• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

A surprise visitor in the test lab today :)


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,925 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 15 December 2016 - 11:34 PM

MST_5304.jpg


Editor (Nikon, Leica, Samsung reviews)
photozone.de

#2 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 991 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 16 December 2016 - 04:36 AM

One thing i am sure of, it will be hard sending this lens back once testing is over.

#3 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts

Posted 16 December 2016 - 06:26 AM

  Ah...did it just roll in blown by the wind?

 

   It's made quite a few waves already,  expensive, big, cited as a bit plasticy in finish and made in China!

 

  Initial changed images from the lens on Flickr were controversial...
 

 Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals did a strip down after finding dust in the lens, Nikon's advertising blurb stated it had a "direct-drive ring motor with no gears".

  Roger found a small ceramic HF motor driving white nylon gears and published his report....Nikon's blurb department retracted that publicity within 24 hours!!

 

  The images published on DPreview's Nikon lens page showed beautiful punchy sharp images with melting blurring, although it does have a tendency to bubble bokeh against background foliage!

 

  So it got off to a shaky start...but it's one hell of  a lens!



#4 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 16 December 2016 - 07:17 AM

And all are irrelevant because it has the wrong mount :P



#5 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 16 December 2016 - 07:25 AM

"hell of a lens..." not all say that  :D

 

By coincidence I was sneaking in the good old Nikon retirement rumors forum, a lot of men thinking in older dimensions than their grandfathers could think in. One new / old member, former PitchBlack, now PeachBlack was very cheerful about his new Sigma 85/1.4 Art which in his eyes is one heller of a lens.

 

Interesting points: 105 only 3° FoV different to 85, but for the price of the 105 you get the Sigma and a 35/1.4 Art for free. (+150 gram extra weight only by the 85...)  :lol: Being the 85 still a better lens than the 105. I hear already the people who were telling the 58 had the better bokeh than the Sigma 50 Art, they will come out of their caves and have a comeback soon if they are not already throwing their blend grenades.

 

Hell, why not, hell as place can mean a lot of things. I waited 2 years for the Sigma and to my surprise, I'm really done with buying big bricks of glass. Yes the 85/1.4 G is under certain circumstances delivering only mediocre performance and the Sigma is not that much cheaper, so it has to be way better, optically. I just don't want to waste another half day to adjust focus



#6 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 991 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 16 December 2016 - 08:53 AM

And all are irrelevant because it has the wrong mount :P

attention read that the adapter to Sony can cause serious damage tom your camera when using this lens, I think they will find a solution of this very soon 



#7 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 16 December 2016 - 09:57 AM

I don't really like using Nikon lenses to begin with. Everything is backwards compared to almost everything I have. How you mount them is backwards, focus ring turns backwards, zoom ring turns backwards. Aperture ring turns backwards...

 

I'm surprised how they managed to get everything so wrong :P 



#8 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 16 December 2016 - 10:14 AM

This lens has no aperture ring...  B)

 

:lol:

 

And being surprised "how they managed to get everything so wrong" - come on, doing it exactly differently will attract all people who see Canon cameras as piece of loveless formed plastic chunk. Obviously there must be enough people who like ugly cameras.

 

:ph34r:


  • Rover likes this

#9 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 16 December 2016 - 11:35 AM

This lens has no aperture ring...  B)

 

:lol:

 

And being surprised "how they managed to get everything so wrong" - come on, doing it exactly differently will attract all people who see Canon cameras as piece of loveless formed plastic chunk. Obviously there must be enough people who like ugly cameras.

 

:ph34r:

 

 

I know it has no aperture ring, that's also wrong if you are still using Nikon's old film cameras (I mean one of three people who still use them). 

 

The high point of opposite-of-whatever-Canon-does* behavior was probably D70, where you had to press up/down to scroll images because Canon was using left/right.

 

All jokes aside, only thing Nikon objectively does wrong is product naming. It's a huge mess and they won't be able to get themselves out of it unless they begin from scratch.

 

 

 

*Actually it's not only bizarro-Canon, it's almost bizarro-everything. Sony/Minolta AF, Sony E, Minolta MD/MC, almost all m42, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Canon FD, Canon EF, Leica m39, Leica M, Pentax 67, Pentax K... and many more have the same focus ring direction. Aperture ring direction varies a bit more but most of them are the same as old Canon FD. Even lens mounting technique is mostly the same (Alight at top and twist right. Except for Fuji. They agree with Nikon on mostly everything.



#10 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 16 December 2016 - 11:46 AM

All jokes aside, only thing Nikon objectively does wrong is product naming. It's a huge mess and they won't be able to get themselves out of it unless they begin from scratch.

Well, I know some classmates the "name-manager" of them was in with  ^_^

 

Yo mean, because they run out of numbers for professional APS-C bodies? No prob, in time they need to do the research if it could be already the time to dip a (less useful) toe into the mirrorless pond, they will not throw out a D510. So, they don't need to think about before the next, say, 5 years or so  <_<

 

Using (self-explaining) numbers to qualify a product  will sooner or later lead into dead-end



#11 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts

Posted 16 December 2016 - 11:55 AM

This lens has no aperture ring...  B)

 

:lol:

 

And being surprised "how they managed to get everything so wrong" - come on, doing it exactly differently will attract all people who see Canon cameras as piece of loveless formed plastic chunk. Obviously there must be enough people who like ugly cameras.

 

:ph34r:

 No aperture ring???...  How backwards do you want it to be?

 

 I once tried making love with a lady Canon shooter.......turned out she was a left hand thread!  :blink:



#12 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 16 December 2016 - 12:08 PM

I need an aperture ring!

