Nikon FF for cheapskates

PB_PM

Depends on what you want. I like the D models due to them being much smaller than the G and E models. Maybe I’ve been lucky, I have not had to service any of the used lenses I’ve purchased.

CaMeRaQuEsT

The 85/1.8 AF's totally worth it: less than $50 up front, including a 62mm rubber lens wrench to tighten up the front elements group, plus some of my spare time spent on cleaning and assembly. Absolutely no buyer's remorse with this one. It's lots of fun to use and frees me from worrying sick about breaking it from mishandling (I did drop my previous 85/1.8G on the floor, good thing it had its hood on backwards). I do have to manually eliminate LoCA on LR, but it's no big deal.

The 35/2D just needed 2 tiny drops of crazy glue (and some midnight oil) to get it back to its original shape, which is soft wide open, with ho-hum bokeh. It does get tack sharp throughout the field stopped down to f16, but then what's the idea of getting a fast prime? Not sure if it's worth the $100 and all the spare time I have invested on this one, but I did learn how to clean and calibrate aperture blades with it, so there's that. I'm still wondering if I would have fared better with a Yongnuo 35/2, which is less than $90 brand new. From what I've read, the cheapest way to get a really nice AF 35 in F mount is the Sigma 1.4 ART, which is neither cheap nor compact. I don't understand why Nikon couldn't make an excellent 35/1.8G the way the 85/1.8G came out to be, that 35/1.8G is more expensive than the 85/1.8G and has as many elements as the really excellent (and expensive) Z 35/1.8 S, Nikon engineers would say it's due to the Z mount's short flange distance and large throat opening, but I think it's more likely because of lack of both effort and imagination. I might be able to afford the 35/1.8G after selling both the 35/2D and the 35/2Ai-S, but I'm not sure I want one; in the meantime I'm stuck with these uninspiring pieces of glass.

decentrist

CaMeRaQuEsT said:

decentrist said:

tell me about f/1.8 light not being equal between dx and fx....that's funny!

Do you have a better explanation?

When you use a light meter, do you see an FX/DX switch? No, because light is measured per unit area, and all lenses emit the same light regardless of the size of the sensor.

CaMeRaQuEsT

decentrist said:

When you use a light meter, do you see an FX/DX switch? No, because light is measured per unit area, and all lenses emit the same light regardless of the size of the sensor.

You mean luminance is measured as luminous intesity per unit area, stated as candela per square meter, or cd/m2. And you forgot to add per unit area at focal plane given the same f number after "all lenses emit the same light". Per unit area here basically means that each square millimeter is receiving the same amount of light, thus, given that an FX sensor has slightly more than twice the area of an APS-C sensor, the FX sensor is also catching slightly more than twice the amount of light an APS-C sensor would in total, given the same lens with the same f number. This is why if you shoot in RAW the same exact scene or picture with the exact same exposure triangle settings using the 35mm 1.8G DX mounted on a 24Mp sensor DX body and using the 50mm 1.8G mounted on a D600 or newer 24Mp sensor FX body (the sensors on these bodies have approximately the same quantum efficiency, the earlier D3X's was somewhat worse), you will see twice as much noise on the DX file compared to the FX file. So, in the case of the 35mm 1.8G DX, you're paying Nikon the same amount of $$$ for a lens that is only able to concentrate 1/2 the amount of photons, (the 35mm 1.8G DX doesn't properly cover an FX sensor) AND gives you 1/2 the amount of subject isolation as the 50mm 1.8G. Funnier still, Panasonic charges the same price for their 25mm f1.7, which has the same FOV of the 50mm 1.8G but is concentrating just 1/4 as many photons on a 4/3 sensor and gives you only 1/4 the amount of subject isolation. Fujifilm in this regard is absolutely hilarious: they charge twice as much for their 35mm f2 as Nikon does their 35mm 1.8G DX, but hey, their cameras and lenses all have the "genuine look" of pre-AF era cameras and lenses, that must be worth 4x their true value, right?

mhedges

Not sure it quite qualifies for this thread, but I'm sorely tempted by the one day sale on the Sigma 14-24 2.8 ART. Seems like a lot of lens for $900.

