andybarton Posted July 30, 2009 Share #41 Posted July 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Jeff, I have a D700, and in my opinion, it gives beautifully sharp results with a good lens. I second that. The Nikon lens that I bought while the Leitax mounts were on their way is, of course, pretty poor (it cost the same as a Leica filter, so that's no surprise), but with the 28 and 60 Elmarits, the results are, IMHO, outstanding (for me) I am glad I bought it, but I would have been gladder if it had been an R10. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Hi andybarton, Take a look here DSLR's. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted July 30, 2009 Share #42 Posted July 30, 2009 Getting lenses good enough for a FF Nikon (and it gets worse with the D3x) is a challenge and I expect the same is true of Canon and Sony as well, though Sony do have Carl Zeiss to help them. For sure, not every Nikon lens is a winner, as Andy suggests, but at the price, how could they be? In particular, Nikon lack good, fast, primes. The new AF-S 50mm 1.4 is good but it's not Leica Summilux good. The much vaunted (and long gone) 28mm f1.4 is a horror wide open at the edges compared to the Leica 21mm Summilux-M which gives the same angle of view on the M8. It's a pity therefore that Leica were unable to obtain licencing to build lenses with Nikon and Canon mounts which could have seen Leica R glass continue. Even if they had only been able to build manual focus lenses with auto-diaphragm and open aperture metering lenses (like the Zeiss ZF, missing out on AF, matrix metering, Vibration Reduction and the rest), that would have provided welcome additional choices for Nikon users. Leitax have done well to make the R-glass even mountable on Nikon but of course there's no auto-diagphragm and meter coupling so whatever the gains in image quality, you start a long way back in terms of operating speed and convenience. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul_S Posted July 30, 2009 Share #43 Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Paul, just curious, how do you like using the TS-E lenses with it...and which do you use? Do you use handheld or tripod only? Also, I understand the file sizes of the Mark ii are much bigger than the 5D. Does this present any practical issues? Jeff Jeff, When doing architectural photography with the TS-E (I have the original 24 and the 45mm) I always use a tripod, spirit level, cable release. In addition I bring a separate light meter and polarizing filter with me. I expose manually, perform exposure bracketing. The live view on the 5D2 should give an extra advantage while manually focussing, but I have not put that into practice yet. Sometimes I take the TS-E out for a walk, using it handheld and having fun with the tilt & shift at the same time. Highly unscientific of course; for the TS movements you need a tripod, period. Optical quality of these older designs is typically not on par with the newer DSLRs like the 5D2 or 1Ds3. The newer TS-Es (17 & 24mm II) makes perfectly sense to me as does a good prime like the 85/1.2 II I mentioned. The raw files of the 5D2 are approx. 25 MB in size which puts a heavier load on disk space use and processor utilization compared to the original 5D or the M8. I start feeling the need for upgrading some computer hardware. But what is new? Edited July 30, 2009 by Paul_S Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 30, 2009 Share #44 Posted July 30, 2009 Thanks, Paul. I appreciate your follow-up. Using TS lenses would be a big reason for me to supplement my M system. The D700 offers another option, with 3 relatively new TS lenses. (Or, I could use PP adjustments and save the $!...but that wouldn't be the same photographic experience.) Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 30, 2009 Share #45 Posted July 30, 2009 {snipped} In particular, Nikon lack good, fast, primes. The new AF-S 50mm 1.4 is good but it's not Leica Summilux good. The much vaunted (and long gone) 28mm f1.4 is a horror wide open at the edges compared to the Leica 21mm Summilux-M which gives the same angle of view on the M8. {snipped} Too true Mark; the lack of fast wide-normal primes is the weak spot in the entire lineup for me (and it's why the M8 consistently has wider angle lenses attached to it). Consider this: IMO the Sigma 50 1.4 ASPH is a better 50 than Nikkor's new lens! The 85 1.4 is very nice though. Still, if you want a good wide on Nikon, it's a zoom (and that means it's not faster than 2.8). Nothing but a Summilux is Summilux great IMO, R or M Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted July 30, 2009 Share #46 Posted July 30, 2009 The new AF-S 50mm 1.4 is good but it's not Leica Summilux good. It's not Leica Summilux priced either. In fact, at B&H right now it's $3,126 less expensive than the Summilux. Is it actually $3,126 less good? I use it daily on a D3 and you'd probably have a hard time convincing me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted July 30, 2009 Share #47 Posted July 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I regularly use Nikon (D3, D3X, D700 ), and Leica M8 (2 bodies). I agree with the last few comments but with a slightly different perspective. When I discuss Leica here I am referring to the 'M', not the 'R' which I have never used, and therefore have no opinion. - Nikon's recent optical strength is in their 'fast' (f2.8) zooms, the 24-70, and 14-24 are amazing, but are also very large and heavy. They are however 'cheap' as compared to Leica's best. I expect the newly announced 70-200/f2.8 to also be excellent. The 200-400/f4 is remarkable, but well out of any Leica comparables. - Nikon' recent outstanding primes are their stabilized telephoto's 200/f2 , 300/f2.8 etc. - also out of Leica's 'space' - Leica' fast primes (Summilux and Summicron) are simply amazing wide open, I have not used Zeiss, but Nikon's equivalent primes (when they have an equivalent) are not as good wide open. I believe that Leica expects people who buy an F1.4 lens to actually use it at F1.4 regularly while Nikon probably does not. I regularly test my new lenses and it is astonishing how little the Leica's improve when stopping down, because they are so good wide open. The Nikon 50/f1.4 D at f4 or 5.6 however probably outresolves any capture medium. It is good wide open in the very center but degrades quickly from the center. At F1.4,(or 2.0 ) it is not as good as