Nikon Showcase Post Nikon Df Photos

As soon as someone offers me a fuji-like setup (interface, form factor, and most importantly killer glass choices at non-crazy prices) with a full frame sensor in it I will have a difficult decision to make. Sony's not there. The Df is actually sorta tempting. I keep finding myself googling them, still.
 
I could actually do that, I think, as long as I also had some kind of decent knocking-around AF zoom for everyday shots.

They actually make those too Kyle! :D There's a better than pretty good 24-85 "kit" lens that was sold with the D610 that's actually reasonably small and light and quite good at f3.5-4.5. It sells for $600 but they regularly show up used for about $250-300. I have my favorite zoom ever, a 24-120 constant f4. It's a bit larger and heavier, but not bad. It's far more expensive at something like $1200-1300 new, but again, regularly found used for more like $800. Still not cheap but my favorite zoom range ever and f4 actually goes a LOOOOOOONG way with full frame. Fine in low light with the Df's sensor and pretty decent narrow DOF as well. Sigma makes a 24-105 f4 zoom that's really well regarded as well, but no personal experience with that one... They also have the high end stuff, but that's huge, heavy, and costs very serious money. But Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron all make 24-70 f2.8 zooms that run between about $1400 up to about $1900 for the Nikon version. Not sure about used prices on these - I never bothered to look...

-Ray
 
They actually make those too Kyle! :D There's a better than pretty good 24-85 "kit" lens that was sold with the D610 that's actually reasonably small and light and quite good at f3.5-4.5. It sells for $600 but they regularly show up used for about $250-300. I have my favorite zoom ever, a 24-120 constant f4. It's a bit larger and heavier, but not bad. It's far more expensive at something like $1200-1300 new, but again, regularly found used for more like $800. Still not cheap but my favorite zoom range ever and f4 actually goes a LOOOOOOONG way with full frame. Fine in low light with the Df's sensor and pretty decent narrow DOF as well. Sigma makes a 24-105 f4 zoom that's really well regarded as well, but no personal experience with that one... They also have the high end stuff, but that's huge, heavy, and costs very serious money. But Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron all make 24-70 f2.8 zooms that run between about $1400 up to about $1900 for the Nikon version. Not sure about used prices on these - I never bothered to look...

-Ray

The older AF D Nikkor 35-70 constant ƒ2.8 is very nicely priced zoom ;)

11606841634_7950b45313_c.jpg
Nikon AF 35-70 ƒ2.8 by RedTail_Panther, on Flickr
 
Got one of those and have used every since the film days. Great lens

B

That does have a reputation as a great lens, and it was made in the days when they didn't do a great job at wider angle zooms. So it made a lot of sense. Unfortunately for me, it's EXACTLY the range I almost never shoot at. 35 is about as long as I ever go before jumping straight up into portrait range, which for me starts at about 85mm. So this is a focal length range that I pretty much go out of my way to avoid - I have a 50mm f1.8 for my Df because I figure I should have the option and I paid all of $75 for it (and it's a damn good lens!), but I use it roughly never. When I do it's mostly an exercise just to see if I can do ANYTHING with it, and the answer is almost always no. So I look at this zoom and think "who would ever shoot with one of those"? And of course the answer is that a LOT of people would, have, and do. But if I bought one it would live at 35 with the occasional visit to 70, in neither case would I be satisfied with the width or length, and I can't imagine I'd ever stop anywhere between. One of those great lenses I'm just destined to miss out on!

-Ray
 
I realize I haven't posted anything here in a while, but have been shooting with the Df a lot. I sold off a bunch of good and mediocre lenses and now have three GREAT ones at the wide end. Zeiss 21 (I know, I had one, returned it for the Nikon 20 f1.8, then changed my mind yet AGAIN, and returned it and found a better deal on another used 21), Zeiss 25 f2.8, and Zeiss 35 f2.0. All bought used, the 21 still cost a boatload of money, but the 25 and 35 were both well within the bounds of what I'd ordinarily spend on lenses. The only AF wide angle I still have is the Nikon 24 f2.8 because it's so tiny, didn't cost much, and really puts the Df into a minimalist configuration. But the 25, which is actually closer to 26, is a really good all purposes wide angle and eliminates the mental gyrations I sometimes go through choosing between 24 and 28. The 21 handles the really wide stuff and is the best lens in the history of the world. Well, really REALLY good at least! And the 35 is frighteningly close to the 35 on the RX1, which was the best lens in the history of the world until I'd used the 21. I'm gonna do some back to back comparisons, but if it lives up to my early experience with it, the RX1 might be on the way out.

I walked all over the Amalfi Coast in the summer of 2013 with nearly these same three focal lengths with the RX1 at 35, the Nikon A at 28, and a Fuji XE1 with the 14mm at 21. It's a trio that covers almost everything I use except for the very rare outing with a longer lens. I had a longer lens that summer and I shot some with it from the apartments where we were staying, but I'm not sure it ever actually left home with me... So this is a trio that I can do nearly everything with. And now I've got it in three thoroughly amazing and wonderful lenses. I'm fine, it turns out, with MF at the wider focal lengths. I wish I was also with stuff in the 85-150 range, but I'm not for what I mostly use those lengths for. I've shot some stuff with the 135 AI I've got and it's a great little lens for the bag when I'm out and about, but when I'm trying to shoot friends and family at get togethers in lower light, I find I'm just not quick enough with it unless people are posing, and that's not what I'm after. So I'm not buying any of the amazing Zeiss lenses in those focal lengths, which is good because that's some REALLY expensive glass - more than the 21, which is probably as much as I've ever spent for a lens and I got a relatively inexpensive used one. Anyway, I'm good with the Df and these three wide primes in the Ona Bowery which is a great way to spend a day out. So I've consolidated a lot but I'm ending up with real quality glass in the focal lengths I use most...

Anyway, here are a few catch up shots since I last posted anything here. I've posted most elsewhere, but I figure I should add some to this thread as well. All with that Zeiss glass, mostly the 25, which is destined to be my most used lens I guarantee it:

This one went a little crazy on Flickr - the most popular shot I've ever posted there:
15583108010_486571e33f_h.jpg
John Heinz Wetland area by ramboorider1, on Flickr

15674570351_d76a44ea06_h.jpg
Stroud in the Fog by ramboorider1, on Flickr

15710841861_dbe4cd4e51_h.jpg
Autumn Colors by ramboorider1, on Flickr

15491700300_ea28e6a127_h.jpg
Philly Zeiss-401-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

15056552834_dfad82678a_h.jpg
Philly Zeiss-146-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

15671165641_fdac97bdfb_h.jpg
Stroud in Fog by ramboorider1, on Flickr

These last two are the 21mm:

15779614435_d199761df6_h.jpg
Autumn Sunset by ramboorider1, on Flickr

15594811400_f25c597c52_h.jpg
Autumn Sunset by ramboorider1, on Flickr

-Ray
 
Ray,
Speaking of the Dƒ and the 50mm focal length range....:D

All non-AI, from left to right...
50 f1.4
58 f1.4 (mounted)
55 f1.2

15179238337_6cbcbeb72b_c.jpg
Nikkor Pre-AI Nifty Fifties by RedTail_Panther, on Flickr

Yeah, I'd say you have it covered! I wish I liked that focal length because there are so many great and reasonably inexpensive lenses to choose from and play with. I shot with ONLY 50mm all through high school and covered the world for our HS newspaper with it, but now I just can't see anything through the damn things...

-Ray
 
Great series - #2 rocks! :cool:

I realize I haven't posted anything here in a while, but have been shooting with the Df a lot. I sold off a bunch of good and mediocre lenses and now have three GREAT ones at the wide end. Zeiss 21 (I know, I had one, returned it for the Nikon 20 f1.8, then changed my mind yet AGAIN, and returned it and found a better deal on another used 21), Zeiss 25 f2.8, and Zeiss 35 f2.0. All bought used, the 21 still cost a boatload of money, but the 25 and 35 were both well within the bounds of what I'd ordinarily spend on lenses. The only AF wide angle I still have is the Nikon 24 f2.8 because it's so tiny, didn't cost much, and really puts the Df into a minimalist configuration. But the 25, which is actually closer to 26, is a really good all purposes wide angle and eliminates the mental gyrations I sometimes go through choosing between 24 and 28. The 21 handles the really wide stuff and is the best lens in the history of the world. Well, really REALLY good at least! And the 35 is frighteningly close to the 35 on the RX1, which was the best lens in the history of the world until I'd used the 21. I'm gonna do some back to back comparisons, but if it lives up to my early experience with it, the RX1 might be on the way out.

I walked all over the Amalfi Coast in the summer of 2013 with nearly these same three focal lengths with the RX1 at 35, the Nikon A at 28, and a Fuji XE1 with the 14mm at 21. It's a trio that covers almost everything I use except for the very rare outing with a longer lens. I had a longer lens that summer and I shot some with it from the apartments where we were staying, but I'm not sure it ever actually left home with me... So this is a trio that I can do nearly everything with. And now I've got it in three thoroughly amazing and wonderful lenses. I'm fine, it turns out, with MF at the wider focal lengths. I wish I was also with stuff in the 85-150 range, but I'm not for what I mostly use those lengths for. I've shot some stuff with the 135 AI I've got and it's a great little lens for the bag when I'm out and about, but when I'm trying to shoot friends and family at get togethers in lower light, I find I'm just not quick enough with it unless people are posing, and that's not what I'm after. So I'm not buying any of the amazing Zeiss lenses in those focal lengths, which is good because that's some REALLY expensive glass - more than the 21, which is probably as much as I've ever spent for a lens and I got a relatively inexpensive used one. Anyway, I'm good with the Df and these three wide primes in the Ona Bowery which is a great way to spend a day out. So I've consolidated a lot but I'm ending up with real quality glass in the focal lengths I use most...

Anyway, here are a few catch up shots since I last posted anything here. I've posted most elsewhere, but I figure I should add some to this thread as well. All with that Zeiss glass, mostly the 25, which is destined to be my most used lens I guarantee it:

This one went a little crazy on Flickr - the most popular shot I've ever posted there:
15583108010_486571e33f_h.jpg
John Heinz Wetland area by ramboorider1, on Flickr

15674570351_d76a44ea06_h.jpg
Stroud in the Fog by ramboorider1, on Flickr

15710841861_dbe4cd4e51_h.jpg
Autumn Colors by ramboorider1, on Flickr

15491700300_ea28e6a127_h.jpg
Philly Zeiss-401-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

15056552834_dfad82678a_h.jpg
Philly Zeiss-146-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

15671165641_fdac97bdfb_h.jpg
Stroud in Fog by ramboorider1, on Flickr

These last two are the 21mm:

15779614435_d199761df6_h.jpg
Autumn Sunset by ramboorider1, on Flickr

15594811400_f25c597c52_h.jpg
Autumn Sunset by ramboorider1, on Flickr

-Ray
 
Ray,
It sounds like you have evolved you set up to a great outfit. And the images prove it. Very nice.
I am very. Tempted to pick up a Zeiss 21mm. Maybe if end of year bonus comes through I will pick a used one.
Alternative is the 35 f1.4
 
Hey All,

Number 3 for me there Ray.

Best lenses in the history of the world aside I do have to wonder if there are any real evaluations that actually quantify the relative contribution of sensor capability, lens, photographic technique and processing to final image quality. I'd be curious to see exactly how that is done.

-Ed-
 
Hey All,

Number 3 for me there Ray.

Best lenses in the history of the world aside I do have to wonder if there are any real evaluations that actually quantify the relative contribution of sensor capability, lens, photographic technique and processing to final image quality. I'd be curious to see exactly how that is done.

-Ed-

I'm sure someone has attempted to quantify such relationships, but I think it would be sort of meaningless. They all matter but they bring different things to the table and different aspects of the shot matter more depending on the particulars of that photograph. I think it's beyond doubt that the most important thing is the initial image that you see and record in the camera. But beyond that, it depends. Post processing is really important on most shots, more on some than others, and the sensor is the key variable in determining how much post processing a shot can take. Post processing is the biggest reason I moved to full frame - those files can just take more work without getting funky on you than anything else I've used. So the sensor and post processing are both really big and hugely related.

The lens is probably the hardest thing to quantify or even qualify, despite all of the optical charts that technical reviews will give you. But certain lenses just give images a certain look and the more you work with them the more you come to appreciate it. My first Zeiss was with the RX1 and that was also my first full frame sensor. I loved that camera right away but it took me a while to really start to appreciate just how good the different elements of that camera are, how great the sensor is for DR and post processing, etc. But there's something about the way that lens renders that I really didn't GET right away and it took a little while to fully grow on me. People use all kinds of terms like micro-contrast and transparency and talk about field curvature and distortion and coma and I honestly don't have more than the most basic understanding of what any of it really means. But I do know there's something about the way the Zeiss lenses I've used render that's simply unlike anything else I've used. It's something I can't really describe but there's a certain clarity, a transparency, even certain glow. They're just different. Some may not like them as much as some other lenses. I just love the look of light that lands on a sensor after it comes through a good Zeiss lens. I'm sure it's as much a matter of taste and preference as anything. But we all probably get a subconscious boost when we're shooting with a lens we love, because we sort of can't wait to see how a certain image will look once we get it back home and see it on the big screen and then work with it a bit. They're different - the 21 and the 35 Sonnar in the RX1 render very differently - the 21 is almost startlingly clear and sharp and colorful - RX1 somehow has a bit more of a glow, an ethereal quality that Luke and/or Eliot have described as being "made from magic unicorn dust". I'm seeing a lot of the same thing in the 35 f2.0 Distagon I got recently. The 24 f2.8 is a bit unlike either of those, or maybe somewhere in the middle, and I don't know it well enough to describe it yet - but I REALLY like what I'm seeing from it. I've shot with little else since I got it and it figures to be my most used lens given it's sort of perfect (for me) focal length. I'm looking forward to really getting to know it, but I already love the damn thing.

So, hell, I don't know. But all of the factors bring something to the table. The image is always the most important thing, but bringing it to life in the camera and in PP takes a number of factors and I can't rank them, but if one of those links in the chain is really weak, I usually know it pretty quickly. Same if one is really strong. At the moment, I"m so thrilled with the Df and these three lenses it's kind of scary. I expect about 90% of the images I make in the next year will come through them and that's a nice thing to look forward to...

-Ray
 
ray i know youre not into tele lenses, but just from you 'zeiss zeitgeist' i most most heartily recommend the zeiss biotar 75/1.5 in exakata mount and the biometar 120/2.8 in pentacon 6 (medium format) mount. both are adaptable to nikon f, the biometar adapter can even coordinate with the auto confirm light on the Df. ive used lots of zeiss and many other portrait lenses as well, and if youre into the zeiss look, these two are absolute stars. in fact, ive already bought the 'auto confirm' P6>nikon adapter in hopes of one day getting a Df mostly just to use the biometar digitally.
 
ray i know youre not into tele lenses, but just from you 'zeiss zeitgeist' i most most heartily recommend the zeiss biotar 75/1.5 in exakata mount and the biometar 120/2.8 in pentacon 6 (medium format) mount. both are adaptable to nikon f, the biometar adapter can even coordinate with the auto confirm light on the Df. ive used lots of zeiss and many other portrait lenses as well, and if youre into the zeiss look, these two are absolute stars. in fact, ive already bought the 'auto confirm' P6>nikon adapter in hopes of one day getting a Df mostly just to use the biometar digitally.

Tony, it's not that I'm not into telephotos, and a really fine portrait lens is a place I'd LOVE to have that Zeiss look. My problem is I just don't have the speed or touch with manual focus anymore to use for candid portraits, which is my most important use for this sort of focal length. I bought a really nice little Nikkor 135mm f2.8 for pennies on ebay to check this out. And I really like the lens for various uses, but I've tried doing some candid portraits and I'm just missing too many shots because of my manual focus skills (or lack thereof). If someone is sitting in a chair and isn't being TOO animated, I'm fine, but people moving around, standing and just the small movements of someone standing and talking are enough to throw me off just often enough. So I don't really see myself going for any sort of MF lens at these kinds of focal lengths for this kind of shooting. And this kind of shooting is what I mostly do at these focal lengths anyway. I'm renting a Nikon 135 f2 with auto focus for the holidays next week. I'm gonna shoot a lot with that and with my little MF 135 and see how I do. I already have a Nikon 85 f1.8 D lens that's a really nice shorter portrait lens but I'm not settled on anything at the longer part of the portrait range - essentially something to take the place of the excellent Olympus 75mm f1.8 that was my go-to lens for this kind of thing over the past 2-3 years. So I'll experiment over the holidays this year and see how I do with what I've got. If I surprise myself and do better with the MF 135 than I've done so far, I'll certainly take a look at the Zeiss lenses you recommend and maybe a couple of others too. If not, I may wait and see what's coming down the pike for a good 135-150 AF lens for the Nikon (with the existing 135 f2 being a possibility, but it's pretty big and pretty expensive an doesn't have VR, which is useful at this focal length for this purpose. And there's an outside chance that at some point I'll just buy a used EM5 and a used 75mm and go back to m43 for this particular type of thing. That lens kept me in m43 when I was ready to let it go for other reasons and it might bring me back to it, at least as a part timer. I just don't want to get into a second system again because I've seen what happens and I don't really trust myself to avoid system creep. But, damn, the combination of that lens with Olympus' IBIS and face detection was just about a perfect setup for shooting friends and family in relaxed settings. And the rear flip up screen was perfect for that sort of setting also. I don't know that I can touch it with the DSLR...

I appreciate the recommendation and I'd LOVE to have a Zeiss in that focal length neighborhood, but I'd be really surprised to see it happen. Unless they take the Touit approach to full frame at some point and start building full frame AF lenses for Nikon and Canon and maybe Sony. I don't see that happening, but I'd love it if they did...

-Ray
 
Back
Top