New Lenses?

[tobycline]

<p>Right on, Wyman. </p>

<p>To add, I <em>sometimes</em> feel that guys who have to put down <strong>Rockwell</strong> or <strong>superzooms</strong> are simply <em><strong>compensating</strong></em> for something ;-)</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>"Why exactly does it do that, it is a very odd sensation on your hand at first."</p>

<p>It's just the Vibration Reduction mechanism adjusting itself. </p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Eric, I think you are fairly right with lenses you have. Hone your skills, and narrow down you genre and interests, then purchase the lenses that most suit your needs. once you know exactly what you like to shoot, you may be able to upgrade to a few prime lenses. VR is certainly not required, and i wouldn't invest any money whatever into a DX lenses (but that's just me). Just because you have the $700, doesn't mean that you have to spend it. it is lenses like a 1.4/85mm that is really going to allow some creativity to your photography, and likely going to give you the biggest WOW factor, not a superzoom 70-300 slow lens.</p>

[robert gordon]

<p>I recommend attending a Santa Fe Photography Workshop rather than investing in new gear.</p>

[eric_schott]

<p>"To add, I <em>sometimes</em> feel that guys who have to put down <strong>Rockwell</strong> or <strong>superzooms</strong> are simply <em><strong>compensating</strong></em> for something ;-)"</p>

<p>hahahahahahah. That's great. I was waiting for someone to make that comment, I didn't know how much longer it would take. </p>

[eric_schott]

<p>I forgot to mention in my last post. Today my buddy loaned me his 1.8 35mm. I just got back from the store. I HAD to buy it. I'm going to start saving for the 50 1.4 immediately</p>

 

[KyleE]

<p>I just recently picked up the 50mm 1.4 and I absolutely love it. I use it on my D3000 so its performance will be similar on the D40. It takes great pictures and is very fast. Just keep in mind if you are wide open with the aperture and taking close up pictures your DOF is so shallow you can have the tip of someones nose in perfect focus and their eyes will be blurry.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>@dave: you're right, the comment about superzooms going away forever was somewhat snide. they do have their uses, but the 'jack of all trades master of none' tag appears to be apt.</p>

<p>i think the reason rockwell gets bashed is because he makes comments like this: "I own a D40 and just bought a second, not a D90. Other cameras are too complicated and I can't figure them out." just a few graphs up in the same post, he says he uses a D3 for studio work. LOL.</p>

<p>i enjoy KR's commentary and occasional insights, but i've learned to take his comments with a grain of salt. i remember when the 18-200 came out and he declared it the greatest thing since sliced bread. i held out, since at that time it was selling for $1k. later, reports began to trickle back that it wasn't as sharp as the other kit lenses and had distortion issues. i never regretted not getting one. if it's much-beloved by you and you're happy with it, more power to you.</p>

<p>btw, my pal Mike who had the 18-200 now uses it as a paperweight, ever since he got the 35/1.8. that's probably because it's sharper, less cumbersome, and works better in low-light situations, not because he's over-compensating for something. but hey, if y'all want to form a superzoom support group or something, go right ahead.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave wyman]

<p>Eric - and Arnold - my apologies for going overboard. I like to see constructive advice and sometimes, when I think I see the opposite, I act like the curmudgeon I probably am. </p>

<p>Ken Rockwell - he probably enjoys getting bashed online as much as he probably enjoys any praise. I know him, and whatever he is online, in person he's both pleasant and self-effacing. </p>

<p>However, I wasn't reacting to comments about KR. I was annoyed with the casually unflattering comments about the 18-200mm lens, comments that are, in my opinion, an unnecessary put-down of people who have - and enjoy - that lens.</p>

<p>The OP wasn't asking for what would make the sharpest, most distortion free fine-art print. He was looking to add a general purpose lens. The 18-200 and lots of other zoom lenses meet that criterion.</p>

<p>However, I over-reacted, so again, I apologize.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Dave</p>

<p>It's a little like the guy who asks for a lens upgrade for a D40 and everybody suggests a 17-55 f2.8, isn't it. Sheesh... (Oh, and nobody ever asks what size they're actually <em>printing</em>...)</p>

<p>Any of these consumer zooms are great for anybody who's not printing huge or doing pro work. Not good... GREAT! I have never had to correct a single image's distortion that is supposed to be so bad, the sharpness for everything I've printed up to 11 x 14 is great.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>Peter - I have noticed, on rare occasion, distortion at the wide end of one of my zooms. Specifically, what in reality were straight lines near the top of a scene were curved in the photograph. Easy to repair, but not necessary. And depending how the lens is pointed, distortion caused by a wide angle lens is often considered a plus. </p>

<p>"Any of these consumer zooms are great for anybody who's not printing huge or doing pro work."</p>

<p>I agree. However, I think a talented photographer, pro or otherwise, can also make excellent photographs with these optics. Printing huge? I think that's possible, too, but it depends on the subject. With a billboard size print of a postage stamp, edge to edge sharpness might suffer. A 16x20 of a lion in the veldt? No problem (except for making the photograph).</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_schott]

<p>I wasn't able to do much today, but even though its not the best lens, I did get some nice pictures of the moon this evening with my 70-300 and my D40. It doesn't seem to be as sharp as I expected but I did crop the image quite a bit. I guess I will have to test more and let you all know. I wasn't able to play with the 35mm either =(</p>