frankeleveld

<p>

<p>1) Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4D. A nice lens for portraiture on DX, it also serves me well as a generic walk-around lens, both on my D200 and my FM2n.<br>

2) Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-S. I use this as a 'normal' lens on the D200. Its close-focusing capabilities come in useful when I don't carry my bulky AF-S VR 105mm Micro. It's also sharp, even wide open. It also produces lovely bokeh, rendering For some reason my FM2n doesn't like my battered sample, but on the D200 it works just fine. On top of that, it has lovely bokeh.<br>

3) Nikkor AF 20mm f/2.8D. This lens almost lives on my FM2n. It may not be the sharpest optic in the corners (although on film that's not really as much of an issue as it is on DX) nor is it completely devoid of distortion, but it produces contrasty images with pleasing colors. Its compact and lightweight, and its fast f/2.8 aperture makes it an excellent lens for shooting indoors.</p>

</p>

<p>> I am not sure if the aperture is recorded. Please confirm.<br>

It is, if you'd enter the lens' data (focal length and maximum aperture) in the camera (provided the body supports that feature), the selected aperture is recorded as well.</p>

<p>I also like to put a vote in for the AF 20mm f/2.8D. It's small, lightweight and well-built. Wide-open there's some vignetting and the corners are soft, especially on digital bodies. I don't regard that as a problem though, it improves when stopping down.<br>

Mine is usually glued to my FM2, although I also like to use it on my D200 for street and indoor photography. My Tokina AT-X 124 is a stop slower, and even though that lens is sharper in comparison, it suffers from more noticeable chromatic aberration and flare when shooting in contra-light. The Tokina is more versatile than the Nikkor, but I use the 20mm f/2.8D more because it's unobtrusive and small. And 62mm filters are quite a bit cheaper than 77mm ones as well...</p>

<p>My favorites for street photography are the 20mm f/2.8D and the 28mm f/2.8 AI-S. Both lenses are small and unobtrusive and produce excellent, contrasty results. I find their FOVs to be very useful, both on DX as well as on FX and film. Some might argue the 20mm is a bit soft in the corners on digital, but in low light this is generally hardly noticeable.</p>

<p>Another vote for Op/Tech straps here. Much more comfortable to wear than standard Nikon straps.</p>

<p>If I could only have one lens, I'd probably go for the 50/1.4 because that's the lens I use about 80 percent of the time.</p>

<p>The Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 isn't Nikon's sharpest lens - on digital at least. I love mine for shooting landscapes on film and frequently use it for shooting people indoors on my D200. I tested mine extensively on both formats and it doesn't exhibit as much CA as the sample tested here, but that can be due to sample variation.</p>

> Non-"D" lenses can't matrix meter, so you may want to rethink the 50 f/1.4 and get maybe something else.

 

 

Not true. Non-D lenses can sometimes give overexposed flash images because the lens does not tell the distance its focused on to the camera, but these lenses work perfectly fine otherwise. Even my 34-year old AI'd Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 P.C. Auto works and meters flawlessly on my D200, in all metering modes.

 

Some third-party lenses communicate the wrong focusing distance to the camera, so they may lead to overexposed (or underexposed) flash images too. The Tamron 17-50 is notorious for this.

Don't worry about lab tests too much. I've the 20/2.8 AF-D and I think it's a great lens. Whilst the corners are not as sharp as the center

wide open, distortion, CA and vignetting are well controlled - any optical flaws are generally not really visible in real-world photography. It's a

contrasty lens, it focuses as close as 10 inches from the image plane, and it's small and unobtrusive. The 20/2.8 might not be Nikon's

sharpest optic, it isn't what I'd call soft.

I have an AI'd 55mm f/3.5 P.C. Micro-Nikkor, which is probably the sharpest lens I have. It's 34 years old and it still works and looks like new. Mine is mostly used for product photography, for which it's great. Naturally it's also a wonderful macro lens (although working distance is a bit tight, especially when using the PK-13 tube to get down to lifesize) but it also works well for landscapes and even portraiture, although it's obviously optimized for close-up photography. Well worth having it converted, if you'd ask me.

I've an AI-converted 55mm f/3.5 P.C. Micro-Nikkor, which I use on both my D200 and FM2n. It's the sharpest lens I have, and despite it being 34 years old, it still works and looks like new. I doubt whether many of Nikon's recent lenses will still function and work equally well in 34 years.

 

I also use a 28mm f/2.8 AI-S which is in fair condition both mechanically and optically, yet it still gives me sharp and contrasty images on both the D200 and film. Those old AI(-S) lenses are (often) beautifully made and continue to work well, especially if you have a body that can meter with them.

A wide angle lens can be quite useful for wedding photography (eg. for group shots in confined spaces, exaggerating perspectives, etc.). Unless you're going FX (35mm digital) soon, I'd keep the 17-55 for your D2x. It's a great lens for wedding shoots.

> phoenix: yes, you can defish the 10.5 in capture NX. the 10.5 is one of nikon's sharpest lenses.

 

I disagree, the 10.5 (at least my sample) isn't a particularly sharp lens, I suspect it's in fact one of Nikon's least sharp primes. I have tree wide angle lenses; the 10.5mm fisheye, a Tokina 12-24 and Nikon's 20mm f/2.8D. The Tokina is sharper than both the 10.5mm and the 20mm f/2.8, which has a reputation for being 'soft' on digital bodies. Still, there's more to image quality than sharpness alone and the 10.5 and 20/2.8 both are much more resistant to flare and ghosting than the 12-24. Contrast of especially the 10.5 is very high, which may contribute to the impression of sharpness. Colors really pop with the 10.5, and they do so to a lesser extend with the 20/2.8. The Tokina still has sufficient contrast, it's just that it can't keep up with the 10.5 and 20/2.8 in this respect. As far as image quality goes; I would rate the 20/2.8 first, because it has the least amount of optical issues, followed by the 10.5, and the Tokina.

I'd like to put a vote in for DxO - provided your camera/lens combination is supported in DxO. The Hemi plug-in also does a good job, but DxO's super wide option which renders an image with a viewing angle of 120 degrees is hard to beat, even though the image quality at the edges suffers.

 

I'm preferring the 10.5 over my Tokina 12-24 because it's one stop faster, has higher contrast, is much less troubled by flare and it's much more compact and light-weight. The Tokina is more versatile in terms of focal length. Both have their use, but if weight is a concern on a photo trip, I pack the 10.5mm.

I would exchange the lens for another sample. My 105VR2.8 works fine on my D200, although AF isn't what I'd call particularly fast, nor always dead-on on low-contrast subjects in low light. On a borrowed D300, I found low-light performance was much improved - with my sample at least. A co-worker's 105VR was much more reluctant to achieve focus, both on the D200 and D300. There seems to be at least some variation between individual samples in this respect.

I frequently use mine as a portrait lens. Whilst AF isn't particularly fast on my D200 (not 24-70 AF-S-fast anyway),

the 105mm VR 2.8 is a pretty versatile lens and quite well suited for portrait photography. It renders OOF areas very

nicely, not quite as good as the 85/1.4, but that's hardly surprising I guess.

Eliott, I agree; a 9 y/o does not need to know what the D50's in-body AF-motor does, but since Rene stated he has two AF primes, the D50

seems a more attractive option to me since the D40/D60 won't AF with those. The D50's grip isn't much larger than the D40's, although the

D50 itself is a bit larger and heavier than the D40/D60. Like I said, it all comes down to personal preference and either camera will be

capable of producing great images. As long as Rene can get a good deal on the D50 it's a viable option, I think.

The D2h might be 'only' 4MP, it's still has something going for it. It's very fast at 8 fps with an incredibly short viewfinder blackout time and shutter lag, it's built like the proverbial tank, and it runs forever on the EN-EL4 battery (provided it's in good condition). I've seen 13x19" prints and magazine spreads shot by the D2h and I dare to say image quality is certainly no worse than a 6MP body and probably even slightly better because the D2h's pixel acuity is very good. That aside, it offers much, much more control over image parameter settings than any of the consumer bodies. A D2h can meter with older AI and AI-S lenses, the D80 and new D90 cannot, and AF and Auto White balance are better and more reliable than in the consumer bodies.

 

Plus, the fact those images are smaller means they take less space on your hard drive, which might be another advantage for some. Disadvantages: the D2h is not exactly compact and light-weight and its LCD monitor is dim and low resolution by today's standards. Perhaps it's an idea to look at a lightly used D200? That camera has 10mp resolution and can meter with AI and AI-S lenses, is more compact and lighter than a D2h yet it still allows a lot of control over image parameters. It should be in approximately the same price range as a used D2h is.

> "And for a 9 year old, I would go with a D40 over the D50 JUST for the larger monitor. You can get a used D40 for about $250 or less."

 

It depends on one's priorities. Whilst the D40 is a fine, compact camera, I feel it's targeted at a slightly different audience than the D50 was. Since the D40 and D60 lack the in-body focus motor, these cameras are more suited for photographers who are new to the Nikon SLR system and who don't have any AF lenses. This isn't to say one has to use AF-S lenses on the D40/D60; but for a nine year-old it might be convenient to be able to use AF with those classic primes, although this depends on personal preference.

 

Getting a D50 from a shop might give you some form of warranty, whereas buying secondhand will usually get you none. For the precision instrument a camera is, this might pose a risk.

 

I'm not favoring either the D50 or D40 here, they are both fine cameras with a basic feature set and capable of producing very nice images. Compared to the D50, the D40 is smaller, lighter, has a larger and slighter brighter viewfinder and a bigger and better monitor, at the expense of much worse amp noise (the D40 is not a good long exposure camera), slightly more limited AF and no in-body AF motor.

