When doing reviews of lenses from third-party manufacturers, I gained some experience and information about the compatibility, features and nuances of the operation of third-party lenses on Nikon SLR cameras.
Third Party Lenses
I am absolutely normal about third-party lenses. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina companies make a lot of different lenses, both good and not so good. There is a customer for each lens. But, whatever one may say, relatives, i.e. Nikon Nikkor original lenses have much better compatibility with Nikon cameras.
Third-party software restrictions
One of the main limitations and serious drawbacks of third party lenses is limitation in software compensation for lens imperfections... I will explain in more detail. When a Nikon Nikkor lens is mounted on a Nikon camera, the camera knows perfectly well that it has a 'native' (original) lens. The memory of modern cameras stores data on most of the native lenses, which are used for more correct and correct operation with one or another lens. Even if there is no such information in the camera's memory, but a native lens is still installed on it, it will try to compensate for the disadvantages of the lens using standard algorithms. This is most easily noticed when using the Auto Lens Correction, Auto Vignetting Correction or Lens Distortion Correction functions.
Automatic distortion correction
For example, if on a camera Nikon D3200 install a native lens Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical, then in the camera menu the item 'Auto. distortion control ', which will be responsible for distortion control. The camera will take into account the data on the level of distortion of this lens and programmatically correct its shortcomings. The same fixes can be made by native software like Nikon Capture NX-D when shooting in RAW format. If on Nikon D3200 If you install a non-native lens, for example Sigma 18-200 / 3.5-6.3, then this menu item will be unavailable and distortion control will not be carried out. This is a serious flaw for amateur photographers who shoot in JPEG format.
Auto-adjust distortion and vignetting with Adobe Lightroom
Of course, this limitation can be circumvented by shooting in RAW format, and then control lens distortion using special software. For example, Adobe Lightroom supports distortion correction and vignetting profiles for most third-party lenses. But not every amateur will be able to master quite complex software, and he will also need to spend time on the final rendering of the finished result with corrected distortions.
Focusing
I have not yet seen a third-party lens that has learned to copy Nikon's' M / A '('Auto Focus with Manual Tune / Manual Focus Priority') (UPDATE: already seen one) and Nikon 'A / M' ('Auto Focus with Manual Tune / Auto Focus Priority'). The essence of the modes is simple - when you start rotating the focusing ring, the lens disables automatic focusing and forcibly switches to manual focusing mode, while the mode works at any focusing setting. It is very comfortable. While many third-party lenses claim full manual focus control, it doesn't work like the native 'A / M' and 'M / A' modes.
Also, some Nikon cameras do not work correctly with third-party lenses during auto focus when Live View is on.
In fact, with autofocus, everything is very ambiguous - the protocols of communication between the camera and the lens are closed, which creates a lot of headaches for third-party manufacturers. It is not a fact that with the release of a new camera, old lenses from third-party manufacturers will be compatible with it.
The manufacturers of Sigma and Tamron began to produce their new lenses with the support of special docking stations, which allow using the computer to more accurately and correctly configure and program the autofocus, adjust it to the directly used camera. Most likely they were tired of user complaints about the inaccurate work of auto focus and the companies decided to release an autonomous mini-service center for setting lenses at home :).
Other
Lenses from third-party manufacturers have a lot of things wrong: for example, the zoom ring can rotate in the opposite direction, which causes unnecessary inconvenience, especially if there is a park of unified native optics with which you get used to working at the level of muscle memory. The same goes for the focus ring.
The stabilizer may not turn off or prevent metering from turning off, which may cause the camera battery to drain faster. And when shooting with a tripod, such a stabilizer can do much harm. Sigma lenses often suffer from this behavior. The stabilizer of some lenses does not work well with the built-in flash (most likely due to loss of power).
Sometimes third-party lenses do not work correctly on the original tele-converters, which is why you have to look for some compromise solutions.
Also, buying an expensive professional lens from a third party does not add 'karma' to join Nikon NPS Professional Service. To join the Nikon NPS, you need to have several cameras and several native Nikon Nikkor lenses (the number and models depend on the region).
Results
Bought a Nikon camera - buy a Nikkor lens too.
Seriously though, third-party lenses are quite compatible with Nikon cameras, but there are some peculiarities that should be struggled or put up with.
Welcome to the comments. Thanks for attention. Arkady Shapoval.
Manufacturers Sigma and Tamron began to produce their new TOP lenses with the support of special docking stations
All new (and not just TOP) Sigma work with the docking station. And they allow you to align the camera-lens system. This is very mediocre for autofocus.
Adjustment just adjusts autofocus. What is the point in it7
Adjustment does NOTHING with autofocus.
It only and exclusively amends the position of the lens block relative to the matrix.
As a result, this affects the operation of the autofocus system, and, in fact, this is done for the sake of it.
Moving the entire lens unit relative to the matrix, for some lenses, is precisely what is called “focusing”.
It is logical that alignment does nothing with the focusing system in the camera (sensors + algorithms).
Arkady, it’s strange of you to hear that. Why are you replacing concepts?
Before alignment my Sigmas showed 35,00 and 50,00 mm FR in EXIF. After adjustment - 35,60 and 50,40 mm, respectively. How did this affect autofocus?
No, at the same time, I also do not replace the concept.
probably, if everything was so simple, then there would not be such a picture with different correction values at different distances
http://static.baza.farpost.ru/v/1428402656358_bulletin
You show the zoom in the picture. Different corrections for different focal lengths.
Different corrections for different focal lengths.
—
it is vertical. horizontal distance
I am very aware of how the Sigma dock works. Because I have it.
Fixed about the Tops.
Thank you very much.
applies.
Sigma, including new ones, does not work well with AF at different distances. in the dock, you can make adjustments to 3 ranges.
It doesn’t solve the problem; ranges are 4-6. but like a crutch better than nothing.
