albertdarmali

<p>I have too many lenses but not enough talent</p>

<p>Just use D700. at least with that you'll be safe in those places where you can't use flash.<br /> And it's not that much more compared to buying a used D2X, especially if you are going to earn some money from it. I'm no wedding photographer, but if it was me, I'd get D700 + more money for lenses and flash.</p>

<p>The thing with getting a used D2X, it's a rather old camera, you don't know how long it would still last you, especially many D2X are used heavily by pros.</p>

<p>Yes, nice photography.</p>

<p>Sigma, LX3, G10, etc</p>

<p>Ummm..... no thanks?</p>

<p>Should be the same. Difference is with DX your image will be cropped.</p>

<p>I would also say D90 is good enough unless you are doing this sport photography professionally. Since D90 is cheaper, you can get better quality lens instead.</p>

<p>Hi Lex, I got what you mean, and also thank you for the detailed explanation. If you look at my photo.net account profile, I don't even link my personal blog under my profile, so I don't really mean to promote anything. I was actually thinking to submit the reviews on photo.net, but as you can see my reviews are very informal and I don't know how those sit among other photo.net lens reviews.</p>

<p>If you think they are okay enough and you prefer my reviews to be submitted and put directly as photo.net lenses reviews, I'm all fine with that and then we can just cut and paste them and put them there. But then again as I said, my reviews are very informal, not sure how you guys can tolerate them, haha...</p>

<p>I don't mean to be bad, but imagine looking at your pictures with that crispy high end monitor, it will be worth it I am sure. I am sure Michael will agree with me.</p>

<p>By the way he also mentioned that he took picture of his son watching TV in a dark room, he can also make use of something like Nikon 50mm f/1.2 Ais for a more intimate, different kind of look compared to 70-200mm.</p>

<p>Looking at his son's pictures using a perfectly calibrated EIZO would be a very beautiful experience.</p>

<p>Thanks Shun, glad that you actually understood it. Like I said, I was really interested with Zeiss (if you remember, I actually posted a thread asking about why CZ was expensive) and after reading all the comments, I decided to try and get one.</p>

<p>And it turned out I totally loved it, hence the second lens. So this review was sort of answering my own question from my old thread about what makes the CZ worth it. If I had this review back then, it would be very helpful for me in deciding whether or not to get the lens.</p>

<p>Anyway, I agree, the lenses would be lovely to use with FX, but I am still waiting for what the successor of D700 brings and still very happy with my S5 at the moment. but one obvious advantage of using FX is the much larger viewfinder, making it much easier to manual focus with the lens.</p>

<p>I posted this to share experience with fellow members here, that's all.</p>

<p>Well if the mods think that the members won't be able to benefit from it, feel free to delete it because I got no "self benefit" from it. (it's not my personal website anyway, it's blogspot and it's not a commercial website)</p>

<p>I thought it might be useful for those who's thinking to get it because when I was in that situation, boy I wish I could read thorough reviews of the lenses like this because not many people seem to write about them. Ciao.</p>

<p>I personally don't. If you take moderate care of your lenses, you don't really need filters. The only time you may need it is if you go to some rough places with hard to predict environment. eg. beaches, deserts, etc..</p>

<p>Just a reminder, D700 successor might be coming soon this year, and hopefully we'll see some new developments in Nikon's lens offering as well.</p>

<p>In the mean time, have a look at EIZO websites to see some pretty monitors there. I personally like this one: http://www.eizo.com/global/products/flexscan/sx2462w/index.html<br /> You might think you don't need monitors, but what's the point of having a nice lens without a nice monitor to look at all those pretty images?</p>

<p>Also if you have the time, you might also have a look at some Carl Zeiss lenses for a different flavour. I heard that the Zeiss 100mm f/2 and the 21mm f/2.8 Distagon are absolute gems.</p>

<p>All the best!</p>

<p>Well, there is Ricoh GR III, they have only fixed focal length, and mainly designed for you to really just enjoy photography and not much gimmicky features or zoom this zoom that.</p>

<p>I am not sure if the reason behind your question is to have just a very basic camera (like almost 'disposable') or because you want something basic so that it sort of reminds you of using something like film range finder?<br /> But anyway, you might want to have a look at Ricoh III, maybe you'll like it (a bit expensive though than average point&shoot though).</p>

<p>It's simpler to just paint your Nikon to Canon.</p>

<p>I do, because reformatting is the fastest way to clear the images. If you do "delete all", it's much slower. I've been doing this to my memory cards for a long time and there's no harm done, so I think it's the best way.<br>

And if you accidentally reformat the memory card but you need to recover the files again, as long as you haven't overwritten it with new pictures, you should still be able to recover all the files using a file rescue program.</p>

<p>Reviews of both lenses and also some other lenses as well, it's written on a blogspot:<br>

http://lenses-review.blogspot.com/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As much as I love Carl Zeiss lenses, I am not sure if the price of CZ 50mm f/1.4 is really justified, especially considering you won't even be able to auto meter with your body and you have a small optical viewfinder to manual focus with it. This lens is nicer to use with cameras with larger optical viewfinders.<br>

If I were you, I'd go with Akira's suggestion and get the Nikon AFS instead.</p>

 

<p>It's probably a quick fix if you send it to authorised Zeiss repairer. Not worth trying to tinker it and you might make it even worse. The sooner you send it the sooner you're back using that beautiful lens again.</p>

<p>If you don't mind manual meter and focus, 85mm 1.4 AF any time of the day baby. Any time of the day.</p>

<p>Hmmm.... quite a few "shove down my opinons to his throat" comments here. The OP clearly mentioned that he wanted a <strong>portrait/micro </strong> lens, I don't know how someone can actually suggest a 85mm 1.8 which clearly can't even do a macro - and the OP was actually asking whether someone has used that particular lens before, not asking whether it's a right decision to get that new 85mm and what the other alternatives would be.<br>

<br /> And VR in 85mm is always useful, especially if you consider the f/3.5 aperture. Yes I know you can argue why not just use the 85mm 1.8 and use higher shutter speed instead? But what if the OP's shooting style is as such that he usually uses f/4 or f/5.6 most of the time? What good would the 85mm 1.8 be in that case?<br /> Having said that, I am sure that the OP's choice of 85mm 3.5 with VR will be more useful than using the 85mm 1.8 at f/4 or smaller aperture without VR.</p>

<p>Well as what's been said, it depends on your own personal preference.<br>

In my case, holding a Nikon feels like holding a camera, whereas holding a Canon feels like holding a Canon.</p>

<p>Depends on your camera too actually. Some cameras are not good at matrix, some are good... Also depends on what you're shooting, also depends on the light source, etc etc..<br>

There is no set rule for metering. The best meter is manual metering but of course impractical.</p>

<p>Someone just bought a Nikon 14mm f/2.8 in excellent condition from eBay for US$750. I almost bought it but decided not to because I still prefer the Zeiss 21mm. But for US$750 that's crazy bargain price.</p>

<p>Funnily enough the pictures taken by the Orangutan is better than my pictures.</p>