TR Forums

Voldenuit · Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:06 pm

churin wrote:
Voldenuit wrote:
churin wrote:
Presently, I am considering 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S.

No. Dear God, just... no.

Please don't spend a lot of money (even though the D610 is fairly inexpensive for a FF body) on a camera body just to put a **** lens in front of it.

That bad? It is 5 star rated by 96 reviwers at Nikon website.

You're looking at a bad case of confirmation bias going on - ppl are more likely to positively rate something they've spent money on.

For portraits: Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G

What is wrong with AF-S 50mm f/1.4G I own for portrait?

Classical focal lengths for portraits are 65mm to 135mm (35mm film equivalent). Longer focal lengths tend to compress features and produce what some may consider a more 'flattering' image. However, there have been some famous photographers like Henri Cartier-Besson who've taken some striking (though not always flattering) portraits on 50mm. Note that on the D7000, the 1.5x crop factor turns the 50mm lens into an effective 75mm lens, so if you stick with the D7000, there would be no concerns with distorting head and shoulder portraits using the 50mm lens on the D7000.

Here are a few useful examples:
http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2010/07/21/the-ideal-focal-length-for-portraiture-a-photographers-experiment/
http://digital-photography-school.com/how-focal-length-changes-the-shape-of-the-face-in-portraiture

For macros:
AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED or
AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
These would also be good for portraits, depending on the look you're after and the working distance you have available. If you already have the 50/1.4, you may consider getting the 105/2.8 and skipping the 85/1.8 as the 105 can double nicely as a portrait lens.

For landscapes:
Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 G ED or
Tokina AF 17-35mm f/4 AT-X Pro FX
Note that you'll have to stop down to get acceptable corner sharpness on both these lenses. See below.

General walk-around lens:
Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
Bear in mind that the corners will be slightly soft wide open with this lens. This is one of the tradeoffs of moving to full frame.

I think what you are saying is that the zoom lens having a large range should be avoided and a proper lens should be picked for each shooting situation - portrait, closeup, landscape, etc.
I want to start with 50/1.4 plus one more lens which I have to decide on. My budget for that lens is not much more than $1000. What lens could be the best compromise?

On APS-C, a classic high end walkaround lens is a 17-50/2.8. The equivalent on FF is the 24-70/2.8, but those tend to be much more expensive. I third End User's suggestion to rent a full frame camera and lenses before buying one. In the meanime, I think you'll find that the D7000 still has a very deep well of functionality for you to learn with. Who knows, maybe after you've mastered shooting with APS-C, you might decide to skip full frame altogether and move 'up' to medium format!

PenGun · Fri Dec 27, 2013 2:33 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:
What makes an interchangeable lens camera great is mostly the selection of lenses that you can mount. Therefore, we have Canon and Nikon at the top, traiiled by Sony. The other brands are fringe players.

Sony just kicked Canon and Nikon hard in the balls. They are trying to recover. With the beat down Fuji has already performed on all APS-C cameras things have changed a great deal in the last while.

Both Canon and Nikon are in trouble. Nikon is especially troubled, and if they cannot equal what has recently occurred they are doomed.

You should understand a lot of people have a great deal invested in lenses and platform commitment. When the facts change it's hard for these invested people to deal with. I am already moving from my very fine Fuji X-E1 and have sold my beloved XF 14mm and I now own a Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8 for the new a7R when I get it. I'm a poor pensioner so this can take awhile.

It's a whole new ball game and the filed is changing fast. Pro tip, LOL, just buy Zeiss and Leica lenses if you can.

End User · Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:23 pm

PenGun wrote:
JustAnEngineer wrote:
What makes an interchangeable lens camera great is mostly the selection of lenses that you can mount. Therefore, we have Canon and Nikon at the top, traiiled by Sony. The other brands are fringe players.

Sony just kicked Canon and Nikon hard in the balls. They are trying to recover. With the beat down Fuji has already performed on all APS-C cameras things have changed a great deal in the last while.

Both Canon and Nikon are in trouble. Nikon is especially troubled, and if they cannot equal what has recently occurred they are doomed.

You should understand a lot of people have a great deal invested in lenses and platform commitment. When the facts change it's hard for these invested people to deal with. I am already moving from my very fine Fuji X-E1 and have sold my beloved XF 14mm and I now own a Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8 for the new a7R when I get it. I'm a poor pensioner so this can take awhile.

It's a whole new ball game and the filed is changing fast. Pro tip, LOL, just buy Zeiss and Leica lenses if you can.

Pro tip: start your own thread

PenGun · Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:29 pm

End User wrote:
PenGun wrote:
JustAnEngineer wrote:
What makes an interchangeable lens camera great is mostly the selection of lenses that you can mount. Therefore, we have Canon and Nikon at the top, traiiled by Sony. The other brands are fringe players.

Sony just kicked Canon and Nikon hard in the balls. They are trying to recover. With the beat down Fuji has already performed on all APS-C cameras things have changed a great deal in the last while.

Both Canon and Nikon are in trouble. Nikon is especially troubled, and if they cannot equal what has recently occurred they are doomed.

You should understand a lot of people have a great deal invested in lenses and platform commitment. When the facts change it's hard for these invested people to deal with. I am already moving from my very fine Fuji X-E1 and have sold my beloved XF 14mm and I now own a Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8 for the new a7R when I get it. I'm a poor pensioner so this can take awhile.

It's a whole new ball game and the filed is changing fast. Pro tip, LOL, just buy Zeiss and Leica lenses if you can.

Pro tip: start your own thread

The OP although perhaps invested in some of the Canon/Nikon stuff does need to hear that the game has changed quite a bit. I have made it as plain as I can without actually insulting anyone.

Modern APS-C is ruled by the Fuji X Trans sensor. The FF sensors are ruled by Sony's sensors and the one in the a7R is their latest.

Voldenuit · Fri Dec 27, 2013 4:21 pm

PenGun wrote:
The OP although perhaps invested in some of the Canon/Nikon stuff does need to hear that the game has changed quite a bit. I have made it as plain as I can without actually insulting anyone.

Modern APS-C is ruled by the Fuji X Trans sensor. The FF sensors are ruled by Sony's sensors and the one in the a7R is their latest.

Fuji is certainly kicking it out of the park, with APS-C performance that is rivaling (and besting in some cases) full frame sensors*. It's also a very compelling system for lovers of small fast primes.

However, I agree with End User that it doesn't seem as though the OP is interested in switching systems, so it's unlikely to factor into his buying decisions. And there are things the X- system just doesn't do as well as DLSRs (such as sports photography). Which, incidentally, was not in the OP's list of photographic activities.

That said, I think it still makes the best economic sense for the OP to stick with his D7000 and to invest in better lenses instead of a new body (or system).

* With the teamup between Panasonic and Fuji, I'd be very interested to see what they can do with Panasonic's upcoming additive (instead of subtractive) color filter that will gain en extra 1.5 stops over conventional Bayer filters. I predict that in the coming years, light sensitivity and noise characteristics of bodies will no longer be relevant (as all bodies will have sensor sensitivities surpassing that of the naked eye), and the focus will switch back onto lenses, just as it was in film days.

EDIT: Canon's "dual pixel" on-sensor PDAF is also very interesting, as they are the only ppl right now (that I know of) that can achieve on-sensor PDAF without sacrificing or blocking off pixels. It's going to be an interesting few years.

churin · Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:40 am

I am aware that I do not know D7000 enough to move to a new camera - D610. However, I have come to know there are two different kinds of lenses being DX and FX, and the camera sensor size has something to do with them. I thought if I ever wanted to upgrade D7000 to a full frame camera I should do it early on before building a collection of lenses. The D610 is just as light as D7000 to carry around and I can learn how to use DSLR with D610.

TheEmrys · Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:25 pm

churin wrote:
I am aware that I do not know D7000 enough to move to a new camera - D610. However, I have come to know there are two different kinds of lenses being DX and FX, and the camera sensor size has something to do with them. I thought if I ever wanted to upgrade D7000 to a full frame camera I should do it early on before building a collection of lenses. The D610 is just as light as D7000 to carry around and I can learn how to use DSLR with D610.

The problem is that you will have a bunch of cropped frame lenses that will not work well (they can work, but not well) on a full frame sensor. If you upgrade to a full frame body, what lenses will you use? I just did this exact upgrade, albeit in the Sony world. I sold my 5 most used lenses with my a65 because they will be useless on a full frame body. But, I have a nice 50/1.4, 90/2.8, and an amazing 80-200/2.8 that are all FF ready. I bought my a99 (be here Tuesday!) knowing that I have a 100-300 coming very soon, and ordered a 28-75/2.8 and a 24-105/3.5-4.5. I'll have a complete kit. Now if I can just land a 17-35...... But, you have to have some full frame (FX) lenses or you won't have anything to shoot with. It will be like a car without a transmission and an amazing engine. A good engine is only as good as the transmission attached to it. Same with the camera. It isn't a horse and cart issue, its an engine and transmission. You really need to have both in order to go well.

Voldenuit · Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:50 pm

churin wrote:
I am aware that I do not know D7000 enough to move to a new camera - D610. However, I have come to know there are two different kinds of lenses being DX and FX, and the camera sensor size has something to do with them. I thought if I ever wanted to upgrade D7000 to a full frame camera I should do it early on before building a collection of lenses. The D610 is just as light as D7000 to carry around and I can learn how to use DSLR with D610.

FX lenses are usable on both FX and DX bodies. Some of the newer Nikon FF bodies also have a 'crop' mode, that allow you to shoot with DX lenses, however, this is not recommended as you lose out on a lot of sensor area and resolution.

I don't think 'upgrading' to full frame is a photographic necessity, any more than it is 'necessary' for full frame users to 'upgrade' to medium format. However, that doesn't mean it can't make sense for a photographer to decide that full frame "makes sense" for them and to go for it. I learned photography on 35mm film and manual SLRs, so it's not as if it's any harder to learn on full frame vs APS-C. Just bear in mind that with all their advantages, full frame also comes with its own limitations and drawbacks (some of which I've touched upon).

I guess timing could be sensitive - if you have someone waiting to take the D7000 off your hands now, that sounds like a great opportunity. Personally, if I could start my camera system from scratch, I'd probably move to the Fuji X system like Pengun suggested. A very compact system with small high-performing bodies and small excellent lenses, but not ideal for sports.

End User · Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:12 pm

churin wrote:
I am aware that I do not know D7000 enough to move to a new camera - D610. However, I have come to know there are two different kinds of lenses being DX and FX, and the camera sensor size has something to do with them. I thought if I ever wanted to upgrade D7000 to a full frame camera I should do it early on before building a collection of lenses. The D610 is just as light as D7000 to carry around and I can learn how to use DSLR with D610.

I have a D80 yet I am using FX lenses (I love my 85mm f/1.4 D). I have no immediate desire to buy a FF camera as my amateur photography (architecture/long exposure/motorsport/family) does not require a FF sensor. What I need in a replacement camera is one with better low light capabilities and faster FPS and I don't need FF for either. The D7100 is currently the camera that fits my needs and budget. My next lens will be a 135mm f/2 DC. I'm going to buy the lens before the camera.

Stick with your excellent D7000 and buy a cool lens (or two). Lenses will last longer than camera bodies and they will do more for your photography.

End User · Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:42 pm

PenGun wrote:
Modern APS-C is ruled by the Fuji X Trans X sensor. The FF sensors are ruled by Sony's sensors and the one in the a7R is their latest.

