DigitalHeMan's Digital Life

I’ve been using the Nikon professional zoom lenses for a while now, and have built up quite a nice kit. However, when combined with a full frame body such as the D3, it becomes a heavy outfit to use when traveling. So for my recent trip to Japan, I decided to travel lightweight (by my standards, at least) and take a couple of primes.

Green Tea ceremony at the Golden Pavilion, Kyoto. Shot at f/1.4

I initially settled on taking the 24/2.8D, along with the 50/1.4G and the 85/1.4D, but shortly before I left I was able to pick up the 24/1.4G at a reasonable price, so I decided to replace the 24/2.8. I also packed the 70-200/2.8VR for some shots I was planning to take of the snow monkeys at Jigokudani, but I decided I would leave that one behind in the hotel when we were out on day trips.

Shooting an entire trip with primes requires a different thought process than shooting with a zoom would. Although a 24/50/85 combo covers a similar range to the 24-70/2.8 that I normally travel with, I would obviously only ever have a single focal length on the camera at any one time, so any ‘zooming’ I would need to do would have to be done by foot. Since a lot of our trip would be spent inside the city (initially Tokyo, and then later Kyoto) I needed wide, so the 24mm f/1.4G stayed on the camera for probably around 80% of the shots. This blog post covers my experiences thus far with the lens.

Prayer boards at a Japanese shrine. Shot at f/1.4

When I was convincing myself to buy this lens, I looked at my lens collection so far, and realised that I had a number of lenses that covered the 24mm focal length already – 24/2.8D, 17-35/2.8D, and the 24-70/2.8G. All of these lenses serve their purpose very well, and at around f/8 it is very difficult to tell the difference between shots taken with each lens. However none of them give me the flexibility that the 24/1.4G gives me – and that is the ability to shoot at f/1.4. This makes the lens very flexible if I want to shoot at night, or when I want to provide some separation between the subject and the rest of the shot. Combined with the high ISO performance of the D3, I can shoot in very low light conditions without having to rely on flash for illumination. And to me, that makes the lens worth the price you have to pay to get one.

Buddha at shrine. Shot at f/1.4

The 24/1.4 is a fairly bulky, but lightweight, prime. This is down in part to the material used for the barrel construction – plastic. At first I was surprised that a 2000€+ lens would be constructed from plastic, but after using the lens for a couple of months, I am more than happy with the build of the lens, and it balances well in the hand when mounted on the D3. Being from the pro line, it is also a plus point that the lens shares the same 77mm filter thread, allowing filters to be shared with the other lenses in the series.

The lens is a G lens, meaning it doesn’t have an aperture ring, as is the case with pretty much all of Nikon’s recent new lens releases. This isn’t a problem for any of the Nikon Digital SLR range, but should be taken into consideration if the lens is intended for use on an older film body which doesn’t have the ability to adjust aperture in camera. The lens does however have a depth of field scale in the focus distance window.

Golden Pavilion, Kyoto. HDR shot at f/7.1

Talking about depth of field, this is one of the great things about this lens. With it being a wide angle, depth of field is a lot deeper at any given aperture when compared to a longer lens, but when used close up at f/1.4, the lens provides pretty good subject isolation. At the same time, focusing at further distances when using f/1.4 still gives enough depth of field for this to be a very useful low light lens. The next two shots were both taken at f/1.4 at night – note the difference in apparent depth of field due to the distance I focussed at:

Tokyo Night Lights. Shot at f/1.4

Kyoto Tower. Shot at f/1.4

The lens appears sharp at every aperture, and although I have taken a high percentage of my shots with this lens at f/1.4 to take advantage of the creativity this offers, it also provides excellent results when stopped down a bit (all the HDR landscape shots in this post were made at f/7.1 or f/8). I have noticed a slight amount of vignetting wide open occasionally, but in most cases this adds to the atmosphere of the shot, and can be corrected in post if necessary.

All in all, the lens is very versatile, providing an excellent solution regardless of whether it is being used for portrait, night/low light, landscape, or architecture photography. Whilst the price point makes this lens inaccessible for many photographers, for those that do get a chance to shoot with it, the results are worth the money.

Flowers, shot close to minimum focus distance at f/1.4

Waterfall at Golden Pavilion, Kyoto. One shot HDR, shot handheld, 1/10s @ f/7.1

Tabatha. Shot at f/1.4

Nagano Mountains. HDR shot at f/8

Kyoko. Shot at f/1.4

A couple of years back Nikon introduced a landmark wide angle zoom lens. The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ultrawide was intended for the newer FX digital camera bodies, and was hoped to be a worthy successor to the already excellent 17-35mm f/2.8D zoom.

The lens is an excellent performer – limited barrel distortion, and capable of creating great, contrasty images, however it has received a lot of comments on internet forums due to the inability to use filters.

Most lens have a filter thread which enables photographers to screw the filters on to the front of the lens, or use a filter holder, such as the ones from Lee, Hi-Tech, or Cokin, together with square (or rectangular) glass or resin filters. Landscape photographers particularly favor the use of such filter holders as it is possible to use graduated filters and easily change the position of the grad in the image field.

