frank

Hi Mark

 

I've used the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VR with my D300 and I possess and use the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro with my EOS 5D/40D. IMO the Sigma is an excellent lens for a very reasonable price. I recommend this macro lens very much. Because serious macro work can be done with a good tripod only (or at least a monopod), the VR option of the Nikkor was next to useless for me. (In theory the VR is a nice feature for hand-held macro shots, but in practice there is not only the shake of the hands but also the swaying back and forth, that can ruin the IQ. DOF is very shallow.) I didn't like the Micro-Nikkor VR because it's extremely bulky and heavy. Used with a tripod I miss a tripod mount. Here the non-VR Micro-Nikkor is the better lens. (I liked the VR-Nikkor for hand-held a portraits much better.)

The Sigma 150/2.8 Macro is built superbly, the removable tripod mount is solid, its HSM is fast and accurate and IQ is excellent. I never missed the VR feature. IMO the Sigma is the much better bang for the buck. I don't use the Sigma teleconverter with this lens but I use this converter with my Sigma 100-300/4. Yes, the tc is very good and its build quality is much better than from the comparable Kenko tc. Stopped down to f5.6 the image quality of the 100-300/4 plus Sigma tc 1,4x is extremely pleasing.

Reading the glowing comments of some D700 users I wonder what theses people did before the D700 came into the market...

 

;-)

To come back to earth seeing all this D700 hype...

 

The D700 is not sooo much more advantageous than the D300 unless you permanently take all your pics at ISO 1600 or above. When I compared the D700 in practice with my own D300 and the "old" EOS 5D from 2005 I was astonished how good the D300 is at ISO 200-1600 in comparison to the D700. Sure there is less noise in pictures taken with the D700 especially at ISO 1600 til 6400, but IQ of the D300 shots is really great - much better than any ISO 1600 film pics. Thinking about how many ISO 3200 shots I have taken with my about three years old EOS 5D I arrive at the conclusion: zero. I love to do low light photography, but ISO 800 or ISO 1600 do for me. I feel no need for ISO 6400 or 25.000.

BTW, even my trusty EOS 5D could keep up surprisingly well with the D700 (IQ, not speed or automatic white balance!) when used at ISO 1600 or 3200. Slight advantage for D700 but not that much. To get comparable results, the Canon pics need a bit more postprocessing. At lower ISO I saw a tad more details in my Canon pics.

Don't get me wrong: The D700 is a very, very nice camera but it is not a quantum leap compard with it's little sister D300 or grandpa EOS 5D. :-)

I possess and use the D200 and the D300 and I know the D2X and the D3.

IMO the D200 ist the best buy when you are on a budget. Its IQ is still first class (good enough for stock photo agency use), even if the D300 is better in direct comparison. Today I wouldn't buy this heavy monster D2x any more, because the D300 is the better camera (IQ, AF system, features). It's price is far more attractive, too. With the MB-D10 the D300 is even quicker than the D2X (without it is as quick as the D2X).

"I wont deny I am a bit concerned about the pinpoint defects he is telling me about. "

 

As long as you are a photographer there is no need to worry about "pinpoint defect" (giggle!). Leica fondlers may be concerned or upset about these "defects". Look at lenses from professional photographers. Even in heavily battered condition the results are fine - even if these lenses are not as solid built as Leica lenses are. It's not worth thinking about a pinpoint defect or even a scratch. Use this wonderful lens and enjoy! The Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH. and the (nearly as excellent) Nokton 35/1.2 Aspherical are my favourite M-lenses, too.

"How does the D700 in DX crop mode compare the the D300?"

 

It's just a compromise with a strong loss of IQ. DX compatibility is nice to have but no real advantage.

In former analogue times with cameras without the flash feature TTL fill flash I used my Metz flash in "Auto" mode. With ISO 100 film I set about ISO 160-200 on the Metz to reduce its flash power. In most cases the results were fine. Just keep an eye on the shutter speed (not shorter than 1/200 s or 1/250 s - depending on the age of your FM2.) Just buy a slide film and try different ISO settings (and note the settings of your test shooting) to find the "right" setting for you.

"Would this match well to a D200?"

 

Thomas

 

It depends...

;-)

I have taken pics with the VR-Nikkor 18-200 mm and with the Sigma 18-200 mm OS on a Nikon D200 and Canon 20D. IMO both lenses are great compromises for amateurs seeking for a all-in-one solution. If you don't intend to print much larger than 8x10 inch go for one of them. If you want to print 16x20 inch or bigger, you'd better use two Zooms to cover 18-200 mm. BTW I was really astonished by the image quality of the Sigma's macro function. It is extremely high. Never seen before a macro IQ like this with a superzoom lens. In a large circle around the centre IQ is first class, the outer parts of the pic are weaker (but who cares?).

If I were you I wouldn't invest in one new lens. I would keep the 50 mm and the 28-105 and complement these two lenses with a Tokina 12-24/4. (I love this lens because its IQ and build quality is terrific while its price is low.)

