mikepalo

<p>What i actually ment to ask in that last post matt is do you have personal experience with "both" those lenses not "either" ... i was wondering if u had a personal comparison on em?</p>

<p>Sorry to not clarify this sooner. I shoot the Nikon D200 and I do not anticipate moving up to FX format any time in the near future, FX's just not practical for shooting most small skittish wildlife considering mainly I shoot Fish/Birds.</p>

<p>Matt:<br /> I just read a few reviews on the Sigma 30/1.4 and they were not to reassuring. The first one I read actually suggested the Nikon 35/2 as much better choice. Do you have personal experience with either of these lenses? Any Insights?<br /> Also $300 is still basically in the same "price bracket" as far as I'm concerned. Basically Im jsut not looking to spend $500+ on this lens, it will most likely be rarely used jsut due to my subject preference, but for family gatherings/the random Portraiture I am inclined to do I am looking towards a Good Lens worth its cost</p>

<p>Thank you all I understand a bit better why this lens is SOO much cheaper then many others...but to off shoot for a moment...... To look at Adam's Argument:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I purchased this lens for low light situations but often found it to not be wide enough for informal, indoor available light shooting. So it doesn't get much use. If I had to do it over again, I'd probably get a non-Nikon fast 30mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is almost exactly what Im interested in the lens for the indoor available lowlight. Is there a good lens in the 30mm SHARP prime area anyone would suggest that is anywhere near the same Price Bracket??</p>

<p>So basically more expensive lenses will have a more creamy blur then a lens such as this which has a heavy number of more "harsh artifacts"</p>

<p>Ok I'm gonna ask this real quick not to divert the topic but can anyone explain to me quickly.. Bokeh... What exactly is it? I think I have the jist but</p>

<p>hmmm it's the slowest focusing lens of the 1.8s? How many other 1.8s does Nikon make? I mean I know there is the AF-S I believe... But for portraiture does that fraction of an second matter?</p>

<p>Ok for starters I really don't appreciate the attitude. I did look through the posts on this forum and I did not see anything referencing WHY this lens is so cheap. I did not read all the forums because they were mostly comparisons between the 1.4 and 1.8. I just want to know for what reason nikkor produces this lens for $100 companies don't randomly decide to sell a product cheap there is a reason for it......what? Is my Q</p>

<p>OK...in the camera world the word "Cheap" rarely exists, and when it does, there is normally a reason. I have been looking at Prime Portrait lens and I am intrigued by one in particular</p>

<p>NIkon 50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor Lens</p>

<p>This lens has apparently great reviews everywhere i look but...its $120 New from Amazon.com.....this doesnt make any sence to me..Im used to seeing $500 & $800 price tags.....$1400 and $2200...but $120 for a Fast Prime? .......Y so low?....what are the drawbacks?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Mike</p>

<p>This is attributed to the recent financial economic crisis. There was a recent forum posting with this whole argument about Nikon raising their prices to ride out the crisis. It was saying that the area which will be most effected is Lenses.....GREAT..... just what I need. And I was expecting a slight increse...but the 24-70 /2.8 going to 2200+....Holy....Sh@t...this is gonna suck....and its only gonna get a whole lot worse before it improves.</p>

<p>I agree with what is said above. This is not an 8-Track tape situation where the cassette replaces...this is two seperate entities with completley seperate uses. I shoot whildlife photoraphy, mostly birds and fish. For birds and Fish there is no reason in hell you would go back over to an FX format. So the likelyhood of one format dieing off...is HIGHLY unlikely</p>

<p>I know u were asking about the opinions about the Mac but just to argue the opposite for a moment. I am a hobbist photographer and I use my toshiba Qosmio 17' Laptop to do all of my photoedits. Ive worked with 800meg files in PS CS3 and the computer didnt even realize it was moving a large file. I mean honestly I think a computer...mac....m/s w/e is only as good as the specs of the comp and the software ur running. This system has 4gb o memory its a intel duo Core 2 ... running VISTA ...and for the record...I have seen very little wrong with vista...except their backwards compatability....Vista doesnt like to run older programs but seeing as most of what im running is 07+ it is not a problem for me. The only issue i have with vista is its internal secruity....Its a royal pain in the a$$ becuse it requests ur permission for quite alot but, that asside....I have no complaints and for photo editing... a good Bright LCD + 4gb Memory + CS3 ....the sky is the limit...not matter ur platform.</p>

