300mm 2.0 ?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Billb2

Billb2

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2005
3,035
70
86
f2.8 > f2.0 ? $15K. Anyway, not in my opinion.

As my wife says "You gotta be selling something special to National Geographic to afford that.".
 
finbarqs

finbarqs

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2005
3,617
2
81
nikon does have a 50 1.4, and a 85 1.4... 1/3 of a stop for 1.2 isn't that much more, let alone aperture values of 2.0+ (1.2,1.4.1.8) aren't really usable for tack sharp pics
 
9

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
Originally posted by: finbarqs
nikon does have a 50 1.4, and a 85 1.4... 1/3 of a stop for 1.2 isn't that much more, let alone aperture values of 2.0+ (1.2,1.4.1.8) aren't really usable for tack sharp pics
Click to expand...


It's not just the 1.4 vs. 1.2, it's also that most of Nikon's primes are still using the old screw-driven AF instead of newer SWD that has been implemented in many of their cheaper lenses already.

Canon's fast prime lineup:
14mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.4, 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/1.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.2, 100mm f/2, 135mm f/2, 135mm f/2.8 SF

Nikon's fast prime lineup:
14mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2 DC, 135mm f/2 DC

In some of those cases, the difference is much more than just 1/2 stop. The 24mm f/1.4L is 2 whole stops faster than the Nikon equivalent.
 
H

Heidfirst

Platinum Member
May 18, 2005
2,015
0
0
That's because the cheaper Nikon bodies (60-80% of the market?) don't have screw drive motors so the lenses need them.
People using fast, expensive glass (which sells in relatively small nos) are most likely using bodies with screw drives so it's not a priority to replace whereas pretty much you can bet that all new lenses will have in-lens motors of some kind.
Screw drive focus can be just as accurate/fast as in-lens the only area where it truly beats screw drive is noise.
 
9

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
Originally posted by: Heidfirst
That's because the cheaper Nikon bodies (60-80% of the market?) don't have screw drive motors so the lenses need them.
People using fast, expensive glass (which sells in relatively small nos) are most likely using bodies with screw drives so it's not a priority to replace whereas pretty much you can bet that all new lenses will have in-lens motors of some kind.
Screw drive focus can be just as accurate/fast as in-lens the only area where it truly beats screw drive is noise.
Click to expand...

I haven't found this completely true in my experience. Yes, screw drive lenses can be fast, but not as fast as in-lens ultrasonic motors. I've used a Nikon 50 1.8 and 50 1.4, both of which are supposed to be pretty fast as far as AF goes. However, neither one comes close to the seemingly instantaneous AF speed on the 135L or even the AF speed on my Caonn 70-210 USM (which isn't even a prime lens).

Baiscally, my point is that it's been a while since many of these lenses have last been updated, so I think the time is due for Nikon to put in SWM motors and maybe change the optical design to include aspherical elements in some of their higher-end primes.
 
soydios

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
A really good SWM/USM focusing motor is unbelievably fast (see AF-S 300mm f/2.8). Speed in my AF-S 18-200mm VR isn't any faster than the screw driven AF in my AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D.

A 300mm f/2.0 lens is excessively large for most uses. 300mm f/2.8 is weighty enough!
 
H

Heidfirst

Platinum Member
May 18, 2005
2,015
0
0
Originally posted by: 996GT2

I haven't found this completely true in my experience. Yes, screw drive lenses can be fast, but not as fast as in-body ultrasonic motors. I've used a Nikon 50 1.8 and 50 1.4, both of which are supposed to be pretty fast as far as AF goes. However, neither one comes close to the seemingly instantaneous AF speed on the 135L or even the AF speed on my Caonn 70-210 USM (which isn't even a prime lens).
Click to expand...
Afaik you don't get in-body ultrasonic motors only in-lens?
As you can imagine a lot of it comes down to the motor fitted to the body - not sure about Nikon bodies but try something like a Dynax/Maxxum 7 or 9 ( the 7 iirc was the fastest focussing 35mm film SLR body of any manufacturer). Sony DSLR bodies (spiritual successors to Minolta of course) regularly break Sigma lens focus gears because they can't handle the torque - I can't recall seeing the same complaints re. CaNikon versions.
 
9

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
Originally posted by: Heidfirst
Originally posted by: 996GT2

I haven't found this completely true in my experience. Yes, screw drive lenses can be fast, but not as fast as in-body ultrasonic motors. I've used a Nikon 50 1.8 and 50 1.4, both of which are supposed to be pretty fast as far as AF goes. However, neither one comes close to the seemingly instantaneous AF speed on the 135L or even the AF speed on my Caonn 70-210 USM (which isn't even a prime lens).
Click to expand...
Afaik you don't get in-body ultrasonic motors only in-lens?
As you can imagine a lot of it comes down to the motor fitted to the body - not sure about Nikon bodies but try something like a Dynax/Maxxum 7 or 9 ( the 7 iirc was the fastest focussing 35mm film SLR body of any manufacturer). Sony DSLR bodies (spiritual successors to Minolta of course) regularly break Sigma lens focus gears because they can't handle the torque - I can't recall seeing the same complaints re. CaNikon versions.
Click to expand...

My bad, I meant in-lens

The Nikon D200 is supposed to have one of the faster AF motors around, since it was one of Nikon's higher-end DSLRs. But, compared to a 135L (one of the fastest focusing Canon EF lenses), the D200's loud screw-drive motor didn't hold a candle. AF on the 135L was literally almost instant...in rare situations when the 135L did hunt for focus in poor light, it went from its min. focusing distance to infinity, then back to the correct distance in LESS time than it took my D200 to lock focus in moderate light.
 
soydios

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
Originally posted by: Heidfirst
Originally posted by: 996GT2

I haven't found this completely true in my experience. Yes, screw drive lenses can be fast, but not as fast as in-body ultrasonic motors. I've used a Nikon 50 1.8 and 50 1.4, both of which are supposed to be pretty fast as far as AF goes. However, neither one comes close to the seemingly instantaneous AF speed on the 135L or even the AF speed on my Caonn 70-210 USM (which isn't even a prime lens).
Click to expand...
Afaik you don't get in-body ultrasonic motors only in-lens?
As you can imagine a lot of it comes down to the motor fitted to the body - not sure about Nikon bodies but try something like a Dynax/Maxxum 7 or 9 ( the 7 iirc was the fastest focussing 35mm film SLR body of any manufacturer). Sony DSLR bodies (spiritual successors to Minolta of course) regularly break Sigma lens focus gears because they can't handle the torque - I can't recall seeing the same complaints re. CaNikon versions.
Click to expand...

I don't know if there's any recorded cases of a Nikon F5 breaking a Nikon lens, but it was a wicked-fast focusing and shooting film body.
 
I

iGas

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2009
6,240
1
0

A lens like that is design for people that want the bragging rights. I would like to see it match up against Nikon Ff2.8 & f4.0 run of the mill lenses.

I recalled the f1.0 Canon 50mm that boasted as the lens of the century when it first came out, but photographers soon fall back to their trusty f1.2 & f1.4 50mm manual lenses, and the humble f1.8 50mm auto.

Size is not everything.
 
H

Heidfirst

Platinum Member
May 18, 2005
2,015
0
0
Originally posted by: 996GT2

The Nikon D200 is supposed to have one of the faster AF motors around, since it was one of Nikon's higher-end DSLRs. But, compared to a 135L (one of the fastest focusing Canon EF lenses), the D200's loud screw-drive motor didn't hold a candle. AF on the 135L was literally almost instant...in rare situations when the 135L did hunt for focus in poor light, it went from its min. focusing distance to infinity, then back to the correct distance in LESS time than it took my D200 to lock focus in moderate light.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I think that once USM/HSM etc. started to become more common the in-body motors on CaNikon certainly didn't get any stronger & I wouldn't be surprised if they got weaker (the motor on a KM 7D is noticeably less powerful than on a film 7) as they became legacy support rather than the main mode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom