diane_madura

Shun's Jingle Bells photo...sooooo cute!

<p>Thanks for those links, Dieter, those were very helpful.</p>

<p>Wouter said: for landscapes it's good (but not as good as the 16-85VR was on my D300).</p> <p>My point exactly. Going from an APS camera with 16-85 lens to full frame and 24-85 lens gives me slightly less quality (sharpness wise). I had thought that the 24-70 non VR would be better until Shun said it's not that great for distance. And that is why I am considering a different lens than the 24-85. I prefer to use equipment that will give me the best results when printing large. And I agree that while I don't necessarily need f2.8, that's how the 24-70 is sold.</p>

Thank you everyone for your responses. In my effort to be brief, I neglected to say I was looking for a zoom lens since I prefer to take only one lens with me when hiking. My favorite lens while hiking with an APS camera was my 16-85 for landscape shots. While not a perfect lens, I felt it gave me good enough results to make larger prints that I was happy with. Keith, I already have the Sigma 35 f1.8; it sometimes leaves me speechless when I see the results, and I see how nice your example is. It is my favorite lens. But I prefer to not be changing lenses because of the extra weight from carrying multiple lenses as well as the possibility of getting dust on the sensor ('seems where I hike it's always so dusty). Perhaps it has spoiled me. The 17-55 for distances is not as sharp as some of my other lenses. For closer scenes or people, I was thrilled with it. I have pretty much ruled out the 24-70 VR because of its weight. Because I always use a tripod while hiking, so I cannot justify the added expense and weight of the VR version. I was leaning towards the Nikon 24-70 because of its edge to edge sharpness over the Tamron. That said, I do plan on comparing it to the Nikon and seeing if the lighter weight is better for me. Ilkka, where have you seen "great prices" for a new Nikon 24-70 without VR on remaining new stock?

<p>I was ready to get a Nikon 24-70 for a D610. But then today I read Shun's post in another thread:</p> <p>"The 17-55mm/f2.8 DX AF-S has a similar design objective as the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. These are party, event lenses, mostly used indoors at weddings, etc. They are at their best when the subject is 10, 15 feet away, i.e. around 3 to 5 meters."</p> <p>I do have the 17-55 that I've used on my APS sensor cameras, and I have to agree with Shun that's it's not that great for landscapes. If I get the 24-70 for the D610, will I be disappointed with the results for landscape photography? Is there another lens that might be better for landscape photography?</p> <p>Everything I've read about the 24-70 says it's a pretty nice lens. Even customer samples of landscapes on the B and H web site look pretty good to me.</p> <p>While the lens I got with the D610 (Nikon 24-85) is OK, I must say I think there are other lenses which would make better use of the camera's capabilities.</p>

<p>What is DF?</p>

<p>D7000, Nikon 10-24 lens.</p><div></div>

<p>D7000, Nikon 10-24 lens.</p><div></div>

<p>I am looking to participate in a photo workshop in Iceland sometime in 2015. I am looking for something that would be good for someone at an intermediate level. I have a Nikon D7000 and shoot RAW. I use mostly Lightroom 4.0 and Photoshop CS5. Would love to be able to photograph the Aurora Borealis. <br> Can someone recommend a photo workshop that they have personally experienced? </p>

<p>Oops. Reverse the titles on my two contributions. </p>

<p>D7000, 16-85 lens.</p><div></div>

<p>D7000, 16-85 lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Our hotel in Petra, Jordan.</p><div></div>

<p>Ruins of the Greco-Roman city of Gerasa. The ruins are over 2000 years old, and the columns are still standing straight and tall. Jerash, Jordan.</p><div></div>

<p>Taken from the Church of the Beatitudes in Israel. The Sea of Galilee can be seen in the distance.</p><div></div>