The 14-24mm has a bulbous front end element, and a built in, non-removable, petal shaped lens hood. For these reasons, it is not possible to attach a filter, and landscape photographers have remained with the 17-35mm for the situations where filters were necessary, sacrificing the wider 14mm capabilities of the newer lens.

A couple of photographers have managed to find DIY solutions to the problem, adapting existing filter holders to attach to the lens, sometimes using pieces of pipe affixed around the end of the lens to support the holder, however these have typically only worked when the lens was fixed to DX format cameras.

However, this week Lee filters have announced an ingenious way of mounting filters on the lens, introducing new larger filters (150mm compared to the ‘standard’ 100mm filters) and a special 4 part holder. I have yet to see any examples taken with this new filter holder, but at a cost of around $250 it looks like a promising solution for this great lens. I’ve always said that the 17-35mm lens is the best solution for my needs, but have always been tempted to replace it with the 14-24mm. Maybe now is the right time to finally pick one up…….

More information regarding the filter holder can be seen in the attached YouTube video from Robert White in the UK.

A question that comes up often on various Nikon oriented internet forums is which lens is more suitable, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR, or the Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR? Obviously this is a very loaded question, as it depends what the photographer is intending to use the lens for, but I will use this blog post to try and answer the question from my experience with these lenses, which is predominantly nature based. This is not intended to be a technical review, simply comments based upon my own experiences.

I have owned the 200-400/4VR for 3 or 4 years now, and earlier this year picked up the 300/2.8VR as well. I use both lenses on the D3, and have previously used the 200-400 and the 300 on the D200.

Of course, being a zoom, the 200-400 wins here. On DX, the effective focal range of 300-600mm means the 200-400mm is a very effective lens for using for general nature photography, and I used it with success on a number of field trips over the past couple of years. Perhaps the time I was most thankful for the lens was when I took it with me on a safari in Africa. One of the main ‘problems’ with safari photography in Africa is the amount of dust that finds its way into the camera. This is further amplified by lens changes, so the ideal solution is to have a single lens that covers all eventualities. I found the 200-400mm to be just this, and it was pretty much the only lens I needed to use when shooting out of the safari jeep:

I also took the lens with me on a trip to photograph puffins in Scotland and Northern England, and again the 200-400 on a DX body came into its own, allowing me to shoot birds all day without switching lenses.

The flexibility that the 300/2.8 offers is slightly different. Although hand held shooting is not too much of a problem with the 200-400, the lens does tend to get heavy after a while. The 300/2.8 is a slightly smaller and more lightweight lens, and the ergonomics mean that walking around with it in the hand or on the shoulder is comfortable, and can be used for an extended period of time, such as in the shot below where I had been tracking the deer through the woods for some time.

<

Especially since turning to full format, I have been using my telephoto lenses more and more often with teleconverters. This is an advantage of the fixed aperture pro telephotos that do allow the use of teleconverters whilst maintaining all functionality.

However it is with teleconverters that the 300/2.8 has advantages. It is a full stop faster than the 200-400, which means that the light loss caused by the tc-14e and 17e still leaves the photographer with a usable combination – either a 420/4 or a 510/4.8. This should really be compared to the 200-400 together with the 1.4, which, at the top end, becomes a 560/5.6.

With the tc-14e:

Both lenses work fine with this tc, but the focus on the 200-400 does seem to suffer slightly in terms of speed, especially in duller light. In good light the image quality on the 200-400 is fine, but in slightly worse light, the 300mm with tc leaves the 200-400 behind. The following shot was taken with the 300mm on a D200 with the tc-14e, in early morning, overcast light:

With the tc-17e:

The 200-400 works, but has occasional AF problems, and can not be trusted in low light. The 300/2.8 works fine, and AF is still spot on. Image quality wise, the 300 beats the 200-400 here.

Handling:

Both lenses offer the build quality and usability of every Nikon pro lens. Most switches (for example focus limiters AF on/off) are in the same place on each lens. One notable difference between the two is that with the 300/2.8 the VR is turned on using a ring, whereas the VR on the 200-400 is activated by a switch alongside the other switches. From experience this is a lot harder to see, and a lot easier to knock on and off without noticing.

Image quality:

Both lenses are capable of excellent quality images, both with and without teleconverters. However I have always had a bit of a love hate relationship with the 200-400. I sometimes get the feeling that it really is a good weather lens – if the light is a bit grey and dreary, the 200-400 will amplify that and I will come away with unsatisfying images. The 300/2.8 on the other hand never fails to impress me. Even in lower light, I can still get spot on focus, and sharp contrasty images, such as the following image taken from a boat.

Conclusion:

To be honest, if I had to sell one of the two lenses, I would keep the 300/2.8, and sell the 200-400. Although the 300 isn’t a zoom, what it lacks in flexibility, it makes up for in speed and image quality, and with the teleconverters it is almost as flexible. Especially when paired with the 600/4, it provides the wildlife photographer with an excellent tool set. But remember, both are pro quality lenses, and I am just picking faults. Either lens is capable of top images.

