umd

<p>I have both, and I have a 2 year. In my humble opinion shooting a 2 year kid with a manual focus lens is almost impossible, you'll have a frustratingly low keeper ratio. Shooting a portrait of a kid is about catching that momentary expressions in the face, unless I'm using flash, I use continuous AF and shoot at 6 fps. </p>

<p>For the lenses, they both have similar (and very good) image quality, nothing to worry about that, I don't hesitate to shoot them wide open. My only minor gripe is the chromatic aberration in the out of focus areas wide open, both lenses have that, not a problem for portraits, rarely a problem at all. I had focusing problems with the 105 DC, I now use it at DC f:2 setting with a +20 focus adjustment and everything is fine. Soft focus feature (certain dc setting and aperture combinations give that) is sometimes useful esp at contrasty lighting. With 105 I can get tighter headshots (btw I use a D300, if I were using a full frame camera I would also consider the 135/2 DC).</p>

<div></div>

<p>This is a well known issue with this lens, try setting the defocus control ring to f:2.0 front, in my case this cured the problem with some additioal focus tuning on the D300.</p>

<p>I have the 100mm E, sharpness is ok but contrast is low and bokeh is ugly. I considered buying the 75-150 which is highly praised for its optics but could not find one without the zoom creep problem, which is annoying. High quality and low cost is a very rare combination.</p>

<p>I used both for digital and film.<br>

35/2 D: Very very good optical quality, sharp in the center even wide open, minimun focusing distance is impressively short, does not flare easily, though not a very useful focal length in DX format.<br>

24/2.8 D: Optical quality not as good esp wide open, has very high tendency to flare, I would expect better from a 2.8 prime. That said I would get the 24 for DX format because of the wider focal length. You might also consider the 20/2.8 AF-D.</p>

<p>1.4 seems definitely sharper, at least in close ranges, just look at the crops.</p>

According to my experinece Nikon only has CA in out of focus areas wide open, it vanishes 2 stops down, other

than that there is no objectionable CA issue; btw I don't know if Zeiss behaves differently in similar conditions.

Despite having screwdriver mechanism focusing is very fast on a D300, IMO having autofocus on this kind of lens is

extremely important because of the very thin DOF wide open. <br><br>

 

<a href = "http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=21244546">Here</a> is a very good

comparision with the Zeiss.

I experienced something similar, display sometimes freezes when I zoom in and browse the picture. This happens very rarely and I believe it happens when the battery is low.

Nikon AF 50/1.8 reversed on AF 105/2.8 Micro Nikkor, one SB-600 and one SB-800.<div></div>

Moving to a camera that has a stronger AF motor and faster/better processing will definitely improve the AF performance.

Probably that's why <a href="http://www.photoreporter.com/article.asp?issueID=&num=14&vol=15&articleType=fc&articleID=1650">Nikon takes the lead in DSLR sales</a>. Btw D3 and D300 are not on the shelves yet.

I bought this lens with high hopes, was dirt cheap and glass was clean inside; but I was disappointed. I compared it to my AF 105/2.8 Micro and unlike Vivek, I found this lens to have low contrast and poor color. At least I expected a smooth background blur, but no, 105 micro was better which is not a boheh champ either. Though 100 E was not soft on D70 (6mp).

There is no point in continuing 28-70/2.8 where the new 24-70/2.8 covers and extends the zoom range at a similar price and (possibly) image quality.

 

I wish production of 17-35/2.8 continues, since it is such a beauty.

Lucky guys..

<i>Maybe because NASA has NAS in their name?</i><br><br>

This was cool :), it should be the reason :)

What is your "metrics" about effectivity of IS/VR?

AF-D 35mm/2.0 and AF 50/1.8.

<i>It bother's me that I would have to step out of the Nikon series in order to get this better sensor/quality at higher ISO.</i><br><br>

 

Unless you are talking about full frame sensors, there is no such advantage in Canon. By default Canon applies a higher noise reduction and sharpening which makes images look less noisy but with other image artifacts like sharpening halos. Their full frame sensors have inherently less noise because of larger photosites, but they are expensive and have corner problems.<br><br>

 

Btw, interesting first post for a new member (November 26, 2006); wish luck to your (multiple) friends who are jumping the off the Nikon ship for Canon.