<p>And jsut a quick comment... the mac's being more used for photography/graphic arts etc.....that used to be the truth whole heartedly, but that is a thing of the past... Mac/PC are now seeing = amounts of use in the fields of graphic arts/photo rendering/edititing....etc....</p>

<p>Ok, I'm just gonna bite the bullet on this one. ... Not to sound like a complete amature but...well I am lol. What is the Focal Length Rule? And what is MOA? I was trying to find them online so I wouldn't have to ask, but... I couldn't find it so.... Here I am..Asking....also ...Focal plane Shutter vs Lens Shutter? .... As i say in my profile I'm completely self taught and only seriously for the past 2yrs or so, so I dont know alot of the technical speak, bear with me please. Thanks for your responces.</p>

<p>I normally don't shoot wiht a tripod as i was saying earlier but i also normally am shooting in enough available light and warm enough temperatures that I can hand hold my setup easily without worry of camera shake. Thankfully, I have very steady hands. If need be can shoot down to almost 1/20s at shorter ranges and can easily shoot with my 300m zoom outdoors and still have my pictures come out crisp and clear, though I do prefer to avoid the kind of shot which really pushes the extremes of those limits. But when an unexpected shot arrises you have to use what u have available. :)<br>

<br />But about the lenses themselves what you are saying is that the more expensive zoom lenses effectively what you are paying for is the clarity of ur focus, which does makes sence. I just alwasy thought with all those lager more expensive lenses you were just paying for the "brighter lens" being able to run a f/2.8 at 70+mm which i mean I guess u are, but I never thought that the focus sharpness would be visible in the price difference as well.<br>

I guess that is all the more reason for the concept of "buy once and buy well."</p>

<p>Now, if this is an effect of it being a zoom lens, will i see this kind of softening in all zoom lenses? ...if i spend $1500 and buyt the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 for instance, will I see the same type of soft focus no matter what just because its a zoom?</p>

<p>Oh and also those were shot at F/8 sorry forgot to put that in there.</p>

<p>The clarity difference is slight but I can see it never the less, let me know what you think....maybe im hullucinating lol :)</p>

<p>Zoomed in on the FS comparison</p><div></div>

<p>Here are 2 test shots:<br /> ISO 100<br /> 1/250s<br /> 60/62mm<br /> Shot on a tripod w/ a Trigger release</p>

<p>(i had to move the tripod inbetween the shots to let a car out so the perspective changed just slightly)</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you everyone for your comments.</p>

<p><strong>Ben</strong></p>

<p>No this is not new equip for me</p>

<p>I seem to notice it a lot when i am shooting. I actually haven't done any side by side comparison shots...from all the comments I guess i should. Its just something I've been noticing in general. My shots never seem to be as crisp coming out of the 24-85 lens.</p>

<p><strong>Matt</strong></p>

<p>I never set the camera to infinity, or actually for that matter i normally don't ever manually focus on anything, the camera just seems to be able to do it fast and efficiently enough for anything I shoot. I'm gonna go set up my tripod and cable release and take a few shots at a distant target(I know the micro will be better in close) and see what I come up with.<br>

<strong>Edward</strong></p>

<p>I shoot real not newspaper lol :) generally when I'm shooting I normally don't use a tripod or cable release. My normal preferred subject matter doesn't really have the time for a tripod set up.</p>

<p><strong>Hansen</strong></p>

<p>As i said i don't say what f/ I'm using because its a general issue not a specific one.</p>

<p>I appreciate ur specific answers tho, They are most of what i was looking for.</p>

<p>While im doing my test shots...</p>

<p>Does anyone have this AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED and can anyone tell me do they notice it to be a softer lens then their other lenses?</p>

<p>I have a Nikon D200 there are 2 lenses I have which I am comparing shots between,</p>

<p>AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Lens<br>

AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED</p>

<p>I am noticing that my shots with the macro lens(even shots to infinity, not just macro) seem to always be sharp and crisp, where as my shots with the 24-85mm always seem to be a bit soft, not blurry, just not nearly as crisp. I was wondering I have heard some people mention other lenses being soft before. Is this what is happening here? Am I just dealing witha soft lens or is it something I might be doing wrong?<br>

If you have any questions or need any additional information just feel free to ask. Thanks<br>

-Mike</p>

<p>The condition part i shouldnt have a problem with the elevation could be a bit of an issue seeing as I live in FL, but normally i acclamate to higher elevations pretty fast. I am a decently seasoned Hiker and love to climb. Im the one notorious for ending up on top of a rock formation with people staring up going..."wait...how did he get up there." That and the camera bag I use is a sling style so If it does come to climbing to get a better shot. I dont have to worry about my gear, all is on my back and outta the way of a climb. :) ... I love to explore especially when it comes to photography ill just wander for hours looking for a better oppurtunity.<br>

As to where Im going, ummm honestly I'm not compeletly sure. The trip is acutally a class trip with my university and the complete itinerary is not set in stone yet. acutally the class doesnt even begin for another month. But providing i can put togerhter all the nessisary funds and everything for the trip I will be using it as an educational/photographic excursion. My galapagos trip (which all my shots from galapagos are from) was much the same thing, it was a class trip, but my prioriety was photography and diving, and Im pretty proud of the way all that worked out. So Im gonna try again. But yeah the complete itinerary is not set in stone yet. When i know definitally I will post it for advice.</p>

<p>hmm what kinda place would u rent a lens like that from? cause yes wildlife is really waht I love to shoot.</p>

<p>Thank u all for such fast and plentiful responces. I am shooting DX sorry forgot to mention that. Im shooting the Nikon D200. I will bring the 3 lenses that I have with me beucase they all fit in my current camera bag easily with the body so Im not leaving a lens out. But what i was wondering is as I said is there another lens that I could benefit from. I did see at least some mention of a wider lens. I am getting a tokina 10-17 soon for my underwater setup but that is a fish eye so unless I want to correct every image I take, its not the right lens lol. Ill definitally look into the other wider lenses. I never thought of the fact that Alaska being so big u could take large landscape shots with such long lenses like 400mm and such. I guess tahts what I was worried about. I would love to go even longer and to shoot the wildlife, But i dont know many lenses that i could afford up in the 400-600+ range :( so ill have to stick to the landscapes mostly.</p>

<p>Hello All,</p>

<p>Ok here is the deal. I might have the oppurtunity to spend a few weeks in alaska this summer. I have the equipment that works well enough for shooting wildlife, but I am rather unsure as to what I have in shooting Landscapes. And I know that Alaska is one of those places known for its beautiful landscapes. The lenses I currently own are</p>

<p>Micro Nikkor 60mm Macro (yes i know its useless for this venture lol)<br>

Nikon 24-85mm<br>

Nikkor 70-300mm</p>

<p>Ive used the 24-85 to shoot some landscape shots before, but my landscape stuff never impresses me post. So i was wondering what lenses would u suggest. Id appreciate ur input. Thanks.</p>

<p>-Mike Palozzola</p>

I just wanted to let anyone who checks in on this post again know. I have since shot on 2 more dives, over 150 pics keeping my speed under 1/250s and my F/ up around 8-16 and have not since had a problem with the black bars. So it was definitely the shutter speed issue. I will be posting some of those new shots soon actually. Thanks all for your help<br>

<p>

-Mike

<b>Edward</b> I will take a look at that book if i can get my hands on it from a library or something as for the sequence shots.. They are all rapid succession shots which I later compiled in Photoshop CS 3, you dont need CS3 to do it any photoshop will do it fine. Its just time consuming to combine the images. its a combonation of overlaying, matching up, making fit, and erasing. The more images u have the more complicated it becomes obviously :) I use the same method to make panaramics. <p> -Mike