CaMeRaQuEsT

Absolutely! I once paid almost as much for the 10-24! Would love to own one, but this is way beyond my budget or my willingness to carry this much glass on my bag.

mhedges

Well I did go ahead and order it. I wanted a ultrawide zoom for my Z6 and this seems to be the best option out there, especially at that price. Honestly I would rather have an f/4 lens to save on size and weight but what are you gonna do.

Plan is to maybe replace it with the Z mount 14-30 but I expect that lens will be $$ so may hold off on that for a bit.

CaMeRaQuEsT

You should be able to sell the Sigma for $100 off MSRP when the 14-30/4 becomes available, which Nikon will probably sell for the same price they charge for the 14-24/4.

mhedges

Yeah I figure I should be able to at least get my money back if I sell it.

PB_PM

Sigma glass does take a big hit on resale, even with the quality improvements. I see used 50mm F1.4 Art lenses in mint condition going for $400-500 under MSRP.

mhedges

Quick eBay check shows used versions going for $900-$950. So I probably won't lose too much money on it.

CaMeRaQuEsT

Just sold my resuscitated 20/2.8 AF (came infested with fungi+some coating permanently lost from one of the inner element's surface) and 85/1.8 AF (some assembly required+permanent scratches on the outer surface of the front element) for $200 each (buyer was fully aware of their conditions) and immediately bought a 20/2.8D and a 85/1.8D, both in very good condition, from ebay sellers in Japan, for also $200 each. Now I wonder, will I see any differences in I.Q. due to the purportedly newer (and complete) SIC coatings used on the D lenses vs. the old NIC coatings used on the AF lenses? Maybe not. But at least the lenses will be automatically recognized by LR, which was a real nuisance when shooting with those old pre-D lenses.

CaMeRaQuEsT

Just received my "new" 20/2.8D and 85/1.8D. The 20mm's coatings reflect light exactly like my previous 20/2.8 AF, so it's very likely that it does not have SIC. Meanwhile, the 85mm's coatings reflect light differently to my previous 85/1.8 AF's but very much like my previous "Made in China" 50/1.4D (yes, I just sold that one, too) and all the G lenses I have previously owned, so it seems that this one does have SIC. Just out of curiosity I then took out my 35/2D to see how it reflects light and it looks just like my old, pre-SIC serial numbers 28/2.8 Ai-S and 35/2 Ai-S, so it probably does not have SIC either. I thought that all D lenses came with SIC but this seems to be not the case, as the introduction of D lenses apparently predates the introduction of SIC by a full decade. So all those ebay listings purporting a D lens to have SIC might be wrong; you'll need to look very carefully at each listing's photos to make out whether the lens you are interested in has NIC, which casts green and purple reflections, or SIC, which casts yellowish green and orange reflections, something that is more easily said than done.

PB_PM

Like the Nano crystal coat on modern high end Nikkors, SIC is not always on the outer glass elements, so looking at them like that wont tell you much. Nikon's website specifically lists all of those lenses (D versions) has having SIC. SIC was applied to many late model AIS lenses as well. Over time Nikon may have improved or been forced to change the chemicals used in the SIC (government regulations), which would explain the different colours. Nikon SIC can appear green or magenta, or even a mix from what I've been able to learn from some quick google searches. BTW. You can tell if it doesn't have NIC or NSIC if it is clear and colourless, but that would be fore pre-1970's designs only.

More searching, only lenses made in the year 2000 or later would have SIC applied. Since production of some AIS lenses continued well after that, it would explain why late model versions would have SIC, seems as though Nikon simply stopped using the older NIC completely and switched across the board.

The lens cap the lens comes with also gives you a hint, since the newer style front caps didn't come around until after the year 2000, assuming the lens cap hasn't been replaced.


In any case, NSIC vs NIC makes very little difference unless you are shooting directly into bright light sources.