Tuning is done in four ranges. The problem of FF \ BF is solved within half an hour.
"The problem of FF \ BF is solved within half an hour."
Of course no.
“Tuning is done in four bands”
ranges are there 3 + infinity.
the main problem is that the last range ends at 2m, then infinity at once.
those. correction for 2.5m, 3m, 5m and infinity - one.
among other things, the stability of the AF is very floating, even in the already adjusted ranges. that the sigma service has officially confirmed to me. In detail, this topic is debated on all conceivable forums.
You are correcting the lens. Not in the AF system. The stability of the AF operation depends on the lighting, the contrast of the subject, the AF system sensor, and many other parameters.
I know all this.
I'll tell you a secret - if you put on a Nikon lens, then under identical conditions it hits the target with almost no problems.
object illumination, contrast, system sensors and many other parameters do not change)))
the lens is changing)))
and yet, yes, it is enough to fix the Nikon fix one point at a distance in the carcass so that there are no problems with the hit.
Here is such a difference with sigma.
I'm reading.
Gdy skala ostrości, jeszcze przed wciśnięciem spustu migawki, jest ustawiona na nieskończoność, obiektyw trafia praktycznie bezbłędnie. 16%.
If the lens before the shot is set to infinity, it focuses without errors. If set to the minimum distance, the number of focusing errors increases to 16%.
This is a Nikon Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f / 1.4G lens.
If it’s more convenient for you in English:
When it comes to the accuracy of the autofocus, the matter is quite complicated. If you set the distance scale at infinity before pressing the shutter the lens practically never misses. When you position the scale near the minimum focus for a change, the number of misses increases to a quite high level of 16%.
http://www.lenstip.com/397.10-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_58_mm_f_1.4G_Autofocus.html
Not all Nikon lenses have stable and accurate AF. Not all Kenon lenses have stable, accurate, fast AF. (Nikon Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f / 1.4G is generally not the most successful, as well as 50mm 1.4G).
but ALL sigma lenses have problems with AF, with different corrections at different distances, and worst of all, absolutely unpredictable AF.
that's when sigma art will have such AF indicators (like the original lenses)
we don't have the slightest reservations regarding the accuracy of the autofocus. In studio conditions it didn't miss one single time. What's more, it didn't show any front or back focus tendencies on both bodies, used by us during our test.
then it will be possible to seriously consider her CHEAP new lenses for purchase. IMHO.
OK, only buy proprietary lenses.
Everything else is shit.
Do you feel better?
strange conclusions)))
actually we talked about sigma? )))
Tokins have no such problems - on such a scale as a tamron.
which provided wildly wide breadths of tokina, trick swabs, 24-70 swabs, etc.
Also could not perfectly adjust the last segment. Almost perfect, but for infinity I will survive in live view and then back and switch to manual focus. Well, at least it’s already good that I configured the dock with the station everything else.
Tell me, what is the depth of field for 35 \ 1,4 or 50 \ 1,4 at a distance of 5 meters, for example?
1 and 0.5 meters respectively for crop :-)
As I understand it, getting into the exact point of the photographed object is incredibly critical. :)))
Well, if this point is infinity, I think so. For me personally, hitting infinity is the most critical. And at 5 meters, DOF will cover.
Hyperfocal? No, you haven't heard ...
Hyperfocal is already a manual, sorry. And I'm talking about AF and finding the subject at infinity. Although, if you shoot wisely and without haste, you are right.
Michael, forgive me ...
But hyperfocal is when EVERYTHING is sharp, no matter where you are aiming. The DOF calculator will tell you where it starts, but infinity is 100500% in focus. :)
In fact, with auto focus, everything is very ambiguous - the communication protocols of the camera with the lens are closed
—
Well, they are closed to ordinary users. or is it a known fact that Sigma and Tamron do not have access to the Nikon and Canon protocol descriptions?
I suppose it's not a big problem to pull out the protocol using the feedback method. But Nikon does not provide them for lens makers, for example, as Sony did with its “E” mount in 2011, completely opening the specification to any manufacturer.
I think Nikon provides third-party lens control protocol specifications, otherwise Nikon could be charged with violating antitrust laws
nonsense. Nikon does not prohibit making lenses to third-party manufacturers - please do whatever you want. But they are not obliged to give work protocols and other technological things to anyone. I would even say that they can be protected by a patent. If sigma is something that blinds its own - no problems, no opposition. But no help either. In their place, I would also change protocols every 3 years with firmware. So that it was not common to graze on their field.
Thoughts on this subject:
- “The protocol of the camera's operation with the received data from the lens” is, possibly, classified information.
- “The documentation describing the docking of the lens with the camera (communication protocol, logic, rules, etc.)” is most likely “open” information. Moreover, it is open, under certain conditions, specifically for third-party lens manufacturers who have a contractual relationship with a camera manufacturer (Nikon, Canon, etc.).
“Reverse engineering” is one thing, and an official package of documentation for which money was paid is quite another thing. I think it would be out of hand to engage in the production of third-party lenses of dubious quality. this is high-precision production! If there is a tyap-blooper, losses will inevitably make themselves felt. Another question is that it cannot be done like in Nikon | Canon, because, again, high-precision production.
Example: if you stupidly blind a lens without specifications and try to dock it with a popular camera, then it may simply not work. Then what's the point of doing anything at all?
no. and there is no violation here - because there is no monopoly.
AF exchange protocols are completely closed for both Nikon and Kenon.
reengineering does not work well, the consequence is that when you change the camera firmware, there may be surprises, for example, old sigma sigma generally lost AF with new nikon firmware.
there is also no AF adapter for new Sony AFs for Nikon AF lenses (there are different ones for Kenon), they are trying to do something there now, to crack protocols once again.
% of AF errors in native modern lenses and the same sigma art differs at times not in favor of sigma.
Something I doubt that Sigma / Tamron / Tokina is engaged in Reverse Engineering. Business risks are too high.
The most noticeable advantages are the fact that third-party lenses are noticeably cheaper than native lenses, and besides, third-party companies have unique glasses, which Nikon, unfortunately, does not have.
Now a few examples:
Native shirik on Nikon crop is very expensive and at the same time there is no native aperture width (but there is a token of 11-16 2.8 and 11-20 2.8).
Nikon does not have a width on ff with a stub, but there is a tamron (15-30 2.8vs, which is not much inferior to Krutetskiy 14-24 2.8 from Nikon).
Sigma has a unique crop zoom with an aperture of 1.8, there is a zoom at ff with 2.0 - this is not offered by either Nikon or Canon. At the same time, sigma 18-35 1.8 is sharp with an open one, so it replaces several fixes at once.
Nikonovskiy crop 17-55 2.8 does not have a stub, while a much cheaper sigma 17-50 2.8 has.
Only very recently and at a very high price (but thanks anyway for Nikon!) Did the company release a standard zoom with aperture of 2.8 and a stab for ff, before that there was only a tamron of 24-70 2.8vs.
The same tamron came out with decent fixes with a stub (35 1.8vs, 45 1.8vs, 90 2.8s), for canon and nikon, a fix with a stub is a rarity).
70-200 2.8 from the tamron has both a stub and very good sharpness and autofocus speed, greatly inferior in price almost not inferior to the Nikon 70-200 2.8vr in the picture.
Nikon’s super-televisions are sky-high (like the canon’s ones), but the Tamron and Sigmov 150-600 are quite affordable even for an amateur (and what a focal range!).
Well, Nikon and Canon have not beaten until the tamron record with its 16-300vs (albeit at least 2mm difference with nikon 18-300vr, but still the difference, and the price of tamron is much lower).
You can also mention in passing the new sigma art, which is ahead of native glass in objective tests and subjective conclusions (especially 35mm and 50mm).
Thanks for the article, as always interesting!
Well, you can also add Tokin 10-17. Nikon has no analogues. Neither Nikon nor Canon has televiks of the Tokina 50-135 2.8 and Sigma 50-150 2.8 under the crop. So, I agree, the first paragraph in the topic is either the price or the uniqueness.
Like another 100% will be the new Sigma 50-100mm f / 1.8 DC HSM Art http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/telephoto-lenses/50-100mm-f1-8-dc-hsm-art
The price for it will be sky-high. Especially with the current rate of Baku.
Wow, I haven't heard of such a thing! One and a half kilos of weight - seriously! For a zoom from 1.8 it is quite possible to give the recommended 1100 bucks. If everything goes as well as in other recent sigma, then we can safely write off 50 1.8, 85 1.8 and 100 2.0. It’s a pity they didn’t add a stub, it would be very lacking for such focal ones, albeit with a high aperture ratio. Well, mdf in almost a meter is too much. But all the same, for me personally, such a sigma is much more interesting than their latest 24-35 2.0.
No, Pastor, it's too early to write off 50 1.8, 85 1.8 and 100 2.0 - this is glass for crop. When the Sigma 50-100mm f / 1.8 DG HSM Art is made, then we will change the fixes to it :)
Yes, for crop, but what is the problem in shooting on crop? As an amateur, I prefer crop more often. By the way, judging by the trend, this sigma may well cover a full frame with a vignette, but at 80-100 it may not exist at all. Fortunately sigma crop on canon ff get up without problems.
I think that one of the problems is that “Many are afraid to spend money on cropped glasses due to the fact that almost all advanced amateurs plan to switch to ff sooner or later”. I myself use 17-70 Sigma on the crop, for which I paid 450 USD, but I won’t raise my hand in 1100, it’s better to buy a new 135 2.0 :). For me, as an amateur, it is easier to use fixes. For example, I have an 80-200 2,8 and I really like it, but the weight greatly limits its use (this is the second problem - weight), I often set it to 85 or 180 and shoot with only one lens.
I agree that weight is often important. I, too, for simple plots for a purely walk, it is better to attach a tamron 70-300makro or canon 55-250is than drag 70-200 2.8lis2. Well, or some fix. But still, the direction of 50-100, as I understand it, is more or less a professional audience. And for the money it turns out that either for 120 thousand a set from an average crop + this sigma, or ff for 80 minimum (and used) and 70-200 2.8, which even unstable canon costs almost like sigma (well, or Nikon's 80 -200 2.8 also with a price of fifty rubles). It is clear that the focal points are a little different, but still. In addition, the sharpness of the art lenses is excellent, while the 70-200 2.8 is so-so on the open. It turns out for less money you can get almost the same features, given the higher sigma aperture ratio. In general, the novelty is not an unambiguous must have, but it is quite interesting and, I think, there will be demand. The same 18-35 1.8 when it came out was discussed mainly as a craft for the title of the fastest zoom for Canon-Nikons, such as purely for show. And in fact, many people use it and the prices for used ones are very biting, and there are few offers. In general, time will tell :)
Pastor, glass can be incomparable in its optical parameters.
like new sigma in its mass.
but if it smears unpredictably in AF, then why is it needed? for video except for manual shooting?
read the discussion of sigma art - 90% there is how to solve the problem with AF.
I sold both sigma art myself after I got tired of fighting unpredictable AF, the docking station, alas, doesn’t help.
he will buy sigma kenon (they already tried to buy it in 2015), then AF will be normal))))
I have 30 / 1,4 non-art and 105 / 2,8 Macro no problems with focus.
there was still a 70-300 Macro and with the focus, too, everything was fine
Andrey, if you don’t see a gopher, it doesn’t mean that he is not there.
here is your lens
http://www.lenstip.com/190.10-Lens_review-Sigma_30_mm_f_1.4_EX_DC_HSM_Autofocus.html
The common feature of Sigma in all the systems is the random autofocus work, which doesn't depend on HSM motor's presence at all. The number of misses, in the case of all mounts, was large. What's interesting, the least misses (on the level of small dozen or so percents) were recorded by Sigma on 20D and K10D. The lenses of Nikon and Sony mount behaved worse, as in their case the number of misses reached 19-20%. The worst was the cooperation with Olympus E-3, as there the number of misses reached a very high level of 26%.
Yes, there are many complaints with autofocus, but nevertheless, the docking station solves some of the problems (again, according to reviews, you yourself would not have had enough nerves to set up :)). I had only sigma 18-35 1.8 from the art for a more or less long time, it did not smear much, so I did not worry. But in general, autofocus is a sore spot for all third-party companies. Sigma and tamron to a greater extent, tokina to a lesser extent, but still there is a problem. By the way, regarding the manual, several times I came across people who bought 35s and 50s of sigma art and took pictures in the manual because of problems with autofocus. Moreover, people still said that they did not care about autofocus and for the sake of such a picture they were ready to turn the pens. Although personally I am not such a great connoisseur of the sigma picture, I do not think that 50 1.4 is much better in the picture 50 1.2 (and in it the autofocus, although not fast, is accurate). And nevertheless, people continue to buy and praise new sigma, so that 50-100 has a right to life.
all right. the dock solves part of the problems; tokens have the least problems from third-party lenses.
and I also thought to use 35mm and 50mm artifacts as manuals)))
but then decided it wasn’t worth it.
Yes, it’s a pity to overpay for autofocus, which can not be used :)
Yes, Tokina is also unique. Cool fish for crop. They know how to make interesting wide-angle optics. And high-aperture TV sets for crop generally do something infrequently. Apparently it is expensive to assemble a circuit with such focal length and aperture ratio, but at the same time for normal money. Because if 50-135 2.8 or 50-150 2.8 were released now, with good characteristics and stubs, then with a price even 2/3 of the price of 70-200 2.8, I'm afraid there would be few buyers. The image of a cropped SLR is too ingrained as a transitional one before buying a full frame. Many are afraid to spend money on cropped glasses due to the fact that almost all advanced amateurs plan to switch to ff sooner or later. And, probably, manufacturers know this and are afraid that when choosing between a new glass for a crop and a full-frame camera, buyers will much more often choose a new body. In general, I would like something smaller and cheaper than 70-200 2.8 per crop ...
Expensive, yes. But the weight is not the same as 70-200
That Sigma with its 50-150 OS, that Tokina with 50-135 (in general, facepalm is a screwdriver and without a stub) quickly removed them from production as soon as the budgetary FF fired.
Because it was not sold very well, because people are not used to high-quality cropped glass. At these prices, they begin to look at a new carcass, and even ff.
This 50-100 / 1.8 is more a PR move (an image-niche idea) than glass from the must-have category ... In the USA, the D7100 was sold for $ 400 in the NG sale. Do you think many owners will line up for $ 1100 glass?
–In the USA, for the NG sale of D7100 for $ 400 they gave– what a delicious price… We will not see this, and even more so in the current situation :(
Whoever needs it - they will stand up. And whoever changes the camera down for $ 1000 is not necessary. They will shoot with a whale, and then FF with a whale)))
Nikon has a shirik with a stub on FF, 16-35 / f4 VR
I agree, I forgot to add "high-aperture", I beg your pardon.
"Nikon has a shirik with a stub on FF, 16-35 / f4 VR"
================================================== ==
This is one of Nikon's worst optical lenses. monstrously soapy edges, must be clamped to 8.
Well, the rest there is mediocre or worse.
I want to bring to your attention the pictures on Nikon D7000 from Tokin 12-28, as an example. Pictures without any processing, as filmed. Converted from Rav to Lightroom.
Still.
And further.
here it’s probably worth closing the aperture stronger
For this lens, the aperture seems to be optimal, but I do not exclude the proposal.
I meant not the optimal aperture for this lens - just the rest of the flowers and not blurry and not clear, depth of field is too small
And I didn’t set myself such a task, I thought so. And for shirika large depth of field is not a problem. Shot at 28 mm.
replies
Now Sigma indicates a price of $ 1099 for 50-100 1.8, in a year it will be $ 800, in addition to 7100 there is a Canon mount camera for cinema, and a partfocal lens is just a godsend for a videographer, but with a smooth zoom. There are also people professionally filming video on 7d2, 80d is coming. For a wedding man, $ 1000 is not a price at all. So the lens will be a success, I'm sure!
Really? Remind me, what new sigma art became cheaper by 300 dollars a year after the start?
separately, sigma did poorly the reengineering of AF Kenon teams, much worse than Nikon.
due to which sigma AF on kenon generally does not work well. perhaps, as some say, Kenon simply makes a random correction to the AF if a non-native lens is placed.
this is minus canon. couldn't make their camera work with non-native lenses
minus kenon ????? )))))))))))
what are you talking about?
kenon made his system. having spent hundreds of millions of dollars and many years. (as well as nikon).
then someone comes and says - ok, I want a dough, so I will make my pieces of iron into YOUR system - ensure their compatibility, and for free)))))
and I will earn on parts for your system without spending a single dollar or development or support or software and by itself I will not share with you)))
PS
sigma has already tried to use Nikon's stub development in its lenses without permission, which Nikon proved in court
HZ what's in the minds of marketers. a larger fleet of optics - a better system for the consumer
is not a fact.
if the producers earned mainly on carcasses, then yes, you are right.
the more carcass lenses the more carcasses you can sell.
but here the opposite is true - carcasses are already sold close to s / s.
earnings are primarily on the lenses.
therefore, if sales of lenses fall below a critical limit, the manufacturer can simply stop releasing the entire system.
