david_king11

<p>I do understand the general theories and principles of depth of field. I have been shooting a lot with apertures of f1.4 and f2.0 and began wondering exactly how that related to focal length.<br>

<br /> My question really is, when dealing with a single subject portrait, and assuming the subject's size withing the frame remains the same, will there be thinner focal plane when shooting @ 135mm f2.0 opposed to shooting @ 85mm f2.0? How about @ 200mm f2.0? 85mm f1.4 Vs. 200m f2.0?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hey bud, what's up!</p>

<p>My personal opinion, and I am only going to recommend one lens for you...</p>

<p>Many people are talking about the 85 1.4/1.8 as well as the 135 f2 DC. Since you already have the 50 f1.8, I would ignore the 85 and jump to the 135 f2 DC. I am in love with that lens. I think it is just as sharp as the 85 f1.4 and it shows a little contrast as well. It also has the defocus control (DC) which is interesting to play around with. On a DX it will be a great telephoto and it's light and fairly compact.</p>

<p>So go with a wide angle of your choice, keep your 50 1.8 (I have that too) and get the 135 f2.</p>

<p>I own the 70-200 VRI. I have never really been too impressed with it. I have always thought it was quite soft at f2.8 and it never really blew out the background enough for my liking.</p>

 

<p>Also, I don't think I would ever pull out a tripod for the 200 f2. There is a chance I may use a monopod during an indoor or night time sporting event, but I don't do as many of those anymore. I plan to hand hold this lens 95% of the time.</p>

<p>Hey guys, thank you for all the good info. I still don't think I am ready to pull the trigger just yet. It is a big purchase and I need a few nights to sleep on it before I make the final decision.</p>

<p>I already have a 70-200VR and to tell you the truth, I don't like it too much. I think it is soft and even at f2.8, it doesnt always bring in enough light. I may end up selling the 70-200VR depending on what I go for here.</p>

<p>When it comes to the 85 f1.4 vs. the 135 f2.0, I tend to want to pull out the 135 more often. The only time I shoot with the 85 is if I dont have as much space. I have tried three different 85 f1.4s and every single one of them front focused considerably when the red auto focus box was placed in the middle of the view. The front focus goes away the more I move the red box to either end which is usually what I go for anyway.</p>

<p>The 200 f2 would probably be used more for portraits than weddings. I agree it would be a really tough lens to lug around. My hope is to buy the 200 f2 and love it enough that I can get rid of the 85 f1.4 which I dont like tooo much and possibly the 70-200VR. I am really looking for a lens that performs so well that I never really have to make the decision of what lens to use.</p>

<p>Given what I have mentioned above, I still think I am leaning towards a 200 VR at $4k and possibly making some of that money back by selling other gear.</p>

<p>Opinions?</p>

<p>Weddings and portraits. I own a 85 f1.4 and a 135 f2.0 - shoot with a D3.</p>

<p>Shun - I am wondering how long the VR version will be available for at this price. I don't think the VRII is worth $2k, but also don't want to wait too long and miss out on the opportunity of the VR. I agree, with a lens like this, maybe a USA model is worth it. Hmmm....</p>

<p>Tax returns are coming and I have a few bucks to spend. I see than B&H has the 200mm f2.0 VR imported version for $3,949. The 200mm f2.0 VRII USA sells for $5,995. How much different are these lenses? Are the physical differences worth the price difference? $4k is probably all I can spend, so my question really is should I get the old VR version or save my money and get the VRII later this year?</p>

<p>Harry, your grammar is atrocious.</p>

<p>Thank you for all of the comments and suggestions. Most of them were helpful and will influence my ultimate decision. I can say there were probably 3 or 4 points that were very well made and will definitely influence the decisions I make.</p>

<p>To those wondering, I guess I could have listed what lenses I currently own, but I didn't want the obvious answer of "just replace what you currently have or prioritize and buy the ones you use most often." I threw a few lenses out there and was hoping to get some of the pros and cons of each lens. I never wanted to debate any of the issues of making the switch. I wanted everyone's personal opinions based on their experience with each of the lenses I listed. To avoid the questions some of you have asked, below is what I currently own:<br>

10.5 f2.8<br>

50 f1.8<br>

85 f1.4<br>

105 f2.8 macro<br>

135 f2.0<br>

24-70 f2.8<br>

70-200 2.8<br>

D3<br>

D200<br>

D70<br>

SB800 flash (2)<br>

Quantum Turbo 2X2 battery pack</p>

<p>Sure, there is a part of me that is excited to switch because I want something new and fun. Most amateur photographers begin with either a Nikon or Canon and never make the switch. I wanted to be one of the few to explore both sides. I understand I will sacrifice a bit of what I currently own if I do decide to move forward with this transition, but none of you know my financial situation and what overall impact this will have on my life. <strong>I understand most of you could care less, but to comment on my intelligence (Harry Joseph) leaves me with zero respect for you. </strong></p>

<p>I apologize for not being as thorough as I should have in my original post and explaining some of the things that were on my mind. Simon T said it best. Between the three users that I would have access to their equipment, they have the majority of L lenses. As someone that primarily focuses on portraiture, I need (would like) to own my own portrait lens, the 85. There are a few other practical lenses for me to own such as a 24-70 for any event type photography. The 135 is reasonably priced and would supplement the two above as my telephoto lens. The macro, fisheye, and 70-200 are all lenses I would be able to borrow if the job demanded it. I should have been more specific and asked for feedback on the lenses I chose such as the internal AF speed, lens performance while shooting directly into the sun, etc...Neither of the Canon users I know own the 24 or the 135. In relation to say the 85, how do these two lenses compare?</p>

<p>I also did not mean to imply I needed a FF sensor. What I was trying to say was that I chose the Mark IV because of the 9FPS on the Nikon I currently use. Yes, the x1.3 factor is something to consider, but it's not as important to me as some may have thought.</p>

<p>And I am not switching simply "because my friends shoot with Canon." Many of you made it sound like I was switching for the brand name...for example, it would be like me saying I was selling my Prince tennis racket and switching to Wilson because Roger Federer uses Wilson and it will make me a better player. A better analogy (as to why I am considering moving from Nikon to Canon) is that I am switching from XBOX to a Playstation 3. If I did make that switch, I would then be able to swap games with friends and when we have game night I am not trying to learn a new system and figure out new controller option every time we get together. I'm not saying the analogy is perfect, but it does explain my rational for considering the move. And no, I do not think Canon equipment will make me a better photographer. In fact, there will be a learning curve factor that I will have to overcome at first. However, in time this may prove to be a better decision based on my ability to share equipment and collectively grow as photographers (with my friends, not alone).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am aware of the x1.3 crop factor with the Mark IV and because of that, going with a 24mm vs. a 35mm is probably a good idea.</p>

<p>I have done a few side by side comparisons in different shooting situations, and I have always been more impressed with Canon's images straight from the camera. I have talked to former Nikon users that made the switch to Canon and both of them indepenantly said they are glad they made the switch and would never look back. From what I can tell, the image quality from Canon has never been inferior to Nikon and if I could swap my D3 for a Mark IV, I would be happy.</p>

<p>Aside from the quality aspect, it is frusterating working around so many Canon users for the simple fact of me not being able to share equipment. It is EXPENSIVE to run around with a variety of great lenses. It is also very HEAVY to carry around a full lineup of lenses. For all the reasons above, it would be worth a switch to me. If I can carry around less, have the opportunity to borrow and share with others, and slightly upgrade the quality of my equipment, it's worth it to me.</p>

