Nikon D750 & D780

I must admit 45mm does sound interesting. I might just be the Goldilocks FL ;)
 
I`d like to have a play with one. Might even be tempted away from the 35, if the bokeh is good.
 
What I've seen from the guy on Flickr that i linked to a few pages back, the bokeh is sweet.

I know the Sigma's are super sharp but the 35 and 50 are a little busy in the OOF areas imo.
 
minnnt said:
They usually are but i got mine for a decent price so only right to pass that on if i ever did sell it.
Click to expand...
You'll definitely have to give me heads up then if you do please, I'm sure I can give up a body part for this lens ;)
 
rookies said:
Well I been doing some reading tonight thank you snerkler for you know.

What WB people using are do u use depends what your shooting?? I been playing with it but feel best leave in Auto1 and alter it in processing??
Click to expand...
Auto 99% of the time. I've very slightly fine tuned my auto too.
 
rookies said:
Have found that a few Nikon lens look cheap when some are selling £450 odd.

Sigma Art looks more for their money. Fancy their 24-105 since it £599 but folks says the Nikon 24-120 is the way to go. But I feel the sigma looks more exspensive.
Click to expand...
Few lenses feel proper quality these days IMO. 70-200mm f2.8 VRII is a proper quality lens though ;)
 
twist said:
Best just trying both, sigma has stepped up big time. I'd go for the 24-120 because ive seen good results but also that little bit extra in terms of zoom. It's a walk about so I don't expect the ultimate iq.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. 24-70mm f2.8 if you afford it and are strong enough to carry it all day, 24-120mm f4 if not ;)
 
The 58 interests me too but the cost has definitely put me off. If I felt it would be used allot, I'd buy in a heartbeat, but I have started to enjoy using my little 50 1.8G. It feels like a toy but I like the size and weight, serves well as a quick grab and shoot setup. If the 58 was £600, I'd buy tomorrow. If I were shooting weddings, I'd have one. I tend to use my fisher price lens around the house so I wouldn't be using it for its strengths.

That's my justification. 5 years ago I would have just bought one lol. My GAS is in control.......for now. Just want someone to release a new 135.....
 
snerkler said:
My thoughts exactly. 24-70mm f2.8 if you afford it and are strong enough to carry it all day, 24-120mm f4 if not ;)
Click to expand...

Am waiting for Minnnt to sell me his. He has promised me ;)
 
rookies said:
Am waiting for Minnnt to sell me his. He has promised me ;)
Click to expand...
We'll see about that ;) Have I mentioned how good the A7RII is and how you'd prefer that :lol:
 
Been desperate to try out my new 70-200 f4 but a combination of work and rubbish weather meant I couldn't get out until yesterday. I had to try it out on these 2 tiny dogs as light was not much good for anything else.
I'm impressed with AF speed and VR (never had a VR lens before). There were more in focus shots of the lighter dog than the black one (not as much contrast in her face to focus on I guess).
I need more practice but quite pleased for a first try out.

Chiuhaha by Pete C, on Flickr

Chiuhaha by Pete C, on Flickr
 
Cloudforest said:
Been desperate to try out my new 70-200 f4 but a combination of work and rubbish weather meant I couldn't get out until yesterday. I had to try it out on these 2 tiny dogs as light was not much good for anything else.
I'm impressed with AF speed and VR (never had a VR lens before). There were more in focus shots of the lighter dog than the black one (not as much contrast in her face to focus on I guess).
I need more practice but quite pleased for a first try out.

Chiuhaha by Pete C, on Flickr

Chiuhaha by Pete C, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Nice shots. Surprised it struggled on the black dog, looks plenty of contrast on the face as long as you stay away from the top of the forehead.
 
snerkler said:
We'll see about that ;) Have I mentioned how good the A7RII is and how you'd prefer that :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes you have but it too much money A7ii is within my budget :)
 
snerkler said:
Nice shots. Surprised it struggled on the black dog, looks plenty of contrast on the face as long as you stay away from the top of the forehead.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. As they're very small (so have to get quite close with camera) and surprisingly fast I need to work on focus points I reckon.
 
Cloudforest said:
Thanks for that. As they're very small (so have to get quite close with camera) and surprisingly fast I need to work on focus points I reckon.
Click to expand...
Not an easy task if they're moving quickly ;)
 
Yup this dogs are small,... My mrs always wanted one
 
minnnt said:
They're on offer at £399 but I'm not sure if that's just at the event in London? @anibap knows more. One Stop Digital also have them for £391... ;)
Click to expand...
I spoke to the guys in Park Camera stall yesterday, but it seems their system is showing £469. They will check what Tamron promised and give me an update today.

I looked into some images I shot with the Tamron 35 and 24-70 last Fri at the Tamron event. While the 35 looked ok, the 24-70 was bit off and in need of AF fine tuning.

The new 35 and 45 Tamrons felt well built, nice to hold and looks good.

Coming to the discussion here on 35 vs 45/50, I used to shoot a lot with the 35 1.8 DX when I had crop camera. I used a 50 1.8 G on DX and FX. The 50 on FX is almost same fov as 35 on DX, but I sold the 50 by mistake.

I need to look back through my pics and see how many I shot with 35 and 50 mm focal lengths. The 50 1.8 is nice but could be tight at places.

I can get a new 50 1.8 under £90, a significant difference to a 35 1.8, but they are also diff in the way they render images and have a characteristics of their own.
 
Last edited:
Btw, I tested the Tamron 45 attached to a D810 and oh boy, the D810 handling and feeling is so nice. I was fiddling wuth controls as they are different, but as a body it is really nice to hold albeit bit heavy.
 
anibap said:
I spoke to the guys in Park Camera stall yesterday, but it seems their system is showing £469. They will check what Tamron promised and give me an update today.

I looked into some images I shot with the Tamron 35 and 24-70 last Fri at the Tamron event. While the 35 looked ok, the 24-70 was bit off and in need of AF fine tuning.

The new 35 and 45 Tamrons felt well built, nice to hold and looks good.

Coming to the discussion here on 35 vs 45/50, I used to shoot a lot with the 35 1.8 DX when I had crop camera. I used a 50 1.8 G on DX and FX. The 50 on FX is almost same fov as 35 on DX, but I sold the 50 by mistake.

I need to look back through my pics and see how many I shot with 35 and 50 mm focal lengths. The 50 1.8 is nice but could be tight at places.

I can get a new 50 1.8 under £90, a significant difference to a 35 1.8, but they are also diff in the way they render images and have a characteristics of their own.
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting... Also your a A7II owner too OMG
 
rookies said:
Sounds interesting... Also your a A7II owner too OMG
Click to expand...
No, I don't have any Sony at all. Tried all A7 range at a Sony event in London, but none worked for me.
 
I`ve been reading the 45`s focus isn`t all that fast in a few reviews. How would you reckon it compares to what you have mate?
 
Not sure about af speed as I only took a couple of shots inside a store, but it is not blazing fast. I am planning to try the 35 and 45 today at the London trade show. Let me know if you want something specific to check other than AF speed.
 
anibap said:
Not sure about af speed as I only took a couple of shots inside a store, but it is not blazing fast. I am planning to try the 35 and 45 today at the London trade show. Let me know if you want something specific to check other than AF speed.
Click to expand...

Cheers matey, have fun ;) .... I guess the main think is bokeh compared to the siggy arts. Oh and how close can they focus :)
 
minnnt said:
Our loveable D750 fanboy does...
Click to expand...

