TWENTY-FOUR - FIFTY - ONE HUNDRED AND THIRY-FIVE is the way to go AND YOU KNOW IT!
>24based.>50cringe. people only buy this shit focal length because they can't afford equally good 35s/40s.>135based again
>>4302433For me, it's the 20, 35, 135. The best prime combination.
14/2.8 EX, 50/1.2 AI-s and 135/2 DCThe true Holy Trinity
FOURTY MINUTES IN and NOT ONE EIGHTY-FIVE FAGGOT MESSING UP my thread. GLORIOUS!
>>4302443SLIDING SLIGHTLY DOWN ON THE WIDE SIDE is legit but KEEP THAT DISTANCE.
I have my 55mm that I'm pretty happy with, could focus a little closer and be a bit faster but they're not deal breakers. I have a 90mm macro, I've considered getting a 135mm but I just can't imagine myself switching between the two or choosing to take the 135 out over the 90. For a wide I have a 16-35mm f/4, I just don't see the point in a fast wide prime for most of what wide lenses are used for and it's going to be just as expensive, big, and heavy if not more so.
70-200 and a 40mm prime. Anything shorter is a meme and you might as well use your phone
85mm, can drop the 50 and 135 dead weights that way
>>4302433>the way to gofor what? or do u just bring the same three lenses everytime you shoot?
My issue is I don't take photos of animals often but when I do I need to move quickly, so I either keep a telephoto zoom on and swap it off and back on whenever I want to take a photo or miss critters because I'm trying to change lenses before they run away. I love wide angle and macro too much.
>>4302544Got you covered senpai[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON Z 7Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Camera Raw 16.1 (Macintosh)Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern880Focal Length (35mm Equiv)59 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:03:24 18:26:13Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating640Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length59.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
15-30mm24-85mm kit70-200mm200mm-500mmCover all the range all day. Weight is nothing.
>>4302558>200-500Ah, a fellow BIGMA enthusiast, I see.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height659Scene Capture TypeStandard
14-24mm 2.824-70mm 2.870-200mm 2.8anything less is just hobbyist cope
>>4302564that's not the bigma
>>4302609Of course it is, look at it it’s fucking huge. It’s big and it’s sigma, so it’s bigma.
40, 90, 200The rest is pleb tier
>>4302433Cunts![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2064Image Height1272Scene Capture TypeStandard
bitch
>>4302537OF COURSE I DO!
>>4302437I agree. But 40 any day, not 35.
>>4302433>24Garbage>35Garbage>50Alright>135Pretty goodBut you missed the GOAT 85mm
>>4302763There it is.. EIGHTY-FIVE MILL.. the PINNACLE OF AVERAGENESS! Too wide for a decent compression... too TIGHT FOR ANYTHING ELSE BUT PREDICTABLE BODY SHOTS OF FAT CHICKS WITH A FOUR TO FIVE BODY RATIO![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePhotoScapeImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpi
>>4302627>5.6-6.3Literally sub-mft tier but at much more expense and weight. Stick to f/4 or below
>>4302801>Literally sub-mft tier but at much more expense and weight. Stick to f/4 or belowMicro four thirds has a 90-300 f2.8-3.1? Really? Where? Does it also cost $2000, work with teleconverters, focus internally with industry leading weather sealing, have a secondary control ring, and have a nearly flawless optical design?Is this like when I was told f4 zooms were mft tier but mft tier was paying $1500 for an f3.4 zoom with a truncated range?
>>4302803teleconverters on that, what a joke. at least you have a uh, "secondary control ring". seems real useful and definitely not a cope! none of that changes the fact that you're hitting damn near 6.3 early in the zoom range.
>>4302803yes its going on sale soon with the micro four thirds body that has 45mp and a base ISO of 15
>>4302807Does the micro four thirds 90-300 f2.8-3.1 also hit damn near 6.3 early in the zoom range? Is it also so sharp that with the compatible 1.4x teleconverter it's only as "soft" as a slightly cheaper zoom?>>4302808Awesome, placing my g9vi preorder now
>>4302810I don't actually know or care about mft lenses, all I know is you're hauling around a shitty overpriced zoom that hits f/6.3 on a full frame camera. Telephoto zooms are and have always been a scam for hobbyists.
>>4302811Concession accepted, bucko.Don't bother progressing to larping as "rich" and lying about buying a telephoto prime. I don't want you to end up like that guy who couldn't return his troll purchase before his credit card bill was due.
>>4302814>not just paying interest until you can sell it on ebayits worth the epic btfo on /p/ - gear
>>4302814>all this insecure projectionHere are some simple facts: the 180-600 is not as sharp as Nikon's S lenses. Nikon has many very sharp primes that are not that much more expensive. If you have a Z body and the 180-600 you can afford the 400mm/4.5 that *actually* is very sharp and with faster AF. Even with the 1.4 teleconverter it's sharper than the 180-600 at 600. Sorry you got scammed I guess, you can always resell. Hope you take good care of your stuff.
>>4302801>>4302807>>4302811>6.3>6.3>6.3You know, if you didn't have a body with a baby sensor that sucks above ISO 1600 you wouldn't care so much about needing to have fast lenses.