 

The last factor is the most important one; if you think your son has no problems focusing your 35mm and 50mm lenses manually, the D40 might be the more attractive option, otherwise the D50 might get the benefit of the doubt. It's up to you and there isn't really a wrong choice.

Extensive testing in controlled cirumstances revealed that my sample of the 20mm f/2.8D is great on film and good on DX digital. On my D200, the center of the image frame is tack sharp even wide-open with slightly soft corners, which I think is also due to the lens' field curvature. Stopped down to f/5.6 or beyond, the borders are much better, although still not what I'd call tack-sharp. Perfectly usable in everyday photography though.

 

I think the 20/2.8's corner softness isn't really a big problem since most users would tend to stop down wide angle lenses in order to get some DOF to work with. Indoors and at lower light levels, the corner softness wide-open isn't really noticeable - at least not in my images. On film (and FX digital) there's visible light fall-off wide-open, although on FX this can be corrected in the camera.

 

The 20mm's contrast is high, CAs are absent and it's very resistant against flare. It's much smaller and lighter than something like the 17-35mm f/2.8, which is a great lens but which does not seem to be entirely without problems either. There's no such thing as a perfect lens after all, but for me, the 20/2.8 does a remarkably good job.

I've two Micros; the 105mm VR 2.8 and a 55mm f/3.5 PC-Auto. The former cannot hold a candle to the latter's sharpness, especially close-by. AF of the 105VR2.8 is not what I'd call great on the D200 (although my copy performs better in this respect than an earlier sample). On a D300 it was slightly more accurate but it's still nothing to write home about. The 55, being a 34-year old AI-converted lens, is obviously manual focus only, but for it beats the 105 by a mile in some respects; product photography and some basic portraiture work being two examples.

 

The 105mm VR 2.8 is nice for flower close-ups and portraits though:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankeleveld/2853476521/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankeleveld/2776571725/in/set-72157606750442840/

Sorry Eric, but that's not correct. Please read the links Walter Schroeder has provided for more detailed info. There's also a detailed explanation about focal lengths in Ansel Adam's book 'The Camera'. I believe that book is mandatory for any serious photographer, whether amateur or professional.

 

The field-of-view of the 105mm VR would become that of a ~157mm lens on DX (ie. the smaller sensor only uses a smaller portion of the image circle projected by the lens, as if a 157mm lens were attached)There's no more reach; in fact, a lens with a focal length of 105mm still has a focal length of 105mm on a camera with a 1/8" sensor, on medium format, on DX, on 35mm, ...

My 70-300G has given me photos which are much better than its modest price tag would suggest. Over 200mm it's not the sharpest optic (but my sample is definitely capable of producing decent results in conjunction with my D200) and its construction doesn't inspire confidence, but so far I'm happy with the results, although I'm seeking to replace mine some time later on with a telephoto prime.

The focal-length multiplier with crop-sensor DSLRs frequently leads to confusion. It's important not to compare apples with oranges, but apples with apples.

 

If you'd put the 12-24mm on a Nikon DSLR with APS-C sensor (the D200 for example), the 12mm focal length in 35mm terms becomes effectively ~ 18mm (12mm multiplied by ~1.5). The 14-24 at its widest setting becomes almost a ~21mm on DX. On a D3 it's a true 14mm lens, because there's no focal length multiplier; the sensor of the D3 is virtually identical in size as a 35mm film frame.

 

The Sigma 10-20's effective 35mm focal length is ~15mm on a DX body. On the D3 (in FX mode) it's 10mm, but it's not recommended to use it this way because the corners will black out due to the smaller image circle of DC (Sigma speak for DX) lenses. Putting the D3 into DX mode will effectively turn the FOV of the 10-20 to a ~15-~30mm lens, the same as if it were used on a genuine Nikon DX body.

 

For DX, I'd look into the 12-24 - the Nikkor is best optically. The Tokina is good too, with its primary weakness being flare caused by bright light spots in or just outside the image frame. Chromatic aberration is also a bit higher then the Nikkor. I haven't actually shot with the Sigma, but I've seen lots of images made with it. Its primary weaknesses seem vignetting and softness in the corners, but it really does go wide - 2mm extra on the wide end accounts for a significant difference. If I had to buy an ultra-wide angle lens now, I'd probably have purchased the Sigma because I'm a fan of w-i-d-e photography. Still, I'd make a decision on your personal preferences - you can't go wrong with any of them. Only the Tamron 11-18 doesn't seem the best choice in terms of build quality and optical performance.

Unfortunately, I have to agree - PN's performance is sluggish and uploading photos to my portfolio results in time-outs. Yesterday it was the same thing. I guess I'll just have to wait until the crawling problem has been addressed with.