frankeleveld

<p>Best:<br>

- Nikon 50mm f/1.4D. Use it a lot for portraits and low light shooting. Sharp, compact, lightweight.</p>

<p>- Nikon 20mm f//2.8D. People have mixed opinions on this lens, claiming it's soft in the corners and that it produces CA. It's indeed fairly soft and there's some CA on the D200, but it's small, lightweight, focuses fairly close and to be fair it does not perform much worse than the other fix focals in this range, except for the Zeiss 21/2.8 perhaps. I like it much better optically than the Tokina 12-24, which is larger, heavier, is very prone to flaring and ghosting, and produced an extensive amount of asymmetrical lateral chromatic aberration which is very hard to get rid of in post-production. On DX the 20/2.8's FOV is nice for shooting indoors or groups of people, on 35mm/FX it's a good landscape lens. Plus, it focuses fairly close. Reverse-mount it and you'll be in macro-heaven. Nikon should update it, adding new coatings/ED-glass - as long as they keep it compact and light-weight.</p>

<p>- Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 PC Auto. Costed me around $90 with PK-13 ring, in mint condition, factory AI'd. Use it a lot for product shots, but also works well as a portrait lens because it 'draws' images in a nice way.</p>

<p>Worst:<br>

- Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8G VR. I rarely use it for macro, in fact, I rarely shoot macro these days. For portraiture the AF-S and VR come in useful, but I now wish I had gotten the 85/1.4D instead... Still a very good lens.</p>

<p>- Nikon 200mm f/4 AI. Got it cheap, so it's not a big thing. Well-built and fairly compact. Like many older Nikkor lenses, the 200/4 has a pleasant way of 'drawing' images, but focusing is a pain on the D200. As such I don't use it that often.</p>

<p>- Tokina 12-24. Has some optical issues which increasingly bother me. Unsuitable for shooting nocturnal city scapes, chromatic aberration is a real issue especially since it's hard to address in post-processing due to its asymmetrical character. It is sharper than the 20/2.8D, but sharpness alone doesn't seal it for me. </p>

<p>Of the lenses I have, the 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor and 105VR2.8 Micro-Nikkor have the lowest distortion. The 50/1.4 and 28mm f/2.8 AI-S also have very low distortion - at least on DX, to the point where I usually don't correct it in post.</p>

<p>@Paul: yes, the focal length of a lens remains the same, regardless of the format, only the field of view changes. Using a smaller format is comparable to cropping a portion out of the frame.</p>

<p>My first 'real' photo bag was a generously-sized no-name one I got as a present. I used it to lug my Minolta 300s, and later, Maxxum 7000i around. When I got my first DSLR, I got a small Lowepro Nova AW bag which became too small as my lens collection grew. I now use that bag for my Hasselblad, which snugly fits in it, but I'm planning to get a Tenba Medium Shoot Out for it.<br>

My D200 and accessoiries now sit in a ThinkTank SpeedDemon (with an extra lens changer pouch). It can hold the D200 body plus lens, plus two mid-sized lenses such as the 17-55mm or a bunch of primes (packed in Zing pouches). Ergonomically, I think the ThinkTank is the best small-sized bag I have ever seen. It's reasonably comfortable to carry/wear and very well-made. Highly recommended.</p>

<p>Buy wisely and your tripod will last a lifetime. I'm using Manfrotto 190 legs with a Markins Q-Ball head. Sturdy yet not too expensive.</p>

<p>I have the Tokina 12-24. It comes very close to the Nikkor 12-24 in terms of optical quality, but the Nikon is the better lens. It's less prone to flare, has much less CA, slightly less distortion, allows thicker filters to be used at its widest angle and vignetting is better controlled as well. The Tokina 12-24 and 11-16 are both IF and don't extend when zooming. The Nikon 10-24's lens barrel does extend. Its main advantage is that it goes wider than the Tokinas and the Nikkor 12-24. Its main disadvantage (in my book) is the variable aperture.<br>

The original Tokina ATX-124 won't AF on the D40, the newer version does.</p>

<p>And another vote for the 55mm f/3.5... Zero distortion, sharp as a tack, no CA, light, sturdy build... I love mine for this kind of work.</p>

<p>I have two macro lenses; the AF-S 105mm VR and a 35 year old 55 mm f/3.5 PC Auto Micro-Nikkor. The latter beats the 105mm optically and it's much smaller and lighter as well. It's not as convenient though and working distance is tighter.</p>

