Jump to content

breogan_gomez

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    333

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by breogan_gomez

    Lense Help Please

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>The 200-400 f/4 still could be used with a 1.4TC and you will have an efective 300-600 f/5.6 that weights a bit more than a half of a 600/4. On the other hand the 600/4 could be turned into a 900/5.6 with the same converter.</p>

    <p> </p>

    I have some fine primes, tempted to sell them for a zoom.

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Thank you for all your thoughtfull responses. I think is either a matter or going for the DX or not. And this involves to sell the 28/2.0 or not... Yesterday I was taking some pictures and the sharpness from corner to corner is just great.</p>

    <p>What I know is that I won't buy a slow zoom. I have already had the 18-70 and I don't like this type of slow aperture.</p>

    <p>I think I am going to buy a katz eyes and postpone my decition.</p>

    I have some fine primes, tempted to sell them for a zoom.

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Hi, first of all thank you for reading. I do read this forum a lot but usually I don't post that often.</p>

    <p>Recently I have moved from a D40x to a D200. With my D40x I used mostly primes with manual focusing and a Katz Eyes focusing screen. For the AI/AIS lens I have a small photometer. So my photography was quite slow. Also, the D40x never felt like a permanent body. I always considered it as a temporary solution.</p>

    <p>Now with the D200 I am starting to see a diferent approach and I am starting to like it a lot! My AF primes are very nice to use, and the more complex AF module of the D200 (compared to the D40x) opens a lot of posibilities. Now this DX system feels to me like a more durable option. And the D200 is a trully joy to use with all of this butons and switches to the relevant functions.</p>

    <p>My group of lenses was thought considering an eventual move to FX, but now I am pretty sure that this won't happen in several years. The D300S will be the natural follower and so on... </p>

    <p>This is making me think about change my group of lenses. This is what I have:<br>

    Manual: 24/2.8, 28/2.0, 105/2.5<br>

    AF: 35/2.0, 50/1.8<br>

    Zoom: Tamron 17-50/2.8</p>

    <p>As you can see there is a clear overlap in the 24-35 range. So, now that I am in a honeymoon with AF I am seriously considering seling the 24/2.8 and the 28/2.0 to buy a 12-24/4 DX. In my book I will loose speed but gain more wideangle options. The 28/2.0 and the 35/2.0 are very close together to justify having both. And with the 17-50/2.8 I have the 24/2.8 covered.</p>

    <p>What stops me is the 28/2.0, which is truly great, but I think I have to move on... Other posibility could be sell also the Tamron and buy a Nikon 17-55, but I am not sure how relevant will be the increase in quality.</p>

    <p>Any thoughts/suggestions? </p>

    <p> </p>

    Choosing a fast wide angle lens for both DX/FX

    in Nikon

    Posted

    From the range you need and considering that your camera is the D200 then you have two options from nikon: 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 or the 12-24 f/4. Then, from the picture you just show... Don't you ussually need flash for this type of pictures? If so you are not that limited to the aperture of the lens.

    NIkon D2Xs shutter speed

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>The speed of the mirror has nothing to do with the speed of the shutter. When the shutter is really slow then the mirrow is slowed too to not interfere with the shutter. Otherwise the mirrow is always at the same speed and the shutter speed changes as needed.</p>

    <p> </p>

    Recommend lenses for a 5-day hiking trip at Canyonland NP

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I have done a few trips in the mountain with my camera in a bag attached to my chest. I used to carry a FM2 + a 50mm f/1.8 and, in the last one, a D40x with a tamron 17-50 f/2.8.This last combo I felt it was a bit too heavy for me (One day trip, 8 hours walking in constant ascention, 2000m/6500ft height difference from botton to top)</p>

    <p>If the trip is on the exausting side you won't have time to use your tripod at all. Ussually, when you make stops you only have a few minutes to do anyhing which is not resting. You sit down for 5 minuts, drink water, eat something and then back again. Consider that your tripod is going to be only for night shots or lunch time shots (In the mornings things are pretty hurry). So you should consider if the trip plannig is going to allow you to use it that much.</p>

    <p>About the weight, day after day the weight matter a lot. If is a one day trip you can afford to exaust yourself, but after 5 days I tell you that you are willing that your partners start drinking from your bottle to release weight (Just a illustrative joke, of course, but you get the point :P )</p>

    <p>If you are going on a hard backpacking trip I would take the D700 + 50/1.8 and no tripod at all.</p>

    35mm f/2 lens.... chromatic abrasion???