You are going off on a bizarre tangent to champion your own choices. The OP wants to move away from APS-C so going on about the amazeballs APS-C "Fuji X Trans sensor" was pointless.

It appears as if the sensor in the a7R is the same one used in the Nikon D800E.

PenGun · Sat Dec 28, 2013 4:13 pm

End User wrote:
PenGun wrote:
Modern APS-C is ruled by the Fuji X Trans X sensor. The FF sensors are ruled by Sony's sensors and the one in the a7R is their latest.

You are going off on a bizarre tangent to champion your own choices. The OP wants to move away from APS-C so going on about the amazeballs APS-C "Fuji X Trans sensor" was pointless.

It appears as if the sensor in the a7R is the same one used in the Nikon D800E.

Indeed, although the a7R sensor has some advances over the D800 one. That sensor has tested better than some medium format sensors, the S2 among others. There is little doubt that sensor rules FF.

The X Trans sensor is a Sony sensor too. It is just amazing and the host of pros tossing their FF gear for it speaks to it's preeminent position among APS-C sensors.

I was just pointing out that the game has changed ... a lot. The old, just get a Canon or Nikon, is not really good advice anymore.

End User · Sat Dec 28, 2013 6:38 pm

PenGun wrote:
The old, just get a Canon or Nikon, is not really good advice anymore.

There is solid reasoning behind that advice. I believe JustAnEngineer's previous post sums it up nicely:

JustAnEngineer wrote:
What makes an interchangeable lens camera great is mostly the selection of lenses that you can mount. Therefore, we have Canon and Nikon at the top, traiiled by Sony. The other brands are fringe players.

X Mount cameras have a small range of available lenses. That alone knocks them out of the running for me.

TheEmrys · Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:00 pm

End User wrote:
X Mount cameras have a small range of available lenses. That alone knocks them out of the running for me.

This is something I hear and read a lot, but never seems to make sense. If someone were a prime shooter indoors or for landscapes or even studio work, the fuji is a pretty robust selection. The sheer number of lenses available does not mean a need is met or unmet. It all depends on what lenses that are available that suit your shooting. Even the amount of lenses that are available are deceiving when you factor in whether or not they will actually autofocus on a given body (d5x00's, etc). Shoot, and for most of those other makers who have IBIS, they don't need to make 3 versions of the same lens to accommodate normal, IS, and USM. Number of lenses is awfully misleading. If the manufacturer has the range you need at the quality you enjoy, then there really isn't much to fault them for. In an ideal world, I'd have 1/3 of Canon glass, 1/3 of Sony, 1/3 of Oly, Nikon, and Fuji, on a body that had the Nikon DF's low light, with a Sony 36mp sensor, but with Olympus' 5 point IBIS and EVF. But, when choosing a system, all of these are factors to consider. Sheer number of lenses is silly unless you need something specific.

Yeats · Sat Dec 28, 2013 10:37 pm

Most systems have oodles of lenses available... just get an adapter.

Airmantharp · Sat Dec 28, 2013 10:43 pm

Yeats wrote:
Most systems have oodles of lenses available... just get an adapter.

...and lose AF, at least, if not everything else. It's a great solution for alt glass, sure, but adapted lenses aren't the best basis for a well-rounded system. No one's going to be shooting sports with an A7r and adapted EF glass, after all

.

Yeats · Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:01 pm

Airmantharp wrote:
Yeats wrote:
Most systems have oodles of lenses available... just get an adapter.

...and lose AF, at least, if not everything else. It's a great solution for alt glass, sure, but adapted lenses aren't the best basis for a well-rounded system. No one's going to be shooting sports with an A7r and adapted EF glass, after all .

For many needs, though, AF is unnecessary, a crutch for lazy snapshooters. :wink:

This year I've been shooting wildlife with a 50 yr old Takumar 200/5.6, and even with AF lenses sometimes choose to MF for composition purposes (or necessity, like photographing a heron amid tall grass).