D vs non-D makes a bigger difference since that affects how the camera meter functions. Non-D lenses cannot use 3D Colour Matrix metering and don't send distance information to the camera, which is important for flash photography.

CaMeRaQuEsT

PB_PM, Nikon's website mention of SIC usage will apply to recently made D lenses, but as you mentioned SIC was only available after Y2K, and all of my D lenses were first mfg'd starting from 1995, so it is possible that some, if not most, of the D lenses being sold used out there and even some NOS lenses have NIC instead of SIC. I love shooting with the sun in the frame, and with my previous 85/1.8 AF I did get some pictures that were great in everything except for an ugly purple flare. Haven't yet shot with my "new" 85/1.8D in the same situation, but I expect it to flare less conspicuously. OTOH, I've not seen any flare on photos taken with either the 20/2.8 AF nor the 35/2D, so maybe their NIC coatings were better than those on the 85/1.8 AF?

PB_PM

I've seen that type of flaring you spoke of with my non-D 24mm F2.8n (second revision with the rubberized manual focus ring). Doesn't happen all the time, but I do like the effect it makes when the lens is stopped down, for some things anyway.

As for the 85mm, it could be worse simply due to the telephoto nature of the lens, both the 85mm and 35mm D lenses have a nice low 6 element count, but the 85mm is split into 6 groups, vs 5. I would have thought the 20mm would be the worst, since it has 12 elements in 9 groups

CaMeRaQuEsT

Both 20mm's coatings do reflect light off the front element in a different manner to all other Nikkors that I've owned, including a pre-SIC 24/2.8D: their green reflections are a hue somewhere in between NIC's and SIC's while the purple reflections are very subdued compared to all other NIC lenses but still not as faint SIC lenses, which almost don't reflect purple at all. Since it's very hard to not have the sun on the frame or on its periphery shooting outdoors with UWA lenses in daylight, and these lenses always have lots of glass elements in their formulas, it's very likely that Nikon made a special coating formulation for use on the 20mm and other UWA lenses.

PB_PM

Sounds like a similar coating to what I saw on the AF 20-35mm F2.8D I owned when I first switched to FX from DX. Even though pictures looked a little flat against bright light it did not have the flair issue. I currently use the 16-35mm F4G VR, and it's worse with flair than that old lens, even with Nano Crystal coating.

If the 20-35mm wasn't priced so high it's a nice compromise to having the 20-24-28-35 primes and sharpness good, although a little weak at 20mm I think. Not as light and compact though, but way smaller than modern wide angel zooms and cheaper than all the other fast ones. Unfortunately like the 35-70mm F2.8D they are known for having de-laminated plastic lens elements, most likely from people who left them in hot cars on a sunny day, so you have to be careful when buying.



By the way do the copies of the D glass you have include the metal lens hoods? The ones I bought did fortunately, and it does make a difference with indirect light outdoors.

CaMeRaQuEsT

Guys, I just sold my D600, married with the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and the 35/2D. Didn't get my usual fat profit on the D600 but at least I didn't end up on the loosing end either, seeing that it can now be bought for 25% less than what I paid only 10 months ago. I won't be replacing it with the D750 yet, at least not immediately, as it, too, is bound to drop in price after its rumored replacement shows up, and I really don't want to buy a used D750 because of all the recalls it has suffered.

The 85/1.8D needs to go, too, as I really rather have the 85/1.8G if I do ever get a D750.

The 20/2.8D I got, though, came damaged: it looked mint on all of the photos provided by the seller, but the seller did mention that it had haze inside that affected image. Bought it thinking that I will be able to easily clean that haze, turns out that the rearmost cemented pair of elements has what I believe is boiled over cement, probably from extended, direct exposure to the sun, thus the haze. Don't know if Nikon sells spare lens elements, if not I'll have to get a "parts only" lens to savage the needed elements to get this one back in usable condition. So beware of used 20mm f/2.8 lenses advertised as having internal haze, it probably means it has cement damage, rendering the lens unusable. Having said that, a 20/2.8D will be packed inside my camera bag along with any future Nikon FX DSLR I get, that's how impressed I am with this tiny little inexpensive UWA lens.

