cmulcahy

July 25, 2009

<div>

00U2F8-158051584.jpg.b6ce04bec35e4cfabf9c3c4d4e0e7715.jpg

</div>

July 24, 2009

<div>

00U25j-157947584.jpg.310c7b7012172d148a7730e384f30f93.jpg

</div>

July 24, 2009

<div>

00U25f-157945884.jpg.d3132577414adb93f745c7cdee9c04bf.jpg

</div>

July 24, 2009

<div>

00U25a-157944084.jpg.23424f523af25e7854e8fadddca44f31.jpg

</div>

July 24, 2009

<div>

00U25H-157939784.jpg.ffc2ec27474390396b8d9fa31678ca58.jpg

</div>

July 7, 2009

I just recently sold my 80-200mm 2.8 push / pull. It's a nice lens but the AF is S L O W. The two ring version is faster.

With the $ I made off my old 80-200mm I purchased an 80-200mm 2.8 AFS. I love it.

I just posted a picture I took w/ it yesterday. The lighting was horrible but I had little time and none of my equipement needed to fix the situation....the results were usable.<div></div>

July 7, 2009

My recommendations:

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8

Nikon 16-85mm

Nikon 35mm 1.8

Nikon 24mm 2.8

Nikon 85mm 1.8

Don't shoot at F22. Keep it under F16 for most landscapes and use a tripod. If too much light is an issue then use a ND filter.

July 7, 2009

Phoenix

The lenses you mention are among the best lenses made by nikon and are common in many professional shooters bags. But the price tag is hefty, they are heavy, and they require some know how....otherwise you are wasting a lot of $. I'd suggest spending some money on classes and educate your self. Then you'll be able to get the most out of any lens. You also might consider spending about $300-400 on a good tripod if you are going to use those lenses.

the 50mm 1.8 or the 1.4 are great little lenses. They aren't ideal portrait lenses if you are being as critical as you were in your original post. For me I'm happy w/ the 50mm 1.4 shooting a portrait most of the time. What makes that lens special is it's ability to shoot in low light and shallow DOF...and small size and price tag as well. If you want a top notch portrait lens then look at the 85mm 1.4.

17-55mm nikon is a pro lens. If you are in the pro glass market then you migth want to compare it w/ the nikon 24-70mm 2.8 as well. The 16-85mm is a very good lens for much less money...but you cannot compare it to the previous two I mentioned.

The 70-200mm 2.8 is the jewel lens that most pro users either own or covet. If you aren't sure what you want between the 55-200mm, 70-300mm, or the 70-200mm 2.8 then I'd suggest buying the cheapest one and learn more about photography before you invest the kind of $ you are talking about. The fact that you were satisfied w/ the 18-200mm as your one lens makes me think you should learn a bit more before investing the $ in to the big guns.

I think it's great that finally someone is thinking about glass instead of the camera body. If $ means nothing to you .....then get the best.

July 6, 2009

Good post Matt

Many good points made. This is a strange thread. I think it hits some nerves with many photographers when someone is making statements that are a bit critical and really out of the realm of common sense in terms of photography. To criticize a lens like the 18-200mm in one breath and then ask if the 70-200mm would be the way to go is funny and irritating at the same time.

I have the 50mm 1.4 and I like the bokeh compared to the 18-200mm, 70-300mm, or any of the other consumer lenses mentioned. Though I do agree it's not great. I think you just need to pay closer attention to your back ground if shooting a portrait w/ a nikon 50mm lens.

Of all those lenses I do think the 16-85mm is the best consumer lens nikon makes for most photography.

July 6, 2009

Switch to canon if you think their version of the 18-200mm is so much better. I think this thread is funny because both lenses have been tested extensively by many pros and experts and the differences of the two lenses are minute.

But if you think there's a huge difference then that is all that should matter to you.

