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!

Any Nikon D600 users?

profile picture
snowisawesome
Posts: 447 - Karma: 76
Hey guys I just ordered a D600 today.  Upgrading from my D7000.  Figured it would be a good upgrade until Nikon comes out with something that shoots 1080 60p.  Does anyone on here have a D600?  How do you like it and what lenses seem to really shine on this thing.  Any input would be appreciated.  Gotta start purchasing some FX lenses soon and start shooting.
Nov 26 2012 9:07PM
4 0
profile picture
buttrapinpirate
Posts: 497 - Karma: 225
I don't have a D600 but I've shot the D4 D700 and D800 and I can say that primes really shine on these cameras and I know that the D600 will say the same. Bokeh on the 50mm 1.4 AF-D or AF-S is a must... As far as zooms go I'd have to say that the 70-200 and 16-35 (the old 16-35 AF-D) also really look good on the fringes which is hard to say for full frame zooms. But yeah 50mm would be the best bang for the buck by far, and even if money wasn't a question, I'd be interested to see another lens that could do better! Super jealous of that purchase though
Nov 26 2012 9:18PM
0 0
profile picture
snowisawesome
Posts: 447 - Karma: 76
Thanks.  I'll definitely be purchasing some primes.
Nov 26 2012 9:20PM
0 0
profile picture
benk
Posts: 1342 - Karma: 988
I upgraded to the D800, as said above primes look great, I went with a 80-200 2.8, scored it for $700 used and have hardly taken it off. Still use my fisheye in crop if I need the iso from D800 over my D90. I still havent sold my Tokina 11-16 because it still looks great at 16
Nov 27 2012 12:59AM
0 0
profile picture
snowisawesome
Posts: 447 - Karma: 76
Ya I'm excited to mess around with my DX lenses in the crop mode and figure out the different looks that this camera will produce.  Pretty stoked.
Nov 27 2012 12:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Ethan.G
Posts: 1166 - Karma: 465
As said above, prime lenses are real nice on this camera/any FF body. I shoot all primes only because they're faster, sharper and lighter.

It also depends what type of photography you do, I'll recommend specific lenses if I know what you like to photograph.
Nov 27 2012 2:12PM
0 0
profile picture
snowisawesome
Posts: 447 - Karma: 76
I'll be doing tons of outdoor photography.  Hunting, fly fishing, and landscapes.  Pretty even split between photo and video and definitely a decent dose of some timelapse photography.
Nov 27 2012 2:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Ethan.G
Posts: 1166 - Karma: 465
alright, good start. I'll list off a various number of lenses ranging in price from relatively inexpensive to expensive. (approximate prices)

Rokinon 35mm 1.4 ($500) - best 35mm lens for your money, manual focus tho.

Nikon AF-D 20mm 2.8 ($670) - relatively inexpensive compact prime that is pretty sharp, good for landscapes.

Nikon AF-S 14-24mm 2.8 ($1,950) - Nikon's best wide angle lens imo, very sharp, and versatile. big and bulky, cannot accept screw filters

Nikon AF-S 50mm 1.4 ($580) / Nikon AF-D 50mm 1.4 ($390) - typical 50mm lenses, they're both great in various situations.

Nikon AF-S 70-200mm 2.8 VR II ($2,400) - sharp, versatile, mid range-tele lens. great for sports, portraits, wildlife that isn't too far away, and even landscapes in some cases. There's also an F4 version that recently was announced ($1,450)

Nikon AF-S 85mm 1.8 ($530) - fairly new lens, fairly light, fast mid range tele lens.

Downside of the 20mm, 50mm, and 85mm is smaller focus rings with less throw on them, which make it more difficult for video

IMO, if you really want to splurge on nice, well made lenses with great optics, go Zeiss. They are all manual focus only though, something I personally prefer (mainly for my type of photography). All zeiss lenses have a really smooth long focus that's really precise.

Zeiss 15mm 2.8 ($2,950) - brand new super wide lens with very little distortion and extremely sharp.

Zeiss 21mm 2.8 (1,850) - wide angle lens, very sharp and high contrast

Zeiss 35mm 1.4 ($1,850) - sharp semi-wide angle lens

Zeiss 50mm 1.4 ($730) - standard lens

Zeiss 85mm 1.4 ($1,290) - mid range tele, real sharp and awesome for portraits



These suggestions are purely my opinion of what would be great with the camera, there's probably some bias in there and I'm sure others will recommend different lenses. Also not saying you should get all of them, just listed a variety of different lenses to choose from.
Nov 27 2012 3:54PM
0 0
profile picture
snowisawesome
Posts: 447 - Karma: 76
^Thanks for the list.  I've already been checking out a few of the one's you mentioned.  I'll probably only be able to buy one or two at the moment until I get more money.  It's always a bitch to try to pick a few from so many killer lenses.
Nov 27 2012 4:11PM
0 0
profile picture
Ethan.G
Posts: 1166 - Karma: 465
Tell me about it haha, I'm trying to decide whether I want the Zeiss 21mm, Zeiss 100mm or a Novoflex VR System Pro II panoramic head
Nov 27 2012 5:03PM
0 0
profile picture
buttrapinpirate
Posts: 497 - Karma: 225
If you don't mind me asking, how much are you willing to spend on some new glass? This would help, because obviously the more you can spend the better (most of the time). If you plan on doing video at all, primes are good for anything low light at all, and they are almost always better than zooms optically. As for Ethan, I don't necessarily agree with the Zeiss statement entirely. Don't get me wrong, AMAZING glass, I just can't warrant the extra cost for what at least to my eye (I could be wrong) is a marginal increase in performance at best to high end Nikkor glass. Another cool lens or two to look at even for video are the 135 and 105mm Defocus Control lenses. Those have the best bokeh of any nikon lens in my opinion. They are great for the softest backgrounds and isolating subjects while keeping the foreground relatively focused, which is natural for the human eye. Landscapes you absolutely can't go wrong with those two either, despite the long focal length. Also another reason for primes; if you haven't shot much with them it's never too late to start because it teaches you to move yourself to frame the shot rather than zooming in or out and essentially cheating. This moving around also opens you to a possibility of moving to a better shot location to shoot in a way you didn't see before, sounds cheesey, but it happens to me all the time. Anyways I'm excited to see what that thing produces, and post some stuff up here and show off. I'll be waiting :)
Nov 28 2012 1:50AM
0 0
profile picture
Ethan.G
Posts: 1166 - Karma: 465
I don't find there to be major significance optically with zeiss glass, but it's much more than that for me. The lenses are literally made from just glass and metal, the build quality is top notch. Ergonomics are simple yet they're also just perfect. Not to mention the smooth long focus ring. Nothing against Nikon glass at all, it's really great but zeiss is still worth the extra cost to me. The two places that I find zeiss glass to shine the most is landscape and portrait photography, so if those are your main interests I would certainly recommend them for the long run, otherwise Nikon glass will still do you extremely well.
Nov 28 2012 5:06AM
0 0
profile picture
snowisawesome
Posts: 447 - Karma: 76
Great comments.  I definitely will have at least a couple primes.  Right now my budget is around $1200-1500 for the time being.  I can use some of my DX glass also until I get ahold of some more cash for more FX lenses.  I do have to have a zoom or two because I shoot a lot of hunting which requires the ability to change focal lengths quickly without moving the camera or changing lenses otherwise I'd probably carry all primes.  The same goes for fly fishing but to a much lesser extent.  I'll be filming a few backcountry ski edits this winter so I'll be sure to post up when they're done.
Nov 28 2012 10:38AM
0 0
profile picture
jeano
Posts: 333 - Karma: 104
if you want a wide angle that will produce some fucking amazing shots, look at the 24mm 1.4g.

i owned it for about month (had to get rid of it) and its a fucking amazing lens. it renders beautiful colors and the wide angle + insanely shallow depth of field = heaven.

