Are the D3s of the world killing fast lenses?

Besides the lens is the more long term investment part of the equation. Bodies will always come and go the technology of them moves alot faster than lenses. A quality lens is going to last someone alot lnger than a body even a high quality one.
 
The D3 is a $5000 camera, so we are talking about professionals, or at least people who care about the quality of their glass. If you've got $5k for a camera, you don't put a $200 f/5.6 kit lens on it.

Okay, but we are (I am) talking about a trend. A paradigm shift. A process that takes time.
Once every disposable pocket camera will be able to give you the performance of today's D3s and more, which should happen within ten years, will f4 become the new f2.8?

Just a thought, guys.
 
Whatever the capabilities of the recording element /medium in a camera the optical differences (minimum DoF etc) between fast and slow lenses will remain the same and it is those differences that make me prefer fast lenses.
 
If you've got $5k for a camera, you don't put a $200 f/5.6 kit lens on it.

I don't disagree with you on this regarding cameras like the D3 which are pro/serious enthusiast only bodies.

At the next level down, however, I have seen a major trend in the camera buying public to spend most of their purchasing abilities maxing out the camera body they are buying, and then just sticking any cheap lens on it they can find.

To me, that is entirely counterintuitive... yes, a decent body is important, but (as I am sure most people around here would agree at least in theory) the glass that is on the body is MUCH more important... if for no other reason than it will outlast the camera body by 20 years.

I am sure you are correct, you won't see many 18-55 kit lenses on the D3... but I see a bunch of cheap glass on D200's (and likely the D300's in a month)... some pretty rotgut glass indeed.
 
Okay, but we are (I am) talking about a trend. A paradigm shift. A process that takes time.
Once every disposable pocket camera will be able to give you the performance of today's D3s and more, which should happen within ten years, will f4 become the new f2.8?

Just a thought, guys.

We have no idea of the capabilities of future cameras... one cannot assume that the pace of development is linear. The truth is, we have no idea what cameras will be like in 10 years, at all... so it is rather pointless IMHO to try to project what future maximum f/stop will be desired.

Me, I buy my equipment to use, and while I prefer to buy lenses that use full frame sensors, that is about my only nod to future development.

I am taking pictures this weekend. I have 2 football games to shoot tonight, a halloween party to shoot tomorrow and a zoo to shoot Sunday. Next week, I have 2 softball games to shoot, etc... I will worry about 10 years from now when the time comes, and use my 2.8 glass in the mean time.
 
I think that the question is, "Will today's lenses be good enough to use on the new camera bodies of the world?"

I have already heard a few discussions of whether or not some of the current f2.8s will resolve enough to get all there is out of the new D3.

Then too, what about the color rendition? If you are shooting at ISO 6400 or up, is would seem that the slightest loss of color from the lens would be magnified tremendously leading to bland photos and why spend $5,000 for that?

just a couple of thoughts...
 
Okay, but we are (I am) talking about a trend. A paradigm shift. A process that takes time.
Once every disposable pocket camera will be able to give you the performance of today's D3s and more, which should happen within ten years, will f4 become the new f2.8?

Just a thought, guys.
Do you honestly think, even if it would become technically possible wich it wont companies will sell something that has the performance of a D3 with excellent glass for the price of some cheap throwaway.
 
We have no idea of the capabilities of future cameras... one cannot assume that the pace of development is linear. The truth is, we have no idea what cameras will be like in 10 years, at all... so it is rather pointless IMHO to try to project what future maximum f/stop will be desired.

Me, I buy my equipment to use, and while I prefer to buy lenses that use full frame sensors, that is about my only nod to future development.

I am taking pictures this weekend. I have 2 football games to shoot tonight, a halloween party to shoot tomorrow and a zoo to shoot Sunday. Next week, I have 2 softball games to shoot, etc... I will worry about 10 years from now when the time comes, and use my 2.8 glass in the mean time.

I'm not daydreaming about the distant, unforeseable future. Not poking at the abstract.

Already today, if my budget allowed a D3 with one f4 zoom, or a D300 with a f2.8 zoom, i would DEFINITELY go with the former. And not because of the full frame.
Especially if the zoom was a f2.8 telephoto, which tend to get huge and cumbersome, as i said before.

Mike_E - that's an interesting thought, but one which i can't comment on, as my knowledge of optics and physics in general is very limited.

Sabath - one of the reasons for that trend is the fact that zooms today, are amazing pieces of equipment and engineering. Consumer lenses may be look down upon, but there are few truly "bad" lenses out there. Yes, some are better - but for most people, its not a big enough difference.

I'm surprised my argument about the Canon zooms and f2.8 and f4 L glass went unmentioned. I thought that was a very good point. :blushing:

I should also disclose that i'm not bashing fast glass or people who like fast glass. For my upcoming Bday i intend to treat myself to the Sigma 30mm f1.4. For the speed AND the DOF, of course.
 
Already today, if my budget allowed a D3 with one f4 zoom, or a D300 with a f2.8 zoom, i would DEFINITELY go with the former. And not because of the full frame.
Especially if the zoom was a f2.8 telephoto, which tend to get huge and cumbersome, as i said before.

.
Further proof that either you don't have a clue what you are talking about or you are just trying to stir up an argurment for argurments sake.
 
Sabath - one of the reasons for that trend is the fact that zooms today, are amazing pieces of equipment and engineering. Consumer lenses may be look down upon, but there are few truly "bad" lenses out there. Yes, some are better - but for most people, its not a big enough difference.

I have nothing against inexpensive consumer grade lenses... they fill a niche, and allow people who can't afford to spend significant percentages of their yearly salary on a chunk of glass the opportunity to get in the game.

