Choosing lenses to complement DSLR kit.

[Elana-chan]

Hello there, I finally decided to sign up after lurking around as a guest off and on for several years, and I think I've finally come up with a question to ask that hasn't already been answered.

I have been shooting a D3200 for the past few years, and have built up a rather substantial collection of good glass to use with it, and I will eventually be upgrading to an FX body, likely something in the D8XX series.

I also just purchased a N1 V3 to complement my core kit, along with the PD version of the 10-30mm and18.5mm lenses, and the FT-1 adapter to use the rest of my collection with. My question to you is, with the lenses I already own that can be used with the FT-1, which CX lenses would you suggest adding to the collection that would be filling a niche not covered by the larger lenses?

A list of the DSLR lenses I have(in approximate order acquired):
*AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor ED 18-55mm F3.5-5.6G -Occasionally still used for wide-angles

*AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor ED 55-200mm F4-5.6G -Retired

*Nikkor Series E 50mm 1:1.8

*Tamron AF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 LD Tele-Macro(1:3.9) (still used for long exposures in broad daylight, minimum aperture F45 at 300mm!)

*AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED

*Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD (largely replaced the two kit lenses, and the 75-300)

*Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM | A

There are several reasons why I purchased the V3 instead of sticking with the F-mount cameras for everything I do.
1. Working in small spaces, such as photographing miniatures where a DSLR would be prohibitively large for the working space.
2. That amazing extra reach from pairing it with my telephoto lenses.

3. Using it in situations where being more inconspicuous with my equipment would be desirable so as not to draw unwanted attention (example, shooting street level city shots without drawing people's attention with a large camera so as not to influence the scene)

4. Situations where carrying around a backpack full of camera gear are not feasible.

The entire concept of adopting the CX system was to supplement my existing equipment to suit the needs listed above, and I'm just not sure what among the available lenses overlap my existing ones to the point I should just use what I have instead of expanding, as most of the advantages to the CX lenses is being able to do more with a smaller form factor.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

Hi Elana,

Let see if I can help a bit:

Small sensors, like in the Nikon 1, are noisy, so slow lenses should be avoided, if possible.

Then there are some compatibility issues with older Third-Party lenses, but sadly it is often a trial and error issue. So step one is trying those you have on your V3, a simple process.

I'd say the Sigma 35/1.4 should work, at least my copy did.

Hopefully, your 75-300 macro will work, at least my 70-300 VC did!

Your Nikon 50 should be great as your short, fast, telephoto lens! And that 105 would be perfect for just about any kind of work!

The 18-55 is of little use, but you should invest in the 30-110, a lovely macro lens if you buy some Third-Party extension tubes! Nice for any kind of work, cheap and small!




All gull shots by my wife using her V2 and the 30-110
























This was taken with my Tamron 70-300 VC



The rest is up to you, but you should check out the 55-200 as they usually are sharp in the center, thus ideal for the FT1 and the V3 (at least mine was).

I sold my 50, 55-200 and some other lenses when I moved up to a D600, years ago.

Most of my shots are birds and macros, see my gallery:

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5376374738

Welcome aboard!

--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Nikon V2, J5, D3300, D7500 & D600, some m4/3.

 

[Elana-chan]

Hi Elana,

Let see if I can help a bit:

Small sensors, like in the Nikon 1, are noisy, so slow lenses should be avoided, if possible.

Then there are some compatibility issues with older Third-Party lenses, but sadly it is often a trial and error issue. So step one is trying those you have on your V3, a simple process.

I'd say the Sigma 35/1.4 should work, at least my copy did.

Hopefully, your 75-300 macro will work, at least my 70-300 VC did!

Your Nikon 50 should be great as your short, fast, telephoto lens! And that 105 would be perfect for just about any kind of work!

The 18-55 is of little use, but you should invest in the 30-110, a lovely macro lens if you buy some Third-Party extension tubes! Nice for any kind of work, cheap and small!