It sounds like lens creep and bokeh are very very important issues to you. I'm wondering why on earth you are using this lens in the first place? If you want good bokeh try using the 85mm 1.4. (Doesn't have lens creep either)

I think you could get a dozen suggestions of lenses that are better then the 18-200mm both in bokeh and lens creep.......canon or nikon. I'm using a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S. Neither has lens creep, both have nice bokeh, and both are better lenses then the 18-200mm IMO. I also have a 50mm 1.4 and a 28mm 2.8 and neither have the issues you speak of.

July 6, 2009

I can tell you from experience the Tamron 70-200mm can produce very nice pictures....problem is the AF system is absolutely horrible compared to the Nikon. So anyone considering buying the Tamron better be using it in plenty of light or in a studio controlled environment. Otherwise bite the bullet and get the Nikon.

When it does AF correctly though it does produce some very nice images. This isn't a "bad copy" issue either. I've seen it in dozens of copies and seen many people return the Tamron because of this. If Tamron can fix this issue they will have a very nice lens on their hands.

June 5, 2009

I've used the D5000, the D60, and the D90. I'm very familiar with every Nikon camera on the market right now. I own a D300. The D5000 is a better camera then the D60. I agree with that. I think the question is "how much better?"

The original poster said he has about $1K to spend and he needs a tripod and other accessories.

Photographer A spends $1K on a D5000 kit. That leaves him enough left over to buy a very very cheap tripod and no other accessories or lenses. Since after tax you'll be close to $900....thus leaving you w/ about $100 for your cheap tripod.

Photographer B spends 1K on a D60 kit. He buys a 2nd lens and a pretty nice tripod....and maybe a photography class?

Who's going to produce better pictures? (assuming both photographers are of equal skill level) My $ is on photographer B. The image quality vs the two cameras (using the same lens) is very very close. Yea the D5000 may beat out the D60 in ISO performance and it may have a better AF system. But with out a zoom lens good luck trying to take pictures of anything that isn't with in 20 yards of you. Maybe you want to do natural / low light photography? Good luck doing that w/ a 18-50mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens. $200-300 could get you a very fast prime lens that is sharper then that kit lens. Try getting very shallow DOF w/ a kit lens. there is a difference between 1.8 and 5.6 when shooting at 50mm. A big difference.

Camera bodies are like computers....they go out dated in a short time. You can keep those lenses you buy and use them on future camera bodies. The lenses hold their value, the bodies don't. Give me a D3X w/ an 18-55mm kit lens and I'll go insane because I can't take the pictures I want because I don't have the glass I need. I'll go plenty mad when I see some guy using a D40 w/ more lens options taking better pictures.

When on a budget you have to consider these things. Its like buying an SUV when you can't afford to put gas in it. A Honda Fit will get you were you want to go and at half the cost. With the savings get a kick !@# stereo system, GPS, and some really sweet rims!

June 5, 2009

There are plenty of "cheap" lenses that will blow away any kit lens.

for example:

50mm 1.4

35mm 1.8

17-50mm 2.8 Tamron

10-20mm Sigma

I'm sure the people here could list dozens of GREAT lens options for under $500.

You could probably list 50 different lens options

June 5, 2009

Brain all those things are true, but I'm willing to bet if you spent that money on glass rather then the D5K you will see better results w/ a D60.

June 5, 2009

As for where you should buy your camera..... Go to a local camera shop. Make sure they are an authorized Nikon dealer and buy it there. You might spend another $25-50 on that camera at a local store but you'll think nothing of that extra $ if anything goes wrong w/ your camera or you need a little personal assistance on any of the equipment. (like how to use all the features or what ever)

If everyone buys on line - then the local shops will go away..... then good luck being able to find a place were you can actually touch the camera you are thinking of buying.

The big box stores offer ZERO service and if anything goes wrong w/ your camera after the 14 day return policy good luck. That's why I support local guys as much as I can. Plus the $ stays in your community which these days means something to everyone.

I'll use B&H from time to time if I'm looking for something that's hard to find or the local guy can't get. I'd say B&H is the best online dealer. I hear adorama is pretty good to. Don't forget the used market either. Ive bought some great used lenses using EBAY.