For example, I have no problems recommending the Nikon 55-200 VR to anybody who has a D40, can only afford $250 or less and wants a lens to do telephoto shots... in many situations, it will work just fine. If you compare it to my new 70-200 2.8 VR, it has a larger range (especially on the low end where that really makes a difference), it is much smaller and lighter and it has an inexpensive 52mm filter size. The only down sides to the lens are that it is slower, variable aperture, has a slightly less advanced VR system and has plastic parts instead of metal.

Sounds like the 55-200 is a lot better deal than the $1624 I just paid for the 2.8?

Only for people who can't afford the better glass is it a good deal, because in truth there is absolutely, positively no comparison in the image quality between the little cheap plastic zoom and professional glass.

Again, if $250 is all you can afford, then by all means get the 55-200 and enjoy it...

But...

Let's not even begin to pretend it has the same capabilities as the 70-200 VR on any camera, including the high ISO D3.
 
I personally do not see a paradigm shift. Most people will still choose fast glass over higher iso. Buying f4 glass over 2.8 just because you can bump the ISO limits you flexibility. Why upgrade a body and downgrade glass, when you will benefit much more by buying top self for both.

Plus, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't most lenses sharpest stopped down a bit? So a 2.8 is probably sharper @ F/4 than a F/4 lens would be.
 
It has been touched on by a couple of people in the thread, but to clarify for those of us with only film experience: generally a higher ISO leads to a lot grainier images, correct? Is this the case with digital, and if so at such high ISO's surely the images would not come out very good at all at these speeds?
 
Further proof that either you don't have a clue what you are talking about or you are just trying to stir up an argurment for argurments sake.

What is your problem? Relax, have some herbal tea, and come back when you're ready to treat people with respect. People whose only fault is that their opinion differs from yours. I had a thought, i shared it with the forum. I still haven't been convinced that what i said was so outrageously ridiculous that it deserves to be written off as a testament to my lack of knowledge.
If you feel like I, or what i said, is beneath you- please spare me your judgement and ignore the discussion.
BTW, regarding your question of companies willing to sell high-end equipment at the price of cheap throwaway - the same computer that allows you to disrespect me, is considered a super-computer that costs millions of dollars and is accessible only to governments, if you ask a computer scientist from the 70's. You know what, even your graphics card that gives you 32bit color and probably has 256MBs of RAM is a super computer in itself, if you ask that same scientist.
So yeah, i think we'll be seing D3 performance in every pocket disposable camera, very very soon.
And please remember, my dear short-sighted friend, that digital cameras are VERY VERY young, compared to their analog brothers, and they are already on par with them, in most respects. ISO wise, they are superior.

phaedo - The rate of improvement and progress in this field is picking up. The aforementioned Nikon D3 is said to have remarkable performance at ISOs of upwards of 1600. Which made me think that in a few years, when cameras will perform just as well at ISO 12800 as they do at ISO 100 (and they will), will fast lenses be imperative for low light work. And will people still covet the f2.8 zooms, when f4 zooms of comparable quality are much cheaper, lighter and smaller.
 
Sheeesh.....

Why all of the f4 versus f2.8 threads all of a sudden? Why do people think that f2.8 is the end all solution to lens choice? Fidel offered his opinion on why there is a possible alternate and viable choice. I've been in the camera business a LONG time and I think his points are valid. But it is all about the photographer or have we lost sight of that fact? Tools... are tools and you should purchase the tools that enable you to create.

Just because I chose the 24-105mm f4L over the 24-70mm f2.8L does makes me any less of a photographer? In many ways, it is a sign that I have the ability to choose wisely for MY needs rather than follow the status quo. Read all of my past replies regarding the 24-105mm f4l vs 24-70mm f2.8L and the 70-200mm f4L versus 70-200mm f2.8L "debates".... I have owned them all...

For ME and how I enjoy photography... and I wouldn't just blanket the same decisions to all photographers out there... If I can get a camera body that produces relatively noiseless images at ISO 1600 and above, I would choose that camera body + f4L lens over a "lesser" body + f2.8L lens. Why? lighter weight packing... high ISO performance affects all lenses... more choices in lenses... a more versatile/flexible performing camera... AND just imagine what low-light photos you can achieve when that same camera is paired with my 4 fast primes at f1.4.


WTF JIP!!!.. I think your reply was way out of line...

I don't think there is a paradigm shift...... I think lens choice is still VERY important BUT cameras are no longer a light tight box with a shutter.. I think cameras have taken an increasingly important role in the ultimate decision. THIS IS A GOOD THING... MORE CHOICES.
 
Plus, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't most lenses sharpest stopped down a bit? So a 2.8 is probably sharper @ F/4 than a F/4 lens would be.

I personally have a really hard time seeing a difference between photos shot with the 24-70mm f2.8 and 24-105mm f4L @ f/4 with the same focal length. In fact, I've had a few people tell me that the f4L out performs @ f4. This reviewer also noticed the same thing...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

"At 24 mm the 24-105 mm lens is definitely better at the edges at f4 and f5.6. This finding is slightly surprising to me as f4 is the maximum aperture for the 24-105 mm lens, whereas the 24-70 mm is stopped down by one stop. By f8 the lenses are hard to tell apart. They are equally good at the centre."


Another example from my Leica world... The noctilux is an outstanding f/1 lens.... shooting with it is out of this world when it comes to potential creativity. BUT don't kid yourself... a Leica summilux (f/1.4 line of lenses) of either 50mm or 35mm at will out perform the noctilux in terms of ultimate sharpness even when the Noctilux is stopped down.

So yeh.. most lenses but not all.. Generalizations.. are just that.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top