 

Especially if it's one like on a Fujinon. You just need to place yourself in the wind in the right direction and it blows a different aperture in. This is the random aperture I always was looking for.

 

While on Nikon you need motorized wheels to come through all these 1/3 stops and you're busy for a while if you want to close aperture down (that will teach you next time not to mess around with manual settings, ha, those wheel are only for the look and feel), at Fuji is a flip with your fingernail.

 

And I don't need any sexistic comments about Canon shooters. Some of them appear to be human.



#13 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 16 December 2016 - 12:29 PM

 

 

While on Nikon you need motorized wheels to come through all these 1/3 stops and you're busy for a while if you want to close aperture down (that will teach you next time not to mess around with manual settings, ha, those wheel are only for the look and feel),.

 

That's why I usually set the camera for 1/2 step exposures, it becomes much faster to dial in what you want. However, Sony doesn't care about that when you turn the Exposure Compensation Dial on the right hand corner. Since that dial is in 1/3 steps only, camera switches back to 1/3 step mode. Probably same thing if you happen to have a lens with 1/3 aperture ring.

 

If you happen to have a Canon 85/1.2 mounted on your A7, you can set the aperture at f/1.2 only if you have selected 1/2 step increments. When you apply exposure compensation, it's f/1.3. 



#14 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 16 December 2016 - 12:38 PM

Yo mean, because they run out of numbers for professional APS-C bodies? No prob, in time they need to do the research if it could be already the time to dip a (less useful) toe into the mirrorless pond, they will not throw out a D510. So, they don't need to think about before the next, say, 5 years or so  <_<

 

Using (self-explaining) numbers to qualify a product  will sooner or later lead into dead-end

 

It used to be OK. In the film era, F50 was low end, F100 was almost high end end F5 was the top model. You could take a look and see where in the product hierarchy it's supposed to be. Before those series, F-401 was the bottom and F-801 was the highest, except for F4.

 

Digital went in the same for a while. D70, digital cousin of F70. Then came D80, which was actually same camera, updated. D90, same deal. There were D100 and D200 but D90 was actually a better camera than D100 but you couldn't see that in the model number. Then came D5000, is it supposed to be better? How about D600? Is it the new version of D500? No? Is a D7000 with a FF sensor called D700? No it's not? Oh that's what a D600 is. But come on, D750 has to be the followup camera to D700. It's not? WTF is it then? Is D300 a cheaper D500? Still no? How can you make any sense of all these things?



#15 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 16 December 2016 - 12:57 PM

You don't get it, obican: To make sense out of those names you first need to take care about differences. So you'd enter first fanboy step: reading. The second, read again because of all wrong conclusions. At step ten you already invested so much time in getting the differences straight, that you need to wash twice to brush off all forum dust. But now you need to buy the cameras you learnt so hard to define. End of consumer freedom and what every marketing department is lusting for.

 

:rolleyes:

 

I mean, come on: Pentax with their characters/numbers mixture, Olympus, Fuji, Sony with half a dozen "new" models per week (or was it day?)  - whereever you look at, they want to make something different in naming / numbering and at the end it's all the same confusion. Nikon even tried another confusion with D3, D3x, D3s, D4s (but no D4x) and so on. Does it matter? Is it more important than the pictures? Speaking if that, how many of us have a naming process for the pictures and how many just leave the numbers?


  • mst likes this

#16 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 16 December 2016 - 01:09 PM

I have no idea about Oly or Pentax but Fuji naming system is better than most. T means slr-style do it all, Pro means wannabe-Leica, E means less-wannabe-Leica and 100 means lens is fixed. More digits mean cheaper model, as in X-T1 vs X-T10. Bigger number means newer model like X-E2 vs X-E1. The internals are mostly the same among different body styles, Fuji models vary in external ergonomics.

 

The problem is, X-E2 is same as X-T1 but there is also a X-T2, which is definitely not the same thing as X-E2 but is the same thing as X-Pro2.

 

Sony is also relatively easy. If the number begins with something smaller than 6, it's junk. Otherwise bigger the number, better the camera. They got it from Minolta, where it used to mean 8&9 are pro-grade, 6&7 are cheaper all arounders and sometimes more capable than 8&9, lower numbers are beginner junk but 5 are still mostly alright.

 

Canon probably has the best naming system since they went EOS in the 80s. 


  • JoJu likes this

#17 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,925 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 16 December 2016 - 03:08 PM

I hope you don't mind if I bring this topic back to the Nikkor... because I'm having a hard time right now figuring out if there was a silly mistake in the test setup or the analysis, which I fail to see, leading to too-good-to-be-true results, or if this is simply by far the hottest glass I've ever handled...

 

-- Markus


  • Rover likes this
Editor (Nikon, Leica, Samsung reviews)
photozone.de

#18 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 16 December 2016 - 03:17 PM

I think it's supposed to be that way. Some reviewers have reached to the same conclusion as I've seen.

 

Still in the wrong mount.


  • JoJu likes this

#19 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,467 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 16 December 2016 - 03:54 PM

I hope you don't mind if I bring this topic back to the Nikkor... because I'm having a hard time right now figuring out if there was a silly mistake in the test setup or the analysis, which I fail to see, leading to too-good-to-be-true results, or if this is simply by far the hottest glass I've ever handled...

 

-- Markus

http://www.lenstip.c...resolution.html



#20 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 16 December 2016 - 10:32 PM

Maybe they've found the same long forgotten keg of fairy dust that they infused the 14-24/2.8 with...






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de