The rest is up to you, but you should check out the 55-200 as they usually are sharp in the center, thus ideal for the FT1 and the V3 (at least mine was).

In regards to the 30-110, as far as focal length is concerned, there would be overlap with the tamron 28-300, which admittedly, I found is a little quirky on the V3. When I first tried it out last night, the camera wouldn't read the F-stop, but if I momentarily started to unscrew the lens, just enough to break the electrical contacts, and tighten it again, that fixed the issue, though this is a fix I would need to apply each time I turn the camera on with that lens attached.

Beyond not having to deal with the issue about reading the f-stop without doing that extra step, is the main advantage to the 30-110 over the 28-300 lens the overall size?

If "overlap existing lenses" means only similar apertures and focal lengths, then the only one that stands out to me that you might want is the 6.7-13, which will give you wider wide and have VR to boot. Many folks here love the 6.7-13 for its excellent quality and small size.

When the consideration turns to "less than a backpack" and inconspicuous nature of you gear, then lens size and weight become far more important. I agree with Tord that the 30-110 has some big advantages over the FX lenses in this area.

Tord mentioned extension tubes for miniatures. Some of us also like to do that type of thing with Marumi DHG Acromat lenses.

In the context of my statement, similar apertures and focal lengths is indeed what I meant, however I might consider getting a lens that could be considered redundant if the CX equivalent came in a significantly smaller size. I am also considering the 11-27.5 lense for it's increased sharpness over the kit lens, which would also allow me to add filters for that focal range.

Given the issue I'm having with the 28-300 lens, and the fact the 75-300 cannot autofocus without a camera mounted focus drive, I'm wondering if I should be considering the CX 70-300 lens at some point. Does anyone here know how far that lens extends when it's all the way out? the 75-300 tamron that I have is also 4 inches when it is at it's widest, but it reaches out to double of that when it's at 300mm.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

Hi Elana,

Let see if I can help a bit:

Small sensors, like in the Nikon 1, are noisy, so slow lenses should be avoided, if possible.

Then there are some compatibility issues with older Third-Party lenses, but sadly it is often a trial and error issue. So step one is trying those you have on your V3, a simple process.

I'd say the Sigma 35/1.4 should work, at least my copy did.

Hopefully, your 75-300 macro will work, at least my 70-300 VC did!

Your Nikon 50 should be great as your short, fast, telephoto lens! And that 105 would be perfect for just about any kind of work!

The 18-55 is of little use, but you should invest in the 30-110, a lovely macro lens if you buy some Third-Party extension tubes! Nice for any kind of work, cheap and small!

The rest is up to you, but you should check out the 55-200 as they usually are sharp in the center, thus ideal for the FT1 and the V3 (at least mine was).

In regards to the 30-110, as far as focal length is concerned, there would be overlap with the tamron 28-300, which admittedly, I found is a little quirky on the V3. When I first tried it out last night, the camera wouldn't read the F-stop, but if I momentarily started to unscrew the lens, just enough to break the electrical contacts, and tighten it again, that fixed the issue, though this is a fix I would need to apply each time I turn the camera on with that lens attached.

The 70-300 CX is an amazingly sharp lens, considering its humble price!

Drplusplus, post: 60242548, member: 1826522"]
If "overlap existing lenses" means only similar apertures and focal lengths, then the only one that stands out to me that you might want is the 6.7-13, which will give you wider wide and have VR to boot. Many folks here love the 6.7-13 for its excellent quality and small size.

When the consideration turns to "less than a backpack" and inconspicuous nature of you gear, then lens size and weight become far more important. I agree with Tord that the 30-110 has some big advantages over the FX lenses in this area.

Tord mentioned extension tubes for miniatures. Some of us also like to do that type of thing with Marumi DHG Acromat lenses.

