Too Loyal to Nikon

2

Comments

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,043Member
    WestEndPhoto: I have that lens. Here are some photos I took with it on a D800. You can click on the image to go to flicker and then view the full size image. I am waiting for Nikon to produce a full frame mirrorless body. Then I will mount this lens and use it as a pocketable walk around camera.

    DON_1649

    DON_1662


    I am definitely looking forward to trying the lens.

    Seems I am a manual focus junkie on the wide end and a bokeh junkie on the long end.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,043Member
    First image Nikon D810 Zeiss Otus 55 1.4 lens total Cost Just over £5000

    swaledale

    Second image Olympus TG 4 Cost just under £250

    The Lake Temple Newsman Leeds



    Are other manufactures catching up
    The Zeiss image looks way better, however I doubt it is for any lens related reason.
  • MaxBerlinMaxBerlin Posts: 86Member
    edited June 2015
    There are a lot of differences in these photos that makes an accurate assessment impossible. # 1 low output resolution from the 810 and Otus. Typical 300dpi outputs on the whole frame run as high as 36mp in a complicated scene like this. The 810 Otus image is only 2.7mb. The Olympus image is 2,9Mb but out of a 16mp camera. So already the comp is biased towards the smaller camera.

    Why not put up full size 300dpi images if you want people to make accurate comps ? Better yet, use Transfer big files and post the raw files.
    Post edited by MaxBerlin on
    My non-commercial blog:

    https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/
  • paulrpaulr Posts: 1,176Member
    I think you miss the point One camera is 20 times the cost of the other yet the cheaper camera is still capable of producing acceptable images. maybe this is why manufactures are constrating on the low end of the market where more sales are more achievable and get buyers onto their particular ladder
    Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
  • kanuckkanuck Posts: 1,293Member
    edited June 2015
    Both look great! I don't think gear makes as much difference as it used to. Many manufacturers produce equally amazing products. Unless you getting paid for your work nobody needs a $5000 dollar setup like a D4s with a 85mm Otus etc. Just go on a vacation to Europe with a decent setup instead. ie a D7200 with 17-55 2.8, D800 with 24-70 or even a Sony A7II with a Zeiss F4 zoom pocket the difference for travel and take some great images instead. I am so glad I don't have gear acquisition syndrome anymore.
    Post edited by kanuck on
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited June 2015
    Unless you getting paid for your work nobody needs a $5000 dollar setup like a D4s with a 85mm Otus etc. Just go on a vacation to Europe
    Lets be honest, you don't need a D7200 ether, today's smartphones are will get you some great images

    but some of us what something a bit better, a lot lot better
    and I for one am getting just a bit fed with people telling me what I do and do not need

    The Will there Be a Professional DX Body From Nikon thread is pretty pointless but it does have its place

    This thread is just silly
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • kanuckkanuck Posts: 1,293Member
    edited June 2015
    For sure Smartphones take insanely good pictures. There are giant billboards ads up around the city where I live all with the caption "shot with an iPhone". The image will be unreal too like the Grand Canyon or the Eiffel Tower. People are free to spend their money on whatever they want I certainly won't stop them. I just find it amusing to see a D4s + Otus lens to shoot a picture of their cat jumping around their yards. That's not directed towards anyone that I can remember for the most part on this forum, but others involved in photography merely as a hobby. Again, to each their own B-)
    Post edited by kanuck on
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited June 2015
    I just find it amusing to see a D4s + Otus lens to shoot a picture of their cat jumping around their yards. /blockquote>

    Photographing friends pets, is the one of the few times, I wish I had 11fps :)
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • ThomasHortonThomasHorton Posts: 323Member
    The sunk costs of lenses is a significant concern. It is one way that camera manufacturers lock in their customers. I like the idea that the newer Sigma lenses can be converted if one wishes to switch systems. It is not cheap, but cheaper than rebuilding a kit.
    Gear: Camera obscura with an optical device which transmits and refracts light.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 843Member
    The sunk costs of lenses is a significant concern. It is one way that camera manufacturers lock in their customers. I like the idea that the newer Sigma lenses can be converted if one wishes to switch systems. It is not cheap, but cheaper than rebuilding a kit.
    I agree, it's a great service that allows you to be as unloyal as possible, which of course makes you somewhat loyal to Sigma.

  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited June 2015
    Here is a quote from our dear friend Ken Rockwell

    FrankenKameras are a bad idea. LEICA lenses on other cameras work WORSE than using the camera's own-brand lenses! The $500 Canon 20/2.8 USM works better on a 5D Mk III than a $5000 LEICA lens works on the Sony A7!

    I think I agree with him
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,043Member
    Unless you getting paid for your work nobody needs a $5000 dollar setup like a D4s with a 85mm Otus etc. Just go on a vacation to Europe
    Lets be honest, you don't need a D7200 ether, today's smartphones are will get you some great images

    but some of us what something a bit better, a lot lot better
    and I for one am getting just a bit fed with people telling me what I do and do not need
    Sometimes I feel annoyed at people telling what I do and do not need either. However, in some instances, I think that they are talking about themselves.

