Nikon D750 & D780

daygo30 said:
If you go for a 24mm prime, would you still keep hold of your 24-70mm?
Click to expand...

Well i am 'considering' getting a 24mm and seeing how i get on then 'possibly' selling the 24-70 and getting the 58. o_O

Cheers Toby. My plan was to shoot back towards Losehill, Back Tor and Mam Tor etc but the snow, vapour from the cement works and grey cloud made for a poor shot. The peaks are very hard to distinguish, even at 200mm!!
 
minnnt said:
Well i am 'considering' getting a 24mm and seeing how i get on then 'possibly' selling the 24-70 and getting the 58. o_O
Click to expand...
Now that would be an awesome lineup, 14, 24, 58 and 70-200 ;-)

I need something wider than the 35mm, not sure what my options would be, I think 24mm would not be wide enough and possibly too close to 35mm, although I have always liked the 24mm focal length.

Am I right thinking you sold your 14mm already? If you did, any particular reason?

I have a 20mm manual 2.8 that a friend borrowed me on a long term loan but I just don't use it, not sure if it is the focal length or the fact it is manual.
 
daygo30 said:
Now that would be an awesome lineup, 14, 24, 58 and 70-200 ;-)

I need something wider than the 35mm, not sure what my options would be, I think 24mm would not be wide enough and possibly too close to 35mm, although I have always liked the 24mm focal length.

Am I right thinking you sold your 14mm already? If you did, any particular reason?

I have a 20mm manual 2.8 that a friend borrowed me on a long term loan but I just don't use it, not sure if it is the focal length or the fact it is manual.
Click to expand...

20mm can be a bit of a funny focal length, it sometimes in that spot where its either not wide enough or not long enough!
 
minnnt said:
Well i am 'considering' getting a 24mm and seeing how i get on then 'possibly' selling the 24-70 and getting the 58. o_O

Cheers Toby. My plan was to shoot back towards Losehill, Back Tor and Mam Tor etc but the snow, vapour from the cement works and grey cloud made for a poor shot. The peaks are very hard to distinguish, even at 200mm!!
Click to expand...

You know you want that 58mm!!! I recently saw a set of shots someone had taken with the 58mm & D800 in Cuba and I almost had to shred my credit card right then to stop me using it!
 
It was returned to Amazon. The coma was really quite bad for night shots.

I've tried a few wide angles now and just keep returning to 24mm. If i need wider then i can stitch two shots together. I know it's not achievable for some shots but i find 24mm a happy medium.

I probably won't like the move but hey, you're a long time dead and if i don't try the 58 soon then I'll probably go insane anyway. :wacky:
 
Question is...

Nikon 24mm F1.8g or Sigma 24mm F1.4 ART? The Nikon scores better and weighs 300g less than the Siggy but is 2/3 of a stop slower and isn't as well built. Bokeh looks nice from both tbh and are both of a similar price.
 
minnnt said:
It was returned to Amazon. The coma was really quite bad for night shots.

I've tried a few wide angles now and just keep returning to 24mm. If i need wider then i can stitch two shots together. I know it's not achievable for some shots but i find 24mm a happy medium.

I probably won't like the move but hey, you're a long time dead and if i don't try the 58 soon then I'll probably go insane anyway. :wacky:
Click to expand...
Have you thought about the 20mm f1.8? I've been thinking of one as it seems to be a good cost compromise (depends which 24mm you are thinking of) although the 24mm would be nice.
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
Question is...

Nikon 24mm F1.8g or Sigma 24mm F1.4 ART? The Nikon scores better and weighs 300g less than the Siggy but is 2/3 of a stop slower and isn't as well built. Bokeh looks nice from both tbh and are both of a similar price.
Click to expand...

I've not used the Nikon (still have the old 24D f2.8) but it gets great reviews, I did try a Sigma 24 Art though and was really impressed with it (as with all of the Sigma Art's really) if only they did a 58mm lol!
 
minnnt said:
Question is...

Nikon 24mm F1.8g or Sigma 24mm F1.4 ART? The Nikon scores better and weighs 300g less than the Siggy but is 2/3 of a stop slower and isn't as well built. Bokeh looks nice from both tbh and are both of a similar price.
Click to expand...
Not sure @ 24mm if 2/3rds of a stop are that significant ... the DoF is large(ish) either way and you have no need to worry over using higher ISO's ... I'd save the weight if was me.
 
rob-nikon said:
Have you thought about the 20mm f1.8? I've been thinking of one as it seems to be a good cost compromise (depends which 24mm you are thinking of) although the 24mm would be nice.
Click to expand...

I have yes, but again, having tried wider lenses before, i just return to the 24mm. The 24mm seems to be the better performer.

chrism_scotland said:
I've not used the Nikon (still have the old 24D f2.8) but it gets great reviews, I did try a Sigma 24 Art though and was really impressed with it (as with all of the Sigma Art's really) if only they did a 58mm lol!
Click to expand...