In the context of my statement, similar apertures and focal lengths is indeed what I meant, however I might consider getting a lens that could be considered redundant if the CX equivalent came in a significantly smaller size. I am also considering the 11-27.5 lense for it's increased sharpness over the kit lens, which would also allow me to add filters for that focal range.

Given the issue I'm having with the 28-300 lens, and the fact the 75-300 cannot autofocus without a camera mounted focus drive, I'm wondering if I should be considering the CX 70-300 lens at some point. Does anyone here know how far that lens extends when it's all the way out? the 75-300 tamron that I have is also 4 inches when it is at it's widest, but it reaches out to double of that when it's at 300mm.
[/QUOTE]
The 70-300 CX is an outstanding lens, said to be designed by the same guy who made the equally outstanding 200/2.0 lens!

Thre isn't a better lens in the same price class, period!

Hasten to add that I have not used the new AF-P 70-300 lenses!

But apart them these new ones, there is nothing comparable!

 

[Elana-chan]

Hasten to add that I have not used the new AF-P 70-300 lenses!

But apart them these new ones, there is nothing comparable!

--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Nikon V2, J5, D3300, D7500 & D600, some m4/3.

I am actually hesitant to invest in the AF-P lenses due to not being compatible on older camera bodies. For use on an SLR, the 75-300 will be perfectly serviceable when I upgrade to an FX body with the camera mounted motor, though I may upgrade to a version of the lens that has internal zoom/focusing.

 

[CX Bob]

Here's my humble opinion.
You should put together a basic but somewhat comprehensive N1 kit as if you didn't have any other lenses. There is no such thing as an alternative lens that would make a CX lens 'redundant'. You might as well stick with a small DX camera otherwise. ( :

 

[Elana-chan]

Here's my humble opinion.
You should put together a basic but somewhat comprehensive N1 kit as if you didn't have any other lenses. There is no such thing as an alternative lens that would make a CX lens 'redundant'. You might as well stick with a small DX camera otherwise. ( :

I already have one of the smallest DX cameras available, and as I mentioned in the opening post, the addition to the CX system to my kit is to fill in the gaps where even a small DX camera would still be too large, and using the cropfactor to get more reach out of my telephotos. I have not had the opportunity to physically handle the various CX lenses and compare them with the same focal length lenses as what's in my regular kit.

In almost all cases, any of the CX lenses I would consider over using the FT1 with my existing (or future) F mount lenses would be to shrink down the overall size of what I'm shooting with. For example, as good as the 70-300 CX lens is, other than better auto focusing options, what would the benefit be, performance wise, for shooting with a lens that long using the CX glass instead of using an FX version of the lense? With super telephoto like that, size isn't usually an issue because you're working in open spaces, and taking the equivalent focal length into account, your subject is likely to be so far away that they won't take notice to what you're using. At that point is physical size, which may or may not be comparable in length to the FX counterpart anyway, and a smaller price tag worth it, especially if it becomes an extra expense if I already have an FX version of the same lens?

I guess my issue with using redundant focal lengths would be at the long, telephoto end, as I can see uses for using the wide angle lenses with miniatures. There would be a huge difference in what spaces I could slip the V3 into with the 10mm prime lens for taking low angle shots like that, when comparing it to any of the wide angle lenses on either FX or DX cameras, taking shots at angles where it would be impossible to go longer and set the camera further away from the scene.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

Two of the nicest lenses to use with the Nikon 1 are the Nikon 40 macro and the Nikon 85 VR macro! Both very affordable as well!

Had a lot of pleasure with those two lenses, not just for macro, and not just shooting macros, and not just used with my DX and N1 cameras, FX works as well, if with a bit of vignetting!

The 85 suffers worse than the 40, but this is about as bad it gets (no cropping sideways used) with a D600:







--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Nikon V2, J5, D3300, D7500 & D600, some m4/3.

 

[Elana-chan]

Two of the nicest lenses to use with the Nikon 1 are the Nikon 40 macro and the Nikon 85 VR macro! Both very affordable as well!

