darius.tulbure

<p>Thanks for your help! I managed to test the OS om this lens and it works. It's just that it didn't make any audible noise (compared to the corresponding lens from Tamron which made a lot of noise).</p>

<p>Thank you guys for your input. I guess the 24mm 2.8 AFD isn't a good solution. Perhaps they'll eventually replace it with a more modern compact prime at about the same price. Or perhaps I'll study the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 Macro in more detail...</p>

<p>The Zeiss is excellent, but pretty expensive for me. I don't mind the manual focus. Perhaps the Nikon 24mm Ai f/2.8 is not a bad idea if it performs better on digital.</p>

<p>The Voigtlander is an interesting option, but I'm not sure it's compatible with my D80. I'm not sure if it's sharper than the 24mm 2.8D either. <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/504-voigtlander20f35eosff?start=1">Photozone.de</a> didn't convince me.</p>

<p>Perhaps I should ask another question... Since it's all about expectations, do you think the 24mm 2.8D would perform better or worse than the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 @24mm f/4? If it's worse, the whole point in buying this prime is gone.</p>

<p>Hi!</p>

<p>I was almost sure I wanted to buy Nikon's 24mm AF-D f/2.8 lens, but after reading some reviews and opinions I'm not sure anymore that it would be a good choice. For the moment I own the 50mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2 and 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5. I love these tiny, light and super sharp primes! The zoom I rarely use nowadays... well, only when I need its wide angle (I only use it stopped down to f/5.6-8 or more).</p>

<p>I love primes, but there's not much choice at the wide end of the Nikon's lineup. The superb but bulky and expensive 24mm f/1.4 is not an option for me for obvious budget reasons. I'd love the 24mm f/2.8D, but I heard it's a bit soft (especially in the corners) and it has some nasty chromatic aberrations. "It was good on film, but on digital is mediocre" they say.</p>

<p>So what do you think I should do? Do you think it's possible that Nikon plans to launch an update for their wide angle trio - 20mm f/2.8D, 24mm f/2.8D, 28mm f/2.8D? Perhaps an affordable f/2.8 "G" version of each? Should I wait? Or should I look into third parties?</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p>Hi!</p>

<p>I'm not too familiar with optical stabilizers or stabilized lenses for that matter, but I know what to expect when shooting with the optical stabilizer on. It's a quiet noise and a slight movement inside the lens when pressing the shooter (half way or all the way down).</p>

<p>The problem is that I didn't experience anything like this with my friend's Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS mounted on a Canon 50D. I didn't make a proper test to see whether OS works or not, but surely it felt like it didn't: OS on or off, the lens acted the same - it was quiet.<br>

<br />What do you think? Is Sigma's OS that silent (much more silent that Tamron's for instance) or on this particular copy of the lens it doesn't work? Thank you!</p>

<p>Aside from the angle of view, what differs in using the 24mm f2.8 AFD on film and digital? If you're using it on a full frame digital, even the difference in the angle of view disappears, so what is that makes it so different on digital?</p>

<p>Hiro, I feel too there should be an upgrade to the primes at a reasonable price. A 24mm f/2 AF-S should do the trick, although I hate the new "G" designs.<br /> @<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a> I own the 35mm f/2 D and I absolutely love it. It's very sharp and extraordinarily flexible (landscapes, portraits, close-ups, street) on DX format.</p>

<p>@Wouter Willemse I see no real reason why one should prefer the 35mm f/1.8 instead of the 35mm f/2. Is it sharper? Does it have better bokeh? Is it better built? Does it have less CAs? I'm very curios as I haven't had the opportunity to test it.</p>

<p>Besides Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-D I'd recommend the Nikon 35mm f/2. It's very sharp and after I've got it it's always mounted on my camera. If you want to shoot landscapes/architecture/industrial, you'd need a wider prime, say a 24mm. I have no experience with the Nikon 24 f/2.8, but I heard some good things about it. Perhaps there are sharper alternatives, I don't know.</p>

<p>Hi everyone!<br /> I know there's no such thing as "the perfect lens", and I know Nikon's lineup comprises dozens of lenses. However, I think there are some empty spaces in their lineup, lenses that at least in my opinion surprisingly aren't there. I'll give just a few examples of lenses I'd like Nikon to manufacture:</p>

<p><strong>More DX primes</strong>. 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 3.5 VR Micro are good starts, but they are not enough. How about:</p>

<p>60mm f/2 DX Micro (VR?)<br /> 28mm f/2 DX<br /> 20mm f/2.8 DX<br /> 16mm f/2.8 DX<br /> 14mm f/2.8 or f/4 DX</p>

<p>It's funny there aren't any ultra wide angle primes for APS-C cameras.</p>

<p><strong>A wide angle zoom for DX format</strong>. For the moment, Nikon only offers two kinds of wide angle zooms for APS-C cameras: ultra-wide zooms like 10-24mm 3.5-4.5 DX and standard mid-wide-to-mid-telephoto zooms like 18-105mm 3.5-5.6 DX. As I'm not too keen on using extremely wide focals and thus not willing to pay for them, I'd suggest a sharp, versatile and not too expensive</p>

<p>14-28mm f/4 DX (VR?) or a 15-30mm f/4 DX (VR?) for landscape photography.</p>

<p>Landscape photographers with a tight budget would surely love one of these! I know Nikon just launched the 16-35mm f/4 VR. The range and the aperture sound fine to me, but there's no point in buying it since it's for full frames (I have a D80) and it costs accordingly.</p>

<p>What about you? What lenses would you like Nikon to have but surprisingly it doesn't?</p>

<p>Thank you all for your help! Choosing a stabilized lens is a no-brainer now for me.</p>

<p>Jason, I've heard that too - it's recommended to turn it off when you have enough light or when using a tripod. My goal is indeed the sharpness, along with the ability to shoot hand held as mush as possible without a flash. The tripod is an excellent solution, but it's not practical for some types of photography - such as wedding/event photography.</p>

<p>Matt, that's a very sharp, contrasty and colorful image! Did you manipulate it or that's the way it came through the lens? I have the decent Nikkor 18-70mm, but I'm quite dissatisfied with its performance - especially sharpness and contrast are pretty low at all focal distances and apertures. It's surprise to see the 18-200mm perform better.</p>

<p>Mark, 17mm on a DX body is still 17mm. Only that the angle of view is equivalent to the angle you get with a 25.5mm lens on full frame. The focal distance stays the same; instead you get a "cropped" photo. So you don't need to "convert" the rule of thumb; 1/20 sec is enough (theoretically 1/17 sec).</p>

<p>Peter, that's a fantastic shot - 1/5?! Perhaps the weight of your camera helped you. My light Nikon D80 is shook by the flipping mirror so badly...</p>

<p>Thank you Juergen, thank you Lex!<br>

The picture you linked to looks pretty neat. That's what I'm looking for from a stabilized lens.</p>

<p>Hello!<br>

I have a question that might sound silly - how effective is image stabilization on wide-angle lenses? I'm talking about any focal length below 50mm. Does it improve stability even at 20mm? Or that's going to happen only at higher focal distances?<br>

A little context: I'm planning to buy the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC and I was wondering whether should I go for this version or for the older, non-stabilized, lens. If the 17-50mm 2.8 VC won't help me shoot at slower shooter speeds in the wide range of the lens (17-35), then I'd better go for the cheaper one.<br>

So the question is, will I be capable of shooting at 1/10s @17mm? Or at 24mm? Let's say I'm average-steady.<br>

Thank you for you time,<br>

Darius</p>

This is the image in question http://www.photo.net/photo/5622596

 

If it's a bug and needs to be fixed, don't waste time with this particular image. I'll wait a few hours and try again. Thank you!

When you choose to edit the image info, you can change little things like the

date, the caption, the technical details etc. And you can upload an updated

version of your pic.

 

The problem is - I can't do that anymore. More precisely, I wanted to upload the

same image but with a different frame. Everything goes well except that in the

end I still see the old version. Refresh, Shift+Refresh, clear cache and

Refresh... nothing seems to work.

 

Thanks for your time.

Well, I made it by selecting a neighbor country. After a minute of though, I think I could have selected any country within <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union">EU</a>... since Europe is like a single country nowadays :P

Strange things happen <a href="http://www.romania.org/">here</a>. Part of the fault is the police's impotence. However, what is really interesting is that there are many Western banks investing here, among them ING, Citibank, Group Societe Generale, Raiffeisen Bank, Erste Bank, Banca di Roma, Millennium Bank, HVB Bank, Porsche Bank... And yes, they all issue debit and credit cards.

Now that makes me soo proud to be Romanian.

This I must say is odd. A Visa card is a Visa card wherever you are using it from. Then, as far as I know, in Romania are fewer phishing attacks (and other fraud methods) than in some western countries. But that's the banking provider's problem, after all.

 

So you suggest I should try "using" a neighbor country? Or using PayPal... Ok, I'll try that. Thanks Josh.

Today my subscription expires. And I wanted to renew it. But, after completing

almost all the required fields (I wanted to pay via credit card), the form asked

me to select my country - Romania - only it wasn't there, in the drop down list.

What does that mean? I can't pay from Romania?

Filters, doging and burning, color balance etc.

What amuses me is that I use EV -0.7 as standard on my D80 too. It's actually funny Nikon overlooked to calibrate the light meter... The good news is that the D80 consistently overexposes, so using -0.7 is virtually not a problem. However I think the 18-200mm is rather soft.

Well, I worked with a Panasonic FZ7. A 12x zoom camera as well. And I almost always worked with its wide end of the zoom and almost never with the tele end of the zoom. Usually somewhere between 1x and 4x. But that's just me. If you used to use consistently its whole focal range, you'll feel limited without the 18-200 VR. But still, I don't think you need the whole zoom range at once, in a single lens.