Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 188
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    554
    i do actually, you are more then welcome to test with mine, any chance you cranked it too far and stuffed the thread?
    Nikon D7000 - Nikkor AF-S 70-200vrII f2.8 | Nikkor AF-S 105vr f2.8 Micro | Nikkor AF-S 16-85 | Nikkor AF-D 35mm f2 |Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro | SB-700 | SB-600


    Website

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    3,871
    All the more reason for a joint photo shoot. No, I've not stuffed it, it's as original.

    Anyway, back on thread.
    D800, D300, D90, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200VR f2.8, 300 F4, 105 micro, 16-85VR, 50mm 1.8, Tammy 90 macro, 70-300VR, SB900, 2xSB600, MB-D10, 055XPROB 322RC2. New computers to run photoshop faster. C&C always appreciated. PhotoGallery
    Pressing the shutter is the start of the process - Joe McNally ... Buying the body is the start of the process - Dread Pirate

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    oslo, norway
    Posts
    1,019
    The 16-35 F4 VR (shot with D700 + 85mm f1.4g)



    Bought it to replace the sigma 12-24 and nikkor 24-70 f2.8 combo that I used to cover events with. It's noticeably sharper than the 12-24,
    and much better in the corners. It's not as sharp as the 24-70, and the (extreme) corners arn't as good. It's a bit sharper than the 70-300 VR.
    Distortion is higher with this lens at 16mm than the 14-24 f2.8 was at 14mm. The review (if you want to read some more tech-y stuff about
    this lens) that I feel is the most correct one out there of this lens, is photozone(.de)'s review.

    Positives: Build quality, VR (love vr!), image quality, distortion.
    Negatives: Flares easily, corners, distortion.

    I've put distortion as a positive & negative, because it really depends on what you're after. If you're shooting landscapes/architecture,
    the distortion might not suit you (and you really should spend those few extra bucks to get the 14-24 f2.8). But for anyone like me, who
    likes the added drama it brings - it's a positive.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    i vote that everyone delete posts unrelated to gear cos this is a great thread to have as a sticky if we can all just move on from the pettiness.
    Last edited by Rooz; 10-11-2010 at 03:20 AM.
    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. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    3,871
    Great idea Rooz, editing my previous with a post about the 18-200.
    D800, D300, D90, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200VR f2.8, 300 F4, 105 micro, 16-85VR, 50mm 1.8, Tammy 90 macro, 70-300VR, SB900, 2xSB600, MB-D10, 055XPROB 322RC2. New computers to run photoshop faster. C&C always appreciated. PhotoGallery
    Pressing the shutter is the start of the process - Joe McNally ... Buying the body is the start of the process - Dread Pirate

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    oslo, norway
    Posts
    1,019
    Bought some kenko extension rings today ("kenko extension tube set DG"). I've only played with them for a few hours, so this is in no way a propper review that you should take to heart.

    (d700+85mm f1.4g)


    d700 + 70-300 VR with all rings attached:


    Not really anything special.. So over to the 50mm f1.8 with all rings attached:


    100% crop:


    I tried the 16-35mm at 35mm with all rings attached, but even when the glass touched whatever I was trying to photograph, getting focus was impossible. So I removed the 12mm ring:



    100% crop:


    I'm kinda wondering what kind of insanity you can do with a ring or two + sigma 50mm macro.. HMMMM

    Anyways... The kenko rings...

    Positive:
    - Macro on everything

    Negative:
    - Paper thin DOF, really extreme
    - Build "quality" (cheap plastic peice of sh...)

    My opinion, right now? I need to try them out more before I really come with some kind of conclusion about them. But I'm pretty sure that anyone serious about macro will be more happy with a propper macro lens instead (I've previously owned a sigma 150mm f2.8 macro + nikkor 105mm vr)
    Last edited by photowerkz; 10-12-2010 at 11:48 AM.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    marius, did the 16-35 replace your 14-24 ?
    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

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    oslo, norway
    Posts
    1,019
    No. I had the 14-24 for just a short while, and had to sell it to free up some money for something...can't remember what. The 16-35 replaced the sigma 12-24 and nikkor 24-70 f2.8.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    391
    I've been considering picking up the same set for a long time now Marius. Seems like there is always something else that draws my cash.
    my flickr
    shutterdoggy.com
    nikon D700 | D200 | D50 - nikkor 17-35 f2.8 | 35-70 f2.8 | 70-200 f2.8 | 50 f1.8 | Tamron 28-75 f2.8 | 2@SB600 | SB-800

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by photowerkz View Post
    No. I had the 14-24 for just a short while, and had to sell it to free up some money for something...can't remember what. The 16-35 replaced the sigma 12-24 and nikkor 24-70 f2.8.
    so does owning the 16-35 mean that you dont want a 14-24 ?
    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

Posting Permissions

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