andrew_cale

Absolutely, the 400 is a very nice flash for casual shooting. Again, and needlessly, people will be quick to point out

its limitations as if it were designed to be a professional flash. It's not a full-featured, professional flash. No question.

 

That's exactly why its nice.

 

It's simplicity, small size, and results make it very desirable.

 

More often than not, I don't need a flash for portrait orientation, CLS, or for long distances (high power).

 

I would have paid more for than its price for the value I see in it. In fact I use it more than my SB600...

Absolutely, the 400 is a very nice flash for casual shooting. Again, and needlessly, people will be quick to point out its limitations as if it were designed to be a professional flash. It's not a full-featured, professional flash. No question.

 

That's exactly why its nice.

 

It's simplicity, small size, and results make it very desirable.

 

More often than not, I don't need a flash for portrait orientation, CLS, or for long distances (high power).

 

I would have paid more for than its price for the value I see in it. In fact I use it more than my SB600...

Monroe,

While the D300 is stunning, I don't think the picture quality alone is enough to warrant an

upgrade from the D80. The D80 is an extremely capable body, quite often requiring very little

post processing. I recently made this move and don't regret it, but consider more lenses and

lighting instead of a new body. Are you anticipating that specific compatibility or functionality

of the D300 will improve your picture quality?

 

I like your idea of adding the 17-55 and 70-200. Perfect lenses for D80/D300.

Light stand, silver umbrella, universal head =$75~

 

Dial your onboard flash as low as it will go and use it as your wireless commander. You will have great results. I doubt your body flash will be noticable but if it is you can subdue it with any number of creative ideas.

Nikon S50

 

Here is a thread I started with some pictures from it.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LfF8

I basically gave up shooting with my 50/1.4 and 35/f2, as my results with the 17-55 were just as good. Any difference is extremely small, and is easily offset with the flexibility of the zoom. Its truly an outstanding lens.

 

Obviously if you want something faster than 2.8, for low light or extremely shallow DOW, you have no zoom option.

Alex, the only 'croc' was how one party did not want to count overseas military votes.

 

Regarding the clause (exemption), some states have strict laws regarding limits and language in extended warranties. Florida is one of them.

Sorry - typo in my response above. It should say - I don't think that should be your litmus test.

No it is not as sharp at 2.8 as it is stopped down a little, but what lens is? I don't think that should not be your litmus test.

 

FWIW: I consider it to be the sharpest lens in my bag. I long thought the 50/1.4 and 35/2 would best it but that is not the case.

I have both. The 50f/1.4 just hasn't turned out to be a useful focal length for me (D80)...although it does have a substantial advantage in terms of low light performance over the 35/f2. Both will give you outstanding results.

 

FWIW: The 17-55 f2.8 stays on my camera 90% of the time.

I posted the same exact question last year when I got my 50 1.4. The pictures are stunning, but the build quality is suspect. I personally don't like all the barrel play. I also have the 50 f2 and it has very similar characteristics and play.

Erick, can you elaborate more on what you are looking for? You may need to increase the exposure/flash compensation. Others posted some good advice...watch out for ceilings that are too high or you won't get the amount of light you need.

I guess you can try the tripod, but from my experience at the track they aren't of much value. With crowds, fences, and constantly moving targets I like to handhold.

 

Here is a sample pic I shot last month. The bike was probably doing 120mph in this shot (about half way down the track). I like my motorsports shots to reflect the car/bike in motion (wheel blur). Freezing the wheels by using too fast of a shutter speed ruins the composition in my opinion.

 

I was in the grandstands...

f2.8 | 1/1000 | ISO320 | 200mm | D80 70-200 2.8<div></div>

I find some of the *highly* opinionated posts in this thread amusing.

 

For the record, I am neither a pro or an abuser of my gear. I started out with the 18-70 and it was a great lens for the price. After a year of using it I realized I wanted more. The 17-55 filled that need and more.

 

As I have said before, this lens truly makes photography fun and I would recommend it over any of my other lenses, and any other lenses that I have ever used, if the funds are available (its not outrageously expensive, but its not cheap either). Don't be hoodwinked by those that try to equate it with slow zooms. "Well unless you need low light...etc etc etc."

 

Anyhow Carlos, I don't think you have a wide enough lens in your arsenal. For your trip to Holland, add the 17-55 and take it along with your 70-200.

While I generally like the photographs produced by my 50 1.4, I am less than impressed by its build quality. The lens/barrel integration has too much play in it. The 35 f2 is marginally better, but neither have the substantive and solid feel of the 17-55 or other primes that I have handled.

Is there any indication what the price bump will be to the 18-50mm f/2.8 when they throw HSM onto it?

Ralph, I know you said it twice, but do you mean 70-200 f/2.8 VR?

David,

If I were you I would go for the 17-55, but since it appears that is out of your price range I would go with a similar 3rd party lens in that range. The ranges you listed in the original approach seem way to restrictive on the wide side. I would think you are missing much of the perspective that the rivers can give your photographs. Otherwise, I second the 18-70 recommendation.

Andy

Sam,

This lens has interested me for some time and I would like to know what settings he used to achieve this DOF and overall exposure. These fast primes get my attention due to the reduced need for a flash. Can you suggest another way I can learn this without buying it myself?

Cheers,

Andy

Attached<div></div>

Here is the same shot, except with the 35mm f2 @ f2.2 1/60 & ISO 100. Much less CA.

100% crop

While browsing recent pictures taken with my 50mm 1.4 I noticed what appears to

be somewhat significant chromatic aberrations (at least to me). In the shots

attached, I attempted to show what I am seeing. It is most obvious where the

steel meets the black portion of the handle.

 

I have not seen anything to indicate this lens is prone to this, so is this

considered a normal amount (within reasonable tolerances).<div></div>

Paul, what was your exif on this photograph?

Nikon 35mm f2 prime - $320 (USA)