June 5, 2009

D5000's are going for about $850 w/ a lens. D90's are going for about $1200 w/ a better lens. D60's are going for around $550 w/ one lens.

My personal opinion is if you have the $ to get a D5000...then get a D60 w/ two lenses. The lenses will make more of a difference in your photography then the D5000 ever will. A tripod and Flash would also be something to consider. If you have $1K to spend on camera equipment then with out a doubt your best option would be a D60, a couple lenses, and a tripod. The quality of your photography will surpass anyone using a D5000 w/ that 18-50mm kit lens.

I would never buy a D5000 for the simple fact that it can only use AF-S lenses. So I'd spend the extra $ on a D90 over a D5000. Not to mention the D90 has a better Hi Res LCD screen and a 2nd LCD on the top of the camera. (Features that I reall appreciate) To me the D5000 is a consumer camera w/ a bunch of gimmiks to attract the "techy" If Video is really important to you, then yea the D5000 is a good option. If photography is important to you then get the D60 and some quality lenses.

If your budget is closer to $2K then get the D90 kit w/ a second lens.

June 5, 2009

I've used both cameras. This is false.

Both cameras have been tested thoroughly by many publications and pro's so this is not just me saying this. The d90 ISO performance is no better then the D300 either. If anything they are nearly same w/ a slight edge going to the D300.

One issue I see with the original poster is the fact he's using lightroom and shooting in RAW. All camera settings are lost so I'm sure the images look pretty dull compared to a JPEG in Lightroom or using RAW images in Capture NX. As far as I know lightroom cannot read the camera settings on a D300 shooting in RAW. Can anyone confirm this?

June 2, 2009

D300 f4 1/50 ISO800 - Tamron 17-50mm<div>

00TXCj-140053684.jpg.0e6134f098fc592e6bfbdfb4f7017a03.jpg

</div>

June 2, 2009

I purchased a mint condition 35-70mm 2.8 for use on my d300. Not an ideal lens for a small sensor camera but I couldn't resist the great price I got it for. I used this lens for a little over a year and I loved the picture quality. It was VERY sharp. I did use my AF- fine tune feature in my d300. I would recommend doing this on your D700. Mine was often front focusing just a tad bit. After fine tuning the lens worked flawlessly.

I don't do much macro stuff but I did have fun w/ the macro feature of that lens as well. Obviously if you are a serious macro shooter this lens won't do, but in a pinch or if you are like me you'll be glad you have it.

I eventually ended up selling mine on EBAY for $150 more then what I paid for it. The zoom range doesn't work well on a D300. On a full frame camera it's fantastic. I've played w/ that lens on a D700 and loved it....I actually considered selling my camera instead of the lens. But another great deal came along on a 17-50mm 2.8. It took me a little time to "learn" how to get the most out of that lens. My personal opinion is that 35-70mm 2.8 is the best buy you will find on the used market....especially on a D700. When I go full framed I for sure will be getting another one.

May 11, 2009

How funny.....another repair tech just called me as I was typing this.. He took a look at the assembly manual of this lens and said it is likely not as bad as it could be. If it is as I describe it he thinks its in between the 2nd and 3rd element ...which just under the manual focus ring.

... see how close the AF Window is to the manual AF ring? that window is cracked pretty badly. Slivers of that plastic window are under the manual focus ring and a small piece has wedged inside the elements. Apparently there a something like 18 elements in this lense and some of them are very tight together which would explain why the chip is not moving around.

BTW - Good luck finding this lens any cheeper then $1300 if it is in good condition. Apparently the full frame cameras have created a new demand for this lens since many are not happy w/ the 70-200mm vr on the full frame. I think Im going to take the risk and buy this lens and get it cleaned. At worst the repairs will cost me another $500 which would be less then what I can seem find this lens anywere right now.

