Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

BIG news at Nikon.

profile picture
rigzz
Posts: 1768 - Karma: 147
Anyone heard about the new lens Nikon is coming out with. I know i'm SUPER stoked for it! :)

Click for larger image
Picture taken from my friend at the VendorFair in toronto this past week.
May 1 2011 9:46AM
0 0
profile picture
kootenayklaus
Posts: 3914 - Karma: 2,179
It's a 50mm 1.8... Not that special.
May 1 2011 10:27AM
0 0
profile picture
steep
Posts: 6063 - Karma: 297
.
May 1 2011 10:34AM
0 0
profile picture
horner
Posts: 2439 - Karma: 1,578
Try reading up before dismissing it. To some, it's very exciting, and I can see why.

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/04/nikon-announces-cost-conscious-50mm-f18g-lens-set-to-hit-stores-july-0
May 1 2011 11:12AM
0 0
profile picture
MatRich
Posts: 4789 - Karma: 1,812
Lol i was there! They didint even mention that lens
May 1 2011 11:46AM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
I read it. I saw nothing interesting about it. Strip the lens, add silent wave and a bim.. and then, raise the price! I'm sorry but thats three strikes for another soccer mom lens. The only thing that is mildly entertaining is the 7 blades. But even then, Ive always hated Nikon's 50mm bokeh and flare. Ugly ass football looking bokeh. Fuck that.

Nikon is pissing me off.
May 1 2011 2:46PM
0 0
profile picture
chacharlie
Posts: 228 - Karma: 20
what are you expecting from Nikon that they aren't delivering? just curious.
May 1 2011 4:30PM
0 0
profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,327
Big news? lol, maybe if they bring something new to the table. Looks like a 50mm to me, maybe a 30 (that would be dope).
May 1 2011 6:29PM
0 0
profile picture
kootenayklaus
Posts: 3914 - Karma: 2,179
Exactly, a 50mm 1.8 with the equivalent of Canon's UltraSonic Motor isn't really anything to get your dick hard over. The only thing I really see that's an improvement is the 7-blade aperture, but as stated before, it's just gonna be another soccer mom lens.
May 1 2011 6:49PM
0 0
profile picture
LBJJ
Posts: 683 - Karma: 1,730
i just got excited over the thread title for nothing, anyone who follows nikon has already seen that this was out like 4 days now and why be so excited when a 1.4G has been out for a long time.
May 1 2011 7:12PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Quality mid range and long zoom lenses, I can't afford the 70-200 2.8 VRII, and I dont want a piece of shit 55-200 kit lens. I also wish they would up their video game, and get more focused on producing a quality image, as opposed to focusing on other gimmicky features like autofocus. I also wish that they would at least compete with Canon prices. Nikon is much more expensive, and I have yet to see why. Lastly, and this will never happen, I wish they would either fix the focal plane, or come out with a quality adapter so that I can use alt glass on my NIkon.

The only thing keeping me from switching to Canon is I could not afford to switch systems. After everything, I would almost have to choose a lens that I don't want any more and sell it off to break even in the lens/body rebuy. And Canon interface seems ass backwards coming from Nikon.
May 1 2011 7:12PM
0 0
profile picture
LBJJ
Posts: 683 - Karma: 1,730
no matter what you do there is going to be something else you want that you cant have. when you have a high end body you drool over the hasselblads, when you have a nikon you feel like a canon would suit you better, but really no matter what you do its just a big circle of crap that your going to think no matter what.


also if you cant afford the 70-200VR II get the 70-200VR its almost identical and if you cant afford that get one of the 80-200mm lenses that it extremely affordable. there are plenty of options out there.
May 1 2011 7:16PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
I don't believe that. Unlike most "photographers" I am not a gear whore who needs the biggest and most expensive gear. In fact, I hate labels on my camera/lenses which is why I always ditch the original cap and buy a generic pinch cap immediately. I also highly doubt that there are many Canon photographers that wish they were Nikon at this point in time. Maybe 10-15 years ago, but Nikon is struggling in the digital race.

The 70-200 VRII was just a specific example for a broad problem. I am aware of Nikon's other options, as I own the 80-200 2.8.
May 1 2011 8:01PM
0 0
profile picture
rigzz
Posts: 1768 - Karma: 147
The reason I'm getting all hard over this one, is because:
1-I have almost ZERO money and need a Af-S lens
2-Don't want to buy the kit lens because I don't need the zoom.
3-Why would I buy the 1.4 when I AM not gonna see much difference for the price I would pay.
4-Finally a fixed lens with af-s for my little D40.

