[PuxaVida]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1297917510' post='6182']

....

But I have to say, using Live View/LCD to shoot instead of the OVF does get a lot less attention than the latter.



GTW

[/quote]



with that I can agree...

[bryan conner]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1297917510' post='6182']

lots more people have DSLRs these days and no one really pays attention to them anymore unless you're carrying a massive white lens.

GTW

[/quote]



So.....are you saying the Nikon is a better camera system for street photography since their massive lenses are black? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />



I am only asking because I am a Canon shooter and have no idea about the dark side.....<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />

[DonAndre]

What I have: D90, 35/1.8 (DX), 18-70 (DX), 105/2.8VR, 180/2.8, SB-800.

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.



Nevertheless I see some holes in your line-up, so here's some suggestions if you want to dabble into other areas.



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.



Which takes me to the next item: You don't have a faster standard zoom. Don't know how the 18-70 is used, but there's the Tamron 17-50 (VC variant isn't worth it IMO) or the Nikon 17-55. There's also Sigma and Tokina, but I haven't been considering them. The Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.0 seems the other interesting choice. Of course the Nikon thing is big and bulky and the Tammy is nice and small and it's certainly one of my main lenses. I do have some issues with it, but I get the shots I want.



Next you don't have the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 HSM II. Probably you haven't heard of it, it's a paint that such a gem is so unknown! The 50-150 is an absolutely amazing lens and built totally for DX, which means small, light and still excellent quality. Just look at the guys with the huge 70-200 f/2.8. The Sigma's the same thing only much smaller and much lighter. I love the inner zoom mechanism so the lens stays the same size all the time and the AF is quiet. Also it's razor sharp at 50mm 2.8 and at 150mm at 4.0. I bought it for 600€. If you like to be more flexible with the portraits you take, this is one lens that you must have! It's a shame Nikon doesn't have a similar option, but then it would certainly cost way more than 1000€ and I'm not buying it at that price.



You're still missing the classic of all lenses the 50mm f/1.8 or you may want the new 1.4 version. I heard the Sigma should be even better (but also bulkier). There's times when a 50mm is just right. I like to do portraits with the 50mm f/1.8, they come out with nice colors, contrast and sharpness. DOF is pretty thin below f/2.8 though. You also don't have a real head and shoulder portrait lens like the 85mm f/1.8. There's even the 85mm f/1.4. With these you should be getting some really shallow DOF shots (which IMO is just effect, but to each his own).



You may consider adding an UWA at some point. Great for landscapes. I have the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 which is probably still the best wide-angle around. 10mm is absolutely fantastic. I had a lot of fun with it, also close-up. Then I left for the normal ranges again, but keep coming back more and more. Also the 10-20 is relatively moderate in size and weight. Most of the time I'm switching between choosing the 10-20 or the 50-150 along with the 17-50 which is always with me. And usually there's one prime also going with me which is either the 50mm or the 35mm.



Unfortunately I can't give much advice in the tele department. I'm still looking and evaluating my choices. I also don't have an immediate need, but need something for the next trip to the zoo. The Nikon 80-400 is pretty expensive and also not that overwhelming. There's also the rumor of a successor. The Sigma 120-400 was on my list for some time, but there's the AF issue and a colleague wasn't too happy with his (mainly because he didn't get it for a long time due to AF problems, the pictures looked good though). I don't quite trust the Sigma 50-500 or Sigma 150-500 although they're extremely tempting. I also looked at the Sigma 100-300 f/4, but while it looks optically sound it doesn't have stabilization and also 300mm isn't really that much. With the D80 I was also turned away of apertures such as f/6.3 at tele which also requires higher shutter speeds and thus higher ISO settings. Now that I have the D7000 that's no problem anymore. Currently the best option is probably one of the 500mm Sigmas.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1297876185' post='6172']

I never meant that. I just don't suggest to get a 50mm with FF body for streets photography. Because... see below...







