[Matsu]

$849. Wow.

[PB PM]

So $1k in Cdn.

[Matsu]

Nikon rebates are back. Yet to see if they filter into Canadian prices... There's usually at least one or two retailers where they will. I'm going to look into a 35mm and 20mm f/1.8s.

For 35mm, there's the Sigma which is better corrected and sharper wide open, but the Nikon is actually close enough on sharpness, (30 vs 27 P-MP) and smaller, 1st party (if that still counts for anything) and should be close 40% cheaper if the rebates come in.

The 20mm doesn't have a real competitor right now.

[PB PM]

I wouldn't hold my breath for any rebates, for two reasons: 1. Nikon Canada rarely matches Nikon US rebates and 2. I believe Nikon Canada is set to raise prices once again within the next month.

BTW Usually rebates from Nikon Canada come three times a year, March, June and December.

[Matsu]

Henry's has got some very modest cuts on a few lenses right now, approx $30, which feels like currency exchange fluctuation (relative to USD) minus rebate, which is crap since Nikon maintains a separate US and CAN distribution/service/repair network, complete with different serial numbers, and so camera prices should fluctuate based on CAN-YEN differentials, not CAN-USD differentials. But whatever, March is just around the corner, and Aden Camera and a couple others in Toronto usually do a better job of keeping Henry's honest, so we'll see what happens... I don't recall ever seeing lens rebates ever official announced in Canada - though it's likely I was never paying attention - it just always seemed that the retailers would hold "sales" roughly co-incedent with USA rebates and/or bundle deals.

[PB PM]

So as i suspected over $1k for the 24mm f1.4 Art here in the north. One dealer is taking pre-orders at $1049 Cdn. Not out of line with the other two Art primes mind you, the 35mm F1.4 is around $989 and the 50mm F1.4 is currently listed at around $1049 at most dealers.

If I do get one, I'll wait for the Christmas deals, like I did with the 50mm F1.4. I saved $150 just by waiting till the boxing day sales.

Edit: Looks like the Nikon mount is not set to ship until June anyway, so no rush.

[Matsu]

We might see the 24mm f/1.8G by then...

[PB PM]

Dpreview posted more samples recently, and the 24mm Art looks to be another crazy sharp lens. Lots of CA though, even in the sample stopped down to F7.1. It's as bad, if not worse than the 24mm f2.8 Nikkor I'm currently using, and those optics date back to the 1970's. I'm sure most editors will have CA corrections soon after the lens is out, but the high levels visible in some of the samples is kind of surprising. Far worse than the 16-35mm F4G. I guess that is kind of something you have to live with when going for a fast wide prime.

[DMBand0026]

Originally Posted by turtle I didn't realize there was a 6D. Since leaving photography as a focus in life I've fallen way behind. looking at the specs of a 6D that is actually not a bad option for me at all. I thought there were only two full frame bodies for Canon. I'll look into it. At this point I think any new DSLR body is an upgrade for my Rebel XT. Sure I want the most bang for my buck, but anything from Canon should be an improvement over this +9 year old camera.

I can't recommend the 6D highly enough. I own one and I love it. Recent price drops have seen it, body only, around 1,250 USD. I paid more for mine about 6 months ago, but I'm still very happy with the deal I got. I've been shooting weddings with it lately and haven't found it lacking in many ways. The focusing system leaves a little to be desired, but it's not bad. It will definitely be an upgrade from an XT.

[Matsu]

Someone in a class with me shoots with a 6d. The files look really nice, but it's the lenses these days that are quite neat. The small stabilized primes and pancakes show a nice direction. Particularly like the 35 f/2 IS.

[DMBand0026]

Damnit, Matsu. Why did you have to say that? I've been trying to tell myself that I don't want the 35 f/2 IS because I have the 40 f/2.8 pancake (which I really love.) However, my resistance is faltering. It feels wasteful to have 2 lenses with such similar focal lengths, but every review I read of the 35 f/2 IS pushes me closer and closer to just getting it. Selling the pancake wouldn't be worth the trouble, I only paid $110 for it refurbished.

I was never much of a 35 fan, but since getting a 6D which moved me from crop to full frame, I've really fallen for the 40mm pancake and haven't touched my 50 f/1.8. That has a lot to do with the 50mm being a bit of a slug, but there's something that intrigues me about medium wide fast primes. The 50 isn't doing it for me anymore, neither in focal length nor quality.

