Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by erichlund View Post
    It will not be obsolete for a long, long time. Nikon is not going to go full frame across the board anytime soon, so there will always be buyers for used Nikkor equipment. And, because it's Nikkor, it will retain value better than Sigma, Tamron or Tokina.

    So, when an affordable full frame camera does arrive on the scene, there will still be a market for your used DX type lenses.
    Thanks Eric!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    670
    Quote Originally Posted by SUITEFREAK View Post
    'm pretty convinced that for my low light concert photography I'll need the 85/1.8 for handheld and no flash.
    Yeah, the extra stop and a third of speed will come in handy, and shouldn't pose a problem with DOF if you get the focus right.


    Of course I prefer lighter lenses especially if I'm going to be traveling, however, I prefer that I have a better chance of getting photos that come out. How much is that worth to me? Priceless. I only have one child to photograph. [... subsequent paragraph... ]

    (Well, maybe if I knew how to crop in Photoshop, etc, I would be happy with that length, but since I don't know how to do that yet...
    Me thinks it would be useful to learn how to do things like crop and do basic image adjustments in an image editing program, and ultimately shoot RAW and do post-processing, so you can get another stop of speed and fix noise, underexposure and white balance issues -- common problems with low-light and concert photography.

    You also have a greater chance of "rescuing" a photo that was grossly underexposed, mildly out of focus, or had an awful colour balance.

    I know after today, that if I get the 70-200/2.8, the reach won't be enough for me in those types of situations. I'll probably have to get the 1.7 tele converter.
    I am not a big fan of using a 1.7x TC instead of just using a longer lens, as you lose a stop and a half of speed in the conversion. So your f/2.8 lens becomes something like an f/4.8, which is not much better than using the f/5.6 of your 70-300/VR. Of course, if you only want to bring one lens and use it for multiple purposes, this is a good way to do it. But if you were looking to get the same reach as the 70-300/4-5.6 but with the same speed and quality of the 70-200/2.8, you may be a little disappointed.

    Nikon: D300, D700, Nikkor: 24-70, 70-200, 70-300/VR, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4G, 60/2.8G, 180/2.8,
    Sigma: 10-20, 50-150/2.8, 50/2.8, Tamron: 17-50/2.8, 28-75/2.8, Tokina: 12-24, Zeiss: 25/2.8
    Olympus: E-520, E-3, 7-14, 9-18, 11-22, 12-60, 14-35/2, 14-54, 35-100/2, 50-200, 25/2.8, 35/3.5, 50/2
    Panasonic: G1, Leica: 14-50, 14-150, 25/1.4
    Sony: A700, A900, 24-85, 35-70, 70-210/4, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 50/2.8, T 90 macro, Zeiss: 24-70/2.8, 135/1.8
    P&S: Canon S90, Panasonic: LX3


  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by e_dawg View Post
    Me thinks it would be useful to learn how to do things like crop and do basic image adjustments in an image editing program, and ultimately shoot RAW and do post-processing, so you can get another stop of speed and fix noise, underexposure and white balance issues -- common problems with low-light and concert photography.
    You also have a greater chance of "rescuing" a photo that was grossly underexposed, mildly out of focus, or had an awful colour balance.
    You're right of course, and I do want to learn those things, but I just haven't had the time to invest in learning to use the software.

    I am not a big fan of using a 1.7x TC instead of just using a longer lens, as you lose a stop and a half of speed in the conversion. So your f/2.8 lens becomes something like an f/4.8, which is not much better than using the f/5.6 of your 70-300/VR. Of course, if you only want to bring one lens and use it for multiple purposes, this is a good way to do it. But if you were looking to get the same reach as the 70-300/4-5.6 but with the same speed and quality of the 70-200/2.8, you may be a little disappointed.
    Arrggg...Something else to chew on and ponder. I've been playing around w/ my 70-300VR the last few days and have been getting some decent shots. I know I can't afford the 70-200 f2.8 right now (and I can't find it in stock) along with the Nikon 17-55/2.8, so I think I'm going to have to be satisfied with the 85/1.8 for now and just move in closer.
    Or maybe I'll get the 85/1.4... I saw a really good comparison review of the 2 lenses last night, and boy the 1.4 just blew away the 1.8 in sharpness. That's probably why it's a 'legendary' type lens.
    So now I'm thinking stick w/ the 70-300VR, and get either Sigma 18-50/2.8 HSM + 85/1.4 OR Nikon 17-55 2.8 + 85/1.8. I'm really leaning towards the Sigma and the 85/1.4. That lens looks awesome. Either of these 2 scenarios would be within a budget I could live with. I could get both Nikons, (2.8 + 1.4) but I don't want to go in debt to aquire my lenses.
    I'll probably have to learn to deal with the Noise of high ISO, continue to use my 70-300VR, and maybe I should invest in Photoshop and Lightroom??? What do you use to convert your RAW/NEF images? I can get Lightroom for about $95 bundled with Photoshop CS3 ??? I think it was CS3; I have Capture NX but I have to pay to use it. I installed it and never used it so I don't know a dang thing about it and sure enough the trial period is over. I think it's $149 or so. What do you think?
    Last edited by SUITEFREAK; 02-19-2008 at 11:38 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    i dont think thats true about the 85mm. the 1.4 is not alot sharper. what it does have is better colour and contrast at even low apertures and bokeh is superb throughout.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by SUITEFREAK View Post
    So now I'm thinking stick w/ the 70-300VR, and get either Sigma 17-50/2.8 HSM + 85/1.4 OR Nikon 17-55 2.8 + 85/1.8. I'm really leaning towards the Sigma and the 85/1.4. That lens looks awesome. Either of these 2 scenarios would be within a budget I could live with. I could get both Nikons, but I don't want to go in debt to aquire my lenses.
    Oh yeah, the reason I am considering the Sigma 18-50 is because I can't find the Tamron 17-50 anywhere either. Plus, Tamron is going to be reissuing this lens in the near future w/ an HSM type of capability in it, so even if I do find it, do I want the lesser model? Probably not.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    i dont think thats true about the 85mm. the 1.4 is not alot sharper. what it does have is better colour and contrast at even low apertures and bokeh is superb throughout.
    Yes, the photos I've seen of it looked really really good.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    i dont think thats true about the 85mm. the 1.4 is not alot sharper. what it does have is better colour and contrast at even low apertures and bokeh is superb throughout.
    Hi Rooz,
    Since you have the 85/1.8, do you have any take on how well the lens performs wide open? Some of the pictures I've seen online seem to indicate that the 1.4 takes more consistent wide open and in focus photos, whereas the 1.8 has to be stopped down in order for the photos to look sharp. For me, that would kind of defeat the purpose since the reason I would get it is for low light situations in which I am anticipating needing the 1.4-1.8 range.
    Thanks!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    i dont think thats true about the 85mm. the 1.4 is not alot sharper. what it does have is better colour and contrast at even low apertures and bokeh is superb throughout.
    Of course you have heard the rumour of a new 85mm f1.4 VR haven't you?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by K1W1 View Post
    Of course you have heard the rumour of a new 85mm f1.4 VR haven't you?
    my heart says "i hope your serious." my mastercard says "dont listen to the clown." so which is it to be good sir ?
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,931
    I am serious that there was a rumour doing the rounds a week or so ago.
    If you want to ask me whether I believe the rumour to be true I would probably answer in the negative.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •