The hybrid primes won’t be all we get for fast wide-angle L prime lenses
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I always wondered why lenses like the 24-105 end at 105mm? Why not 100 or 120? Ok, maybe 120mm would make then a bit bigger but 105mm just seems so random.
Upvote
0
They do!
they really seem not to like my money... If (IF!) they will release a 35 1.2 I will pre-order it and sell the 1.4 - I do not mind this 1.4 and the ergonomics are great apart from the thin AF ring, but it does not have the magic of the 2 other RF 1.2 primes I have. I know that the software corrections are a deliberate compromise and that in normal circumstances they have near-0 impact, but maybe I am a bigot but I prefer optically corrected lenses.
I am not regretting the decision to buy the 1.4 since a) this is still a rumor after all and b), assuming the rumor is true in this regard, who knows how long we'll be actually waiting for the 35 1.2? I have been needing a 35 for too long.
Upvote
0
Ask and Nikon delivers: https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_24-120mmf4s/
Upvote
0
The NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S is magnificent. I also like how compact it is!
I rented the Nikon Z8 with the 24-120 and loved it. It's so sharp!
Upvote
0
Same here! The rattling was the final nail in the coffin for me. It’s apparently even audible when the lens is in your backpack.
A constant clicking sound with every step. No, thank you!
Upvote
0
It’s sharp in the centre for sure, not so much in the peripheral areas. The focal range is certainly nice and a bit more versatile. Although I’m not sure what I’d pair it with? A 100-300/2.8?
Upvote
0
Why? How does it make any difference? Do you have a demonstration photo where I can see why someone would prefer a lens that doesn't use software distortion correction?
Upvote
0
I think there's no need for them at all in terms of getting shorter exposures or lower ISOs (except possibly for astrophotography).
But with a FF sensor, a 20mm aperture (entrance pupil) allows foreground to pop from the background a useful amount for a given subject magnification; A 50/2, 35/1.4 both have 20mm aperture. A 35/1.2 gives just a bit more pop which compensates for 35mm subjects being typically lower mag. Frankly a 35/1.0 would be usable all day every day for this purpose. and still a very modest 35mm aperture (like a 50/1.4).
These aren't "special effect" level bokeh like the massive 72mm aperture in an 85/1.2, 135/2, 200/2.8, etc. that turns the background into a wash of color, instead just an amount of bokeh that serves even day-to-day reportage well.
Upvote
0
Have you tried the RF50/1.8? I've done hand-hold tests and whatever the MTF charts say, it's really fantastic. F/1.4 was necessary in 1990, 2000, even 2010 but I think it's day may have passed. F/1.8 seems good enough for me now. We don't need the big aperture for lower ISO or faster shutter, usually. But further, in the old days, focus was so approximate we couldn't really blow our images up anywhere near as large as today, and thanks to far higher magnification, f/1.8 causes "enough" bokeh to get a lot of subjects to pop that wouldn't have had visible pop with the kind of image size we could give the EF50/1.4.
Upvote
0
Why?
Maybe because I still believe that a lens optically designed to have little distorsion could have an advantage over lenses like the RF 16 mm relying heavily on electronic distorsion correction. Its corner sharpness data are less than overwhelming according to OpticalLimits.
Nothing against electronic distorsion correction, which can easily produce results as good as optical distorsion correction. But within limits. Extreme corner stretching does usually produce softer corners.
Upvote
0
Weird question. Of course I did. I cannot wait to get rid of it. It’s kinda good as much as it can be. Though I don’t like the common experience, how it focuses. RF 35/1.8 behaves more confidently. I’d like to have 1.4 lens where 1.4 will be usable but not just meh. Plus one more thing - I have unresolved desire after having EF 50/1.4.
Upvote
0
If they'd just make a 28L..... No idea why they're allergic to it.. since their 28 1.8 is the worst 28 ever made.
Upvote
0
In a way that I do not get exact framing that I did when I took the photo.
Upvote
0
I own the 35mm and the 24-105 f/2.8; both are wonderful lenses and I tend to agree with the common thread: very good for both photo and video, but you feel a bit "miffed" knowing that digital correction is required for the 24-105 to work without unacceptable vignetting occurring on the wide end (which is very much exacerbated by thick VNDs). I don't find the 35mm's distortion problematic but I also like to dirty my images up a bit.
Doubt it's possible, but it would be really slick if the lens aperture automatically clicked in photo mode, but was automatically de-clicked in video mode.
Really excited for the 50mm and hopefully an 85mm isn't too far behind!
Doubt it's possible, but it would be really slick if the lens aperture automatically clicked in photo mode, but was automatically de-clicked in video mode.
Really excited for the 50mm and hopefully an 85mm isn't too far behind!
Upvote
0
Also—I'm really hopeful that they'll release a version of either 35mm with defocus-smoothing, as they did with the 85mm f/1.2. I don't know if the focal length makes a difference since they only did this with the 85mm, but in theory it seems that it would reduce/eliminate busy bokeh that can so easily occur when shooting at 1.4 on a wide angle lens.
Upvote
0