Had a lot of pleasure with those two lenses, not just for macro, and not just shooting macros, and not just used with my DX and N1 cameras, FX works as well, if with a bit of vignetting!

The 85 suffers worse than the 40, but this is about as bad it gets (no cropping sideways used) with a D600:

There are infact times when I would like to deliberately cause vignetting on the pictures I'm taking, one of the reasons why I wished FX bodies didn't force the user into DX mode when attaching a DX len. Sometimes my aim is to give a look that makes the shot seem a bit more oldfashioned, and I would much rather do it by deliberately allowing the frame of the lens to enter the picture instead of adding the vignetting in post-production. This is infact one of my most well known uses of the 18-55 kit lens that came with the D3200, I put it on my F100 when I still had access to a dark room and that produced some really neat shots putting a DX lens on a 35mm camera which is, ofcourse, what full frame sensors are based on.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

Two of the nicest lenses to use with the Nikon 1 are the Nikon 40 macro and the Nikon 85 VR macro! Both very affordable as well!

Had a lot of pleasure with those two lenses, not just for macro, and not just shooting macros, and not just used with my DX and N1 cameras, FX works as well, if with a bit of vignetting!

The 85 suffers worse than the 40, but this is about as bad it gets (no cropping sideways used) with a D600:

There are infact times when I would like to deliberately cause vignetting on the pictures I'm taking, one of the reasons why I wished FX bodies didn't force the user into DX mode when attaching a DX lens.

My D600 does not force you to use DX mode just because the lens is a DX lens!

Sometimes my aim is to give a look that makes the shot seem a bit more oldfashioned, and I would much rather do it by deliberately allowing the frame of the lens to enter the picture instead of adding the vignetting in post-production. This is infact one of my most well known uses of the 18-55 kit lens that came with the D3200, I put it on my F100 when I still had access to a dark room and that produced some really neat shots putting a DX lens on a 35mm camera which is, ofcourse, what full frame sensors are based on.

Any samples?!

 

[Elana-chan]

There are infact times when I would like to deliberately cause vignetting on the pictures I'm taking, one of the reasons why I wished FX bodies didn't force the user into DX mode when attaching a DX lens.

My D600 does not force you to use DX mode just because the lens is a DX lens!

Elana-chan, post: 60244531, member: 167729"]
Would you say the sharpness would be a significant improvement to what I have? The 28-300 PZD was rated as one of the highest grade lenses that was available at that range when it came out, even higher than the nikon equivalent. I ended up with the lens based on it's rating compared to nikon, tokina and possibly sigma's version of the lens before I settled on it, and chose it over the 18-300 version in anticipation to upgrading to an FX body in the future.

Have no experience with the 28-300, but the reviews I've found online tell all the same story, that this lens is small, compact, but not very sharp at its long end.

The Nikon 70-300 CX, in good lighting, is superbly good at its long end, easily rivaling lenses like the Panasonic Leica 100-400, when used on a Panasonic m43 body, or even the excellent Sigma 150-600 Sports, used on a DX body like the D3300, or a D7500.

The 70-300 CX is far far better at its maximum focal length than the Sigma 120-400, the Sigma 150-500, AF-S 70-300 VR, or the Tamron 70-300 VC, which is surprisingly good at 300! As long as one avoids shooting contre jour the Tamron is pretty decent, actually.

Edit: Another reason to possibly shy away from the CX 70-300 in favor of F-mount glass, at some point I will probably end up with a telephoto lens with a tighter focal length down the line to complement the FX body, in the form of something similar to the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR.

That's a hefty investment compared to the lenses mentioned above, but good luck!

I now mainly shoot with my DX cameras, but there is nothing as good as the 70-300 CX and the J5, if the light is sufficient, especially if you weigh in the weight factor, as the camera, plus the lens, weighs less than 1,000 grams!