Sorry if it's not BIG NEWS for you, but i'm pretty excited to get one!
May 1 2011 9:21PM
0 0
profile picture
benk
Posts: 1342 - Karma: 988
I'm going to have to agree with thebteam on this one. I could care less about another 50mm..they added a motor to it??! give me a fucking D700 replacement already!!!!
May 1 2011 9:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,327
I WANT A NIKON 5D MK II EQUIVALENT GODDAMNNIT!!!!!
May 1 2011 9:56PM
0 0
profile picture
chacharlie
Posts: 228 - Karma: 20
I disagree that Nikon is falling behind in the "digital race" DSLR video market? Yes. It is well known that video is not a priority to Nikon. But digital photography? They have surpassed Canon in high ISO performance, and their autofocus is widely acknowledged to be (in many situations) superior to Canon's. Although their prices are higher, mostly in their supertele line, Canon's most recent updates have pretty much evened the fields. I agree that their f4 selection is lacking though.
May 1 2011 11:52PM
0 0
profile picture
joey.
Posts: 2087 - Karma: 3,337
i dont know any soccer moms with a 50 f1.8
May 2 2011 12:12AM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
But see heres the thing. That ISO performance, and autofocus you rave about.. they don't fucking matter because I can't afford the cameras/lenses with the capabilities.

And no, the prices are not just higher in the super tele line.

Canon 17-55 2.8 - $1150
Nikon 17-50 2.8 - $1500

Canon 24-70 2.8 - $1,400
Nikon 24-70 2.8 - $2,050

In fact, the only lenses I could find that Nikon WASN'T significantly higher was the 70-200.

As far as video not being a priority for Nikon? Yes it is, they are getting their ass kicked, so they try to play it cool, but you sure as hell know their engineers are trying incredibly hard to catch up to Canon. Also, I'm perfectly content with the focusing speed of my 3rd party lenses, so I can't imagine those few milliseconds Nikon MAY be faster than Canon truly matter.
May 2 2011 12:27AM
0 0
profile picture
MatRich
Posts: 4789 - Karma: 1,812
The autofocus in nikon is overrated. Its considered top because it has so many points. try focusing fast with all of them active... its not going to happen. I prefer my canons af by a long shot and its the same opinion even for many nikon fanboys.
May 2 2011 12:33AM
0 0
profile picture
chacharlie
Posts: 228 - Karma: 20
Reliability and accuracy are more of the concerns with Canon. And although the Nikon 24-70 is more expensive, it is of significantly better quality than the Canon equivalent. (I realize this is nearly meaningless, just saying that although they are the same FL, you're paying more for better quality in that particular case.) And so for the sake of accuracy, you didn't mean that Nikon is falling behind in the 'digital race', but rather the race to win over lower end users. Correct?
May 2 2011 12:35AM
0 0
profile picture
chacharlie
Posts: 228 - Karma: 20
It's considered superior because the outer points are usable and accurate, which isn't always the case with Canon in some situations.
May 2 2011 12:39AM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Actually I'm saying the exact opposite.

Look at every pro at sports games, any new event, anywhere. They are shooting Canon. How many black lenses do you see at sports game? Im saying Nikon is losing the race with pro users. They are losing the younger generation's for a reason. Canon is putting out a good product at a cheaper cost. Nikon may have higher IQ lenses, but the only people that care are people I consider to be "old style" photographers. Pixel peeping, gear hoarding, rich guys whose main subject includes flowers/horses/children/anything remotely pretty.

My D7000 has 39 focusing points. I have never used any of them besides the one in the dead middle.
May 2 2011 1:24AM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Shit, and I meant to say that Nikon is losing to the lower end users for good reason. Canon is putting out a better quality at a lower price, and Nikons response is to cut features and raise prices. Think about it, who is going to win that race?

This 50 comes stripped down so I can never use it on a digital body. Comes with a BIM that is not needed for anyone other than lower end users (D40/60/3000) And comes at a price of nearly double what it was before? Get fucking real.
May 2 2011 1:29AM
0 0
profile picture
chacharlie
Posts: 228 - Karma: 20
Hmm. Well I guess we can agree to disagree, no point in arguing about it over the internet. At least we dont shoot Pentax!
May 2 2011 1:31AM
0 0
profile picture
chacharlie
Posts: 228 - Karma: 20
wait what?
May 2 2011 1:46AM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Haha you know what I mean. Kind of watching the news so semi distracted. Hence my double post and poorly written arguments..

Film*
May 2 2011 1:54AM
0 0
profile picture
LC.
Posts: 5952 - Karma: 2,423
What Nikon really needs to bring out:

70-200 f4, similar spec/quality to the Canon ones.

FM3 digital with the D700 chip in it.
May 2 2011 5:23AM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9926 - Karma: 9,344
35 1.8 af-s, its been out for years...
May 2 2011 9:04AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
weak. I don't like g series lenses. I want an aperture ring.

