Choosing lenses to complement DSLR kit.

[chas d]

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 also have the 300 pf ( don't think the 300 af-s is much different - have an older one and its fine apart from the lack of VR and the weight ). I find that the 300 pf + ft-1 is sharper than the CX 70-300 but the difference only appears if you pixel peep to ridiculous levels.

The only advantage, if you really want to push things ,is that the 300pf takes the TC14 easiliy and, in good light, also the tc17 - and I don't think the combo of N1 and these lenses and extreme reach in such a light package can be beaten - but its not a fast enough AF for BIF even assuming you could actually see anything in the VF.

Having said that, I now rarely use the 300pf on my V1 - the CX is just so much more versatile and that is with me always preferring single point focus to area focus.

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.

I won't be getting the 32 f1.2 because I just don't use portrait type lengths i.e. 75-100mm FF very often but I am interested in your recommendation for the 10-100. I have been thinking about getting this for some time: I find that I often take wide angle then want to zoom in to a detail in the landscape. I have the panasonic 14-140 which I used for some time on m43 and found it really useful. IQ is not supposed to be very good on these 'superzooms' especially at the long end but for the use I put the N1 to, it probably isn't going to matter.

 

[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 also have the 300 pf ( don't think the 300 af-s is much different - have an older one and its fine apart from the lack of VR and the weight ). I find that the 300 pf + ft-1 is sharper than the CX 70-300 but the difference only appears if you pixel peep to ridiculous levels.

The only advantage, if you really want to push things ,is that the 300pf takes the TC14 easiliy and, in good light, also the tc17 - and I don't think the combo of N1 and these lenses and extreme reach in such a light package can be beaten - but its not a fast enough AF for BIF even assuming you could actually see anything in the VF.

Having said that, I now rarely use the 300pf on my V1 - the CX is just so much more versatile and that is with me always preferring single point focus to area focus.

Absolutely. I don't ever take the 300 f4 out with my V1. It's just too big, too heavy, too clumsy, very little gain, if any. I only use it to shoot the moon around my place, so not much carrying. I usually shoot both 300 f4 and the 70-300 cx. I don't see too much difference to be honest. The only advantage of the 300 f4 is having f4 but hardly important for such occassion.

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.

I won't be getting the 32 f1.2 because I just don't use portrait type lengths i.e. 75-100mm FF very often but I am interested in your recommendation for the 10-100. I have been thinking about getting this for some time: I find that I often take wide angle then want to zoom in to a detail in the landscape. I have the panasonic 14-140 which I used for some time on m43 and found it really useful. IQ is not supposed to be very good on these 'superzooms' especially at the long end but for the use I put the N1 to, it probably isn't going to matter.

Personnally, I'm not a big fan of the mega zooms. To me their only advantage is convenient. Had a Sigma 18-200 OS with my first DSLR, being the D90. The IQ wasn't too bad but nothing to write home about, definitely not its strong point. It was big and heavy, the aperture was small, the AF was slow, so making it hard to use, as soon as the light starting to dim. The 10-100 shares some similar issues, but everything is just that little bit better. The IQ is actually reasonably good. very similar to the 30-110. The lens is big and heavy compare to most of the native N1 lenses but in actual size it's still reasonably small and very acceptable in weight. VR works great. Aperture still a bit small but with these types of lens, that's to be expected.

Over all, I wouldn't say it's as good as the 6.7-13mm, 32mm or the 70-300mm but factor in the usefulness of this lens, it's definitely one of the best lens for the N1 system. Especially if you're on a hike or on a trip. I had one and used it on a trip then sold it. Now I kind of miss it and wanted to purchase another one.

If you do a search, you'll find quite a few people talked about this lens, both on the net and on this forum. Thomas Stirr did a review on the 10-100 as well, you might find it interesting.

Loading…

tomstirrphotography.com

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

(snip)

Personnally, I'm not a big fan of the mega zooms. To me their only advantage is convenient. Had a Sigma 18-200 OS with my first DSLR, being the D90. The IQ wasn't too bad but nothing to write home about, definitely not its strong point. It was big and heavy, the aperture was small, the AF was slow, so making it hard to use, as soon as the light starting to dim.

The only that I've really liked was the Sony 18-200 my wife had on her NEX-5N (the original version of the lens, really big, later lighter, but not quite as good, I gather).