    A smartphone is fine if you want "been there" or documentary shots in my view. Heck, even a superzoom falls into the documentary category.

    What do I need? I will use my recent trip to Rome and Florence as an example. My objective was to capture Rome in as beautiful and artistic way as possible. This is based on my own view of art. One man's art is another man's trash. But I am only speaking to the portion of the world that can come around to the way I perceive things. That is the best one can hope for and the only reasonable way to approach art.

    So given what I was after, I made sure that the gear I brought was up to snuff. That was a D800 in my left hand, my RRS tripod in my left hand so I can shoot at ISO 100 regardless of the light and a photovest full of primes. It weighed a bit over 20 pounds Is this heavy? Sure, but so is back packing and lots of people do that. It was all very carefully well balanced so the weight was straight down on my spine and I was fine and am really happy with my images.

    Would I do it again? Sure! I think that my only compromise will be to buy a second RRS tripod in a lighter version and use my current version when I am not travelling.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    That was a D800 in my left hand, ....
    I suspect many of people who claim "you" don't need Fx have never used a D800


  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,043Member
    That was a D800 in my left hand, ....
    I suspect many of people who claim "you" don't need Fx have never used a D800


    With a sharp prime attached.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    Here is a quote from our dear friend Ken Rockwell

    FrankenKameras are a bad idea. LEICA lenses on other cameras work WORSE than using the camera's own-brand lenses! The $500 Canon 20/2.8 USM works better on a 5D Mk III than a $5000 LEICA lens works on the Sony A7!

    I think I agree with him
    KR likes broad generalizations which may even be partly true (until the next time he writes), often on things he hasn't tried.

    I am regularly using a USD $ 5,000 lens (Wide Angle Tri Elmar) on a Sony A7II and getting better results than I could get with any of Sony's native (FE) mount lenses, or with this lens on a Leica M9 (which I also have and use) because :

    - Sony makes / has nothing in these FL's that are even remotely close to the WATE in IQ.

    - I shoot architecturals, landscapes and city scapes with this combo, and they usually move slowly enough for MF not to be a problem.

    - The WATE is a modern (post digital) tele-centric design and has shown no edge / corner issues on the SONY (with ACR profiles).

    - The SONY A7II EVF is much better than than that on the Leica M240 which is also 4 times the Sony's price. It also has a better sensor.

    - The Sony A7II adds VR to this combo. I can now also use the Summilux asph 50/1.4 which is the worlds best (equal of the Zeiss OTUS and 1/3 the size weight) on a modern sensor with VR.

    - The M9 would need an aux viewfinder to use this lens, which truly does make a frankencamera.

    - This combo is 2/3 the weight of the equivalent Nikon combo (with 16-35 / 4) and sharper wide open.

    KR often states facts that are somewhat true followed by broad conclusions that are not justified by the facts, and I have seen people who lack the knowledge or confidence to question it for their circumstance make some astonishingly poor decisions while quoting him.

    It is true that I already owned the lens and the Sony was an opportunistic decision for me, and displaced a Leica M240 on my purchase list. I probably would not go out and by a WATE to mate up with a Sony. I will be trying some Voigtlanders (fast 21's) however.


    ... H













    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited June 2015


    I think you will find that Grays have it at £575 - look on their specials page - so it is £50 cheaper!

    But please don't buy the last one at that price . . I am saving up.

    Many thanks. Just ordered one from Calumet, who matched Grays price
    so yours is still there :)

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,043Member
    Here is a quote from our dear friend Ken Rockwell

    FrankenKameras are a bad idea. LEICA lenses on other cameras work WORSE than using the camera's own-brand lenses! The $500 Canon 20/2.8 USM works better on a 5D Mk III than a $5000 LEICA lens works on the Sony A7!

    I think I agree with him
    KR likes broad generalizations which may even be partly true (until the next time he writes), often on things he hasn't tried.

    I am regularly using a USD $ 5,000 lens (Wide Angle Tri Elmar) on a Sony A7II and getting better results than I could get with any of Sony's native (FE) mount lenses, or with this lens on a Leica M9 (which I also have and use) because :

    - Sony makes / has nothing in these FL's that are even remotely close to the WATE in IQ.

    - I shoot architecturals, landscapes and city scapes with this combo, and they usually move slowly enough for MF not to be a problem.

    - The WATE is a modern (post digital) tele-centric design and has shown no edge / corner issues on the SONY (with ACR profiles).

    - The SONY A7II EVF is much better than than that on the Leica M240 which is also 4 times the Sony's price. It also has a better sensor.

    - The Sony A7II adds VR to this combo. I can now also use the Summilux asph 50/1.4 which is the worlds best (equal of the Zeiss OTUS and 1/3 the size weight) on a modern sensor with VR.

    - The M9 would need an aux viewfinder to use this lens, which truly does make a frankencamera.

    - This combo is 2/3 the weight of the equivalent Nikon combo (with 16-35 / 4) and sharper wide open.