Anyway, I'm just indiscriminately flinging words and curmudgeonly sentiments around... what I really mean - and I think you can catch my drift - is that even with a system that has limited native lens selection, adapted glass can really fill the gaps, and provide a different and inspiring viewpoint on photography.

PenGun · Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:11 pm

I bought a very old Leica 135mm 4 from about 1962. It was advertized as the sharpest lens ever made for 35mm and today on my Fuji X-E1 is frighteningly sharp. I have the Fuji XF 60mm 2.4 Macro, a very sharp lens, and I thought it would be very hard to beat it. The Leica wienies go on about 3d quality and how magical the lenses are. I always thought it was just nonsense ... till I bought one.

Now I know better.

Airmantharp · Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:10 am

PenGun wrote:
I bought a very old Leica 135mm 4 from about 1962. It was advertized as the sharpest lens ever made for 35mm and today on my Fuji X-E1 is frighteningly sharp. I have the Fuji XF 60mm 2.4 Macro, a very sharp lens, and I thought it would be very hard to beat it. The Leica wienies go on about 3d quality and how magical the lenses are. I always thought it was just nonsense ... till I bought one.

Now I know better.

They say that about Zeiss too :-p

Voldenuit · Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:29 am

Yeats wrote:
Most systems have oodles of lenses available... just get an adapter.

Nikon bodies are the worst to run adapted lenses on, because of the long flange back distance. Longer than any other DSLR system except Leica R. So no, running adapted lenses on a nikon body (especially a FF body, where the mirror action can interfere with back elements) is not a viable option.

On the flip side of the coin, this makes nikon lenses easier to adapt to other bodies. Of course, the problem with modern lens mount formats is that they are often fully electronic aperture control (and many lenses nowadays are electronic focus motor control with no manualk coupling between focus ring and focusing elements), so either don't work or need expensive electronic mount adapters.

EDIT: On re-reading your post, I realized that you may have meant that adapted lenses can cover the holes in mirrorless systems, in which case then yes, mirrorless systems are the best systems for adapted lenses because of their short FBD and lack of mirror. Want to mount a Zeiss G lens? No problemo. Want a voigtlander 50/0.95 or some leica M lenses? A doddle. Having said that, the major mirrorless formats (m43, Sony E, Fuji X) have very healthy lens selections these days, so adapted lenses are less of a necessity nowadays. But there are still some awesome old lenses out there, like Pengun alluded to.

PenGun · Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:30 am

Airmantharp wrote:
PenGun wrote:
I bought a very old Leica 135mm 4 from about 1962. It was advertized as the sharpest lens ever made for 35mm and today on my Fuji X-E1 is frighteningly sharp. I have the Fuji XF 60mm 2.4 Macro, a very sharp lens, and I thought it would be very hard to beat it. The Leica wienies go on about 3d quality and how magical the lenses are. I always thought it was just nonsense ... till I bought one.

Now I know better.

They say that about Zeiss too :-p

Yeah ... I have one and nothing to put it on. The Fuji X is too short to put a Sony E mount on. No one has made one anyway. It's nice, well made, I wish I had a camera for it.

Yeats · Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:01 am

Airmantharp wrote:
PenGun wrote:
I bought a very old Leica 135mm 4 from about 1962. It was advertized as the sharpest lens ever made for 35mm and today on my Fuji X-E1 is frighteningly sharp. I have the Fuji XF 60mm 2.4 Macro, a very sharp lens, and I thought it would be very hard to beat it. The Leica wienies go on about 3d quality and how magical the lenses are. I always thought it was just nonsense ... till I bought one.

Now I know better.

They say that about Zeiss too :-p

And Pentax. :lol:

Yeats · Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:10 am

Voldenuit wrote:
Yeats wrote:
Most systems have oodles of lenses available... just get an adapter.