Even in the West it’s not always worth the good sense to look
Hence the conclusion - Canon is UG.
I will supplement the article. I bought a Samyang 14mm f2.8 AS IF UMS VDSLR - beautiful glass, but bad luck, putting it on the camera (600,610,7100), I found that the diaphragm, which had to be set with a ring, when closed, opens with a spring on the lever on the camera, with which the camera recognizes the set aperture value. I had to carry it to the master, who squeezed something in the lens, which was harder. So the VDSLR series has this compatibility feature
And the focus also depends on the refinement of both the lenses (backlash, displacement of the axes) and the carcass (displacement of the af sensor) from impacts, from temperature effects. I have two carcasses with different amendments both in “+” and in “-“, almost all equipment is used, there is no off-site service in the region, I have to live with it)) New glass - a tripod, a target with a long line, good lighting and a couple of hours of time ...
you probably did not understand - AF of third-party lenses is being discussed.
those. carcass, object, temperature, etc. does not change, only the lens changes :))))
and if the AF starts to behave unpredictably, then alas, this is an exclusively lens problem ...
Figasse, what an epic hack!
It’s nice to know that it doesn’t bother me anymore.
Full frame, remember full frame. Cheap 85 1.8 makes any 56 1.2 for Fuji in volume, for a price 4 times lower :)
I'm ok.
and 85 I do not like.
Arkady is right, at the expense of ff. and what needs to be removed from a photo? woman with a pipe on a dark background .. what feature represents?
A person who begins photographic discussion with insulting a model is of particular interest only for the European heating system on biofuel.
but what about. everyone perceives the written text in his own way. and there was no mention at all of the desire to insult the model.
but for you it’s obvious to write stupidity and turn arrows, from the category of self-affirmation functions.
when you put a photo on display, at least you need to be loyal to criticism and understand that if you made a shot, explain why and what it should convey to the viewer.
p.with what does Europe and heating have to do with it? "Kissel TV" does not give a pass in the Russian Federation?
Exactly. Wiggles or does not wiggle, you come from a trip to a warm country. You look at your photos with the D700 + 80-200 2.8 and compare them with the D300 + 55-300 and you can clearly see the difference. Naturally, a lot depends on the background. On a flat background, it is small, but when the sun, the sea, somewhere in the distance palm trees. Visible and blurred and volumes and the shape of each glare in the spray. Personally, after comparing these two, I immediately opened the photos with D40 + adapter + Pentacon 4/200 (I have a version with a bunch of petals) and you understand that not everything is decided by some “characteristics”. As I understand it and the conversation
so it's Ryska))))
do not pay attention, the flight of his thoughts is not clear)))
the frame is really passable and does not shine with meaning.
but for the author he is probably valuable in some way. can high iso?
If anyone says that this is a man - let him throw a stone at me :)
Well and most importantly, of course.
Carcass, reportage and portrait fixes, two flashes with platforms, spare batteries (for puffs and carcass) three flash modifiers.
1270 gr.
selling for 1270 hryvnia?
Lynx does not live in Ukraine, so, most likely, this is weight :-)
Arkady, is it possible physically on the crop lens 18-135 with aperture f4, well, maybe 18-120 ???
And why not?
Purely theoretically, if you modify 24-120 / 4 to 18mm ...
That's just the weight and size will be unbearable. Otherwise, they would have been released a long time ago.
Sony has a 28-135mm f / 4, but the dimensions and weight are poor
D700 + 80-200 2.8 without a stub, the picture was taken by the spouse (who hates the D700 with this lens for size and weight :)
I think that an identical picture can be taken with a micra and the weight of the system will be half as much ...
It is unlikely that the mikra will transmit the same volume - I assume that there will be some kind of sharp area on the bird on the mikra, and that in the best case (at worst everything will be abrupt), and a blurry fence will immediately grow behind it and in front of it, and it will control the depth of field. also does not give, what should be the aperture there to get an equivalent depth of field for a full frame and aperture 2,8 like this lens?
In any case, if there is some kind of super-high-aperture zoom on the mikra with similar focal, swirling background, bokeh close to the circle in the center, and around the edges to lemon, with a smooth transition to the background - I don't think it will be much easier, but it will cost as much as the D700 along with this lens and the Airbus A380 as a gift. Well, I do not believe in Nikon's unprecedented greed and universal kindness, say Panasonic.
"Will cost like D700 with this lens and Airbus A380 as a gift"
===============
most likely will cost no less. developing miniature lenses with excellent optics is a very expensive endeavor ...
“I don’t think it will be much easier,”
===============
carcass + lens - the weight will be two times less, or even 2.5 times ...
"It is unlikely that the micra will transmit the same volume .."
===============
why not? you have there definitely not depth of field for a couple of mm. a feature of the optics under the micro is the resolution peak at open, which gives the equivalent DOF = FF at 4-5.6 (the optics on FF must be slightly tightened for maximum resolution).
IMHO, it’s super telephoto complete with a mic that is an excellent solution, you can get 200-600mm with excellent quality without straining without having to hold 3-4kg of a kit in your hands and tear your neck and shoulders))))
There the depth of field is not a couple of mm, since the bird ran in search of prey, it is always perpendicular to its plane making jumping on smooth stones impossible, therefore the diaphragm was tightened, and it could freeze in order to grab the fish (which it did) and here, in my opinion, of course, the shutter speed and a beautiful drawing are important, so personally, in such cases, I focus on autofocus on the open aperture, turn it on manually so that autofocus does not catch any stone in the series and take photos with a narrow flu. But it’s quite natural that I don’t always take pictures at 2.8 :-) like since it is there and when I close the hole up to 6,3, for example, I will have more sharpness than the zoom of a beginner with 6,3.