<p>The 105mm's AF and VR make it a solid (though slightly long on DX) portrait lens, making it probably more versatile than the 60mm for wedding photography. Gary's suggestion to get a close-up filter for a decent telephoto lens is a good one as well, in fact, I'm not sure I would buy a dedicated macro lens again if I was given the choice. I use my 105mm VR more for portraiture than I do for macro, and my old 200mm f/4 AI with extension tube is better for macro work in the field than the 105 is. The 55/3.5 is useful for copy work though.</p>

<p>For weddings, something like the 70-200 or 80-200, with a CU filter for close-up work, and a wide-angle zoom like the 17-35 are probably the only two lenses you'd need. Throw in a fast 50 or 85mm prime for low light portraiture work and you're set.</p>

<p>The 20/2.8 is one of my most used lenses, on both DX and film. On DX it has its issues - especially in the corners - but I like the fact that it's unobtrusive (contrary to f/2.8 zooms) and light, and that it works great for group shots of people indoors and as a walk-around lens on the street. I've used mine on my D200 to shoot weddings, environmental portraits, architecture, nightly skies, etc. On my FM2n it's a terrific landscape lens, very sharp, with a dramatic angle of view. I have yet to try it on a FX camera but friends of mine have and the results look good indeed.</p>

<p>On DX it's not the sharpest lens (especially in the corners) and not entirely free of CA, but at least it's uniform CA (unlike my Tokina 12-24) so pretty easy to remove in post.</p>

<p>The best way to check for issues with this lens is to put the camera in full manual mode; shooting in Aperture or Shutter priority may lead to minor exposure variances, especially under artificial light. Testing a lens properly is a challenging task as lots of issues have to be verified: is the lens under testing really not sharp or does it back- or front focus? Is one side of the image softer than the other? How does the lens perform at close-focus and how at medium focus distances, and at infinity? Is there curvature of field in play? The testing procedure itself should be flawless or the results may not be valid at all; for example, the camera/lens should be absolutely perpendicular to the subject to yield proper results, especially at closer focusing distances, or some aspects of the subject being shot may not be fully in focus, etc.</p>

<p>Good luck with your testing.</p>

<p>I second the recommendation for the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5. You can get these dirt-cheap through the obvious channels. You'll need a PK-13 or M2 extension ring to get to life-size (1:1) and focus is manual only obviously, but it's a very sturdy yet lightweight lens. It has a lovely 'character' (the way it 'draws' images) and it's very, very sharp indeed. Working distance is tight so it's not the best lens to photograph skittish insects, but then even the 105mm VR isn't.</p>

<p>A higher resolution requires better lenses, better technique, sturdier tripods and heads, more storage space, faster computers, etc. In my book 12 well-captured megapixels are better than 24 mediocre MPs.</p>

<p>$1000 to replace the AF-S motor sounds very steep to me. I would skip this lens and get a properly working one in the first place. I've seen them going in good condition for around $ 1200/€ 1200.</p>

<p>I'd bring the 18-105 as a general purpose lens and the 50/1.8 for low light. If you like the FOV of a 35mm lens on your D90, you might want to consider to replace the 50 for the 35mm f/1.8G. Just two, maybe three lenses is generally all you need on a trip.<br>

I used to bring too much glass on photo trips, I was often too busy deciding what lens to use on a specific subject rather than looking at the subject from an artistic point of view and force myself to capture it in the best possible way.<br>

I'm contemplating to bring just two primes on my next trip; the 20mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.4.</p>

<p>The Nikon 20mm f/2.8D is one of my most-used lenses. I use it both on a D200 and on a FM2n, on the D200 it is a great lens to photograph people (indoors), whilst on the FM2n it makes a great landscape lens. On the D200 it is not the sharpest in the corners, but this is rarely a problem for me. Just pay attention to what you put in the corners. The 17-35 and 14-24 are supposedly better on digital, but these are much more expensive and considerably more bulky in size and weight.<br>

On the FM2n, the 20/2.8 is great and I've seen some decent results with the D3/D700 as well. Corner performance was certainly better than on the D200, but I think performance will fall apart on the D3x. The 20/2.8 definitely has its shortcomings but I'm pretty happy with mine, and I love to be able to use it on both film and digital.</p>

<p>Like Björn, I've also seen some inconsistencies with my lenses. For example, my AF 50mm f/1.8 (non 'D') reported a maximum aperture value of f/1.7 on the D50.</p>

<p>My favorite lenses on the D200 when on a trip where I need to pack light are the 20mm f/2.8D and the 50mm f/1.4 or an old 55/3.5 Macro, depending on whether I need low light capability. If I need to go wider, I just shoot a panorama with the 20/2.8. Works a treat.</p>

<p>The 105mm VR allows for slightly more working distance than the 60mm. VR and AF are near useless for 1:1 life-size macro work, forget it for anything closer than 1:3 or so. I like my 105 VR, but I'm using it mostly for portraiture work for which the VR and AF work great.</p>