Because it's bulkier than the cropped format DSLRs, bulkier than rangefinders, bulkier than 4/3s, bulkier than Nex-5 etc... I believe that, the equipments for street photography are tend to be smaller and possibly less recognizable because you take pictures of streets AND people walking/standing on it. I can't imagine a black DSLR body almost as big as a cat swinging on my chest and walking around the streets with it.

[/quote]

A 5D with 35mm lens is the size of a 5 week old kitten, I guess.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Bryan Conner' timestamp='1297972696' post='6194']

So.....are you saying the Nikon is a better camera system for street photography since their massive lenses are black? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

[/quote]

Actually no... unread individuals like junkies and street robbers think Nikon's still the best, so you'll be more likely to get mugged. Plus they also have a taste for gaudy things with fake-gold coloured rings and lettering ;D



GTW





PS: I think tonight I'll be seeing the flames of torches glistening off muddy pitchforks and the sound of an angry mob...

[DonAndre]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1298002631' post='6204']

Actually no... unread individuals like junkies and street robbers think Nikon's still the best, so you'll be more likely to get mugged. Plus they also have a taste for gaudy things with fake-gold coloured rings and lettering ;D[/quote]



I'm sure there is a grain of truth in what you said :-)

[Guest]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1298002631' post='6204']

Actually no... unread individuals like junkies and street robbers think Nikon's still the best, so you'll be more likely to get mugged. Plus they also have a taste for gaudy things with fake-gold coloured rings and lettering ;D



GTW





PS: I think tonight I'll be seeing the flames of torches glistening off muddy pitchforks and the sound of an angry mob...

[/quote]

Cool. I am so proud that this is happening in a thread started by me. I will get some popcorn for tonight. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

[quote name='Дон Андре' 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 Андре' 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 Андре' 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 Андре' 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.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='ThomasD' timestamp='1298023507' post='6212']

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]



Not just that. f1.8 on FF is faster than on APS-C. Equivalent f-value for APS-C is 1.8 / 1.5 = 1.2.

To match the full frame f1.4, you will need on APS-C: f1.4/1.5 = f0.9333(!). Or to match the f1.8 of APS-C on FF you need: f1.8 x 1.5 = f2.7.

So, in short, equivalent are:

50mm f2.8 FF | 35mm f1.8 APS-C

50mm f1.4 FF | 35mm f0.9 APS-C

That is the REAL "in terms of light gathering". A bit bigger than stated, don't you agree (more than 1 stop)?



[quote name='ThomasD' timestamp='1298023507' post='6212']

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]

Correct. Other than that the 24mm designs both from Nikon and from Canon seem to be a bit better than the 35mm designs, especially regarding bokeh. But the 24mm ones are again more expensive too.

The Canon 35mm f2 is a funny small lens, but can deliver surprisingly good results. Something to keep in mind maybe?

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1298026443' post='6213']

Not just that. f1.8 on FF is faster than on APS-C. Equivalent f-value for APS-C is 1.8 / 1.5 = 1.2.

To match the full frame f1.4, you will need on APS-C: f1.4/1.5 = f0.9333(!). Or to match the f1.8 of APS-C on FF you need: f1.8 x 1.5 = f2.7.

So, in short, equivalent are:

50mm f2.8 FF | 35mm f1.8 APS-C

50mm f1.4 FF | 35mm f0.9 APS-C

That is the REAL "in terms of light gathering". A bit bigger than stated, don't you agree (more than 1 stop)?

[/quote]

Well, I was thinking in terms of EV, where the f-stop is independent of the size of sensor you project the image on. Considering that the light is distributed over a larger area on FF changes the picture of course.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1298026443' post='6213']

Correct. Other than that the 24mm designs both from Nikon and from Canon seem to be a bit better than the 35mm designs, especially regarding bokeh. But the 24mm ones are again more expensive too.

The Canon 35mm f2 is a funny small lens, but can deliver surprisingly good results. Something to keep in mind maybe?

[/quote]

Surely. Looking at all these non-L primes, one may well get to the point where a FF investment becomes cheaper than APS-C. That is, however, also true for Nikon, although Canon has a slightly wider choice of primes.



Any opinions about Canon's 28/1.8, btw? Reviews seem to indicate that one should better avoid that lens.