If you need the same capabilities on a mic, then you will have a very heavy, rare and expensive lens and a small body, i.e. the system will have an odd balance - my guess is that:
1. you have to hold the lens with both hands :)
2. the price of my D700 + 80-220 ED D = case for this lens on the mic.
What's the point? :)
I take pictures on trips, on rocks and in the sand, I carry in my backpack, and I break it and buy it on ebay for a maximum of 500 bucks in excellent condition, and where are you and why?
Although everything is possible in the world, there are millionaires.
At the same time, I noticed (and apparently not only me) that the transition speed from depth of field to full blur even on DX on the same lens is faster than on FX, on the mic it will be even faster and the picture will not have volume. Although here I may be wrong.
Here is a slice from such a discussed photo, only the bird already throws the fish into the stomach. In order for the fish to be sharp in the mouth and all the droplets appear, a high shutter speed is required, naturally low ISO and of course there should not be a blurred wall behind the object and it is desirable to have limonchiki circles, and this aperture optics is not an electronic shutter at all.
“The speed of transition from depth of field to full blur, even on DX on the same lens is faster than on FX, on a mic it will be even faster and the picture will not have volume. Although I may be wrong here. "
============
the transit area depends on the optical scheme and not on the format, and of course on the size of the depth of field. therefore, for example, a 100mm makrik has a sharp transition zone, and a 100mm portrait lens has a smooth one.
"If you need the same capabilities on a mic, then you have a very heavy, rare and expensive lens."
=============
Of course not. exactly twice as easy as on FF, at a price +/- the same, maybe cheaper, and definitely not rare)))
example Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f / 2.8 PRO, 80-300mm equiv, price about $ 1300, Dust, Freeze & Splash-Proof Construction
complete with a carcass type M10 will cost $ 1700.
so here it is:
“2. the price of my D700 + 80-220 ED D = case for this lens on micr. "
definitely does not make sense)))
if you look at the new Nikon kit, the price will be MUCH more
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f / 2.8G ED VR II has a price tag of $ 2000 by itself))) and does not have frost protection.
"What's the point? :)
I shoot on trips, on rocks and in the sand, I carry it in my backpack, and I’ll break it and buy it on ebay for a maximum of 500 bucks in excellent condition, but where are you and for what? ”
=======================
the point is that the micra has a higher degree of protection, lower price (if you buy new), much less weight. for trips, the extra KG and extra dimensions are precisely critical)
"In order for the fish in the mouth to be sharp and all the droplets to be drawn, a high shutter speed is needed, naturally a low ISO, and at the same time, of course, there should not be a blurred wall behind the object and it is desirable to have lemon circles, and this is fast optics and not an electronic shutter at all."
================
the electronic shutter provides 1/16000 of which the mechanics today, alas, do not provide (before - it was). even on nikon 1, you can remove something that can not be removed on a mechanical shutter. and the rate of fire with an electronic shutter is often much higher too…. ))))
It’s possible even on a hundredth, more precisely on Huawei P9. Here is the proof:
And here's another
She is, but on the D300 + Sigma 30 / 1.4 (not art)
I'm on a D40 + adapter with a lens + Schneider-Kreuznach Edixa-Xenar 2.8 / 50 (I don't remember the diaphragm :)
I'm on D 40 + adapter with lens + ISCO-Gottingen Berolina-Westromat 3,5 / 135.
I took all this and much more to Thailand, where I carried 4 ferries, two islands, a mainland and innumerable taxi-tuktuks, alive and well, the hernia did not fall out.
I immediately apologize to the owners of Canon for the skin tone, but there is something there.
I'm on a D40 + adapter with a lens + Pentacon 4/200.
Here, of course, color contours spoil the image and all because of the poor GDR lens enlightenment ... Matrix enlightenment and resolution is something that you need to remember all the time and the MOST important thing is that you have to take pictures with Nikon with an adapter and a lens, and at the same time, photos are like everyone knows you can’t even look, so I wasn’t allowed to photograph Nikon with these and the above lenses. Especially when all the examples on the site are laid out with a reduced resolution, then of course the D700 still grows and grows before any soap dish ...
Yes, and the horizon is littered)
Yes, I was very different and in a fever forgot to write about the horizon, thanks. If you took a camera, caught the plot, but forgot with you a tripod and a level or some kind of gyroscope, then of course you cannot take pictures, if you are very young and arrogant, then you must definitely align everything in Photoshop, even if only family and friends will see the pictures ... Because someone still knows that taking a picture on a DSLR is “crooked” is a sign of “sucker” and will tell you about it right away :)
I think that in film times this was easier. the horizon could be aligned when printing photographs
It is a pity that so many Nikon lenses, when clamped on the diaphragm, give nuts, and even versatile ones. Was it really impossible to add petals or round those that are?
And it is also a pity that many excellent third-party lenses will not give infinity on Nikon, as for Canon - there the focal distance is shorter and there is no such problem.
canon has 1 petal less on average
why all of a sudden? share a secret how do you think the average? ))))))))
different lenses - different number of petals. there are 7,9 (like Nikon) and 8.
relatively recent lenses of kenon are 7 and 9.
20-30 years of development - in different ways, it was a lot since 8.
Well, you yourself know.
everything that was before STM. where Nikon 7, there Canon 6, where 9, there 8
I’m also wondering what the difference in price is. For example, my pentacon 200 has 15 or something like petals, but there is exactly the same version with 8. The part seems to be small, at least in comparison with the metal case, but because of it two versions of the same were released.
IMHO, to get the bowls, the number of petals after 8 is less important, and the presence of aspherics and optical circuits is more important. clearly
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Bokeh.aspx
the first version 24-70 (zoom!) has much more bokeh, many times better than a modern swab than most fixes and than the second version 24-70.
I agree completely! Just because of the bogies, it’s very cool for zoom, I don’t change 24-70 2.8l to the second version or 24-70 4lis. In principle, in some cases it is enough to take 24-70 2.8 and there will be both a dry sharp report at 4-5.6, and beautiful art photos at 2.8. Although for reporting it is usually more convenient 24-105 4 foxes. But he is very far from 24-70 2.8.
Of course not.
and Nikon has 6 (e.g. Nikon 50mm f / 2) and Kenon has 7 and 9.
just a lot of very popular kenon lenses are much older in the development of Nikon's))).
the last 20 years, Nikon has been catching up with Kenon, successfully and not very.
By the way, the best Canon EF 20mm f / 135L USM portrait lens for the last 2 years has 8 petals, which does not prevent it from getting perhaps the best bokeh in its class.
I found the desired photo, that's what I'm talking about. Although here, of course, a very rare photo of our Vincenzo made by a professional on Nikon (as you know, all the pros work for Canon)
Wow! And definitely OUR Fault! Aynalayin!
But the obstructed horizon and “too much” closed aperture was shot with Nikon and “for some reason” was made by a pro and bought for a lot of money.
well now let's always fill up the horizon. photo by the way is not very. apparently better not found
I myself ride a bike quite a lot and for a long time - you look at the photo and you feel how it is like sliding into a ditch, and even in the rain on the ground ...
I don’t think that a flat horizon would add something significant to the photo, but here you immediately remember that the photographer himself rides a motorcycle and takes a photo twisting behind the driver's back, who miraculously keeps the motorcycle on a dirty turn i.e. it should be like that ...
Transmitted expression, dynamics, tension and oblique horizon this emphasizes.
Exactly! The landscape would be too calm, to the point, plus now the horizon line goes from left to top to right - and this is perceived by the observer in such a way that the plot will receive a positive development and in the photo there is just a yellow T-shirt in pursuit.
Alex quote:
"Of course not. exactly twice as easy as on FF, at a price +/- the same, maybe cheaper, and definitely not rare)))
example Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f / 2.8 PRO, 80-300mm equiv, price about $ 1300, Dust, Freeze & Splash-Proof Construction
complete with a carcass type M10 will cost $ 1700.
so this is: "
f / 2.8 on the lens for the matrix under the mikra is something equivalent to f / 5.6 i.e. he is far from my cheap 55-300 for DX. What would it be at least some + equivalent should be marking like Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f / 1.4 PRO.
This will be the price with a Boeing :)
Dim, you confuse the equivalent aperture and the real one.
from the point of view of the depth of field - you are right, micra will usually give out a large area of depth. just like crop 1.5 will give out more than FF.
in terms of aperture ratio - 2.8 is 2.8)))
what's on mic, what's on ff what's on crop 1.5.
and your 55-300DX is a dark zoom with all that it implies, nothing to do with aperture ratio with a 2.8 micro zoom.
that is why it is precisely for travel where every gram of weight is important and minimum dimensions are important, where a powerful TV is needed - micra drives. and in terms of price and size and security. how much will a zoom up to 600mm on FF cost and weigh? )))))
for PORTRAITS and where high ISO is needed - definitely the best choice of FF.
crop 1.5 - today is practically useless. it has no pluses of a micro and no pluses of FF. neither fish nor fowl…
And it was precisely the lens on which the photograph was taken that cost me less than $ 400, and the carcass was about 700 with two batteries and a couple of books on the photograph.
And about the weight, on one of the islands I had to go to the hotel more than a kilometer, my daughter chose to ride on my neck (14 kg or more), in the backpack were her spare items on them D700 + 80-200, uphill or through the steps I had to carry also a suitcase, with one hand holding his daughter by the foot in the other was the D40 with Schneider. The problem was that you had to lean against the walls to manually focus and the child did not fly off the neck. I myself am far from being a bodybuilder, so it’s rather strange to hear praise beyond the lightweight technique, as if the meaning of life is not to let Darwin lift something heavier than a spoon :)
—
I heard that the electronic shutter gives artifacts on fast-moving objects, since reading from the matrix is not instantaneous. This is not true?
“That's why it's rather strange to hear praise for super light technique, as if the meaning of life don't let Darwin lift something heavier than a spoon :)”
a well-known photographer on his LiveJournal blog did not hesitate to admit that he tore off his back FF + zoom telephoto for several sessions. for the neck and back are neither rubber nor titanium. IMHO, if there is an opportunity NOT to carry excess weight, then it is better not to carry it! )))
any normal person will easily notice the difference (especially in a couple of hours) or he has 1 kg or 1.5 kg or 2.5 kg hanging on his neck)))
“I heard that the electronic shutter gives artifacts on fast moving objects, since the readout from the matrix is not instantaneous. This is not true?"
==========
important for the video. for a photo you can see the effect unless if you shoot a working fan. The electronic shutter is already on the Sony FF, on the Nikon D810, on almost all Olympus, many Sony, etc.
"Hanging around the neck"
And why is it necessary on the neck? There are a huge number of different shoulder belts, unloading on two shoulders, fastenings on the straps of the backpack, on the waist belt. For example, I have a camera in my hand when I need it (so as not to miss the same frame), or in my bag so that it does not interfere / attract extra attention.
“Why is it necessary on the neck? There are a huge number of different shoulder straps, two-shoulder straps, backpack straps, waist straps. "
================================
Yes there are unloading and so on.
What fundamentally does it change? at least on the shoulder at least on the belt at least on the neck.
extra 1-2 kg of weight is a dumbbell that is attached to you when you walk). decide to shoot - have you tried to shoot an hour or two holding an FF with a 70-200 2.8 zoom? or 100-400mm?
I think no. believe me, this is really not easy)))
"Did not interfere / attract too much attention."
=================================
important point for a street photo. you can’t make the FF invisible with 70-200 2.8 zoom. or with any other zoom. here micra is much more convenient and really imperceptible. with a fix, she generally fits in her pocket.