The recent price drops on the 35 f/2 IS have really made my decision more difficult. I'm second shooting a wedding in about 2 weeks, I'm thinking it might be nice to have for that occasion.

[Matsu]

If Nikon had an AF pancake 40mm, I'd probably buy one and keep it as a lens cap. You're totally justified in owning both!

[Matsu]

Hi all. I haven't posted in here for a while. I'm very close to buying a 14-24. I think I might rather have a 16-35VR, or the old 17-35, but now a very well cared for used 14-24 has crossed my path, and since I know the owner, I'm getting first dibs on it. It's nearly out of warrantee, so it was one of the first batch, and I don't know if there are any longevity/reliability issues with it. It does seem well built. To make the decision just a little harder, the new Tamron 15-30VR has gotten good initial reviews. Thoughts?

[PB PM]

If you can justify the cost (aka earn it back asap) and are going to use it wide open with live subjects, get the 14-24mm Nikkor. The 16-35mm F4G is nice, but not wide open, it's really not an event shooting lens, other than some large group shoots, and even then the 14-24mm gives you more working room. The Tamron 15-35mm F2.8 VC appears to be good from reviews, close if not as good as the Nikkors. The thing is, it just hasn't been been around long enough for anyone to know if there are any issues.

Another possibility to consider, a prime like the 20mm F1.8G, lighter, smaller, cheaper and just as sharp as the 14-24mm F2.8, at F1.8, according to DxO Marks.

[Matsu]

These days I shoot for fun and a little extra income. Strictly for fun I shoot urban scenes. For work I now shoot a lot of rural subjects, landscape, nature, people. For a little extra income I will shoot events, real-estate shots, baptisms/communions, whatever. When my day job pays the bills, I'm content to have photography pay for my habit. I have lived exclusively off the meagre proceeds of photography for about 18 months just recently. I wouldn't say anything I buy really pays for itself, but in the worst case I manage to pay for my habits/pass-times/projects.

As a general purpose kit, I think a 17-35 plus 70-200 set is the natural pair. Throw in a small 50 or a macro and that's close to all you ever need. But Nikon's 17-35 is a little long in the tooth. The good news is that I've gotten pretty good at using the 24-70, which is not an easy lens to shoot well - it has the neither the dramatic sweep of an ultra-wide or close up impact of a telephoto. It's much more subtle, and it took practice to get stuff that stands out. Probably a 20 is wide enough as a compliment for street work and interiors. 14mm is all about drama,

[Matsu]

I ended up getting a 14-24. I'll probably still buy a few f/1.8 primes for lighter carry, and if Nikon ever updates the 17-35, I'll have a look then. Busy looking at some filters now

[PB PM]

Some reviews for the Sigma 24mm F1.4 Art have started to come in. Here is one by Roger Cicala from Lens Rentals. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015...art-comparison

Roger's Summery

The new Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art lens does, indeed, out resolve the offerings from the major manufacturers, at least in the center of the image. At the edges, though, the advantage disappears. More importantly with any 24mm f/1.4 lens, try as you will, unless you really stop the lens way down you aren't going to get a flat field of focus. And if you are going to stop the lens way down, why invest all the extra money for a wider aperture lens. That doesn't make these bad lenses. There are clearly some types of photography that this focal length is invaluable for, and in that case you just learn to work around the shortcomings. In many cases, though, the old rule that the best 24mm f/1.4 is a 35mm f/1.4 and a few steps backwards is often true.

Sounds good, although I do have my reservations based on image samples I've seen. I don't really buy into the, "old rule that the best 24mm F1.4 is a 35mm F1.4" argument, but I enjoy working with 24mm on a 35mm frame camera. I do find it rather interesting that chromatic aberrations have not come up in these early technical reviews, because it is evident in some of the sample shots by Sigma and Dpreview. On a personal note, I'll wait to see what the rumored Nikon AF-S 24mm F1.8G has to offer, price and quality wise before making a decision on whether to go for the Sigma or not.

By the way Matsu, how is the 14-24mm F2.8G treating you?

[kieran]

I'm taking a trip to St. Thomas in a few weeks and I was wondering about taking another lens with me. I'm thinking of getting a new lens in the next few months or so anyways, so figured this would be a good way to "test drive" one out for a week.

I've already got the kit lens, a fisheye adapter that I really like, and this Sigma that basically lives on my camera 24/7/365.