Cant help its the best VFM camera out there, after all, you bought one and still own it. ;)

35 / 50 is awesome for people stuff. 24 not so much unless youre into groups.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Cant help its the best VFM camera out there, after all, you bought one and still own it. ;)
Click to expand...
Fully agree with you.
 
twist said:
Cant help its the best VFM camera out there, after all, you bought one and still own it. ;)

35 / 50 is awesome for people stuff. 24 not so much unless youre into groups.
Click to expand...
I wish Rookies would listen to this and just be happy with what he has :p ;)
 
minnnt said:
The Nik 24-120 is ace. Only thing i didn't like about it was the fact it extended when zooming. I sold it and now have the 24-70... No difference in IQ or at least none that I've noticed.
Click to expand...
That's really interesting. Are you just talking in regards to sharpness, or overall look? From sample images I've seen the 24-70mm always seems to have more pop (and not just due to the f2.8) which is one of my primary criteria in a lens and the OOF areas look nicer, but without having both a trying for myself it's obviously difficult to know for sure.
 
On the subject of 58mm lenses, has anyone tried the Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 lens on the D750, or is manual focus a pain with it?
 
Last edited:
You know what I love about this owners thread over some of the other ones, theres no negativity or sniping at people's choices, its just non-stop Nikon banter and friendly chat, a camera is partially about the community as well and I don't see that theres a better one than the D750 one on here..
 
snerkler said:
That's really interesting. Are you just talking in regards to sharpness, or overall look? From sample images I've seen the 24-70mm always seems to have more pop (and not just due to the f2.8) which is one of my primary criteria in a lens and the OOF areas look nicer, but without having both a trying for myself it's obviously difficult to know for sure.
Click to expand...

I think the 24-70 has slightly better microcontrast and that 2.8 adds the subject isolation pop. Perceived contrast of wide aperture lenses with shallow dof looks better.
 
Last edited:
anibap said:
I think the 24-70 has slightly better microcontrast and that 2.8 adds the subject isolation pop. Perceived contrast of wide aperture lenses with shallow dof looks better.
Click to expand...
That's why I said "and not just due to the f2.8" as I knew people would say that :p But even if I compare images shot at f4 for example the 24-70mm has more pop to my eyes. Of course this could always be down to the tog and/or PP.
 
snerkler said:
That's why I said "and not just due to the f2.8" as I knew people would say that :p But even if I compare images shot at f4 for example the 24-70mm has more pop to my eyes. Of course this could always be down to the tog and/or PP.
Click to expand...
Not all lenses at same aperture render images in a similar way. My 85 1.8 has more pop at F4 than my other lenses at F4. What I noticed is that a lens with a fast wide aperture usually has better pop when stopped down to a similar aperture on slower glass. The Sigma 1.4 lenses have better pop at F2 onwards compared to other 1.8 lenses.

Of course lens coating and elements play a role and more expensive lenses have better glass inside.
 
anibap said:
Not all lenses at same aperture render images in a similar way. My 85 1.8 has more pop at F4 than my other lenses at F4. What I noticed is that a lens with a fast wide aperture usually has better pop when stopped down to a similar aperture on slower glass. The Sigma 1.4 lenses have better pop at F2 onwards compared to other 1.8 lenses.

Of course lens coating and elements play a role and more expensive lenses have better glass inside.
Click to expand...
Lol, hence my question to Minnnt ;) :p I'm aware all lenses render differently, and that's what I said i.e. from images I've seen the 24-70mm always renders nicer than the 24-120mm (more pop and better OOF areas) but Minnnt said that he hadn't seen a difference and has had the benefit of owning both. IF the 24-120mm does indeed render the same then I'd seriously consider this as it would be a walkabout and so the f2.8 isn't so important.
 
snerkler said:
Lol, hence my question to Minnnt ;) :p I'm aware all lenses render differently, and that's what I said i.e. from images I've seen the 24-70mm always renders nicer than the 24-120mm (more pop and better OOF areas) but Minnnt said that he hadn't seen a difference and has had the benefit of owning both. IF the 24-120mm does indeed render the same then I'd seriously consider this as it would be a walkabout and so the f2.8 isn't so important.
Click to expand...
Get the 24-120 and a 35 1.8 prime if all you need is for walkabout and general shooting :)
 
snerkler said:
IF the 24-120mm does indeed render the same then I'd seriously consider this as it would be a walkabout and so the f2.8 isn't so important.
Click to expand...

If there`s anything specific you want mate, I can rattle off a few pix for you :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top