any dimensions for it as it doesn't
show up in their current line up:
http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/index.html
Click to expand...
hmmm. I thought they still had it :( that's a shame it was a nice small and pretty sharp lens .. it's actually one of my fav's on my 5D. not bad quality and cost me less than 200 bucks used...

there ya go..b&H still has it and the specs..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169414-REG/Tokina_ATX17AFPRON_Super_W_A_AF_17mm.html
 
Digital Imaging Technician said:
I've gotten lots of proposals in this thread that hasn't met my
criteria in one way or another. I haven't replied to all of them.
The reason I wanted a prime was because of the size. The 20mm Sigma
(88.6mm x 89.5mm) larger than the 18-50mm f/2.8 Sigma (79mm x
85.8mm).
Click to expand...
You can't have it both ways. A fast lens is going to be larger than a slower lens, at the same focal lengths. You said you wanted f/1.8. That is 1.3 stops faster than the 18-50 f/2.8 and 2 stops faster than the pentax pancake.
Digital Imaging Technician said:
Right now the K10D with the 21mm pancake seems like the most
tempting option. It's slow, but so damn small I might consider it.
Guess what, the K10D is not FF!
Click to expand...
It is quite fascinating to see that you'd apparently spend anywhere from $1200 to $3000 to shave off an inch off the size of a lens, but any nikon mount offering, for the d200 that you say you like a lot, is unacceptable for one reason or another.

You don't like the 20mm nikkor which is only very slightly larger than the pentax lens, while being both faster than the pentax and smaller than the canon 28 f/1.8. The 18-50 sigma is smaller than the prime and faster than the pancake lens too, plus it gives you benefit of a zoom. heh, that appears rather strange to me. :)

Another alternative for size is the sigma 30 f/1.4, which is slightly smaller than the sigma 20 f/1.8 and 2/3 stop faster. Do you know the practical difference between the use of those 2 focal lengths for matching FOV?

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
It's imposiible to make 18 mm lense with f 1.8.

Same as it's impossible to make 300/2.8 lens with optical stab less then 3000$. Actually I care about the last one much more.

Buy tripod.
 
dimar said:
It's imposiible to make 18 mm lense with f 1.8.

Same as it's impossible to make 300/2.8 lens with optical stab less
then 3000$. Actually I care about the last one much more.

Buy tripod.
Click to expand...
it's not impossible. perhaps impractical or no real consumer requirement, but sigma has a 20mm 1.8 and that's not exactly far off.
 
I see so little meaning in wide angle primes, that even never was interesting in.

I have no idea why Nikon make this primes if it has 17-35/2.8
 
dimar said:
I see so little meaning in wide angle primes, that even never was
interesting in.

I have no idea why Nikon make this primes if it has 17-35/2.8
Click to expand...
because not everyone wants to carry around a 1.5lb lens?

primes are usually smaller, more inconspicuous, they can be faster (2.8 is not fast) and usually less compromises in their design.
 
--
'Let my heart be broken by the things that break the heart of God.'
===============
Nikon D200 - MB-D200 - SB800 - TC-20EII
Nikons(f/2.8 all) 17-55, 105VR Micro, 70-200 VR, 300
 
It's great to have wide fast primes again. Don't let the naysaysers get to you. Nikon does not fully support DX and it is not their future. If it was they would have a line of wide fast primes, not just DX zooms and a fisheye. Being dual platform has been a great move, so many choices.
Digital Imaging Technician said:
I'm a frustrated D200 owner looking for a fast (sub f/2.8,
preferably f/1.8), 28mm (35mm equivalent) prime (the size of zooms
is too big). Is the 5D with it's EF 28mm f/1.8 USM my only option
if I want to keep shooting digital? I've looked into the Nikkor
20mm f/2.8, but it's not fast and doesn't seem to perform very well
on the D200 (read the verdict here:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_20_28/index.htm ).

It's a shame no DSLR makers have updated their line of primes to
reflect the focal multiplier of their APS cameras. I don't have
anything against APS sized sensors per se, but fact remains, there
seems to be no lenses that suit me.

I'm thinking of a Sigma DP1, but it's a slow (f/4) and Sigma's high
ISO noise is quite terrible. The 6 second wait between RAW shots
with the GX100 makes that option quite unattractive too.

Any other camera makers have any lenses that would suit me?

Thanks in advance...
Click to expand...
 
Digital Imaging Technician said:
I'm a frustrated D200 owner looking for a fast (sub f/2.8,
preferably f/1.8), 28mm (35mm equivalent) prime (the size of zooms
is too big). Is the 5D with it's EF 28mm f/1.8 USM my only option
if I want to keep shooting digital? I've looked into the Nikkor
20mm f/2.8, but it's not fast and doesn't seem to perform very well
on the D200 (read the verdict here:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_20_28/index.htm ).

It's a shame no DSLR makers have updated their line of primes to
reflect the focal multiplier of their APS cameras. I don't have
anything against APS sized sensors per se, but fact remains, there
seems to be no lenses that suit me.

I'm thinking of a Sigma DP1, but it's a slow (f/4) and Sigma's high
ISO noise is quite terrible. The 6 second wait between RAW shots
with the GX100 makes that option quite unattractive too.

Any other camera makers have any lenses that would suit me?

Thanks in advance...
Click to expand...
--
use DXKA303DH for 70 off @ dreamhost
 
I also rather have 2 platforms, dx for macro and tele and for wide FF. best of both worlds, really.
 
If there was to come a ff nikon, i defenately will keep my dx sensor dslr. Why can't both exist; dx for amatuer or pro/semi/pro and FF dslr for pro(much higher cost).
 
"Serious problems?" An equal ignorant response to that is you can always crop it...

Promoting DX is an excuse for Nikon to buy time until a FF sensor is produced worthy of Nikon bodies.
jwenting said:
not at all, larger sensors WILL give serious problems in the
corners when used with (especially but not exclusively) wide angle
lenses.

That's in fact one of the deciding reasons for Nikon to not produce
cameras with larger sensors than APS-C.
Click to expand...
 
you don't want a 20mm because "it doesn't seem to perform very well" but you're considering the P&S Sigma DP-1 (which AFAIK isn't available yet)as an option? I can be sure of this: the 20mm Nikon prime will be better at f4.0 than the Sigma at f4.0!

so what's the problem here? I'm not really sure why you are confining yourself to narrow and EXPENSIVE options when you already have the most practical option right under your nose!

while i'm not going to be hostile like other posters here, but i would understand why they react the way they do: you have made a controversial post (for the reasons i stated above)...almost on the border of being a troll.
Digital Imaging Technician said:
I'm a frustrated D200 owner looking for a fast (sub f/2.8,
preferably f/1.8), 28mm (35mm equivalent) prime (the size of zooms
is too big). Is the 5D with it's EF 28mm f/1.8 USM my only option
if I want to keep shooting digital? I've looked into the Nikkor
20mm f/2.8, but it's not fast and doesn't seem to perform very well
on the D200 (read the verdict here:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_20_28/index.htm ).

It's a shame no DSLR makers have updated their line of primes to
reflect the focal multiplier of their APS cameras. I don't have
anything against APS sized sensors per se, but fact remains, there
seems to be no lenses that suit me.

I'm thinking of a Sigma DP1, but it's a slow (f/4) and Sigma's high
ISO noise is quite terrible. The 6 second wait between RAW shots
with the GX100 makes that option quite unattractive too.

Any other camera makers have any lenses that would suit me?

Thanks in advance...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.subtleimages.com/blog/
 
...unfortunately most of the participants here aren't made of money...so having two camera systems isn't exactly an option.

and PismoBeach, have you seen the Nikon lens/camera future roadmap...or do you own a crystal ball, perhaps? (Rhetorical question) Who are you to say that the DX format is not in Nikon's future?

--
http://www.subtleimages.com/blog/
 
To many photographers, It's worth the weight and spend 3x more $ to get better images. Even if it's just a hair better.
 
dimar said:
rrcphoto said:
because not everyone wants to carry around a 1.5lb lens?
Click to expand...
Sure, everyone wants to carry 10 lb of different primes instead one
1.5 lb zoom, and spend 3 times more money on it :)
Click to expand...
Damn Skippy... I'll take a bushel of single focal lengths over one catch all zoom any day of the week. My only zoom, the 12-24, has been a better dust catcher than camera lens of late. I use the 105 f2.5 and 85 1.4 all the time. Is my shoulder sore at the end of the day? Yup? But I, personally, am happier shooting single focals. I feel that by forcing myself to adapt to my environment, rather than twisting a zoom ring, I get better images. It my opinion and many are bound to disagree, but thats me.

Was I tempted by the ultra-fast Canon lenses. Yup. Am I limited by having [slow?] 2.8s and 2.5s? Not yet. Mostly because in dim light the 50 and 85 1.4 cover much of the ground I need. Would an 85 1.2 be nice? Umm I need new tires on my car...

-Dave
 
dimar said:
17-35/2.8 is better then any Nikon or Canon prime. Only 20 mm Zeiss
and OM Olimpus is better at 20 mm
Click to expand...
If we're talking low distortion, is the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor best? If we're talking micro-contrast is the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor best? If we're talking color-accuracy is the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor best? If we're talking flare resistance is the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor best? If we're talking center sharpness is the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor best? What about corner sharpness? At what apertures for all of the above?

Seems to me any proclamations of one lens being better than its peers needs be accompanied by the qualifications because in my experience no lens, prime or zoom, is absolutely better than its alternatives.

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kabeluna/
 
dimar said:
rrcphoto said:
because not everyone wants to carry around a 1.5lb lens?
Click to expand...
Sure, everyone wants to carry 10 lb of different primes instead one
1.5 lb zoom, and spend 3 times more money on it :)
Click to expand...
actually most of them aren't. and on camera weight versus in backback / camera bag weight are two different things.

do you just like to argue with the most inane postings possible?

it was the OP's choice of photography, just because you like a 2lb monster that isn't even considered a fast lens be my guest. fast primes bring more creative control over the process than a 2.8 zoom, and if you don't know what that is, then you shouldn't be participating like a know it all in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top