"I am currently looking at either D80 or D300, but there is a large price diff and I fear that neither lens would do the D300 justice "

 

Thomas

 

The happy Medium is the D200. It is more reliable and better equipped than the D80 and much cheaper than the D300. Though I use a D300 since last november I still use my D200 - and I am happy with its results. AF and high ISO are not as perfect as the D300's but IQ of the D200 is still top class. IMO even a second hand D200 is the better buy in comparison to a new D80.

Because of the crop factor I would buy a wide angle zoom with a reasonable price like the Tokina 12-24/4.

"For what its worth, the newly released Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, is considerably better than the Sigma version. "

 

Russ

 

Yes, that's correct: The Tamron's IQ is better than the Sigma's (it is astonishingly good, even at full aperture with a EOS 5D)....

 

... but its AF speed is so sloooooooow (and noisy). At present I use the Tamron 70-200/2.8 with Canon mount (still no Nikon mount available). Following moving subjects like children on a bicycle is a thing next to impossible with the Tamron (5D/40D). Here the Sigma HSM shines. I prefer to stop down the Sigma a bit instead of using the Tamron only with static subjects.

 

Frank

"Does the Macro really make it worthwhile?"

 

I used this lens for some months and I used the successor, the Sigma EX DG HSM Macro II 70-200/2.8. IMO the macro

option of the first Sigma "Macro" zoom is not worthwhile. Version II is visibly better but don't expect any

miracles. At least you have to stop down the lens 'til 8 to get an acceptable quality. Last week I did some

closeup shooting with an AF-S VR Nikkor 70-200/2.8 with an excellent achromatic Canon closeup lens on it (Canon

500D). Results were much better than these made with the Sigma 70-200 II.

Is the new version of Capture NX as slow as the original version from 2007?

When I tried Capture NX2 with D700 RAW data I was very disappointed by its snail-like speed.

:-(

"They explicitely point out that it is not compatbile with Type II CF cards, i.e. not compatible with

microdrives. Perhaps some of those who actually have an early-sample can confirm.."

 

That's correct. I had a test sample of the D700 for two weeks. Sent it back to Nikon three days ago. There is NO

way to use a micro drive with a D700. (Surprise, surprise. Look at the press information and look at the

manual...) IMO no problem. I still have three or four 1 GB microdrives but I don't use them any longer because

CompactFlash cards are more robust.

I use a Sigma EX DG HSM 100-300/4 and I am happy with the results, even with the Sigma APO TC 1,4 on my D200/D300. It is good enough at the long end. Maybe not as good as a fixed focal lenght but much more versatile. I do not miss a "better" lens, the Sigma is excellent.

I had both versions. Overall the Elmarit 46 mm is better at full aperture and around 0,7 m. But IMO there is absolutely no need to upgrade from the Canadian Elmarit to the more compact German Elmarit because the older lens is very, very good.

"come now frank. one photo forum on the ole net needs to be free of the continued m8 misinformation machine. i have been using one daily for 9 months and it hasn't skipped a beat once."

 

John Butterwick,

 

9 months? Wow, I am deeply impressed...

While film Ms are tools the M8 is a unreliable overpriced toy.

"What exactly (besides a narrower crop) do you lose when using dx lenses?"

 

Jennie.

 

You lose a lot of resolution by using a DX lens on a D700.

"Is the D700 just as good as the D3 in high ISO?"

 

Ray,

 

Because the D3 and the D700 share the same sensor and engine I am sure the results in high ISO are identical. Hope I can verify this assumption at the end of this week with my own test sample of the D700.

"Ellis, may I read your last post to mean that my DX lenses are not obsolete?"

 

Bernhardt,

 

I am not Ellis, but you are right. Using DX lenses on a D3 or D300 mean using just a fraction of the large sensor. With a DX lens on one of these cameras you only get a 5 MP-sensor.

The Nokton 35/1.2 Aspherical is nearly as good as my 35/1.4 Asph. I love it. And despite its optical and mechanical perfection it is soooo inexpensive. IMO the best offer for low-light shooters.

It's the same niche the EOS 5D fills since about three years: A compact and (comparable) lightweight DSLR for people who prefer taking high quality photos with ISO 800 and above. Shooting landscape with a D700 / EOS 5D is a second strenght of the FX format. When I compared my D300 pics with D3 pics there was little differnce in resolution at ISO 100-800 but a strong advantage for the D3 as soon as the ISO went to ISO 1600 and 3200 (or 6400). And I guess lots of pros will buy this baby-D3 as a second body.

"With D200 I never ever had such a non-firing problem, with the same lens and flashes."

 

Does your one SB800 still work with your D200? If not I suppose this flash needs a repair.

I used the PE 135/4 that is identical in construction for portrait work. It is a wonderful lens for that purpose. According to Linhof (former distributor of Bronica in Germany) the lens is a perfect portrait lens because it is not best at infinity (like most non-macro lenses) but in the near and middle range. I liked the PE 135/4 very much but I think you won't go wrong choosing the PS 150/4 mm. IMO it's just a matter of taste.

I am glad my excellent Zeiss Makro-Planar 50/2 was assembled in Japan and not in Oberkochen/Germany. Even with the engravings "Made in Japan" it was expensive enough...

BTW to wrinkle one's nose about a production location in times of globalization is quite ridiculous.