Alright, good to know about the softness at the long end of the 28-300. I wish they had specs like that on my 75-300, even if I am restricted to focusing manually on that lens. I have found it difficult to find specs on most lenses that were made during the film era, especially when AF lenses were coming out, but digital hadn't become widely popular yet.

in regards to the FX 70-200, it is indeed a hefty lens, both in price tag, and weight, but just like the upgrade to the FX body, it's not so much a matter of if, but when, which begs the question; is the money I would be saving by not getting the CX 70-300 enough to justify holding off on getting that, and put the money twards the upgrades to the F-mount kit? I know that question is ultimately mine to answer, but it does help to have a better idea of how to more efficiently make use of the money, and the time it takes to build up the budget for the next thing to be adding.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

There are infact times when I would like to deliberately cause vignetting on the pictures I'm taking, one of the reasons why I wished FX bodies didn't force the user into DX mode when attaching a DX lens.

My D600 does not force you to use DX mode just because the lens is a DX lens!

Elana-chan, post: 60246230, member: 1826522"]
Would you say the sharpness would be a significant improvement to what I have? The 28-300 PZD was rated as one of the highest grade lenses that was available at that range when it came out, even higher than the nikon equivalent. I ended up with the lens based on it's rating compared to nikon, tokina and possibly sigma's version of the lens before I settled on it, and chose it over the 18-300 version in anticipation to upgrading to an FX body in the future.

Have no experience with the 28-300, but the reviews I've found online tell all the same story, that this lens is small, compact, but not very sharp at its long end.

The Nikon 70-300 CX, in good lighting, is superbly good at its long end, easily rivaling lenses like the Panasonic Leica 100-400, when used on a Panasonic m43 body, or even the excellent Sigma 150-600 Sports, used on a DX body like the D3300, or a D7500.

The 70-300 CX is far far better at its maximum focal length than the Sigma 120-400, the Sigma 150-500, AF-S 70-300 VR, or the Tamron 70-300 VC, which is surprisingly good at 300! As long as one avoids shooting contre jour the Tamron is pretty decent, actually.

Edit: Another reason to possibly shy away from the CX 70-300 in favor of F-mount glass, at some point I will probably end up with a telephoto lens with a tighter focal length down the line to complement the FX body, in the form of something similar to the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR.

That's a hefty investment compared to the lenses mentioned above, but good luck!

I now mainly shoot with my DX cameras, but there is nothing as good as the 70-300 CX and the J5, if the light is sufficient, especially if you weigh in the weight factor, as the camera, plus the lens, weighs less than 1,000 grams!

Alright, good to know about the softness at the long end of the 28-300. I wish they had specs like that on my 75-300, even if I am restricted to focusing manually on that lens. I have found it difficult to find specs on most lenses that were made during the film era, especially when AF lenses were coming out, but digital hadn't become widely popular yet.

AF lenses from the film era are by now quite old, with less than certain support by Nikon.

in regards to the FX 70-200, it is indeed a hefty lens, both in price tag, and weight, but just like the upgrade to the FX body, it's not so much a matter of if, but when, which begs the question; is the money I would be saving by not getting the CX 70-300 enough to justify holding off on getting that, and put the money twards the upgrades to the F-mount kit? I know that question is ultimately mine to answer, but it does help to have a better idea of how to more efficiently make use of the money, and the time it takes to build up the budget for the next thing to be adding.

That is an eternal debate, should you just buy a lens when it has been a while on the market, and its price has gone down a bit (or a lot, it varies), or buy it as soon as your finances allow?! Some even become costlier after a while!

I've done some wise investments and some dumb, and those I've sold has sometimes repaid the initial investment, some have been sold at huge losses, like the Sigma 35/1,4 and the 80-400G VR.

A Nikon 1 with a 30-110 is a hard to beat package, but not as outstanding as an N1 camera with the 70-300 CX.

--

Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Nikon V2, J5, D3300, D7500 & D600, some m4/3.

 

[Elana-chan]

AF lenses from the film era are by now quite old, with less than certain support by Nikon.

I have honestly been torn between getting new lenses with the best sharpness I can get, versus getting my hands on vintage equipment to add more character to my work, at the expense of the sharpness modern lenses can achieve. I do know that out of my whole kit, that series E 50mm F/1.8 lens is one of my favorite lenses in my kit, to the point the only reason I would ever consider replacing it is to get a f/1.4 or f/1.2 version. It's fast and accurate enough for me to focus manually with that lens that I see little need to have one of the newer AF versions. This has made me quite tempted to look into more manual focus lenses, possibly even investing in some zeiss glass for times when I'm not having to "shoot or miss it.", where the speed of the focus motor is critical for getting the shot in time.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

AF lenses from the film era are by now quite old, with less than certain support by Nikon.

I have honestly been torn between getting new lenses with the best sharpness I can get, versus getting my hands on vintage equipment to add more character to my work, at the expense of the sharpness modern lenses can achieve. I do know that out of my whole kit, that series E 50mm F/1.8 lens is one of my favorite lenses in my kit, to the point the only reason I would ever consider replacing it is to get a f/1.4 or f/1.2 version. It's fast and accurate enough for me to focus manually with that lens that I see little need to have one of the newer AF versions. This has made me quite tempted to look into more manual focus lenses, possibly even investing in some zeiss glass for times when I'm not having to "shoot or miss it.", where the speed of the focus motor is critical for getting the shot in time.

Zeiss has many nice ones (almost all are nice ones), but so does Voigtlander and Samyang, plus a couple of Chinese manufacturers!

 

[CX Bob]

Having just given you a friendly 'razz' in the 'Does FX 70-300 etc.' topic, I feel obligated to give you an additional sincere response to your original post. I still think my thought about having at least a modest but versatile 'overall' CX kit will make you happy in the long run. But I have to admit that of course it's smart for you to try to be 'efficient' as you put gear together for different purposes.
And you also more recently mentioned that this efficiency might be best done at the longer focal lengths, which made the whole concept make more sense to me. I can be a little dense sometimes. ( :
So how about taking your 55-200 out of 'retirement'? From what I've seen here, it's optically excellent and works very well with the CX/FT1 setup. Since it sounds like you're not expecting to be using the N1 for telephoto shots very often, that would do a really good job of covering the occasional times the situation might come up, and free up 70-300 CX funds for things that are more significant for you now.

 

[Elana-chan]

Having just given you a friendly 'razz' in the 'Does FX 70-300 etc.' topic, I feel obligated to give you an additional sincere response to your original post. I still think my thought about having at least a modest but versatile 'overall' CX kit will make you happy in the long run. But I have to admit that of course it's smart for you to try to be 'efficient' as you put gear together for different purposes.
And you also more recently mentioned that this efficiency might be best done at the longer focal lengths, which made the whole concept make more sense to me. I can be a little dense sometimes. ( :
So how about taking your 55-200 out of 'retirement'? From what I've seen here, it's optically excellent and works very well with the CX/FT1 setup. Since it sounds like you're not expecting to be using the N1 for telephoto shots very often, that would do a really good job of covering the occasional times the situation might come up, and free up 70-300 CX funds for things that are more significant for you now.

I am looking into using the 55-200 with the N1, and I'll be doing more tests with it as time progresses. I'm also considering using that 75-300 tamron with it as well off and on, despite the fact I would be stuck focusing manually. If what tord said is true, the sharpness of that lens could be better than the 28-300, and would give me that extra reach.

The three main things that I use long telephoto lenses for are distant wildlife and more detailed landscapes, both of which having the subject far enough away that a wider lens just wouldn't capture the detail, or miss the subject completely, and occasionally I like to take astronomy shots, which I prefer to use longer lenses with, getting as close to pinhole as I can to try to capture stars that are too dim to see with the naked eye, noise permitting of course.