you could probably pick one up for about 1300 if you're lucky. i'm buying one back as soon as i get my guap up
Nov 29 2012 2:33AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61100 - Karma: 118,256
If you don't care about AF, get an older 80-200 2.8 ED or D fucking great lens and theyre like 700-800 or 400-500 if you get the older, ais push-pull.
Nov 29 2012 2:50AM
0 0
profile picture
buttrapinpirate
Posts: 497 - Karma: 225
I will agree with that statement, Zeiss lenses are top notch in build quality. I really like them for that. They never skimp on anything. Nothing is ever sacrificed and you know that when you buy one. I guess I just have a budget that limits me so my next choice for a lens will remain Nikkor. But if you have the money and don't regret your purchase for what is definitely and not arguably an upgrade, then you won't hear me saying no! And absolutely. 24mm prime is beautiful. It just sucks out the background like no other. It's such a sharp lens too. But if your first choice was a zoom and you had 1200 to 1500, then maybe either go with a 17-35 or a 70-200. I know they're on the opposite end of the spectrum, but you seem to have a lot of different things going for you. Despite the fact that they're both 2.8, the 17-35 will be faster because of more light, wider angle yada yada. And this will be good for low light scenarios or just plain old stop action or shooting without a tripod. But if you're taking about hunting then a 70-200 might be your thing. I know these lenses are all in the 2k range but never discount looking into pre owned lenses. Some people baby their lenses and they're beautiful, but they're knocked off 25 plus percent because they're used! Why not? It's like a brand new car versus a slightly used one. See and test the lens in person though. And everyone else awesome comments +10k for knowing what you're talking about. It makes me feel like there's hope for this world :P
Nov 29 2012 2:52AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61100 - Karma: 118,256
Click for larger image
Nov 29 2012 3:02AM
0 0
profile picture
snowisawesome
Posts: 447 - Karma: 76
Solid comments guys.  One question.  I really would like to own the Nikkor 14-24 but it's about 2K and I just can't afford that now.  The 24mm 1.4 is around 2K also.  I noticed that the Rokinon 24mm 1.4 is $649.  Obviously it isn't as nice but would this be a good fill-in until I get the cash for a professional lens in this length?
Nov 29 2012 10:59AM
0 0
profile picture
jeano
Posts: 333 - Karma: 104
lol dude its true though, my 24 got way more light than my 85 1.4... i can show some raw file examples
Nov 29 2012 11:41AM
0 0
profile picture
Ethan.G
Posts: 1166 - Karma: 465
I had the rokinon 24mm 1.4 and I wasn't really happy with it, I sold mine just recently. I'd recommend saving up for the 14-2mm, it's an awesome lens man I've used it a bunch of times.
Nov 29 2012 1:56PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,325
I have an 80-200 f/2.8D push-pull and they will AF, just not on d5xxx and below since they don't have an AF motor in the body required for AF-D lenses. Awesome lens, just wish it had a tripod mount, but for like $500, oh well.
Nov 29 2012 2:55PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,325
I have an 80-200 f/2.8D push-pull and they will AF, just not on d5xxx and below since they don't have an AF motor in the body required for AF-D lenses. Awesome lens, just wish it had a tripod mount, but for like $500, oh well.
Nov 29 2012 3:00PM
0 0
profile picture
buttrapinpirate
Posts: 497 - Karma: 225
Not gonna be a dick here but if you use two different lenses at the same f/ value with different focal lengths your values will be different guaranteed. Go shoot a 20mm at f/2 and an 85mm at f/2 and tell me which one has faster shutter speeds. Wide angle lenses always let in more light. Always.
Nov 29 2012 3:30PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61100 - Karma: 118,256
Aperture is a consistent value, its the size of an opening. Stop trying to spew bullshit, you are wrong.

Also, what you said makes no fucking sense. Stop trying to act like you know what you're talking about, you blatantly don't.
Nov 29 2012 3:58PM
0 0
profile picture
jeano
Posts: 333 - Karma: 104
sorry evan but youre wrong :/

i shoot a ton of concerts and events and my main lens is the 85 1.4d. when i got the 24 1.4g, i was blown away by how much more light it captured. i was shooting with the 85 at 1.4 @ 1/125, and with the 24 at 1.4 @ 1/250-1/500, and from there started stopping down my iso. and trust me i shoot a lot of shows and i know my shit.


Nov 29 2012 5:42PM
0 0
profile picture
buttrapinpirate
Posts: 497 - Karma: 225
Thank you, you know what you're talking about! Think about it this way Evan, lets say you take a picture of an all white room with an ambient like source and let's pretend there's no spot light or brighter sections for the proof of concept here. I take the picture with a 14mm lens and it captures a large portion of the room, almost all of it. It will capture a shit ton more light than that of say, a 200mm 2.8 lens which will only capture a small portion of the light from one small rectangle that is the frame of the picture. Say probably a 2x2 foot section. Now obviously more light will enter the 14mm 2.8 because it's capturing a shit ton of light! And I was trying to be nice, I happen to know a lot about photography, clearly a lot more than you! And I know a lot about apertures, stopping up and down, zone systems, whatever. So quiz away. Because you could learn a thing or two. Also make sure you know what you're talking about before you rant on someone and be a total asshole and tell me that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Thanks for backing me up Jeano
Nov 29 2012 6:35PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61100 - Karma: 118,256
it's not that more light enters the lens, its that are larger area of light is being seen. Obviously a wide shot of a concert will look brighter because you will see more lights while a 85mm shot of that same angle will have 1/10 of the lights in the frame. I see what you're saying but the aperture physically only lets in so much light...
Nov 29 2012 6:53PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61100 - Karma: 118,256
To add more validity to the facts, why do you think cine lenses are all the same f-stop? It's so they can change lenses (ie 18mm to 85mm) and have the same exposure as their previous frame just at a tighter FOV.

Again, i get what you guys are trying to explain, but its NOT becuase more light enters the lens. The same amount of light enters for a 8mm to a 300mm its WHAT LIGHT IS BEING CAPTURED that determains a frame. If a room is dark with very little light source, a 8mm is gonna be just as dark as a 300mm. The situations you guys are talking about have very variable light sources. If there was a dark street, with one light pole, with the subject underneath it, the exposure of that subject would be the same with a 24mm @ 1.4 or a 85mm @ 1.4. It is a fact that aperture is a consistent measure between lenses, f1.4 is f1.4 on a different lens, and so on, a wider lens DOES NOT let in more light at 1.4 than a tele lens at 1.4.
Nov 29 2012 7:00PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31038 - Karma: 29,003
You guys are ALL idiots, hahaha

Fstops are a UNIVERSAL measurement of THEORETICAL light that will be transmitted to the image plane through that lens. Unfortunately, this does not take into account light that is absorbed or diffracted by the elements in practice. NOR are the manufacturers 100% accurate on their labeling. Look at patients from canon on their lenses, it's not common for a lens to be labelled f4 but really have a CALCULATED value of f4.4, and probably even slower in practice. (If you're curious, this is why they use T/stops in Cinema. Transmission stops are an ACTUAL measurement of how much light makes it through the lens, not based on an ideal world situation. Where matching exposure was critical, so was having a measurement of the exposure to make SURE each lenses had the exact same aperture).
Nov 29 2012 7:15PM
0 0
profile picture
buttrapinpirate
Posts: 497 - Karma: 225
I will definitely agree with this... However, 99.99 percent of the time wider angle lenses for dslr's are faster due to the fact that it lets in more light. I understand what you are saying and you are spot on, however, generally speaking, wider angles are faster for the purpose of what we are talking about here
Nov 29 2012 7:20PM
0 0
profile picture
jeano
Posts: 333 - Karma: 104
haha fuck this theoretical bullshit, a wide angle lens will get more light than a telephoto lens at the same aperture. please, stop with this google bullshit, ive shot enough shows to know that wide angle lenses capture more light. you guys make ski videos in broad daylight, what do you know about shooting at 1.4
Nov 29 2012 7:24PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31038 - Karma: 29,003
I spend my time in the summer shooting weddings and getting paid to do so, I have more than my fair share shooting a dark venue at 1.4 on various focal lengths. So I do "know something about shooting at 1.4" (It's a bitch to focus, that's for sure). In addition, I consider myself extremely knowledgable in the field of camera technology. I googled nothing in the past two posts I've made calling out your absolutely retarded bullshit besides the one image in the other thread. Everything else is from previous research i've done over the years and learned. Google it if you want, no copy paste there or here.

I will say you two are correct, somewhat, in theory, on the whole "wide takes in more light." It is true, a larger FOV means more light will be absorbed. Several things are wrong with this though in practice:

In an attempt to make lenses universal by rating them to similar fstops for continuity, lens creators do make wider lenses with smaller "full open" diaphragms to equalize them with the rest of the playing field. Look at the size of the aperture opening of the 200 1.8, and then the size of it in an f1.4 24mm. IN REALITY A 24 f1.4, or 16-35 f2.8, or 17-40 f4, will have smaller wide open apertures than an 85 1.4, 70-200 2.8, or 300 f4. Your theory is proved, but your reality is bunk.

You can laugh all you want at "Theoretical bullshit," but it doesn't dismiss the fact that it's true. Fstops are a universal measurement but are not universally measured between every lens. I bet you $10, paypal gift, if you borrowed a 24 and 85 ultraprime from Zeiss, set them to the same Tstop and took two images of the same subject at the same FOV you'd get two equally exposed shots.

Obviously something that can see a HUGE area, where light is all over the place, will take in more of it, versus a more concentrated area that may not have enough light. Ever stop to consider, in your glamorous concert shooting job, that your 85 may be "slower" than your 24 because you're just focusing on say, the talents face? And not the whole venue with an infinite number of lasers and strobes everywhere?
Nov 29 2012 7:45PM
0 0
profile picture
jeano
Posts: 333 - Karma: 104
blablabla more numbers and crap lol

i shoot full manual and settings dont lie, under the same lighting conditions, the performers face will be way more blown out on the 24 than it would be on the 85

and weddings? really? who the fuck has a wedding in a pitch black environment with like strobe lights n shit? for the 200 or so actual hours shooting in the pit i know for a fact that what im stating is true because ive experienced it!


Nov 29 2012 8:02PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61100 - Karma: 118,256
Wider lenses seem brighter because they absorb more light, because of the FOV. The lens does not physically let more light in, there is just more light cause of the FOV
Nov 29 2012 9:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,398
this is why i don't take photo advice on NS
Nov 29 2012 11:00PM
0 0
profile picture
buttrapinpirate
Posts: 497 - Karma: 225
It seems hard to get anywhere on here that's for sure
Nov 30 2012 2:14AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)