an asph summilux anywhere in the field, but it is also 1/8 the price. - In my photography, corner performance at wide openings is not very meaningful because the DOF is so shallow, that anything in corners is highly unlikely to be in the plane of focus, and any defocusing (is that a word ?) quickly overshadows any differences in optical correction. It may be more important for others. The above reasons are why I use both Nikon and Leica, but usually for different situations. Regards ... Harold Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 31, 2009 Share #48 Posted July 31, 2009 So: the big difference between and M Lux or R Lux and a Nikkor 50 (the new one, the older one, doesn't make a difference) isn't just sharpness or sharpness across the field, though heaven knows there is no comparison between the newest Nikkor 50 and a Lux in terms of sharpness (and in fact, even the new Sigma ASPH 50 is better than the Nikkor wide open). But the combination of contrast, flare resistance, colour and overall performance to the edges (not the absolute edges either) all make either Lux, yes, "$3K" better. I would be snapping up some of the bargain R lenses while they're still around, actually--the 50 R Lux latest version is, IMO, even more lovely in the way it draws than the current 50 M Lux (which is higher contrast, but only just). Let's put this another way: in adverse conditions, the Luxes will help you bring the shot back where lesser lenses give up. For example, shooting into strong backlight, the 50 Luxes can deliver a usable and detailed subject with minimal optical aberration; the Nikkor simply chokes in situations like that (not picking on Nikon either; Canon's stuff is bad in those conditions too). What that performance is worth to you is a personal thing. For me, it's entirely worth it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotomiguel Posted July 31, 2009 Share #49 Posted July 31, 2009 I use a nikon D300 with a old 180mm F 2.8 . I'm getting really good results at f5.6 but I can not use it at f 2.8. I love the leica lenses because they give the best wide open. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted July 31, 2009 Share #50 Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) It's not Leica Summilux priced either. In fact, at B&H right now it's $3,126 less expensive than the Summilux. Is it actually $3,126 less good? I use it daily on a D3 and you'd probably have a hard time convincing me. I don't think cost comparisons are helpful here, a lens made in Germany is always going to be much more expensive than one made in Thailand. The Nikon lens is certainly good value but it's soft wide open and - in the context of what a Nikon prime should be like - the AF is painfully slow. It's a lens built down to a price, not up to a performance level and I wish Nikon had recognised that anyone buying such a lens is looking for top drawer performance. There's no point buying a fast lens if that extra speed is not fully usable - that's the wonder of Leica M lenses. [My heart sank by the way when Nikon released the 35mm f1.8 DX lens. A more irrelevant lens would be difficult to imagine.] Edited July 31, 2009 by marknorton Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted July 31, 2009 Share #51 Posted July 31, 2009 Personally I'm blown away every time I use my Zeiss 50mm ZF f1.4 on my D3. Talk about sharp. And used it only set me back about $375 if I recall. Not sure how much better the R lenses are over their Zeiss counterparts as when I briefly owned an R8 I really couldn't afford any fast lenses for it! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehouseflogger Posted July 31, 2009 Share #52 Posted July 31, 2009 Hello, I use a pair of Canons, 1DMkII, and 1DsMkII, and two L's, 35mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.2 MkII, and an M8 with 24mm Elmarit ASPH. I am primarily a wedding photographer but I am now starting to shoot chefs at work in their hot kitchens (rather than cold propped food in studios). My experience is that I have to keep on using the dslrs when the action is fast moving and when the light forces an ISO > 640. The reasons being that I am not good enough consistently to nail focus and exposure manually in the first instance (I now shoot fully manual as I have found I get better results and I have to think as I work), and in the second the performance of the Canons in lower light with my two lenses is very good. I know that with care the M8 will give beautiful low light files but I just cannot risk shooting a phase of the day and cocking up. So now the much repeated mantra "how lovely it will be if Leica can use a sensor with better low light performance." I would definately use it more during a days shooting, and in doing so would sort out my focusing genie through practise. I am hesitating from buying a 24mm lux to solve part of the current problem until I see what the next M will be like. A question for members can somebody do the math and tell me the difference between f1.4 and f2.8 and ISO, depth of field at largest aperture, assuming a lowest shutter speed of 1/90 sec. Best wishes to all, Guy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 31, 2009 Share #53 Posted July 31, 2009 Guy, I had a look in DOFmaster, and I think their margins are too wide, but the relationship between the figures is clear @ 3 meters On the M8 1.4 = 1.04 m 2.8 =2.27 m Full frame 1.4 = 1.38 m 2.8 = 3.26 m Obviously the difference in either ISO or shutter speed is three steps, so 1/90th turns into 1/360th Or ISO 1250 turns into ISO 320. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehouseflogger Posted July 31, 2009 Share #54 Posted July 31, 2009 Thank you as ever jaap, cheers! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 31, 2009 Share #55 Posted July 31, 2009 Btw, I am very much impressed by that 24/1.4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehouseflogger Posted July 31, 2009 Share #56 Posted July 31, 2009 err....? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 31, 2009 Share #57 Posted July 31, 2009 sorry- my summilux 24... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehouseflogger Posted July 31, 2009 Share #58 Posted July 31, 2009 Does it back focus - my 35 did and since then I have been a bit wary. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 31, 2009 Share #59 Posted July 31, 2009 No- it is spot on - to the mm I might say. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.