 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
novicius
|
Am I reading those specs. correctly...or do I need new spectacles... Z Noct Approx. Dimensions (Diameter x Length) 4.01 in. (102 mm) x 6.02 in. (153 mm) Approx. Weight 70.6 oz. (2,000 g) Two Kilograms..??..for a Standard Lens... Pricey too...( 8000 ) Eight Thousand USd. Mebbe Nikon should have studied this one... -------------------------------------------------- LEITZ Noctilux Focal Length 50mm Focus Type Manual Focus Filter Size 60 mm (Front) Dimensions (¸ x L) 2.9 x 3" / 73 x 75.1 mm Weight 1.5 lb / 700 g Seven Hundred grams...( O.7 Kilograms ) Granted...it does go for more than 12000,- USd. So, which is Your choice.. |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
novicius wrote:Am I reading those specs. correctly...or do I need new spectacles...My choice is neither. I have a Nikon AF-D 50 f1.4 that I haven't used in many years, with digital cameras and the ability to use higher ISO as required I find less need for really fast lenses and travelling with cameras makes simplicity more important. The Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is only 900g and the 70-200 is around 1,300g so the pair weigh in at only 200g more than the Z Noct. For my purposes the latter is completely over the top in both weight and price. Both the Nikon Z Noct and the Leica Noctilux are specialist lenses and, I am sure, excellent performers in their field but I don't need them. Neither does my bank balance! |
|||||||||
jk
|
@Novicius I see you are in Malaysia and limited to your balcony....... the 2kg weight should be no problem with short distance carrying but the wallet lightening $8k USD might cause the eyes to water! I would choose neither but use a 50mm f1.4 AFS and boost ISO by two stops, or the 50mm f1.2 MF and boost by one stop. |
|||||||||
chrishamer
|
Honestly I think it's just a halo lens, on par with the $700 Mac Pro wheels apple sells. They'll sell a few, but it's mostly there to get people talking. I'm more interested in the 50mm 1.2S The 50mm 1.8S is absolutely sublime, so will have to seriously consider if I need the 1.2S given I mostly shoot the 1.8S at F4 or above. |
|||||||||
rmoser
|
My old manual focus Nikon f1.2 50mm weighs 400gm, so only mildly outrageous. But back in those days they made them out of real metal, so that adds to the weight. Rob |
|||||||||
jk
|
My Nikon 400mm f2.8 AFS ED II weighs in at 6.5kg! Anyone for weight lifting. Add the tripod and the Wimberley mount! |
|||||||||
Robert
|
jk wrote:My Nikon 400mm f2.8 AFS ED II weighs in at 6.5kg!And a camera, and a TC. More weight (mass) the better, makes for less vibration.  Mass is good, vibration is bad. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:And a camera, and a TC.Leaving it in the cupboard is worse....which is what would happen if I was being asked to lug 10kg of gear around with me. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Wimp!!!  |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote:Leaving it in the cupboard is worse....which is what would happen if I was being asked to lug 10kg of gear around with me.Actually when you are going birding there is no better combo (IMHO). The whole unit on a tripod makes for a very easily portable, if heavy, rig. If you take it apart to make it easier to carry it actually become unwieldy. Slung over the shoulder with the lens down your back and holding the tripod legs it seems no different to carrying the D3S with a 300mm lens! Doesnt seem logical but is a reality. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
jk wrote:Actually when you are going birding there is no better combo (IMHO).That's what I do when I go to motor racing, albeit with a heavy monopod, very comfortable. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Lol - my 610 with the 70-300 is a mere 1.7 kg, I can carry it with two fingers |
|||||||||
jk
|
chrisbet wrote:Lol - my 610 with the 70-300 is a mere 1.7 kg, I can carry it with two fingersThat what comes from taking bolts out with your fingers. Hands as strong as spanners!! |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Ten pin bowling helps too ...  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Wimp!!!Probably. That said, it's not an inability to do it...did it for years commercially. I just don't see the need to make a task unnecessarily tiresome, if you can achieve the same results carrying a fraction of the weight. Same with blankets v duvet, overcoats v anoraks, steel v aluminium. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Actually when you are going birding there is no better combo (IMHO).Or you could just carry it in a long holster and leave your hands free for the bins. D500 + 1.4 tc + 500mm (with lens hood in place)  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Man on a mission! |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |