johncrist

<p>Ok, now I do remember the fine basic & normal settings. I set mine a long time ago & forgot about it. I know I had the least amount of compression & hers I would assume is at basic? if there is a default. I don't have her camera here to check now but that has to be it. </p>

<p>This may be a dumb question & I am probably missing something simple but, when I put a 4gig memory card in my D200 & have the camera set jpeg large it shows 449 pictures remaining. My girlfriend just ordered the D200 from best buy & using the same card t the same settings it is showing over 600 images. I set all the settings the same as far as I know & it is also at jpeg large. Is there something I could be missing?</p>

<p>Thnks for the responses. Not so much interested in buying this lens as I am curious as to how good is it, who makes it etc. It seemed like an odd lens on B&H since there is no product info.</p>

<p>Thanks for the link Michael</p>

<p>It just seems kind of odd, there is no product description either on the B&H site.</p>

<p>Does anybody know anything about this lens? I have never heard of Bower & it seems a little expensive for a non Nikon Lens.<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/614837-REG/Bower_SLY85N_85mm_f_1_4_LENS_f_NIKON.html</p>

<p>2nd what Rick said the 17-55/2.8 would be what I would look at for what you want to shoot. If that is too expensive I would look at the 16-85 which has good reviews. 24-70/2.8 is a nice lens I am sure but it wouldn't be very wide on a D90.</p>

2nd what Michael said, I would look for a D200. Still a great camera and there are some great deals on them now.

I had the Tokina 16-50 2.8 on my D200 and while it was sharper than my Nikon 17-50 2.8 the CA was VERY bad at most

apertures. If you use a D300 I hear that is not an issue but I have not tried one so I cant say for sure. It is built equally as

good as the Nikon lens.

Jerry,

I would take the reviews from Ken Rockwell's site with a grain of salt. He does have some thorough reviews on some

items but he has a lot of "reviews" on equipment he has never used or in some cases reviews on equipment not yet

available.

Thanks, mj t, it is Crist.

And yes michael I do have the 70-300 VR and it is a great lens like I said from 70-200 but after that you can do better.

Especially if you have $3000 to pay for a D700. If it were me, I would invest in some better glass.

The 70-300 VR is a very good lens at about the 70-200 range but a little soft at the long end. I dont think I would use it at

300mm then crop more off that. If you can afford both the D90 and the D700 why dont you just get the 300 f4 ?

The 70-200 VR is a very good lens at about the 70-200 range but a little soft at the long end. I dont think I would use it at

300mm then crop more off that. If you can afford both the D90 and the D700 why dont you just get the 300 f4 ?

The AFS VR lens is actually a very good lens optically. I also have the 80-200 2.8 AFD and the 70-300 is sharper with

better color saturation at the same settings. I have tried the cheap 70-300(the non ED) and it is not very good, autofocus

hunts alot & image quality is not really that great. The ED version I suppose would fall somewhere between the 2. Like

Shun said, you get what you pay for.

Hey Franco,

I understand your dilemma and if it were me, the f4.0 would be ideal but, as you said money was not an issue then I

would get the 2.8. It would have more of an advantage if you were to use a teleconverter having the extra stop.

 

John

The D300 shoots in TIFF? and goes down to ISO 100?

Long exposures tend to do this, It is normal & you can fix it in PS or whatever editing software you use.

Has anybody been up near Shrine Pass yet this year? Just wondering when a good time for the wildflowers up there.

Thanks

I have both and the 50mm is still a sharper lens. I wouldn't get rid of it since it is only a $100

lens.

Matt,

I have both lenses & like the 12-24 better but I use it for landscapes mostly. If I were using

it for what you say I would go with the 17-55 for sure. 12-24 too wide for alot of people

shots & the 17-55 is wide enough for most situations but goes out to a usable "normal"

range.

I agree with Steve, My D200 blows away my D70 in regards to noise. Everything else for that

matter.

I sent it back today, I will probably hold off for the Nikon although for my shooting its more

of a want than a need. The focus & zoom rings are opposite from my Nikon lenses also so it

"felt" different. It was built well although not as nice as the 12-24 Tokina.

I am using a D200. That is just 1 example, it shows up all over on most images at pretty

much every setting. Doesn't seem like too good a value to me when the Tamron is supposed

to be a pretty good performer at about $250 less. I know it is one-shot fixes but I would

rather not fix every image when it can be done right in the first place.

I had a Canon Powershot G5 and that did have a ND filter built into the camera. It is a nice

feature that I wish they had on more cameras.

Andrew, you are going to be about 30 minutes out of town in the mountains. Just head back

down the hill about 20 minutes & Red Rocks is a unique area that is real close.