Bad day at the office, aka “I want milk”
Originally uploaded by DigitalHeMan

30 or so months ago I wrote a blog reviewing the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D prime lens. When I wrote the article I was still shooting with a DX crop body, and I summised that the 50mm on a DX body was a great portrait lens, and ideal for use at live gigs.

Now I’ve moved full format with the D3, the 85mm f/1.4D has become my weapon of choice for gig photography, and I find the 24-70mm invariable for using in the studio due to the flexibility of the zoom.

Still, I maintain that the 50mm is an ideal focal length for the above type of photography on a crop body. For a while there was a bit of a gap in the Nikon lens lineup though, as some of the newer crop bodies (like the D60 and most of the newer entry level SLRs) are unable to autofocus with the lenses that don’t contain a focus motor, and require an AF-S lens for full functionality.

However, at Photokina in 2008 NIkon updated their prime lens range to also include the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G lens. Not only did this update the optical formula of the old 50mm f/1.4D lens, it also added an internal motor, making this an AF-S lens, and putting it within the reach of people starting out with the entry level SLR.

The main criticism that internet pundits had of the new 50/1.4 was the price – at around €350 at introduction (can be picked up for €300 now), it was almost three times the price of the 1.8 variety, and for only a slight improvement in light sensitivity, was thought to be a bit expensive.

It was this reason that also stopped me from picking up the 50/1.4 initially – after all, the 50/1,8 had never given me any problems, and with all the other lenses in my arsenal, I wasn’t missing out on anything by not having it.

So, fast forward 12 months, with the imminent arrival of our baby, Tabatha (born October 18th 2009!), I’m thinking out my camera strategy The 24-70mm is a great general purpose lens on the D3, but it’s big, wieldy, and pretty scary to a new born. Add to that the business travel I do, it’s a lot easier to take a body and a couple of small primes (think 24mm, 50mm, and maybe either a 16mm fish or an 85mm) than a big zoom lens.

So I decide the 50mm will become my solution for quick, around the house, shooting, and to begin with, the 50/1.8 was working fine, and gave me fine results such as the following:

But then, the NAS demons began playing in my head, and, on the way back from visiting hours at the hospital, I passed the camera store, and the rest, as they say, is history…….

Som how does the 50/1.4 compare to the 50/1.8? Well, to be honest, they are both very fine lenses. Both are small, light, and can be tucked away into a corner in a camera bag very easily. There are a couple of advantages of the 50/1.4 that I have noted:

- Firstly, the lens is provided with a lens hood. Although this is only a fairly lightweight plastic, it does provide protection should the lens get knocked or dropped. (of course a lens hood is also available for the 50/1.8, but this is extra cost)
- Next, it has an AF-S motor. With such a small lens, this doesn’t help so much with focusing speed, but I have noticed a definite improvement over the amount of time it spends searching for the focus point in low light, compared to the 50/1.8. And of course this makes the lens compatible with some of the newer Nikon cameras
- Finally the lens has the advantage of going down to f/1.4, giving you that extra bit of flexibility when shooting in low light, as well as a nice bright viewfinder. To be honest I have probably spent most of the time shooting with this lens wide open, despite a fair number of people suggesting it is soft until it is stopped down a couple of shots (in fact all shots taken by the 50/1.4 in this blog entry were taken wide open at f/1.4, and I find results more than sharp enough)

The 50/1.4 has a plastic lens body, the same as the 50/1.8, although I must say in defense of the 1.8, it does feel slightly more sturdy. It’s a 58mm filter size compared to the 52mm on the 1.8, although I have not bothered mounting a filter on this lens, due to the protection the lens hood gives.

This lens has been mounted on my camera pretty exclusively on the occasions when the D3 is sitting at home and I am not using it on a job. I’ve found it an ideal lens for (baby) snapshots, and it makes the D3 a lot less imposing than one of my larger pro lenses.

So, do I recommend this lens? That’s a difficult one, as the 50/1.8 is such great value for money, so it really boils down to whether or not you need the extra lens speed, and the built in focusing motor. If you have the money, go for it! But if you already have the 50/1.8, you might want to think carefully about upgrading…..

Like other photographers, I have plenty of camera bags, including the following great bags:

- LowePro Super Trekker AWII
- LowePro Photo Trekker AWII
- LowePro Slingshot 200 AW
- Lowepro Stealth Reporter D550 AW
- ThinkTank Airport International
- Billingham 206

However what I really miss, especially when travelling to and from my studio in Amsterdam, is a shoulder or messenger type bag that is big enough to take the following:

- Nikon D3
- Nikon 24-70 f/2.8
- Nikon 85mm f/1.4 (optional)
- Sony HDR-TG7 handycam (optional)
- Spare batteries, memory cards etc

Ideally it shouldn’t look like a camera bag, and it should be soft, durable, padded and comfortable to carry. At the moment I am using a bag around 30x20cm (12×8″) and probably 8cm deep. I typically carry the camera without the lens attached.

So far my studies have found the Tenba Messenger (maybe a bit too big), or the Domke F-803 Waxwear (probably a bit too small)

So if you have any suggestions, please let me know!