And then the Sigma 150-600 Sports, an amazing lens, but heavy!

The 10-100 shares some similar issues, but everything is just that little bit better. The IQ is actually reasonably good. very similar to the 30-110. The lens is big and heavy compare to most of the native N1 lenses but in actual size it's still reasonably small and very acceptable in weight. VR works great. Aperture still a bit small but with these types of lens, that's to be expected.

I have not got to the point that I've bought one, but it sure could be a nice complement to my Sigma 150-600 Sports!

Over all, I wouldn't say it's as good as the 6.7-13mm, 32mm or the 70-300mm but factor in the usefulness of this lens, it's definitely one of the best lens for the N1 system. Especially if you're on a hike or on a trip. I had one and used it on a trip then sold it. Now I kind of miss it and wanted to purchase another one.

That's my thinking as well, nice for hiking, or going paddling somewhere!

If you do a search, you'll find quite a few people talked about this lens, both on the net and on this forum. Thomas Stirr did a review on the 10-100 as well, you might find it interesting.

http://tomstirrphotography.com/1-nikon-10-100mm-f4-5-6-hands-on-review

In short, a good buy it is!

 

[Paul Pasco]

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.

I had an original 55-200 VR and got disappointing results with it, but I bought a refurb 55-200 VRII collapsable model and it is night and day better. Still not in the league of the 70-300 CX but for a little over a $100, quite a useful lens.
--
Regards, Paul
Lili's Dad

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

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.

I had an original 55-200 VR and got disappointing results with it, but I bought a refurb 55-200 VRII collapsable model and it is night and day better. Still not in the league of the 70-300 CX but for a little over a $100, quite a useful lens.

Interesting information!

 

[CX Bob]

Thanks, Paul. Have to agree with Tord that this was interesting. The collapsible nature of the newer lens certainly gives it an improved N1 aesthetic 'feel', but it never crossed my mind to wonder if the newer lens might also be better in other ways.

 

[chas d]

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.

I had an original 55-200 VR and got disappointing results with it, but I bought a refurb 55-200 VRII collapsable model and it is night and day better. Still not in the league of the 70-300 CX but for a little over a $100, quite a useful lens.

 

[nigelht]

I guess it’s amusing to see a lot of answers without folks asking some basic questions like what you’re going to shoot the most (miniatures, street, or something else) with CX, your budget and how soon you want to move to Fx.

If your budget is unlimited, sure buy all the CX lenses suggested. If not, then most of the advice is based on just personal opinions of their own circumstances and not yours.

As near as anyone can tell, we own and use a dead end system. That implies that unless size is the overriding factor to not get fairly expensive lenses like the 70-300 CX vs something that can be used across CX, DX and FX.

Some of these may be too heavy/bulky to want to use for CX but if FX is only a year or so in the future I would buy those first and see before buying a CX unless really inexpensive like the 18mm.

With say a $1000 budget for new lenses per year I don’t think I’d get the 70-300 unless I was a birder.

With $5000 budget per year, why not? Buy em all.

If under $1000 per year I wouldn’t buy any CX lenses at all except perhaps any that fits in the budget AFTER I buy my primary FX purchase for the year. Even then, I’d likely save that money instead for a more expensive lens the next year.

 

[nigelht]

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?

If you want to do more astrophotography then you may want to go Fx sooner rather than later. The additional bulk of the body is fairly small in comparison to the total bulk of the telescopes.

Again, it depends on the kind of photography you intend. Astro covers a range from scenic (stars/moon in the context of landscapes), planetary, deep sky, etc. The physics of a larger sensor gives you a better base to build on but you can do this with a $300 ZWO AS120MC astro camera if you want to do planetary.

https://zwoug.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2021 And

and

Loading…

optcorp.com

and

Stacking can work wonders.

 

[Stefan BW]

Stacking can work wonders.

Wow - very impressive!

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

I think, if I started from scratch now, I'd buy the 70-300 CX, the 18.5, and a J5 (with a loupe, and they are normally supplied with the new kit zoom, which isn't bad!). And then sit pretty and think a lot before committing further funds (a second J5 would fit fine, of course, as backup).

A lovely compliment would be the Panasonic 35-100 and an m43 body, like the GX85.