pgk Posted February 10, 2010 Share #1 Posted February 10, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Actually, first there was the Canon 24mm f/1.4 L (now a MkII version), then Leica produced the 24mm f/1.4 Summilux, now Nikon | News | AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Hi pgk, Take a look here Has Leica started a trend...... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
scc Posted February 10, 2010 Share #2 Posted February 10, 2010 Wouldn't that be Canon that started the trend then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 10, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted February 10, 2010 I'm glad someone's awake:rolleyes:. Canon has had a 24/1.4 out for years but its interesting that Nikon have finally started to announce fast wide lenses again (the 28/1.4 was discontinued some time ago). I wonder if more are in the pipeline? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted February 10, 2010 Share #4 Posted February 10, 2010 Seems like Canon started the trend, or at least picked up on the popularity of the Nikkor 28/1.4 on the used market ($3000+ is crazy for that lens, I used to have one but alas sold it before the prices skyrocketed). The first version of the Canon 24/1.4 was not stellar, but it was usable and the only game in town for a wide, fast AF lens. There are rumors of a Nikkor 50/1.2G. If they also add a 35/1.4 and update the 85/1.4 they'll have a serious lineup of fast primes. And regardless of what the fanboys and loyalists say, that will create more competition for Leica. I'm curious how a really good 24/1.4 on, say, a 24mp sensor will compare to the M9 with the 24 'Lux. If Nikon had a lineup of fast wide primes (24/1.4, 35/1.4) about a year ago, I'd be reading a different forum right now:eek: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted February 10, 2010 Share #5 Posted February 10, 2010 I don`t see the value myself. I prefer a tripod and cable release. Who wants to fill the bag with large expensive lenses with a small debth of field. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted February 10, 2010 Share #6 Posted February 10, 2010 I don`t see the value myself. I prefer a tripod and cable release. Who wants to fill the bag with large expensive lenses with a small debth of field. I agree with you in one sense, I'm personally not into the super-shallow DOF look and prefer to shoot stopped-down a bit whenever possible. But tripods are out of the question for the kind of documentary work I do. Sometimes a fast lens is the only option for shooting in low light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheewai_m6 Posted February 11, 2010 Share #7 Posted February 11, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) well, it's a bit of a wank value thing isn't it? saying i've got a 24mm F1.4, as opposed F3.5 or whatever. for some people anyway. a lot of the dslr users (not all) are more interested in the gear than actually using them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 11, 2010 Share #8 Posted February 11, 2010 Actually, Canon had a 24 f/1.4 "L" as far back as the late 1970's - not only in the "new" FD mount but also the original chrome breechlock mount. Canon Lens FD 24mm f/1.4 S.S.C. Aspherical 30 years isn't a "trend" - it's a movement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share #9 Posted February 11, 2010 Well I do have a copy of the original 24/1.4 Canon EOS lens and would say that I use it wide open at least 50% of the time. I also use it underwater where, in the low light levels, its increased viewfinder brightness is an absolute boon. That said, its far from being a perfect lens and the latest MkII version interests me (though not enough to buy one yet). Canon have been the only player in the fast wide market (swayed me to shift to Canon FF from Nikon) until Leica announced the 21 and 24 'luxes now, Nikon are following. Trend, catch up, whatever, it looks like we may see this area of optical design surge forward which can only be good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnitak Posted February 12, 2010 Share #10 Posted February 12, 2010 Well I do have a copy of the original 24/1.4 Canon EOS lens and would say that I use it wide open at least 50% of the time. I also use it underwater where, in the low light levels, its increased viewfinder brightness is an absolute boon. That said, its far from being a perfect lens and the latest MkII version interests me (though not enough to buy one yet). Canon have been the only player in the fast wide market (swayed me to shift to Canon FF from Nikon) until Leica announced the 21 and 24 'luxes now, Nikon are following. Trend, catch up, whatever, it looks like we may see this area of optical design surge forward which can only be good. Yes, they were the only game in town for quite a while with fast glass in general. I shoot a lot of aurora and astrophotography, and fast was important. It was Canon's selection of glass that led me to switch from Nikon in 2004. Contrary to the fanboy crowing from the Nikon crowd, I found the Canon L glass to be excellent, and generally superior to anything on the Nikon side. The new Mark II versions of many of the L lenses are superb. The 24L II is remarkable; I would say it was sharper and more contrasty than the 24 'Lux in the center of the frame, but not as sharp in the corners. It's good to now have Leica and Nikon in the fast wide market to push innovation. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted February 12, 2010 Share #11 Posted February 12, 2010 I'm just annoyed that all three makers make 24/1.4's, and not 28/1.4's. I prefer 28mm... The Canon 24/1.4 II is good? It's hard to get a consensus from reading in the forums. SO MANY people are super biased about their brand of choice. One would think the Canon 35/1.4 is god's gift to man from reading about it. Not that it's bad, but it doesn't seem up to the 50/1.4 ASPH standard. Which is fine - it's a lot cheaper. I thought we'd see more Leica M/Canon/Nikon comparisons on some of these lenses now that Leica has a full frame camera with high MP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share #12 Posted February 12, 2010 One would think the Canon 35/1.4 is god's gift to man from reading about it. Not that it's bad, but it doesn't seem up to the 50/1.4 ASPH standard. Which is fine - it's a lot cheaper. Yes, its interesting that it gets raved about - I have this lens too and whilst its fine, I don't find it to be the outstanding (enthralling?) optic its supposed to be. I do own 35 and 50 'lus asphs though and I find both to be quite outstanding. I'm surprised (and thankful in some ways) that there are less comparisons than I thought that there would be, but then judging from some comments, it appears that fast lenses don't appeal to everyone anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted February 12, 2010 Share #13 Posted February 12, 2010 Maybe people don't want to see their beliefs get shattered. That goes for both sides I shoot film Ms. I have an SLR that I don't use that much, partially because of the lenses I have for it. I just don't see myself getting an M9 anytime soon - way too expensive for me. If the 24 L II is that good, I could use that on my 1V as well as eventually getting a 5D II or whatever is current at the time. I'm just used to the 28mm FOV, though I could probably get used to 24 quickly. I wish SLRs weren't so damn big. I also wish the M9 wasn't so expensive and didn't have those strange color casts on the edge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.