I"m just not sure as to what one to get for the week, or even if I should. Probably be shooting a lot of landscapes and architecture while I'm there.

Any suggestions?

[PB PM]

If you are going to rent something, maybe try something really different from what you are used to, or even comfortable working with. Sometimes forcing yourself to try something different opens up new ideas, even for landscapes and architecture. A nice telephoto lens can really change the perspective for those subjects, because they create a flatter look to the images.

What "kit lens" do you have? IIRC you shoot Canon, so I'm guessing either a 18-55mm or 18-135mm? If that's the case the Sigma 18-35mm and a nice telephoto, maybe a 70-200mm F4 IS or something like that might be a nice to try out.

[Matsu]

Kieran. I think I'd be temped by an UWA of some kind, and maybe a 70-300.

PBPM. First impressions of the 14-24 are that it's fat It will take some time getting used to that front element - I don't really coddle my stuff, and even though the lens feels really solid, it's just something you have to handle differently.

Other thoughts. It's already sharp at f/2.8. By f/4 things that are very small in the centre of the frame have a surprising amount of detail.

Now here's the surprising part. I don't find 14mm that much wider than 16mm. People go on and on about how much wider 14 is, but in close quarters i think you can get most of shots at 16mm too. I think it makes more difference when you get it outside and want to take in a lot more, or when you want to exaggerate perspective or scale, but I don't think its necessary or even wise to use the extra width to "fit it all in."

I thought really hard about tamron 15-30 too. Sharpness is close enough and it has VC and some better water repellent coatings, and it's cheaper new, but I can't send it to nikon with my whole kit and have the factory tune the whole thing. It doesn't really matter as much - at these focal lengths there's lots of depth to start off - but I'm lazy and like one stop service.

[kieran]

I did have a Canon, but due to some changing life circumstances and some crazy person deciding to steal pretty much all of my belongings, I switched to a Nikon. Just the standard 18-35mm kit lens.

I was leaning towards a telephoto, but just not exactly sure which way to go.

[Matsu]

Which Nikon?

[kieran]

It's the Nikon d3300

[PB PM]

I guess the next question is then, how much can/do you want to spend? The 24MP sensor in the D3300 is really going to punish you when using kit grade lenses (18-55mm VR, 55-200 VR or 55-300mm VR). I'm sure that is part of the reason the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 sits on the camera most of the time, since it is a much better piece of kit.

Affordability, weight and size wise, the 70-300mm VR is the best compromise. In terms of quality though, next up you have the likes of the Nikon 70-200mm F4G VR or the Tamron or Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 lenses.

[Matsu]

I'm confused. Do you have a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or one of the 18-55 kit lenses?

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Matsu Now here's the surprising part. I don't find 14mm that much wider than 16mm. People go on and on about how much wider 14 is, but in close quarters i think you can get most of shots at 16mm too. I think it makes more difference when you get it outside and want to take in a lot more, or when you want to exaggerate perspective or scale, but I don't think its necessary or even wise to use the extra width to "fit it all in."

That, price, flare issues, and filters are the main reasons why I opted for the 16-35mm F4G VR. Mind you, I didn't need a fast super-wide either. LEE makes some great filters for the 14-24mm, but wow they are expensive!

On a personal note (yes hijacking the focus of the thread) I'm thinking of making some changes to my kit as well. Partly downsizing the number of lenses and cameras.

Cameras:
I have this D700 sitting around, and it really needs to find a new home. Great camera, but it has not seen the light of day in four months. Less than 1000 shots in the last year. The D800 is also a great camera. The resolution, dynamic range etc are great, but the AF system is crap. No amount of work by Nikon seems to make it better, so I'm ready to give up on it. Right now the body solution looks best solved by trade them both in for a D750. Yeah, resolution downgrade, but I really don't need to have the resolution for my printing needs. D750, less dynamic range, yes, less cropping yes. Non-ideal controls, yup. Smaller lighter body, yup. Faster? Yup. Single card type? Yes, and I'm really tired of dealing with two card types in the D800. I won't miss buying expensive CF cards! I'll likely make the move before the rebates end on the 16th.

I thought about a D810, but it's just too expensive (I'm looking at a new car in the next year, so that has budget priority) and doesn't solve some of the issues I have with the D800. Not to mention that I would rather have an AA filter in my camera for video work. I don't use or need professional video editing software, so dealing with moiré is an issue. I know that sounds odd and backwards, but that's how I feel. I still have an old D300 lying around for backup purposes, should the D750 go down for some reason.