<p>As far as lenses go, I think I am set on the 24-70, 85 f1.2, and 135 f2.0. The 24-70 will be my event photography workhorse. I figure I can skip on the 24 f1.4 (for now) if I pick up the 24-70 zoom. The 85 will be my primary portrait lens. I don't think I could survive without this lens. The 135 seems to be a good value to me. Fast, fairly long (especially with the x1.3 factor). I love my Nikon 135 for event candids, sports, and as a secondary portrait lens. After purchasing my nikon 135 I rarely use my 70-200VR. There is a huge difference in performance and I'd much rather sacrifice the lack of zoom for better IQ.</p>

<p>I hope everyone will have some respect as to why I am CONSIDERING the switch. As I mentioned before, I am not here to debate why or why not with anyone. The biggest factor for me is how much I will sacrifice and how the transition will effect (hopefully improve) my performance. The goal of this post was to get an idea from others which lenses performed well together. Thank you all for your comments.</p>

<p>I would also appreciate it if you didn't question my reasons for making the switch. As I indicated in my original post, I am considering making the switch and the beneifts that may come out of it. My question was simply, if you had $10K, what gear would you purchase with it?</p>

<p>My biggest debate is choosing primes over zooms such as a 24-70 or a 70-200. I was hoping someone could tell me what primes were "simply amazing" or "simply not worth the price."</p>

<p>Thanks for your more considerate answer, Jackie!</p>

<p>My roommate has been asking me to make the switch for years. He works for a true pro who owns a studio, etc... I have about four other serious users and they're all Canon users. I see the benefits of being able to use the studio and swap gear with friends to outweigh the transitioning costs. Half of the Nikon lenses I own are rarely used, so there wont be much that I miss from the Nikon side of things. Macro lens and a fisheye are about it, but that equates to about 5% of the image I take. The images in my portfolio are VERY OLD. I have not updated them in years...</p>

<p>I do like the option of two Mark IIs which I will consider. My single reason for going with a Mark IV is the 10 FPS just because I was spoiled with a 9FPS speed with the Nikon and I really think I will miss that for sporting events. It's a tough call though, and I will have a lot to consider. Children also move around a lot and shooting at a fast frame rate allows me to get the images I want. As you probably know, there is a huge difference between 3.9 FPS and 10FPS. It may be hard for me to turn back, however, adding a Mark II in the near future (OR BORROWING ONE) is a possibility, which is kind of my point.</p>

<p>I am not a professional, but I am very particular when it comes to photography and it is a second source of income. I focus primarily on portraits, but I also shoot wedding and sports. Photography is a hobby of mine. It just so happens that I have high standards for the equipment I choose.</p>

<p>If your answer is going to suck as much as it just did, Stephen, why did you post it?</p>

<p>I'd rather not debate the issue of Nikon Vs. Canon in this post, but to keep it simple, I am considering the switch because the cirlce of friends I shoot with are ALL Canon users.<br>

<br />I can probably sell my Nikon DSLR and lenses for about $10,000. My question to you is what would you purchase for $10,000?<br>

<br />BTW, I shot with a Nikon D3. It was a full frame 12.1 MP, 9 FPS body, hence the reason for choosing the Mark IV as its replacement.<br>

<br />My list:<br />Mark IV<br />35mm f1.4<br />85mm f1.2<br />135mm f2.0<br />One of the flashes, I havent figured this one out yet.<br />--------------------------------<br>

<br />Before the flash, my total purchase price is about $8,900. Is there anything I am missing, anything I am overlooking?</p>

Harry, yes, I am shooting in AF-S mode. The weird thing is, if I put the red square (in the viewfinder) in the very center, and aim directly on the coin, I have the problem. If I move the red square to the left (I havent tried the right yet) and aim directly on the coin, the accuracy is spot on.

 

I am going to run a few more tests before I send anything back. I have a hunch that this is a D3 problem, at least mine needs to be adjusted to spec. One question I have, though, is if they bring the focal point back up, will all the other lenses that are spot on with 0 AF tune become inconsistant?

I will try the AF-ON button as opposed to release button. I doubt it will have any effect in the AF accuracy, but it's simple enough to give it a try. Any suggestions are certainly welcome.

 

I experimented with the distance from the subject and consitantly got similar results. 3 feet from subject all the way to 6 feet from subject. The 3 feet was obviously more apparent in focal plane difference, but 6 feet was still noticeable.

 

I may have to send in the D3 for repair. I have had problems in lower dim light with the camera latching on to anything when in AF mode. I have messed many shots @ f2.8 1/80 ISO1600 (properly exposed) because the camera cant find the AF. Now that I have the 85mm problem, I am a bit frusterated.

Ellis, I think you are exactly right in what you say. My question is, though, is this normal? I mean, does every other D3 owner with an 85 1.4 have this same problem? They should know right away because AF with thr red box right on the eyeball is off by the length of a nose (1.5 inches closer).

 

Do all 85's behave this way on a D3? I cant imagine them having that much variation to them...maybe a few millimeters, but not 1.5 inches!

I just got my 85mm today, in fact, B&H messed up and sent me two (2) copies. They did charge me twice, so one

will be going back.

 

My AF is set to single point. When shooting at f1.4 the AF is continuously about 1.5 inches too close. I shot

many of items and get the same result each time. When I shoot people, I focus on the eyeball, and the nose is

sharpest. When shooting a coin laying on a table, the table just before the coin is sharpest.

 

I adjusted the AF Fine tune all the way up to +20 and it is much much better, but I think I would need a +25 or

+27 to get it absolutely right.

 

I tried the second lens in the box and it yields the same results. Not good at all.

 

I pulled out my 105 macro and 0 seems to be spot on.

 

I pulled out my 24-70 and it needs a +10 to be on point.

 

I am aiming the very center of the red box as my focal point.

 

I am shooting with a Nikon D3.

 

Can anyone tell me why this is happening?

what kills me when using the TC20 is the slow AF speed. On the 70-200 Vr it goes from VERY fast to VERY slow. If you need a fast AF, go with either the 1.4 or 1.7 TCs. You will also see a difference in IQ with the TC20...Any non-pro will think the images look great, but if you are looking to maintain the great IQ your lenses deliver, you will notice the difference.

All the answers above are too much. You say you shoot mostly portraits? The 24-70 f2.8 should be wonderful for that. If you need anything else, I would suggest the 85mm f1.8. I would not spend the extra $$ on the f1.4 version unless you absolutly need the additional speed. I would also reccomend the 70-200 VR if you have the money. I think it is a great lens and dont see what the fuss is all about.

I didnt have to put my serial number in when I downloaded the firmware updates...Is the D300 different?

My old Firmware Version: 1.11

 

My new Firmware Version: 2.00

 

Solved everything I had problems with. Now there is only lag when the subject has little contrast. I got the camera to focus on a purse in about 1/2 second and it was in a dark room in the house.

 

Darren - figure out how to get the new firmware!

I think you are right, David!

 

I also like holding it that way so that when I rotate camera from a horizontal to a vertical setting, I dont have to do that whole toss the lens up in the air and catch it as I bring it back down. While holding the tripod collar, it's a smooth transition.

I am a D3 owner and I noticed a major AF lag - I went back to my D200 and had no lag at all even when using the same lens, same exposure settings (manual) and same lighting conditions.

 

With my D3 I cant shoot anyone moving in my direction without backing up at the same speed. When there is more light (outdoors) I dont see the problem as much - but once again, the D200 has no problem at all.

 

I am going to check out these settings on my D3 tonight and see if I can tell a difference.

I have seen many people handle this lens and nobody that I have seen holds it the way I do. I prefer to have the

tripod mount base rest in the palm of my hand - or maybe slightly closer to my wrist on the butt of my hand. This

allows me to zoom in and out without any movement from the lens barrel. When I take the tripod collar off, I feel like

my hands are too much on top of the zoom ring and it slows me down.

 

Does this make sense?

 

How do you hold the lens?