    KR often states facts that are somewhat true followed by broad conclusions that are not justified by the facts, and I have seen people who lack the knowledge or confidence to question it for their circumstance make some astonishingly poor decisions while quoting him.

    It is true that I already owned the lens and the Sony was an opportunistic decision for me, and displaced a Leica M240 on my purchase list. I probably would not go out and by a WATE to mate up with a Sony. I will be trying some Voigtlanders (fast 21's) however.


    ... H

    I think that using adapters are OK if you have the motivation and technical savvy to evaluate performance and fine tune. However, I agree with Sevencrossing and Ken Rockwell for most people. I spoke to someone yesterday that has been unhappy with their D5??? for three years. I told them about AF fine tune (not sure if the D5xxx series has it) and also suggested that they take the camera and lens collection to Nikon to fine tune. This was an eye opener for them.

    So given that most users are not comfortable or competent even with AF fine tune, I am not going to recommend using a lens/camera combination that requires an adapter.











  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited June 2015
    All of my lenses are Nikkor, except for one. I just recently grabbed a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 E Series Pancake. It is not branded Nikkor, because it was considered a "cheap" lens at the time (80's) because some parts were plastic. For $50, it's the best valued lens I ever purchased. Thanks @PB_PM!!

    I also had a Tamron 10-24 DX, that I swapped out for a Nikkor 10-24 when there was a rebate. The Tamron always seemed a bit slow to focus and not quite crispy sharp. I have no complaints with the Nikkor.

    I'm trying to decide between the Sigma and Nikon 24 f/1.4. Good thing the Siggy ain't available yet so I have some more time...
    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • kanuckkanuck Posts: 1,293Member
    Yes if you are patient enough to use manual everything when shooting saying a Leica lens on a Sony body then I guess you could go for it. Frankencameras seem to be alright for landscapes, but quite often KR is right in that it is better to use the normal lens to body setup. Fortunately Sony shooters have a lot more options to use for their systems including some excellent Zeiss glass. Using a lot of adapters for multiple lenses has got to be a pain in the rear end though...
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 843Member
    I can report that my D800 worked excellent with my Sigma lenses, yesterday and all days before.

    I am interested in any arguments why I would take better photographs with Nikon lenses. The term Frankencamera doesn't impress though.
  • henrik1963henrik1963 Posts: 559Member
    When I use my Sigma lens on my D800 it is Sigma in front and Sony at the back - and Nikon in between.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited June 2015
    Although I am a self confessed Nikon Fanboy and have been using Nikons for over 50 years i do look at other products
    before ordering a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED Lens
    I did look at the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG
    the siggy was more expensive and most reviewers give the Nikon a better rating

    I have looked at the Sony Alpha A7s but I can find no overwhelming reason to jump ship
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 843Member
    Although I am a self confessed Nikon Fanboy and have been using Nikons for over 50 years i do look at other products
    before ordering a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED Lens
    I did look at the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG
    the siggy was more expensive and most reviewers give the Nikon a better rating

    I have looked at the Sony Alpha A7s but I can find no overwhelming reason to jump ship
    That's cool, no reason to buy a third party lense if the Nikon lense is better and/or less expensive. I have always looked at Nikon lenses before I decided to buy Sigma. For me the Sigma lenses have been the better choice either because of performance (50/1.4 Art, 150/2.8 Macro) or lower price (500/4.5).
  • ThomasHortonThomasHorton Posts: 323Member
    I can report that my D800 worked excellent with my Sigma lenses, yesterday and all days before.

    I am interested in any arguments why I would take better photographs with Nikon lenses. The term Frankencamera doesn't impress though.
    2/3rds of my new lens kit is Sigma. It would not surprise me that in the future all my lenses are Sigma, if Sigma keeps turning out excellent glass at excellent prices.
    Gear: Camera obscura with an optical device which transmits and refracts light.
  • kanuckkanuck Posts: 1,293Member
    edited June 2015
    I can report that my D800 worked excellent with my Sigma lenses, yesterday and all days before.

    I am interested in any arguments why I would take better photographs with Nikon lenses. The term Frankencamera doesn't impress though.

    The term "Frankencamera" used by KR does not apply to third party lenses such as Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina because they are designed to mount to a certain system ie Pentax, Canon, or Nikon etc. Lenses that only work on a particular body through the assistance of an adapter are what qualify as part of a "Frankencamera" setup. This stems from the fact that you do not get auto focus, or aperture controls. So in theory a Leica lens on a sony body, vice versa, or a Nikkor lens on a Leica M body, would be a few examples. KR states that you are better off sticking with the "intended" lenses for your system including those third party lenses that have matching mounts like Sigma.

    Haroldp states that he gets fine shots with his Leica on Sony body combo though so not everyone agrees completely with the "Frankencamera" notion. Everyone takes KR opinions with a grain of salt anyways as we have all come to agree on over the years, right? ;)
    Post edited by kanuck on
Sign In or Register to comment.