As for the 35/2D, a Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 mounted on an EOS M2 replaces it. Granted, it's an f/3.2 equivalent, but even with 6 fewer megapixels, this combo is sharper wide open than the 35/2D+D600 ever was stopped down to f5.6. Noise, though, is terrible, especially if I need to raise shadows, and the colors are not as great as those painted by the 35/2D which gave amazing sky colors, but what am I gonna do, I need a 35mm equivalent FOV for mostly snapshots and this combo fits in my wife's bag without her protest, so I don't need to tote a behemoth every time we go out while still getting way better pictures than those out of our smartphones.

So I'm again without a Nikon DSLR and probably will be for the foreseeable future, as the investment needed to have similar capabilities with a Canon M2 kit is only about a third of what my D600 kit cost me, while I get to enjoy all the pros (and suffer all the cons) of using a mirrorless camera.

mhedges

Personally I'm not so sure D750 will drop that much in price when the successor is announced. I think there is a good chance the D760 will be D7500-like and controversial. And in any case it is sure to be more expensive than the D750 is selling for now (which is a very good value, IMO). It may be that people keep wanting the D750 due to features or price.

klrklr

mhedges said:

Personally I'm not so sure D750 will drop that much in price when the successor is announced. I think there is a good chance the D760 will be D7500-like and controversial. And in any case it is sure to be more expensive than the D750 is selling for now (which is a very good value, IMO). It may be that people keep wanting the D750 due to features or price.

The D750 has, to my mind, been priced at bargain bin levels for a while now. For reasons that perplex me it's been priced below the D610 at times. I succumbed to NAS and traded my D610 in for a D750 in December. It's a bit of a gamble, but I'm betting the D760 won't be enough better than the 750 that I would have been willing to pay the price differential to get one. Time will tell, but it seems a no lose bet to me.

PB_PM

Indeed, I double new unit prices will go much lower. It’s currently selling for $1000 under launch price here in Canada for example. Many dealers are still selling D610 bodies for not much less than that, so the D750 is likely at rock bottom prices already. Both the D750 and D610 kits with the 24-120mm F4 are being sold well under the price of both items (you basically get the lens for $200 and the body for $1400... Cdn prices, so around $1000 USD for a body), don’t think Nikon can afford to go much lower on those.

spraynpray

I wish I still had mine. Great Cam.

CaMeRaQuEsT

I do fancy about buying another D600 again, at the now reduced price of course, but then I remember how it struggled with focusing in both LV and with its dedicated Multi-CAM 4800 AF sensor and how unwieldy it felt in my hands and the fancy goes away. A D750 with its vastly improved AF and ergonomics is my minimum acceptable spec'd FX body now, but as I previously mentioned, I'm shying away from used D750 bodies due to its multiple recalls, so a brand new D750 is my only reasonable choice as I live in a land that Nikon corporate forgot, thus my investment in such kit will at least be double the $1K I previously spent on my D600 kit, and that is way beyond what I can afford. Having said that, a $300 D600 in perfect condition and with low shutter count will be very temping, and that, again, might happen after the D750 replacement comes to market. But for now, I'm gonna have to stick with my dirt cheap Canon EOS M2 kit...

Ton14

Foscus when it is dark, is the problem with the D600, when you don't use the camera focus light, which I don't use. from the beginning I put the Yongnuo YN622N-TX trigger on it and I focus very quick in the dark. (works with every camera of course).

Still use my D600 which is exactly 6 years old now 60.000 clicks and a perfect camera, it was € 1600.- new in 2013. In my kind of photography it makes the same photo's, with the same IQ as my D810, nobody can tell with which camera I took the photo. The strength is the use of the same lenses on the camera's.

Oh, when you buy a used D600 make sure that the shutter is replaced by a Nikon service centre, due to the oil spots problem !!