May 11, 2009

The guy also said depending on what side of the element the debris is on could change the price to fix dramatically. He said it's fairly easy to get to the first couple elements but if its in further then that then I might have to send it to Nikon. He thinks it is on the 2nd element which wouldn't be too big of a deal....but you never know until you have it apart.

May 11, 2009

Thanks for everyone's thoughts.

I found a camera repair shop not too far from where I live. So I took it there and the technician looked at the lens and thinks that the element is not damaged and thinks that it can be cleaned out. He said it appears to him that the plastic window that covers the focal distance numbers on the barrell of the lens has chipped off into little pieces and is causing the grinding feel under the manual focus ring and a small piece is wedged between two elements. He did say this is how it appears but there is no garauntee until he takes it apart.

To replace the manual focus window, cleaning, and adjustments he said to expect around $350...it could be more or less depending on what he finds and how long the job will take. He's had experience w/ this lens before and said it can be a real pain the #@% to work on. He said if I send it to Nikon expect to pay at least another $100.

This guy is not a certified Nikon repair center but they've been around for 20+ years. So I dont know what to think. The lens works now......the repair guy suggested buying it and just living w/ the issues given the price I can get if for. Then down the road spend the $ to get it fixed.

May 5, 2009

Well if a cleaning costs over $200 I'm not going to buy the lens. My thought was a repair shop could at least tell me what that is and if it's something I need to worry about.....and give me an estimate on the fix.

The AFS 80-200mm lens allows you to manually focus while in AF. The grinding isn't severe, it just seems like there is a little sand in it or maybe a piece of the AF Distance Window broke loose - since there is a crack in it.

I agree w/ Shun's thinking, but after using the lens for about 2 months now I've really come to enjoy it and the results are great. So yea it has these issues but it's working great for me and the price is great. I have not been able to find a used 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S lens for under $900. I've seen other versions of this lens for much less - ( I just sold my old beat up 80-200 2.8D push/pull for $375) My old one had no tripod mount and the AF was so slow it was un usable in most circumstances. If I could find a good 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S for $800 I'd probably buy that.

I am wondering though if I can just put up w/ the "spec" inside the lens and get a great piece of glass for only $500. I'm buying this lens from a dealer who took this lens in as a trade in. I know the dealer well. He doesn't know what to think of the lens either. He gave little for it in a trade in so he's willing to sell it to me cheap and even let me use it for the last couple months. (free of charge) I suppose I could see if I could "borrow" the lens for a couple years?

I still would like to have a service tech. look at this lens and tell me what they think. Unfortuneatly I'd need to UPS it to somewhere....I just don't know where.

What is a typical cost of cleaning such a lens?

May 5, 2009

I'm skeptical of the prices people say they are paying for the D300....just over $1000? Where the heck can you find a D300 USA model - BRAND NEW for around $1000? B&H, Adorama, and all the other big internet stores can't touch those prices. Expect to pay around $1500-1700 for a new D300.

As for the 18-200mm lens. I would never put that lens on a D300. A 16-85 is a nice lens. I'd also seriously consider faster lenses.....like the 17-50mm 2.8 Tamron and the 80-200mm 2.8 Nikon. Prime lenses are nice to have if you appreciate them. The 50mm 1.4 and the Sigma 30mmm 1.4 are great lenses.

Frankly if I had that kind of disposable income I'd be getting a D700 which blows away the D300 in terms of low light performance and wide angle use.

May 5, 2009

I personally would get the D60kit over the D40kit.

For an extra $100 (over the D40) you get 4 more megapixels, the VR version of the 18-55mm lens, better sensor, and dust reduction system......also the D40 doesn't have Active D-lighting.

The VR version of the lens is IMO worth the extra $100 alone.

A D90 for a kid? I guess it depends on your budget. Yes the D90 is a better camera all around but that isn't saying the D40 or the D60 isn't a good camera....especially for an inexperienced photographer looking to learn. Spend the extra $ on a flash, tripod, and a good 2nd lens.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by cmulcahy