Lenses:
The Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 (non-OS version), big, bulky and inconstant focus, at least thats how things appear after a year and half of use. I love the F2.8, but if I go F2.8 again it will be a fixed 300mm prime. The 120-300, Sigma TC's and and the 70-300mm VR will likely get traded in for a 300mm F4E PF, if Nikon can ever get the quality control issues users are reporting sorted out. Apparently Nikon is working on a firmware fix to deal with some issues. The Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 will go. Hasn't been on my camera once since I got the Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art. Yeah, one of the most used lenses in my kit from the last four years, has not been attached in four months! The issue isn't weight, since they weigh the same amount, basically. The Nikon 50mm F1.8G, will go. The Nikon 105mm VR, keeper. Keep your mitts off people! The Nikon 24mm F2.8? It stays until I see what the Sigma and rumored Nikon look like. 16-35mm F4G VR? Keeper, love it for any real wide angle work.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Matsu I'm confused. Do you have a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or one of the 18-55 kit lenses?

From the sounds of the earlier post, kieran has both.

[Matsu]

The d800 seems to have had some issues and either you get a good camera or one that that they can make right on the first pass or no amount of fiddling seems to help. That was my experience with the two I had/have. The first which Nikon eventually just refunded, the second which hasn't ever needed anything, but doesn't love my 50mm f/1.8g.

I've thought about selling mine and picking up two d750s. I think if you get a d750 you might consider keeping the 70-300vr. That's a fairly compact kit that no smaller camera is really going to match. I've tried the d750 (friend) and d810 (in store). The d750 does probably have the best Nikon AF right now at the expense of a little area coverage. The d810 shutter is the quietest I've ever heard. Both fit the hand better than the d800.

I'd like to see Nikon bring out an FX camera in a d5500 sized chassis. I'd be a perfect partner to the 1.8 primes, or the 70-200 f/4 or 300PF. I'd almost certainly get in line for two such cameras.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Matsu The d800 seems to have had some issues and either you get a good camera or one that that they can make right on the first pass or no amount of fiddling seems to help. That was my experience with the two I had/have. The first which Nikon eventually just refunded, the second which hasn't ever needed anything, but doesn't love my 50mm f/1.8g. I've thought about selling mine and picking up two d750s. I think if you get a d750 you might consider keeping the 70-300vr. That's a fairly compact kit that no smaller camera is really going to match. I've tried the d750 (friend) and d810 (in store). The d750 does probably have the best Nikon AF right now at the expense of a little area coverage. The d810 shutter is the quietest I've ever heard. Both fit the hand better than the d800. I'd like to see Nikon bring out an FX camera in a d5500 sized chassis. I'd be a perfect partner to the 1.8 primes, or the 70-200 f/4 or 300PF. I'd almost certainly get in line for two such cameras.

Yes the D800 was kind of an odd ball camera in terms of reliability. Production date also seemed to make a big difference. Mine was one of those that seems to have AF issues and a soft 10 connector. The only thing I'll really miss from that class of camera is the round eye-piece. I know that sounds silly, but it really is more comfortable to look through. Not too concerned about the dedicated ISO, WB etc now that the video record button can be programmed to change ISO settings.

As for the 70-300mm VR, it is a nice lens, and I've thought about grabbing a cheap used 24-85mm VR to pair with it a nice compact travel kit. I could then keep the expensive primes at home, just for piece of mind while traveling. Then again I often like to have my best gear for trips, so that doesn't always end up happening.

[kieran]

Originally Posted by PB PM I guess the next question is then, how much can/do you want to spend? The 24MP sensor in the D3300 is really going to punish you when using kit grade lenses (18-55mm VR, 55-200 VR or 55-300mm VR). I'm sure that is part of the reason the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 sits on the camera most of the time, since it is a much better piece of kit. Affordability, weight and size wise, the 70-300mm VR is the best compromise. In terms of quality though, next up you have the likes of the Nikon 70-200mm F4G VR or the Tamron or Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 lenses.

I'm only looking to rent of the week at this point, and maybe purchase something later this year.

Originally Posted by Matsu I'm confused. Do you have a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or one of the 18-55 kit lenses?

Originally Posted by PB PM From the sounds of the earlier post, kieran has both.

PB PM is correct. I have the kit lens, which I use with the Fisheye adapter mostly.