<p>For field macro work, I prefer an old 200mm f/4 AI telephoto lens I purchased for $70, in combination with close-up filters and/or extension. This combination yields a much more comfortable working distance and optical quality is on par with that of the 105VR. John Shaw, the famous nature photographer, made lots of great pictures with exactly this setup.</p>

<p>For reproduction work and product shots I tend to grab my 55/3.5 AI-S, which is probably the sharpest lens I have. I also love the way it draws pictures, it has a certain 'signature' which I miss in Nikon's more modern lenses.</p>

<p>I would bring the D300 and the 18-70, the 50/1.8 and the 70-300. This way, you would cover a lot of range, and you would be able to shoot in low light conditions as well, without having to lug the 17-55 around (which I think is not all that much better than the 18-70 optically). The D300 has more hands-on control than the D90, which I personally find useful.</p>

<p>According to Lens Rentals' repair data, the Tamron 70-200 has a very high faillure rate:<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.11.01/lens-repair-data-35">http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.11.01/lens-repair-data-35</a><br>

Lens Rentals says here that on an annual basis, over 41% of the Tamron 70-200 lenses they have available for rent needed repair, the focusing and zoom mechanisms being the main culprits. The Sigma 70-200 didn't fare any better in their experience.<br>

Obviously Lens Rentals' lenses have it harder than optics which are only casually used by careful amateurs, yet their data says something about expected long-term reliability.<br>

I second the suggestion for a used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8.</p>

<p>I have no complaints whatsoever on my 28/2.8 AI-S. It's plenty sharp, even in the corners, on both film and digital. Mine is a beaten-up copy that still takes wonderful images.</p>

<p>I second Chris' vote for the Arctic Butterfly, but only after using a Giotto Rocket proves unsuccessful.</p>

<p>Lenses outdated? Provided the price is right, lenses don't get outdated, at least not as badly as DSLRs. Some of my most-used lenses are more than 25 years old and these give better results than any modern Nikon zoom in their respective focal length.</p>

<p>But, the 18-70. It was, and still is, a fine lens for what it is. I used to have one, but I hate zooms so I sold off mine. Optically there is little to fault, except the distortion and vignetting at its wide end. Build is not so good; the lens mount has a rubber seal to prevent dust and moisture ingress but due to the significant extension when zooming in, the 18-70 pumps quite a bit of air which sooner or later will lead to problems with dust. That's true for all consumer zooms though.</p>

<p>I'm using a 20mm f/2.8 AF-D on my D200 and FM2n and whilst the lens has its issues on digital (soft corners, occasional lateral chromatic aberration), there are also things it does very well. It's very flare-resistant; shooting with bright lights or the sun in the image frame is almost never a problem. And the issues that plague it on digital are hardly a problem with film. I mainly use my 20mm for landscapes (35mm film) or to photograph (groups of) people indoors, for which it works great.</p>

<p>Key to getting good results is knowing the limitations of your tools and determining your priorities. For me, the 20/2.8's relatively compact size, low weight and the f/2.8 aperture are important. That, plus the fact I can also use it on both my DSLR and an old manual Nikon 35mm body, make it much more versatile for me than my Tokina 12-24 which is 2/3 stop slower, has more problems with CA than the 20/2.8 and which has real issues with flare. The Tokina is sharper, but sharpness alone does not make an image and the images made with the 20/2.8 sharpen up quite nicely in post with some careful use of the unsharp mask.</p>

Sorry Keith, but I disagree with your statement that just because the D2X has a CMOS sensor, it is supposed to perform

better than the D200 with its CCD. It doesn't work that way, because a DSLR's noise performance is determined not only

by the sensor type, but also by the A/D-conversion circuitry.

 

Also, the D2X does not outperform the D200 at higher ISOs. At its base sensivity, it does, but from ISO 400 on the D200

produces cleaner images, although these are no match for the newer D300, which gains slightly over a stop in terms of

noise compared to the D200.

<p>I have the 28/2.8 AI-S with 0.2m near-focus limit. It's a very sharp lens, which also renders out of focus areas quite nicely. It's well built, yet small and light weight. One aspect I love about the 28/2.8 AI-S is its resistance against flare, shooting straight into the sun or with strong lights in your image frame isn't a problem, especially when considered my copy has a few blemishes on its front element. Here's an example:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankeleveld/3994160201/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankeleveld/3994160201/</a></p>

<p>Several tests seem to indicate the Nikon 14-24 outperforms the Nikon and Zeiss ZF primes in this focal range in virtually all respects. It's big and bulky and not particularly cheap, but that also goes for the wide ZF primes.</p>