24mm/2.8 AFD is not a bad lens, but not an outstanding performer either. On a digital camera it has more chromatic aberration than 12-24/4 DX and 18-70 DX Nikon zooms and I don't see any sharpness advantage on D70. On film it isn't among my sharpest lenses either, my 35/2 AF-D is much sharper than this lens. Lastly it has a high tendency for flare and ghosting. Surely it is not among the legendary Nikon wide angles. I would sell it and get the 18-70 DX zoom.

I have the Nikon for a year, never shot with the Zeiss, in my experience AF (esp in continuous mode) is very helpful because of the thin dof at portrait distances. A MF lens is not worth it considering Nikon is also great optically (and cheaper afaik).

Philippe, I find your "just kidding" sinisterly hypocritic. I recognize this is the EOS forum and knew even the most blatant EOS fanboy is expected to receive some advocation from the start. Well it slowly turns I am right. Now in your and Mark's posts it surfaces as a passive depreciation attempt of my arguments by implication of a ridiculity via putting them in the same basket as the fanboys'.

 

Therefore at the moment I must admit I deserve "the dumber" because of engaging in a fanboy hijacked discussion like that, but "the dumbest" title will eventually gravitate to its owner if I am not proven wrong, which hasn't happened yet.

Please Mark, at least I know how to spell "physics".

Ok Pavel. I give up. Cause anything is useless when a fanatic switches to the idiot-savant mode, in which all his arguments are derivatives of "My brand/team/religion/nation/race kicks ass, because we say so".<br><br>

 

Beware Pavel, so much emotional connection to something you don't have any control over (other than paying them $$$) is destined to frustration.

<i>This is about random noise found on the image from electro-static and/or electro interference, a by product of the amplification processes, if not other reasons.</i><br><br>

 

"Random noise" is an oxymoron, because noise is random in nature. I think you should avoid using terminology of professions you don't have any knowledge about like electrical engineering, computer science, solid state physics, physics in general, and probaly any science.<br><br>

 

<i>Have you ever used a Canon 5D? At ISO 800, 1600, 3200? The differences are VERY noticiable..</i><br><br>

 

Yes I did. And the noise seemed low. So what? This camera has a larger sensor. Now your beloved physics kicks in and tells that it should have less noise because of larger photosites. That said 5D is expensive and has corner issues with wide angle lenses, you may check dpreview and Canon's own samples for these. Btw full frame vs small frame is not the subject of this thread.<br><br>

 

<i>Strange how the Canon images HAVE MORE DETAIL. Explain this to us, please.</i><br><br>

 

I did. One more try. You might not be seeing more detail in Canon images, what you are seeing (at least partially) comes from sharpening, which is evident from the sharpening artifacts. To say whether it is the actual detail or something artificial, you have to have the photographed objects standing in front of you. Do you?

<i>Umit, lets forget about pysics, and sharpening.</i><br><br>

 

Why? Because you don't have a clue about them?<br><br>

 

<i>Nikon, all their bodies across all price points, are noisier at ISO 800 and beyond then the Canon counterparts.</i><br><br>

 

Reference? According to D80 review at dpreview.com Nikon shows less noise at ISO 800 (hey you said lets forget about sharpening/sharpness). At this point one (who's not forgotten sharpness) can rightfully argue that noise reduction robs detail and image sharpness (or other image qualities in general) should be taken into account, and when we do that its 400D that seems to give a sharper image. So far so good, but when we look at 400D samples they show sharpening halos even at ISO 100, so the sharpness in 400D (at least partially) comes form unsharp masking.<br><br>

 

There are software to remove noise, but I haven't heard one for removing sharpening artifacts, if there is one it will probably create other side effects while doing that.<br><br>

 

By the way I have one more bad news for you, 400D also shows more moire, check the resolution chart samples for yourself.<br><br>

<i>Now, you're changing the arguement, just so you can have something to argue about. Right at the top of the results, the following is written: "cameras set to ... image parameters default." The test isn't meaningless. He's testing the cameras the way they'll take photos, out of the box -- with default settings.</i><br><br>

 

And? Then passing the test is quite easy with your logic, just crank up sharpening, color, noise reduction etc as the default and you'll have better camera since it will give sharpest image, most vivid colors and least noise; there will be lot of other artifacts but who cares. If Phil Askey is thinking as superficially as you then why he also tests cameras at different noise reduction settings, not only the default reduction?