Also, what's the point? really? I guess it's nice for people that need the motor. But they could have spent time better on other lenses.
May 2 2011 12:50PM
0 0
profile picture
DUBIE
Posts: 576 - Karma: 135
exactly
May 2 2011 2:20PM
0 0
profile picture
SeanTom
Posts: 7936 - Karma: 1,747
ohmygodthis. want so bad.
May 2 2011 3:48PM
0 0
profile picture
chacharlie
Posts: 228 - Karma: 20
are you waiting on video?
May 2 2011 7:01PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
See, now you just lost all credibility. Glass is 50% of the picture.
May 2 2011 8:30PM
0 0
profile picture
Jordan
Posts: 4079 - Karma: 2,122
lol.
May 2 2011 10:29PM
0 0
profile picture
michelle
Posts: 6290 - Karma: 428
Nope, love my Canon. I have never thought about switching.

And wow, Nikon came out with a lens that Canon has had for years! Seriously Nikon needs to get their shit together and come out with a 5dmkII equivalent. This is getting ridiculous
May 2 2011 11:52PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Its funny I don't see either you or Jordan trying to defend Nikon..? The only one that has even attempted is Charlie.

And I love how you try to put words in my mouth to make my argument sound flawed. Who said anything about glass being the entire picture? And at this day in age, glass is more than 50% of the picture.
May 3 2011 1:51AM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Why is everyone bitching about this?

The new lens is SICK if you ask me.
Why is every Canon photog urged to get a nifty fifty, but this is considered junk?

I don't get that.

I think the lens is pretty dope. Much better than the nifty and not that much more expensive.
May 3 2011 10:48AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
"nifty fifty" is a phrase describing any 50 from any company, because they are cheap, sharp, simple, and fast. Basically, it's hard to make a bad 50. Besides that, 50 mm primes were the old "kit lens" when people used to buy Film SLRs, because it's approximately the field of view of the perception of the human eye.

Every person who comes into M+A saying they would like lens ideas is recommended one because they are CHEAP, sharp, and fast, which in this case people like it so they can pull focus on someone's eyeball and bokeh out the rest of the face into an amorphous blob. People really become enamored with that when they get their first DSLR. I'm exaggerating, but only just.

This isn't junk, it's just pointless. Nikon already has 3 other 50s, this is superflous when there's other things they could be worrying about. Everyone is arguing because creative people are generally very opinionated and like to argue.
May 3 2011 11:09AM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
hahahahahaahaahaha
May 3 2011 12:47PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Haha yep.

And for the record, not everyone suggests getting a 50mm, I wouldn't suggest it for most beginners.
May 3 2011 1:56PM
0 0
profile picture
Jordan
Posts: 4079 - Karma: 2,122
Ok -

I don't really care about this - I have the 50 1.4 and the AI-S version, I have the 50 1.8 too.


I am a big fan of the M/A switch so that you, mid shooting down have to take your eye from the camera and switch - that's a baby issue. I like the manual focus over ride which makes a world of difference on the higher up lenses. I use it all the time on my 70-200 especially for concerts and things where I trust my eye over the AF system. AF-S is considerably better than the D versions. That split second of tracking can make or break a picture.


That being said, those are all little things that don't make up for the price difference in my opinion. But how bout this, buy a - now - second generation 50 1.8 for less and fucking shoot with it and shut up :)

Look, you can argue canon you can argue nikon. I chose Nikon because I already had a substantial amount of money invested in lenses. They both take good pictures, and if you're blaming gear or a company for the inability for you to take better pictures at the nikon and canon level then you're stupid.

Hell, Pentax, Olympus and other cameras take great pictures too. I don't see people whining about them. I know a National Geographic photographer that is sponsored by Olympus and his pictures are sure as fuck better than 99.99% of everyone else's pictures.

Sure, canon lenses are cheaper in some regards but deal with it. I would stick with Nikon if I still had my choice today - I have lenses that Canon doesn't offer and the ones that I do I like better than Canon's.

At the most basic level, gear doesn't limit your photography - it's you. And I'd say that lenses make up 75% of a picture the camera a bit and the user all of it.








May 3 2011 2:21PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Jesus, I knew you would take that route. Try to put words in my mouth and make it sound like I am blaming Nikon for my bad photography. Can't anyone argue with whats been said instead of just making shit up?

I never blamed my Nikon gear for any inabilities I have. I did blame them for their faults, which all companies have, and that are true. Nikon does not have anything much worthy in the video realm, and to cope they are focusing on other features such as crummy autofocus. Nikon also can't use Alt glass and that really kind of irks me. There are quite a few lenses that I would love to use, but can't with out some crappy fleabay adapter which significantly affects the quality. I understand that due to a shorter register distance glassless adapters will never be viable for Nikon, the least they could do is recognize there is a market share, no matter how small, that is interested and come up with an adapter. Hell, they already have the mount, all they need perfect is a small piece of glass. I think they can handle that.

Few questions, how often do you see avid 50mm 1.8 users using anything other than auto focus? How often do you think they would say hey, I just paid double the price for this motor, yet I'm going to use this finicky focus ring and my eye to judge it. How often do you think 50/1.8 users need that few millisecond focusing time to get the shot and get paid, or get the shot 2 milliseconds later and not.

Face it, this lens was not needed. This is the second backhanded slap Nikon has given to its entry level users. The first being not including a motor in the body in the first place. But now the users have to pay more for glass, which renders the savings they made by a probably uniformed choice to buy a D40/60/3000 useless. In fact, Nikon is just fucking them even harder by making them buy motors in all of their glass now which will cost more over the long run. I'm sorry but thats a pretty fucked up business practice if you ask me.. and you wonder why they are losing entry level market.
May 3 2011 2:45PM
0 0
profile picture
LC.
Posts: 5952 - Karma: 2,423
OK I haven't really looked at press releases about this lens' spec either, I have an old 50/1.4 I'm happy with. But evidently some people are stoked on this lens (at least two in this thread, enough to tell their internet friends all about it on a skiing website). Therefore, it'll probably sell. Therefore, smart move Nikon.

I still want a 70-200/4 and FM3D but that's unlikely to happen. Nikon is about making money not giving niche markets what they ask them to make.
May 3 2011 3:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Jordan
Posts: 4079 - Karma: 2,122
Ugh.

I am not putting words into your mouth comments directed at gear to image quality was a general statement.

Use more of the AF points than just the 1 in the middle on your D7k....

If you've got your panties this twisted, just email Nikon and tell them they're running their company wrong. I'm sure they'll change it right away.

I know that I am not the target consumer, as I don't shoot video, I don't give a shit about the little presets for sunny, dark, baseball games, etc... on the dials.

Maybe they need to make better mid range equipment. Sure - a 70-200 f/4 would make people happy.

Just fucking sell the D7k, and switch to Canon so you can start complaining about Canon and then switch back to Nikon?



May 3 2011 4:15PM
0 0
profile picture
kootenayklaus
Posts: 3914 - Karma: 2,179
OR- Switch to Canon and find out that it is actually the superior brand, not complain, and enjoy using your camera.

/inb4 hate on Canon.
May 3 2011 5:02PM
0 0
profile picture
Jordan
Posts: 4079 - Karma: 2,122
Hahaha, I was making the cycling argument not the Canon < Nikon argument.

Maybe so, maybe not, maybe get a 1D IV and a D3x and get all the lenses.





I mean Phase One = Hasselblad > Nikon = Canon
May 3 2011 5:06PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Convince me why I should allow the camera to guess at what I want in focus rather than using the center and recompose technique. I rarely shoot sports, and even then, I wouldn't allow it use all 39 points, it would spend all its time hunting and the shot would be gone.

You right, I should just stop discussing things that I would want out of a company. I should just roll over and be happy with anything and everything that a big company gives us meager consumers. In fact, I'll let everyone know that we should just stop talking politics as well. As clearly everything that Obama is doing is the absolute right thing and everyone should be ecstatic about it. We consumers are always wrong and never know what we really want, the big box corporations do.

Roll over.
May 3 2011 5:16PM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Still, what's wrong with a GOOD 50mm f/1.8, with good build quality, a fast(er) motor and 7 blade aperture? That's a whole lot better than Canon's 5 blades, shitty build quality and terrible motor.

I think ANY good 50mm is nice to have (I'm not a big fan of 50mm's on a crop body, but still!) and a nice asset to your quiver. I'd rather pay a little more to have a really nice 50mm (even though it's *ONLY* a 1.8) that I'd like using than having the pretty shitty Canon 50mm that I don't like using except for when the lighting is optimal.

I think the Nikon is really underrated here - it's gonna be a whole lot better than people will think.
May 3 2011 5:40PM
0 0
profile picture
kootenayklaus
Posts: 3914 - Karma: 2,179
You know, getting a 1D IV and a D3x with all current lenses from each company would be an excellent test for a professional photographer to test for a month each. He would be in heaven, but it may put a slowdown to all of the Nikon/Canon bullshit. I am a Canon person myself, but I agree with your bottom statement.
May 3 2011 6:18PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
I see where you are coming from with that argument for sure. It's still pretty silly in my opinion, but you make some good points, it will be interesting to see if this lens turns out to perform better than the current models.
May 3 2011 6:28PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)