In all of the cases above, manual focus would probably be fast enough, though sharpness would be key to getting the detail in the shot at such distances.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

Having just given you a friendly 'razz' in the 'Does FX 70-300 etc.' topic, I feel obligated to give you an additional sincere response to your original post. I still think my thought about having at least a modest but versatile 'overall' CX kit will make you happy in the long run. But I have to admit that of course it's smart for you to try to be 'efficient' as you put gear together for different purposes.
And you also more recently mentioned that this efficiency might be best done at the longer focal lengths, which made the whole concept make more sense to me. I can be a little dense sometimes. ( :
So how about taking your 55-200 out of 'retirement'? From what I've seen here, it's optically excellent and works very well with the CX/FT1 setup. Since it sounds like you're not expecting to be using the N1 for telephoto shots very often, that would do a really good job of covering the occasional times the situation might come up, and free up 70-300 CX funds for things that are more significant for you now.

I am looking into using the 55-200 with the N1, and I'll be doing more tests with it as time progresses. I'm also considering using that 75-300 tamron with it as well off and on, despite the fact I would be stuck focusing manually. If what tord said is true, the sharpness of that lens could be better than the 28-300, and would give me that extra reach.

My experience was with the 70-300 VC, a much newer lens (10 years, or so?).

The three main things that I use long telephoto lenses for are distant wildlife and more detailed landscapes, both of which having the subject far enough away that a wider lens just wouldn't capture the detail, or miss the subject completely, and occasionally I like to take astronomy shots, which I prefer to use longer lenses with, getting as close to pinhole as I can to try to capture stars that are too dim to see with the naked eye, noise permitting of course.

Low coma is the thing to look for with astrophotography or the stars will come out as blurry dots.

In all of the cases above, manual focus would probably be fast enough, though sharpness would be key to getting the detail in the shot at such distances.

For stars, and landscape manual focus is often preferred!

 

[Elana-chan]

Low coma is the thing to look for with astrophotography or the stars will come out as blurry dots.

Do telephoto lenses exist with this in mind? A quick google search shows most of these lenses are at a focal length of 50mm, or wider. One of the potential methods I would using for this kind of photography is hooking the camera up to a telescope, but I would like something less bulky for when I don't have a vehicle with me to haul it around (even nikon's 800mm lens is smaller than the telescopes we have).

Edit: Does the fact the N1 system makes use of only the very center of the larger lenses make a difference in this area?

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

Low coma is the thing to look for with astrophotography or the stars will come out as blurry dots.

Do telephoto lenses exist with this in mind?

I guess so, but I am in no way the expert about this!

A quick google search shows most of these lenses are at a focal length of 50mm, or wider. One of the potential methods I would using for this kind of photography is hooking the camera up to a telescope, but I would like something less bulky for when I don't have a vehicle with me to haul it around (even nikon's 800mm lens is smaller than the telescopes we have).

There is an Astrophotography Talk group here, they might know!

Edit: Does the fact the N1 system makes use of only the very center of the larger lenses make a difference in this area?

Definitely!

 

[Nung]

I have quite a few F-mount lenses myself but I find myself buying more and more CX lense. Not that, using F-mount lenses on the N1 system is terrible but performance-wise, they arn't as good as the native lenses. For example, my 18.5 f1.8 beats my 35 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 50 f1.2, in almost every respect. My 32 f1.2 wins by a distance compare to my 35 f1.8.

The only F-mount lens I use on my V1 is the 300mm f4. But then again, I also have the brilliant CX 70-300 which is just about as sharp.

I think the 6.7-13mm, 32mm & 70-300mm are the 3 must have lenses on the N1 (I think most people have emphasis this for many years). The 18.5 is brilliant too but I rarely use it now. For travel, the 10-100 VR is unbeatable.