New Nikon Lenses announced
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:11 am
NatureScapes.net Nature Photography Resource - Photo Galleries, Discussion Forums, Nature and Wildlife Photography Articles and Tips
https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/
Personally, I would much prefer their 14-30 f/4 as it takes filters. As far as astro is concerned, I personally think f/2.8 is too slow and tend to opt for f/1.4 to f/2 lenses so the 14-28/2.8 has no appeal there either, just like the Sony 12-24 f/2.8 has no appeal to me. Again, just personal preferences based on what I do.Scott Fairbairn wrote:I imagine the 14-24 will be in high demand, and knowing Nikon's ability to supply products, it'll be in short supply.
E.J. Peiker wrote:Personally, I would much prefer their 14-30 f/4 as it takes filters. As far as astro is concerned, I personally think f/2.8 is too slow and tend to opt for f/1.4 to f/2 lenses so the 14-28/2.8 has no appeal there either, just like the Sony 12-24 f/2.8 has no appeal to me. Again, just personal preferences based on what I do.Scott Fairbairn wrote:I imagine the 14-24 will be in high demand, and knowing Nikon's ability to supply products, it'll be in short supply.
Just saw that the 14-24 does take filters - 112mm Not a lot of those on the market!
E.J. Peiker wrote:Personally, I would much prefer their 14-30 f/4 as it takes filters. As far as astro is concerned, I personally think f/2.8 is too slow and tend to opt for f/1.4 to f/2 lenses so the 14-28/2.8 has no appeal there either, just like the Sony 12-24 f/2.8 has no appeal to me. Again, just personal preferences based on what I do.Scott Fairbairn wrote:I imagine the 14-24 will be in high demand, and knowing Nikon's ability to supply products, it'll be in short supply.
Just saw that the 14-24 does take filters - 112mm Not a lot of those on the market!
Actually a lot of astro guys don't seem to like the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 due to pretty heavy astigmatism.Scott Fairbairn wrote:E.J. Peiker wrote:Personally, I would much prefer their 14-30 f/4 as it takes filters. As far as astro is concerned, I personally think f/2.8 is too slow and tend to opt for f/1.4 to f/2 lenses so the 14-28/2.8 has no appeal there either, just like the Sony 12-24 f/2.8 has no appeal to me. Again, just personal preferences based on what I do.Scott Fairbairn wrote:I imagine the 14-24 will be in high demand, and knowing Nikon's ability to supply products, it'll be in short supply.
Just saw that the 14-24 does take filters - 112mm Not a lot of those on the market!
I picked up the Sigma 14mm f1.8. Man is that a monster of a lens. Have you used the Sony 20mm f1.8 for night images? It's getting good reviews.
I was wondering about the SONY 20mm f 1.8 not the sigma.E.J. Peiker wrote:Actually a lot of astro guys don't seem to like the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 due to pretty heavy astigmatism.Scott Fairbairn wrote:E.J. Peiker wrote:Personally, I would much prefer their 14-30 f/4 as it takes filters. As far as astro is concerned, I personally think f/2.8 is too slow and tend to opt for f/1.4 to f/2 lenses so the 14-28/2.8 has no appeal there either, just like the Sony 12-24 f/2.8 has no appeal to me. Again, just personal preferences based on what I do.Scott Fairbairn wrote:I imagine the 14-24 will be in high demand, and knowing Nikon's ability to supply products, it'll be in short supply.
Just saw that the 14-24 does take filters - 112mm Not a lot of those on the market!
I picked up the Sigma 14mm f1.8. Man is that a monster of a lens. Have you used the Sony 20mm f1.8 for night images? It's getting good reviews.