06-29-2019, 12:04 PM
If I would favour the 50 over the 35 I think I would get one - but the 35 S and the 35Art are already in da house and he 50 is just not different enough to justify the purchase and have 2 fifties. It would be different if weight and size concerned me more.
Currently the 50 S is a tad lower in price in several countries as Nikon tries to motivate potential buyers with rebates. Apparently no one has told them that the strategy of releasing the slow "cheap" versions of widely spread standard is not too attractive.
I don't understand Nikon's strategy: People looking for their first mirrorless "fullframe" and starting with a new system (maybe there are 2 or 3 such people?) look at Nikon and see just two bodies and 4 lenses (with different FL, so the two 24-70s count as one). The FL are dull except the 14-30, which has 9-10% distortion and needs SW correction desperately. These people will carry on to search until they find Sony or Canon.
People with a DSLR system can adapt their Nikon glass and enjoy a lighter body with more precise AF - but also some AF-quirks as the face detection still has it's limits. When travelling with a DSLR and mirrorless, I only take DSLR lenses and the lightweight 24-70, but the 50 or 35 - if I take one with me - will suit the DSLR, too. Travelling without DSLR is saving weight, but a fuss with the adapter if I'm taking the S lenses with me.
I'm waiting for one lens and will order it as soon as it's announced, the 85/1.8 S
Why? So far the S lenses perform really well and match the Sigmas which in most FLs are better than the F-types of Nikon. With a 35 and a 85 I can do a lot and a lot more than with the 24-70. I really do not understand why Nikon went for this 50 mm first although it's a great, small, lightweight lens. And I understand even less why Nikon doesn't push to give us more choices in FL.
Currently the 50 S is a tad lower in price in several countries as Nikon tries to motivate potential buyers with rebates. Apparently no one has told them that the strategy of releasing the slow "cheap" versions of widely spread standard is not too attractive.
I don't understand Nikon's strategy: People looking for their first mirrorless "fullframe" and starting with a new system (maybe there are 2 or 3 such people?) look at Nikon and see just two bodies and 4 lenses (with different FL, so the two 24-70s count as one). The FL are dull except the 14-30, which has 9-10% distortion and needs SW correction desperately. These people will carry on to search until they find Sony or Canon.
People with a DSLR system can adapt their Nikon glass and enjoy a lighter body with more precise AF - but also some AF-quirks as the face detection still has it's limits. When travelling with a DSLR and mirrorless, I only take DSLR lenses and the lightweight 24-70, but the 50 or 35 - if I take one with me - will suit the DSLR, too. Travelling without DSLR is saving weight, but a fuss with the adapter if I'm taking the S lenses with me.
I'm waiting for one lens and will order it as soon as it's announced, the 85/1.8 S
Why? So far the S lenses perform really well and match the Sigmas which in most FLs are better than the F-types of Nikon. With a 35 and a 85 I can do a lot and a lot more than with the 24-70. I really do not understand why Nikon went for this 50 mm first although it's a great, small, lightweight lens. And I understand even less why Nikon doesn't push to give us more choices in FL.