>>4302830>ids nawd eben sharp
>>4302865Oh my god the absolute furthest edges of the image (which my sensor doesn't even cover) are slightly lower contrast in return for being able to span an extra 200mm in either direction what a fucking ripoff and it goes to f6.3 thats unusable on my z50 fucking dropped
For people who dont speak MTF chart, up and down is contrast and side to side is distance from the image center. Red is fat details and blue is thin details. The dotted and solid lines represent lines going in different directions because sometimes lenses blur more in one direction than another.Differences around 0.1 contrast and less are not detectable by human (not pixel peeper) observers of real photographs of real subjects, and vanish unless you go out of your way to turn off unsharp mask (only spergs do that). Differences past around that 15/20 line for distance from the center are never observed except in landscape photography and prolonged pixel peeping sessions. No one actually looks at those areas of a photo. It's only relevant to film scanning. You should see the MTF charts of lenses landscape photographers go gaga for - they are actually worse, but no one fucking cares
>>4302433You mean 28/45/85, right?
I like 28/50/85
>>4303604It's a meme.Btw: MFaggoTs, GET OUT OR DID YOU HEAR ME SAY 'TWELVE - TWENTY-FIVE - SIXTY-SEVEN'?!
>>4302627>>4302564unironically, what the hell is the use case of these
>>4303725small bibrs
>>4303725Perspective control.I want you to imagine a branch on a tree that's about 3 meters off the ground. There's a bird on that branch. You can get as close as you want, and the angle from you to the bird will get steeper, until you are just looking at its asshole.With a big lens, you can stand further away, so you are more level with the bird, and still fill more of the frame.
85135200
>>4303725the green giant was produced for news photography e.g. in stadiums iircit was never meant to be practical or affordable
>>4302433200400800
>>4303725Photographing football games. From a fixed position.it makes a lot more sense than their 500mm f5.6>its a "sports" lens>there is not one single good sports body it goes on, just slow panasonics with shit AF and their overpriced counterparts (same camera rebadged as leica)>put it on your high FPS snoy and it cuts to 15fps with c-af and you can't use teleconverters
>>4302855>implying I own one sensor sizecry more. I own more gear than you and I know a scam when I see it. This lens is not worth almost 2k new. No clue why shilling Nikon is the new hotness on /p/ but their shit is overpriced. Their explicitly anti competive rules for 3rd party lenses should be evidence enough but you retards just love fellating corporate penis.
>>4304020>IDS NAHD SHARP>mtf chart and real photos both demonstrate sharpness. even pixel peeping on a z7>IDS 2 SLOW>no faster 600mm zoom exists. Sony's is longer on the wide end and the same speed. canon is glad to sell you a $2000 200-800 f6.3-9 tho (no weather sealing)>BUY THE TELEPHOTO PRIIIIME THATS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LENSLemme guess you bought the 400mm telephoto prime and regret not having the 220mm/200mm on either side lol
>>4304026With a teleconverter 600mm-ish is within range of a 400mm prime, and a 400mm prime is sharp enough to handle it unlike a zoom. "Sharp enough" is relative but that zoom is not sharp or fast enough to take TCs.
>>4304242Judging by the photos people take with it, with and without TCs, it's sharp and fast enough to take TCs.https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkorz180-600/pool/A 400mm f4.5 + 1.4x tc = 600m f6.3, 2x tc = 800m f9. 180-600+1.4x tc = 840mm f8.8. nothing achieved except slightly different mtf chart (who cares). Can't do 180mm but slightly lighter, wow thats it? That's the power of spending an extra $1000 on a prime lens so you can shoot 1 stop faster at 400mm? I thought these were full frame cameras so you could raise the ISO one stop and not care? Is bokeh that important when it's already hard to get an entire sparrow in focus?
>>4304243>I thought these were full frame cameras so you could raise the ISO one stop and not careNo, the point is to take superior photos and printing/uploading at larger sizes. If you use a slower longer lens and higher ISOs you're using an overpriced crop sensor functionally.
>>4304307>SlowerUnless you want to buy the 400mm f2.8, your 400mm f4.5+1.4x TC (or plus APS-C body) is the same speed at 600mm. There is no equivalently faster 600mm on crop either except for sticking a $5000 EF 400mm f4 on an r7.>But higher ISOsYou forgot something, the Z7II, Z8, and Z9 are all 45mp and the Z6II and ZF have their gain stages positioned so their DR beats equivalence and the colors stay very stable at high ISOs. With a high MP camera you can crop and essentially have a crop sensor, print full size, or you can downsample, which reduces the impact of noise.Do you really think they pay camera companies to release stupid products or are you perhaps the stupid oneThe nice expensive camera does in fact take slightly prettier pictures and it's hard to find fault with it unless it's an OM system/pentax product (because those aren't real brands, they're zombies). Like how are you going to find fault with, on the other hand, a G9II+100-400? It's not FF performance, but it has FF flagship gimmicks for a reasonable price.The answer is the people who make these products are smarter than you. The only stupid thing on the market is the consumer!
>>4304314full frame has other advantages as well, it's not a one lens system, and you dont need a perfect MTF chart to have a sharp lens as your sensor gets bigger. hence the praise the GFX system gets while /p/ is posting MTF SHARTS saying "LOOK HOW BAD GF LENSES ARE MY SNOY GM...
24-7070-200200-600
40mm85mm135mmSimple as
Why does no one here like UW? It's my favorite focal range when I can make it work.
>>430243318mm pancake with fixed f8 is all you need
>>4304476OP agrees.
>>4302645dangerously based
>>4302433>was first using 35 85 135>got a 21>sold the 35>nowtheresabiggap.arw>got a 55>stopped using 21 and 85 altogether>stuck with using only 55 and 135 to this daysometimes i wish a had a super wide like 21 or 18 just to see what else kind of compositions i can come up with for my scene but other than that, i can do literally ANYTHING with just 55 and 135
>>430243335 prime70-300 zoom
>>4307239but you do have a 21
