02-18-2011, 10:05 AM
[quote name='Дон Ðндре' timestamp='1297980448' post='6196']
And IMO that's an excellent set-up. Why pay a premium for getting the same at a higher price? The difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 is 2/3 stop.
[/quote]
It is in terms of light gathering of course. But comparing a 35/1.8 on DX to a 50/1.4 on FF is a huge difference in terms of DoF.
[quote name='Дон Ðндре' timestamp='1297980448' post='6196']
Nevertheless I see some holes in your line-up, so here's some suggestions if you want to dabble into other areas.
[/quote]
Well, I understand that my setup may look uncomplete, but I really never feel the need for anything else but a fast 35 equivalent and a 85-105 equivalent (the 105/2.8 is 160 on DX). I could get a 24/1.4G and a 50/1.4, 60/2.8 and/or 85/3.5 to get this on DX, but this wouldn't really save money or weight. That said, the large viewfinder of a FF camera is also tempting. Having shallower DoF on FF is also one of my main reasons for FF. In the end I guess I am already decided to go for a full-frame camera. I would not be if there were DX lenses really equivalent to full-frame lenses in every aspect. If I stay with Nikon, I will of course keep the D90 for a lighter weight kit.
[quote name='Дон Ðндре' timestamp='1297980448' post='6196']
You have a lot of good lenses, but you're probably missing something wider, like the 24mm f/1.8 (rational choice) or the 24mm f/1.4 (emotional choice). That's 36mm on your D90 and that's close to the perfect focal length (in my opinion). I have the 35mm 1.8 for myself and unfortunately it's a little bit too narrow most of the time. I feel the need to go back to my Tammy 17-50 2.8 a lot of times.
[/quote]
There is no Nikon 24/1.8, or are you talking about the Sigma? I don't think I will be buying any Sigma lens again. The Nikon 24/1.4G, on the other hand is nearly as big and pricey as the 35/1.4G. At this focal length DX has no advantage over FX.
[quote name='Дон Ðндре' timestamp='1297980448' post='6196']
Which takes me to the next item: ...
[/quote]
Thanks for your detailed thoughts. At one point I was really unsure if my lens setup is really complete and began to order and return lenses of all kinds; ultra-wides, fast zooms, tele zooms. I found that I really don't need other lenses than what I described earlier in this thread. The only thing I might ever add is a fast standard zoom. That said, you get more range with a 24-105/4 on FF than with a 17-55/2.8 on DX, where the latter is effectively not faster than the former.
And IMO that's an excellent set-up. Why pay a premium for getting the same at a higher price? The difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 is 2/3 stop.
[/quote]
It is in terms of light gathering of course. But comparing a 35/1.8 on DX to a 50/1.4 on FF is a huge difference in terms of DoF.
[quote name='Дон Ðндре' timestamp='1297980448' post='6196']
Nevertheless I see some holes in your line-up, so here's some suggestions if you want to dabble into other areas.
[/quote]
Well, I understand that my setup may look uncomplete, but I really never feel the need for anything else but a fast 35 equivalent and a 85-105 equivalent (the 105/2.8 is 160 on DX). I could get a 24/1.4G and a 50/1.4, 60/2.8 and/or 85/3.5 to get this on DX, but this wouldn't really save money or weight. That said, the large viewfinder of a FF camera is also tempting. Having shallower DoF on FF is also one of my main reasons for FF. In the end I guess I am already decided to go for a full-frame camera. I would not be if there were DX lenses really equivalent to full-frame lenses in every aspect. If I stay with Nikon, I will of course keep the D90 for a lighter weight kit.
[quote name='Дон Ðндре' timestamp='1297980448' post='6196']
You have a lot of good lenses, but you're probably missing something wider, like the 24mm f/1.8 (rational choice) or the 24mm f/1.4 (emotional choice). That's 36mm on your D90 and that's close to the perfect focal length (in my opinion). I have the 35mm 1.8 for myself and unfortunately it's a little bit too narrow most of the time. I feel the need to go back to my Tammy 17-50 2.8 a lot of times.
[/quote]
There is no Nikon 24/1.8, or are you talking about the Sigma? I don't think I will be buying any Sigma lens again. The Nikon 24/1.4G, on the other hand is nearly as big and pricey as the 35/1.4G. At this focal length DX has no advantage over FX.
[quote name='Дон Ðндре' timestamp='1297980448' post='6196']
Which takes me to the next item: ...
[/quote]
Thanks for your detailed thoughts. At one point I was really unsure if my lens setup is really complete and began to order and return lenses of all kinds; ultra-wides, fast zooms, tele zooms. I found that I really don't need other lenses than what I described earlier in this thread. The only thing I might ever add is a fast standard zoom. That said, you get more range with a 24-105/4 on FF than with a 17-55/2.8 on DX, where the latter is effectively not faster than the former.