no nikon f/4

[photogincollege]

Is there a reason why there doesnt seem to be any nikon mount lenses that are f4. Is that a canon thing only or am i missing something.

 

[Sideburns]

There are...but they're more expensive...most go down to 2.8 as well...

Or do you want 4.0 instead of 2.8?

There's the 12-24mm
200-400mm
200mm
300mm
400mm
500mm
600mm
etc, etc, etc...

Just look around and you'll find em.

 

[sabbath999]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Current production has:

200mm f/4 IF-ED Micro
300mm f/4 AF-S
500mm f/4G ED VR
500mm f/4 IF-ED II
600mm f/4G ED VR
600mm f/4 IF-ED II
12-24 G f/4 IF-ED
200-400 f/4 IF-ED

There may be even more than that, but those are some that come to mind.

 

[photogincollege]

Sorry i meant more in the normal range . Like a 17-40 or 17-85 or so.

 

[photogincollege]

The reason i ask is im probably getting a d80 or d200 soon, and i'm looking to get a high quality starter lens but dont want the jump in price that the 2.8's cause. Might just end up going with a couple primes instead.

 

[Sideburns]

You don't need f/4 for a starter lens most times.

You can get lenses like the 3.5-5.6 in most ranges...and they aren't horrible.


However...there are some 2.8 lenses that aren't TOO expensive.

There is no point in making a cheap zoom a constant f/4...
cause it'd be cheap as hell to make up for the fact it's f/4
Making a fast lens and making a zoom a constant aperture both cost money...so you can't have good/fast/cheap in the same zoom lens.

Now...if you want a starter lens, I'm sure you will be fine with a variable maximum aperture in most cases.

 

[photogincollege]

i dont really care for variable aperture. 5.6 is just too slow in a lot of cases for me, i do a lot of night-time and low light photography, sounds like prime might be the way to go.

 

[sabbath999]

D200's open up a large list of AI non-autofocus lenses for very cheap

 

[Garbz]

i dont really care for variable aperture. 5.6 is just too slow in a lot of cases for me, i do a lot of night-time and low light photography, sounds like prime might be the way to go.

Even if they are easier to manufacture and thereby giving you more lens for the money? Even if at the wide angle you get better than f/4?

What you're saying to me makes little sense.

 

[photogincollege]

when i shooting in low light a lot of the time im zoomed in fully or almost fully, so im going to be shooting at the 5.6 end of the aperture is what i meant.

 

[JerryPH]

So get a lens that can do F/2.8 and set it to F/4. 3rd party lenses are a VERY strong option for you in this area.

There is just no reason to lmit yourself to a F/4 prime unless it is a very long telephoto.

For a little more than the price of a kit lens you can have an excellent constant aperture F/2.8 and get superior results.

No need to get a nice camera like a D200 and slap a slow and low quality or kit lens on it!

 

[photogincollege]

no i meant f4 zoom if i go prime ill get faster, the variable doesnt seem to bad either, i keep forgetting i can just up the iso lol.

 

[JerryPH]

no i meant f4 zoom

So did I.

Look at Sigma, Tokina and Tamron lens prices and options. If you can swing it, the Sigma 18-50 is sharper than even the 17-55 Nikkor and at 1/3rd the price.

 

[Mike_E]

I use an AI'd Nikon Q135mm on my D200 quite a bit. It's a very nice lens that shoots at 200mm and f2.8. Manual focus but for $30 you can't beat it.