johndc

"Maybe they figured that if they're not using their cameras why give them the money."

 

A good point.

 

Which died first? PJ's support of Nikon, or Nikon's support of PJ?

 

I'm genuinely asking, since I haven't been in the PJ game all that long.

absolutely.

 

as far as the difference when looking through the viewfinder goes, you can clearly see a dramatic difference in distortion between the two, as well as higher contrast and overall clarity and brightness, all in favor of the 17-55.

 

that's not even mentioning the build quality difference, which is obvious.

 

the advantage of the 18-135 is size, weight, and cost, but at the expense of image quality and durability. it's a consumer zoom -- you shouldn't expect it to perform on par with the 17-55. it wasn't designed to do that.

The 17-50/2.8 Tamron is a decent lens. Smaller and lighter than the 17-55/2.8 DX Nikkor, it makes a much more practical walk-around lens. For most purposes it should do a fine job. As with most Tamron stuff, you can't beat the quality/price ratio. However, as the above review mentions, the distortion performance isn't fantastic: noticeable pincushion at the wide end, and barrel at the long end. If you're doing a lot of architecture work, you'd do well to consider something else. And though most people will tell you distortion can be corrected in PS (it can), there's nothing better than getting things right the first time.

 

Additionally, the Tamron seems to lack the contrast of the Nikkor, and it is slower to auto-focus.

 

However, if you just want a well-built lens that you can use for general shooting, with the option to use in low-light, this lens will probably be a perfect fit for you.

The FM3A, 45P and Rangefinder replicas were pretty much just for collectors, similar to (and I know I'm going to catch hell for this) the Hermes Leica and Oscar Barnack Leica, (or pretty much any Leica ever made, at this point).

 

The companies know that there is a built in market for these cameras, and that they will sell for absurdly high prices, so they capitalize on that.

 

You can't really blame them, though. More $$$ for them means good news for us (ideally, anyway).

"By doing your own test... you answered your own question!"

 

Yeah... I know. I was just wondering if anyone had conducted any more scientific test, and what the conclusions were.

100% crop at f/11 (click for larger):<BR>

<A HREF="http://www.baseplusfog.net/images/misc/f11_crop.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.baseplusfog.net/images/misc/f11_crop_sm.jpg"></IMG></A>

 

<P>

 

100% crop at f/36 (click for larger):<BR>

<A HREF="http://www.baseplusfog.net/images/misc/f36_crop.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.baseplusfog.net/images/misc/f36_crop_sm.jpg"></IMG></A>

I'm using a D200.

 

My impressions of the lens are pretty much in line with what everyone's said: soft at 2.8, getting significantly sharper by 5.6 and working best between 8 and 16. A bit of diffraction around 22, getting considerably more pronounced by 22 + 1/2 and downright ugly beyond that.

 

You are correct that the Nikon body reads out the effective aperture, instead of the of the aperture at infinity, changing as you focus closer. I suspect this is more to correct for underexposure than anything else, just like when you adjust for bellows extension in LF.

 

I wasn't asking this question because I had an issue with how the lens was taking pictures. Mostly I was just curious about the "official" specs of the lens, because I couldn't find them anywhere. To be honest, I find this lens to be an outstanding performer and love using it.

Three related questions:

 

At what aperture does this lens become diffraction limited?

 

Does this point change as magnification is increased? (aside from the changing

of the original f-number as extension goes up)

 

How does it change?

 

Thanks.

I honestly don't see anything. Can someone point out where the problem is?

I invented the photography.

Chuck, that's probably the most concise explanation of RAW I've ever seen. Well done.

You might want to see if you can find another cable. You'd be surprised how often a cable is the culprit when it comes to hooking things up to other things.

 

If all else fails, use the bullwhip, Indy! ;)

At that price, you really can't go wrong. I have a 4Gb Lexar 133x that I use in my D200 when I'm doing landscapes or architecture (because I bracket like a maven and shoot RAW). It holds about 235 images (RAW+basic S) which seems like a lot until you realize that with the bracketing you only get 1 shot for every 5.

 

However, when I'm shooting PJ work, which is mostly jpeg, I have no problem using my older, smaller, slower cards (Lexar 40x and Ultra II). The Ultra II is a fine card and 2Gb is nothing to sneeze at. For that price I might buy a few myself.

I would suggest buying both as well. A used 50mm/1.8 can be had cheap-as-free, and an SB-600 is a good investment. The ability to bounce-flash alone is worth the price.

"These lenses are almost identical in sharpness."

 

The 55mm Micro ~= 18-200 VR. Who knew?

"A comment which makes me wonder if he has ever actually used a lens with either Canon's IS or Nikon's VR system."

 

I use both, actually. One or the other or both pretty much every day. In both cases I've never seen the absolute need for VR on a wide-to-medium-tele zoom. The IS on the 17-55 canon is pretty much pointless, and adds considerable girth to a lens that ought to be much smaller. The size and weight added by the IS makes it more difficult to hand-hold. Thus it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. IS and VR on lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8's or the 105 Micro is a wonderful thing, and yes I agree that IS/VR does actually do what it's supposed to do. But there's no substitute for fast glass at any focal length.

"John, Have you even used an 18-200? VR is something that TOTALLY lives up to the marketing hype to me."

 

Yes, I've used a number of copies of the 18-200 VR. They are fine for what they are, but knowing there's better image quality to be had from other stuff, albeit with a little less convenience, I'm just not impressed.

 

VR works great at 105mm and beyond, but you scarcely need it in a lens equivalent to 24-105, where half of your zoom is wideangle. I'd much rather have the faster aperture all the way through.

<i>"it would have VR, which so many people want."</i>

<P>

"which so many people <b>suddenly find they can't live without because they've been duped by marketing."</b>

<P>

<i>"it would have better image-quality than the 18-200 VR"</i><P>

doubt it. it would be built to the same standards as the 18-200 VR, so there's no reason to think it's going to be better.

<P>

<i>"does not have a fixed aperture, so it avoids ridiculously-priced, heavy, and huge lenses"</i><P>

does not have a fast aperture, so it avoids ridiculously priced, soft, slow lenses such as the 18-200 VR.

<P>

<i>"it would have a shorter length when at its longest focal length"</i><P>

some lenses have their shortest physical extention at their longest focal length, and some have it in the middle. there's no rule about it.

<P>

<i>"equivalent to a 24mm FF, rather than the insufficient equivalent 28mm FF"</i><P>

must... distort... image... even more...

<P> .

<P>

 

"Bring us short AF-S DX f/2 primes."

<P>

<b>word.</b>

Make that 42mm, not 42.5mm. I was thinking of the 35mm, which looks like a 52.5mm.

A second vote for the 28/2.8 prime. Sharp, fast, compact, and not expensive. In terms of angle-of-view it's the AF-Nikkor that comes closest to the 45/2.8P pancake lens beloved by many street shooters, though it has a distinctly different "look" to it. With the crop factor, the 28 looks like a 42.5mm lens. It's alot wider than you think it might be.

 

The picture below was taken from the front pew of the church.

"John, I don't need to know what I could do in post, that wasn't my question!"

 

How nice for you.

 

You're asking if the D2X, unmanipulated, shoots sharper than the D200. You seem to think the D200 shoots soft, so it appears that you've already decided on the answer to the question. You've thereby rendered your original question moot, and left us with nothing to discuss and critique but the bases you've cited for your conclusions.

 

That's what we're doing. But don't go away mad.

The 35/f2.0 works quite nicely on a digital body. It will give you that soft out-of-focus look you're after, and it is quite sharp too. Plus the f-stop makes it good for low-light. There is a significant difference in both field-of-view and depth-of-field between the 35/f2 and the 24/2.8. If you're looking for something to give you a look similar to the 85/1.8 then the 35/f2 will do the job nicely.

 

That said, the Sigma 30mm is a one whole stop faster (shallower depth of field) and 5 degrees wider. The downside is that you cannot use it on a film camera, and in my experience it's not quite as sharp as the Nikon 35mm.

 

If you really need/want that extra stop, go for the Sigma. Otherwise, get the Nikon.

It depends on how much you're willing to spend. I like the way the 28/2.8 looks on my D200, and they can be had used for under $150. The 17-55/2.8 is also quite a lens, though it's expensive. A nice alternative might be the Tamron 17-50/2.8 which isn't quite as good as the Nikon, but it's also 1/3rd the price and performs more than adequately.

I have to agree with KL.

 

What's the point of owning a camera like the D200 if you don't use it.

 

My suggestion: sell the D200 to someone who's going to use it, then buy a D50 and leave it home instead.

I assume by "soft focus" he's referring to the fact that the in-camera sharpening in the D200 is not very high, leading to somewhat softer-looking images directly from the camera. For more educated users, this isn't a problem. Just introduce a little unsharp masking into your workflow and you're good to go.

 

If he's not referring to that I can't imagine what he's talking about.