I think if Sigma produced a 58 it would lose it's USP... The new ART lenses (well, 35 and 50) seem to have very clinical bokeh imo. The bokeh was nicer from their older range of lenses.
 
minnnt said:
Question is...

Nikon 24mm F1.8g or Sigma 24mm F1.4 ART? The Nikon scores better and weighs 300g less than the Siggy but is 2/3 of a stop slower and isn't as well built. Bokeh looks nice from both tbh and are both of a similar price.
Click to expand...
What would you shoot with the 24 1.8? You have a 24 2.8 that can also go to 70 at 2.8 [emoji1].
 
minnnt said:
You're right but it would get me an optically better lens and save me a nice amount of weight. It would also quench my GAS for a while.

:D
Click to expand...
Hmmm... A stop and a third diff. Weight advantage on the prime is great, but if you want to shoot landscape only, the one you have is more versatile.

As for GAS, justification never counts [emoji13]
 
Sorry, whilst I'm on a lens theme, anyone shoot the Nikkor AF DC 135mm f/2 on full frame? Love to hear your views etc... It doesn't seem to get much of a mention.

Thanx
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
Question is...

Nikon 24mm F1.8g or Sigma 24mm F1.4 ART? The Nikon scores better and weighs 300g less than the Siggy but is 2/3 of a stop slower and isn't as well built. Bokeh looks nice from both tbh and are both of a similar price.
Click to expand...

Given how long you hold onto a lens surely how well built it is shouldn't be an issue...?
 
I am in serious need of a walk about lens so thinking of picking up a Sigma 24-105 Lens and sell my Nikon Macro 105 to help fund it
 
rookies said:
I am in serious need of a walk about lens so thinking of picking up a Sigma 24-105 Lens and sell my Nikon Macro 105 to help fund it
Click to expand...
Needs to be good, 15mm less than the Nikon, large filter size and no weather sealing yet is the same price. Not seen any decent reviews comparing them yet though.
 
I tried on last year at the photography show, and ended up getting the 24-120 ... I focused faster, and was sharper wide open. I wasn`t overly impressed with the sigma.
 
macvisual said:
Sorry, whilst I'm on a lens theme, anyone shoot the Nikkor AF DC 135mm f/2 on full frame? Love to hear your views etc... It doesn't seem to get much of a mention.

Thanx
Click to expand...

I use the 135mm f/2 DC all the time but only on a full frame - I tried it on DX bodies (D90 & D7100) but found it works way better on a full frame.

This used to be my favourite lens. When I used it on my D700 it was a dream pairing and would produce great shots at f/2 - it gives a nice creamy look, was sharp (where I wanted it to be) and produced a wonderful bokeh which I'm a sucker for. I used the DC function also on D700 without issue but it doesn't make much difference with bokeh. I then tried it on my D750 but it didn't seem so good - the CA seemed to be worse with more green edge fringing and purple glows (mainly on chrome colours) and it couldn't produce anything sharp at f/2. I've since fine tuned the AF to +10 and it's much better at f/2 but still doesn't seem to produce the same level of IQ it does on D700 - I'm just not convinced the glass is up to the job with current modern sensors - although I have seen shots with it on a D810 that look good. The lens AF is good but it will take one or two more out of focus shots in AF-C mode than the more modern lenses and AF fine tune will likely need adjusting. I used it mainly for portraits and moving subjects. I find the 135mm needs to be used mostly in M mode as camera metering wasn't so reliable in A mode - tended to overexpose too often with is not something I get as much with the more modern lenses. For me that was a plus as it's taught me to shoot more in M mode and under exposing on D750 isn't an issue since it's has great shadow recovery. If you're a bokeh freak and love DOF in portraits then this lens is a dream with nice soft light contrasts. Despite it's imperfections I would only sell mine if Nikon released a newer G version which is long overdue imo.
 
Paulie-W said:
I tried on last year at the photography show, and ended up getting the 24-120 ... I focused faster, and was sharper wide open. I wasn`t overly impressed with the sigma.
Click to expand...
Interesting, so you weren't impressed with sharpness or AF speed on the Sigma? The limited reviews I've seen say that the Sigma is sharper than the Nikon, and the Canon 24-105mm f4 L but this appears to agree with what you said, particularly the long end on both (not a direct comparison camera wise unfortunately)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
Question is...

Nikon 24mm F1.8g or Sigma 24mm F1.4 ART? The Nikon scores better and weighs 300g less than the Siggy but is 2/3 of a stop slower and isn't as well built. Bokeh looks nice from both tbh and are both of a similar price.
Click to expand...

The Sigma is heavy for it's size, I bought mine when everyone was harping on about how awesome the Art lenses were, and needed something a little wider than 35. It is, as you say, a very clinical looking lens, it's sharpness is it's only real character. Never used the Nikon, if they were the same price, I'd probably go for the 1.4 just because I like stupidly shallow DOF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top