Nikon bodies are the worst to run adapted lenses on, because of the long flange back distance. Longer than any other DSLR system except Leica R. So no, running adapted lenses on a nikon body (especially a FF body, where the mirror action can interfere with back elements) is not a viable option.

On the flip side of the coin, this makes nikon lenses easier to adapt to other bodies. Of course, the problem with modern lens mount formats is that they are often fully electronic aperture control (and many lenses nowadays are electronic focus motor control with no manualk coupling between focus ring and focusing elements), so either don't work or need expensive electronic mount adapters.

EDIT: On re-reading your post, I realized that you may have meant that adapted lenses can cover the holes in mirrorless systems, in which case then yes, mirrorless systems are the best systems for adapted lenses because of their short FBD and lack of mirror. Want to mount a Zeiss G lens? No problemo. Want a voigtlander 50/0.95 or some leica M lenses? A doddle. Having said that, the major mirrorless formats (m43, Sony E, Fuji X) have very healthy lens selections these days, so adapted lenses are less of a necessity nowadays. But there are still some awesome old lenses out there, like Pengun alluded to.

I actually meant that for most ILC systems, so-called legacy glass can provide many answers, although UWA can be difficult. However, Samyang has an excellent reputation with their inexpensive 14mm and 85mm lenses, which are available in multiple mounts.

My main point - and I think most folks here will agree - is that for most shooting situations (outside of long tele), every system has a selection of lenses, and there are alternative/legacy lenses available to fill in the gaps, and for specialists, cheapskates, and lens ho's.

Airmantharp · Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:40 pm

Yeats wrote:
And Pentax.

Canon is a system of lenses in need of a body; Nikon and Pentax are systems of bodies in need of lenses :-D

.

That K-3 is on bad-ass camera. If it could take Canon glass...

TheEmrys · Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:10 pm

Airmantharp wrote:
Canon is a system of lenses in need of a body; Nikon and Pentax are systems of bodies in need of lenses .

I have no idea what Canon is waiting for in regards to new bodies. I hope it is something big and revolutionary (as apposed to the a7's which are small and revolutionary). Something regarding new sensor tech or AF. But man, if its just waiting for waiting's sake, that will be highly disappointing.

Yeats · Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:19 pm

Airmantharp wrote:
Yeats wrote:
And Pentax.

Canon is a system of lenses in need of a body; Nikon and Pentax are systems of bodies in need of lenses .

That K-3 is on bad-ass camera. If it could take Canon glass...

Actually, all the Pentax "Limited" lenses are very good-to-excellent, with the FA Limited line in particular considered to exhibit that "magic" property. I know of several Canon users who have Pentax bodies specifically for use with those lenses. :wink:

The DA 35/2.8 Macro Limited is sometimes held up as one of the best AF lenses, ever. The thing about Pentax is their best lenses are not easily compared with other brands because of slightly "odd" focal lengths, apertures that don't go as wide as other brands, and compactness.

Yeats · Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:20 pm

TheEmrys wrote:
Airmantharp wrote:
Canon is a system of lenses in need of a body; Nikon and Pentax are systems of bodies in need of lenses .

I have no idea what Canon is waiting for in regards to new bodies. I hope it is something big and revolutionary (as apposed to the a7's which are small and revolutionary). Something regarding new sensor tech or AF. But man, if its just waiting for waiting's sake, that will be highly disappointing.

I thought I read somewhere earlier this year that Canon is developing a Foveon-esque sensor.

Airmantharp · Sun Dec 29, 2013 5:01 pm

Yeats wrote:
Actually, all the Pentax "Limited" lenses are very good-to-excellent, with the FA Limited line in particular considered to exhibit that "magic" property. I know of several Canon users who have Pentax bodies specifically for use with those lenses. The DA 35/2.8 Macro Limited is sometimes held up as one of the best AF lenses, ever. The thing about Pentax is their best lenses are not easily compared with other brands because of slightly "odd" focal lengths, apertures that don't go as wide as other brands, and compactness.

