OMG! Nikon Really Did It! (AF-S 50mm f/1.2)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, May 29, 2007.

  1. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, May 29, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Ben Miller Guest

    If this is for real, and I haven't seen or read anything about it,
    just turn VR off! The 70-200 2.8 is a horse w/ VR on and off. Why
    would the 50mm 1.2 be any worse for having VR? The only time I have
    noticed that VR sucks is in fast action shooting. Total focus lag. I
    don't see a 50mm lens being a sports/action lens.
     
    Ben Miller, May 29, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Cynicor Guest

    Cynicor, May 29, 2007
    #3
  4. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Ben Miller Guest

    You have an _AF-S_ VR 50mm f1.2 lens? Or do you have the AI manual
    focus, non-VR 50mm f1.2....
     
    Ben Miller, May 29, 2007
    #4
  5. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Cynicor Guest

    The VR that Rita had the picture of.
     
    Cynicor, May 29, 2007
    #5
  6. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Cynicor Guest

    Oh wait, I'm sorry. I looked again and it's the 18-70 kit lens.
     
    Cynicor, May 29, 2007
    #6
  7. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Pete D Guest

    Well gosh, should have looked harder the first time, what were you thinking?
    ;-)
     
    Pete D, May 29, 2007
    #7
  8. Of course it's not real. No legitimate lens manufacturer will make an IS/VR
    *PRIME* lens of 50mm and wider since it's physically impossible for VR to
    work at these focal lengths.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, May 29, 2007
    #8
  9. Illiterate Nikon troll. You've spent so much time under your bridge you've
    not heard of the 24-105/4 IS. Or the 17-55/2.8 IS. IS works fine at "these
    focal lengths".

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 29, 2007
    #9
  10. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    acl Guest

    Clearly you haven't found yourself mixed up in a thread with RB
    before, or didn't pay much attention. Go on, ask it why it's
    physically impossible for VR/IS to work below 50mm. And it certainly
    does know it can be done, as it apparently owns the Nikon 18-200 VR
    lens with it (although I predict we'll shortly be told that it's
    rubbish because x y and z).

    Have fun.
     
    acl, May 29, 2007
    #10
  11. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Ben Miller Guest

    In her defense, she did say "*PRIME* lens" (SIC). Though I have to
    wonder why she posted that to begin with.
     
    Ben Miller, May 29, 2007
    #11
  12. Then you'd half to wonder about 89% of "her" posts. It's too bad,
    because he's intelligent, but as he mixes "fun" and hyperbole and troll
    bait so much, it's not worth it to me to try to separate the wheat from
    the chaff.
     
    John McWilliams, May 29, 2007
    #12
  13. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Ben Miller Guest

    I don't pay her (I'll give them the benefit of the gender doubt) much
    mind. I just found the post of interest 'cause it was, as you state,
    difficult to tell if she was onto something or just being weird.
     
    Ben Miller, May 29, 2007
    #13
  14. LOL! It's functionally illiterate and proud of it, fool! You of all people
    should know better about IS/VR on WA lenses. First off, the 17-55/28 IS is
    a piece of consumer grade crap in the same APS-C class as the 18-200mm VR.
    Just because some marketing genius slaps IS/VR on a lens doesn't mean that
    it really works. As for the 24-105, we've covered this in the past and Mark
    has proven that IS brings very little to the table on the wide end. Of
    course, you can prove it to yourself and give it a shot even if you don't
    want to post the results or admit you are wrong.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, May 29, 2007
    #14
  15. LOL! And how many owners of said 18-200mm VR could claim that VR adds any
    real world benefit to shots taken at 50mm and wider? I have yet to see one
    person make the claim since the lens's introduction. It simply doesn't
    work.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, May 29, 2007
    #15
  16. The 17-55/28 IS gets excellent reviews, and although the 24-104 is iffy (bad
    vignetting) at 24mm, otherwise it's one of the best lenses around.

    While I don't have any personal experience with these lenses, my friends
    with Pentax cameras with in-camera IS find the IS incredibly useful for wide
    angle work. I can't get sharp images handheld at less than 1/30, and there
    are lots of times even one extra stop would help in wide angle work.
    Interiors where setting up a tripod isn't an option.

    So to the best of my knowledge, you blew it, are dead wrong, and have your
    foot in your mouth. Up to the knee.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 30, 2007
    #16
  17. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Scott W Guest

    I have the Canon 70-300 IS and was surprised at just how well it
    worked at the70mm end.
    Sure if you are shooting people you still have motion blur, but it
    does great at removing hand
    shake.

    I would think that a 50mm with IS would not be at all bad, not that it
    is something I would run out
    and buy.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, May 30, 2007
    #17
  18. I would think that a 50mm with IS would not be at all bad, not that it
    is something I would run out and buy.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<

    At a US$50 or so premium over the 50/1.4, a 50/1.4 VR would make sense for
    Nikon, especially since Nikon's low-end dSLRs can't AF with their current
    primes.

    But we're all forgetting Rita's perverse counterfactual belief that the
    Nikon 55/1.2 (or is it 58/1.2? Whatever, they all have lousy MTF performance
    according to people who have actually tested them, which doesn't include
    Rita) is an amazing lens.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 30, 2007
    #18
  19. I think we can all see through the worthlessness of most reviews. The
    18-200mm VR gets high marks on every review and is hailed as the best thing
    since the seedless watermelon, ribs, and black-eyed peas. And who could
    forget the peach cobbler?
    Ah, I see! Comparing apple to oranges again? The Canon and Nikon system
    does not use "in-camera IS" to accomplish stabilization. Simple physics
    dictate that "in-lens" stabilization is almost impossible to achieve at 50mm
    and wider. For "in-camera" stabilization it is totally linear across any
    focal length. The only thing need be done is to tell the camera what lens
    is on it so the firmware can make the correct adjustments.
    Sorry, not this time. Funny, there hasn't been a single taker for a double
    blind WA IS/VR test.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, May 30, 2007
    #19
  20. I have the 70-200/2.8 VR and the stabilization is dead on perfect. I also
    have the 18-200mm VR and stabilization falls off at 50mm and is nonexistent
    wider than that.
    And if the lens manufacturers know they can produce a working 50mm VR lens
    they would. It's never going to happen.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, May 30, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.