I disagree about the weight. I filmed literally on Sunday at ff with a butblock and 70-200 2.8lis2, the second carcass of a crop 50d with a butblock and 24-70 2.8l, the third carcass of Nikon d7000 with a 10-20 sigma. Filmed about 6 hours, from 10 am to 4 pm. For all the time, once for 20 minutes I went to a cafe, the rest of the time I was on my feet, standing or walking back and forth. And nothing fell off. Usually one or two carcasses hung around the neck, and one or two in a backpack. I tore off my back, it was my weak point, but I tore off in the gym on the deadline or on the snatch, and even with a couple of kilograms on the neck to rip off the back - this must be very weak, or have a serious illness. Well, or as an option, be under 16 or over 60. In other cases, carrying a couple of extra pounds for a man is not a problem. I also filmed in large sets, dragged 10 cameras for 12-5 hours, including, for example, a d80 with a 150-500 sigma, which is noticeably larger and heavier than any 70-200 2.8. And nothing - survived :) In general, I know several girls weighing 50 kilograms, who shoot at 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 and nothing. Of course, it will be difficult for them to defend for 10 hours, but in a couple of hours they usually do not even have time to get tired properly.
As for visibility, I agree entirely. Even with 70-200 4L it was hard to shoot in a crowd - people look askance, and with 70-200 2.8 and similar things on ff or procrops - it's a disaster. Therefore, for inconspicuousness, I usually take 650d from 55-250is2 - an excellent set for inconspicuous shooting of reportage and status. Nobody considers this set to be a serious camera.
I bought myself a Sony ILCE + 16-50 not so much because of the weight, but because of the size. Much less than 7100 + 18-55, which means it will be more comfortable, more convenient and easier on the hike, I'll take another 16 / 2.8 pancake - in general, there will be a crumb. On the topic of the article - Sony is very friendly for manual lenses, there are many adapters.
Was cropped 35.1.8 AF-s on the carcass d3000- d3100 worked perfectly and smeared on d7000 in 100% of cases. No settings helped, so I sold it. tested nikon 1.4 af-s and sigma 1.4 - both fifty dollars - smear the same.
so maybe the problem is not in the glasses?
maybe it's just that the article describes that native glasses are better. I would not always say this, and it is not always justified. And my example is when my own glass - well, it didn't work in any way))) I had to sell
By the way, there is a suspicion that the case is in the d7000. I had experience with half a dozen 35 1.8dx and they all worked out clearly on the simpler d5100, d5200, d3300, d3000 and d80, and some smeared on d7000. Just yesterday I bought again (I don’t know why) 50 1.4g - on the d3300 exactly on target, and on the d7000 I had to adjust it at minus 20 so that the focus point would get into the DOF. At 50 1.4d, there are no such problems with the d7000, although I have only one copy in my hands. 50 1.8d smears from time to time, and 50 1.8g hits the target exactly (so it's not the aperture ratio, and not the focusing motor, but I don't know what). At the same time, for example, on d80 and fuja c5pro, they hit the target exactly. I had a pair of d7000 - both had such jambs (thank God there was always enough internal correction). True, the recently purchased sigma 28-70 2.8-4 directly fiercely misses on d7000. So much so that no correction, even at 28mm, helps to get into the sharpness zone. Again, on the same fuja, he hits the target more or less without any problems. So the d7000 can definitely bring surprises in this regard.
As for sigma 50 1.4 (if we are not talking about the art version), then she smeared me on any carcasses and no corrections helped much - everything depended on lighting, distance to the object and some other forces unknown to me. In general, people shoot with this glass quite successfully, but I abandoned it in favor of 50 1.4d.
I had a joint with Fuj s5pro with only 80-200 2.8 nikon. I didn’t make friends. Yes, I completely agree, the problem is with the d7000, and the ionga does not help any edits.
For example, with the same 35 1.8, I set everything up on target, everything is accurate, as soon as I shoot people, everything is past the cash register)) In general, I already sold the d7000, the device is excellent, but the d700 is better
Yes, he also noted that you can set up at home, and on the street will smear again. And the d700, of course, is an interesting ph, but its price is different, and even the weight is noticeably greater.
The d7000 is more primitive in terms of color, as one color went with the d3100, so no changes. Often when editing a photo with the d7000 I did not know where to turn the color. It seems normal, but somehow uninteresting. Yes, you can do perfectly, but more work can be spent. D700 is the latest camera with a simple and sane color. Without spending a lot of effort, you can get excellent- and drag a heavier camera without breaking))
At least I haven’t had any lenses that the d700 really dislikes. But the d7000 is more capricious in this regard.
Even now, the d700 can be found not quite expensive, and certainly cheaper than new crop. Photography is generally not cheap.
Simply, I do not completely agree with the author that it is better to buy native glasses. They do not always work. And in general, how lucky it is. I came across exactly native glass that did not work with their own carcasses. And with Sigma, somehow lucky.
disagree. The D700 is an excellent reportage, but the color is specific there, let's face it - not the best and far from being lost.
here is D7000 - yes, capricious in color, I agree.
the closest in color to penetration - kenon 5Dm2, 6D, 5Dm3. IMHO, of course.
50 1.4 ART - superb, for 3 years I have not filmed with one of the cameras (nikon)
On sigma 24-135 (bought, could not resist) automatic distortion control works with the 7100. And if you compare RAW and JPEG, there are clearly visible differences in perspective in many cases.
Absolutely right. At one time, ALL non-native glasses went to a commission in the same company with film cameras and a couple of non-autofocus zoom. There is only one Tokina left 11-16 \ 2.8
Great and mighty ... I remember from my school childhood - if you can substitute “what to do”, then “b” (the battery can \ what to do \ be discharged faster), and if “what does” - without the “b” (because of what \ what do \ have to look for it.