Pentax is definitely working on it, but they still have a long way to go.

Yeats wrote:
I thought I read somewhere earlier this year that Canon is developing a Foveon-esque sensor.

That rumour's run it's course, sure. The main problem I see is that the Foveon design loses it's marbles at high-ISO, which is where Canon currently rules; even if Canon could match or exceed a Merrill for base ISO quality, the loss of high-ISO competence wouldn't be worth it.

More exciting perhaps would be an X-Trans-esque non-Bayer CFA high-MP sensor where they can throw the AA filter out without needing to worry about moire' or special tricks a la Pentax or Nikon to alleviate it.

Yeats · Sun Dec 29, 2013 5:56 pm

Airmantharp wrote:
Pentax is definitely working on it, but they still have a long way to go.

You can have your numbers - which describe images very little - and I'll take Jun Hirakawa and some of the other Pentax optical engineers*. :wink:

Seriously, though, the proof is in the images... and I'm not saying this to denigrate Canon glass or be condescending about "working on it"... I can't get to the DXO site (it's down?), but numbers can't measure bokeh, nor rendering, nor flare resistence, nor that "special something" (which I know, sounds like a crutch, but it isn't).

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/colum ... 5-02.shtml

Yet the very best AF SLR lenses made today are the Pentax Limiteds. There are only three, and they have focal lengths apparently chosen by means of occultish numerology: there's a 31mm f/1.8 wide, a 43mm f/1.9 "true" normal, and a 77mm f/1.8 short tele. All three are made of metal (imagine that), focus manually more than passably well, and are of an size and weight that doesn't constantly penalize you, whether you're lugging them around or holding them up to your eye on a camera. They have beautiful matching metal lens hoods and a feel of quality that puts them above virtually all other AF lenses.

...

"The Greatest"

All three are utter standouts optically. With the vagaries of personal taste taken into account, no lens, however deluxe, can be called the "best" for everyone, but the Limiteds are certainly among the best. Popular Photography in its March 2002 issue called the Pentax SMC-FA 31mm Limited one of the greatest prime lenses it had ever tested (the other two were the VoigtlÃ¤nder Heliar 50mm f/3.5 and the Nikon Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P Tessar-type. This wasn't clear in the issue itself, but I contacted the Editor, Jason Schneider, who confirmed it). Yet all things considered, the 77mm may be the best lens of the three. A nearly ideal short tele, the 77mm Limited is superb â€” contrasty, excellent for portraits wide open, with a truly beautiful, delicate bokeh that compliments the almost 3-D vividness of the in-focus image. Tops in its class? There are certainly a lot of great short teles out there. But I can't name an AF SLR short tele I'd put above it.

Airmantharp wrote:
That rumour's run it's course, sure. The main problem I see is that the Foveon design loses it's marbles at high-ISO, which is where Canon currently rules; even if Canon could match or exceed a Merrill for base ISO quality, the loss of high-ISO competence wouldn't be worth it.

Canon's high-ISO performance at the APS-C level is inferior to it's competition, although it's true that it smashes Sigma's high-ISO performance.

*How many of them remain, I don't know. When Hoya owned Pentax, much was lost.

PenGun · Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:27 pm

If Popular Photography does not test Leica lenses then how would they have any idea what is good? Voigtlander is what you buy when you cannot afford a Leica lens.

Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:19 am

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-mid-tier-ca ... nance.html

Sophie Knight and Reiji Murai for Reuters on 12/30/2013 wrote:
"If you look mid-to-long term, digital camera makers are slipping and the market is becoming an oligopoly," said Credit Suisse imaging analyst Yu Yoshida. "Only those who have a strong brand and are competitive on price will last - and only Canon, Nikon and Sony fulfill those criteria," added Yoshida.

TR Forums

Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Re: Pixels and Sensor Size

Who is online