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I have this lens too and I have observed the same behaviour. However, when I posted it here, a couple of years ago, somebody comented that it was more related to the fact that the source of light is totally different from the surrondings. You have all the frame iluminated with natural light and a very small point which is a source of artificial light.</p>

    Nikon System Apostasy?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    And why not one of the DX alternatives like the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 or the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8? If VR is not essential for you and Sigma/Tokina quality is suficient the this look like a great alternative.

    <p>

    The other way looks like a waste of money to me.

    Lens for F3

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>The theory about some significant difference in build quality between AI and AIS is overstated. There were minor differences in a few lenses. Generally every AI and AIS Nikkor I've handled was of comparable quality. The main differences are cosmetic.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Yes, I don't really have had a wide selection of AI/AIS lenses... I just read this statems in this forums and assumed them as true since they apply to my colletion. Thanks for the correction.</p>

     

    Lens for F3

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Ai and AIS have a relevant difference. AI have a half turn focusing ring and the AIS have a quarter turn focusing ring. AIS are faster to focus in a rush. On the other hand AI lens are supposed to be better built that AIS. I have 2 AI lens and 4 AIS lens, and, although AI are older than AIS those are in a better shape mechanically.</p>

    <p>If theF3 is the only Nikon you are going to shoot then I would try to get only AI and AIS lens. AF are a bit unconfortable to use manually. Also, and this is my point of view, I would try to get lens that offer you thing not available from the current Nikon line-up. That is:</p>

    <p><br /> 24mm f/2<br /> 28mm f/2<br /> 35mm f/1.4<br /> 50mm f/1.2<br /> 105mm f/2.5</p>

    <p>AND important, what do you want to get? Just anything good? Do you have any special interest?</p>

    Do Nikon expect users to buy old lenses?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>My 24/2.8 AI has a very thin depht of field when focusing close. When you get to 1m then the DOF increases exponentialy. I mean, the focusing travel is, say, 80% between 0.2m and 1m and 20% for 1m to infinity. This means that, even at f/5.6, the DOF is small when focusing close, and the DOF is allways big when focusing further than 1meter.</p>

    <p>Now, I find very difficult to find a picture that, with a wide angle like the 24, can do at /1.4 and can not at f/2.8. And that is because, with this particular focal lens, the subject and the background have to be very separated to get a nice out of focus behind. And that will happen at f/2.8 and at f/1.4. It is just an intrinsic behaviour of his focal lens.</p>

    <p>And, for nice blurred backgrounds we allways had the 50mm and 85mm optionns. So, I don't see what is lacking from nikon catalog.</p>

    <p> </p>

    Nikon lens 105mm

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I am not much into landscape but your 105 is quite a tele already (it has a FOV equivalent to a 165 in FX). I all depends how much money you want to spend but I would say that, for me, the 18-70 and the 105mm will be enought.</p>

    <p>But everyone is different...</p>

    <p> </p>

    Switching to Prime: your suggestions please

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>In my opinion you don't gain much buying the 24/2.8 as you already have that focal lenght covered with the 24-70 and at the same aperture. The 35mm will offer you a stop of difference, that may be important for you. </p>

    <p>Regarding aperture, if you consider manual lenses, you have a 24/2 AIS and a 35/1.4 that will offer extra stops from your 24-70. I think that will give you something that your zoom may not be able to offer. But you will loose AF...</p>

    <p>I think the nice thing with the primes is that you can walkaround in area with just body and prime and without much weight. It is like "today I am going to take half body pictures so I am going to take my 24mm with me... bla bla". For that I think primes are nice.</p>

    <p>I don't think you are going to relief weight if you carry all your primes with you, those altogether are hevier and bulkier than the 24-70 alone.</p>

     

    On the fence...D700

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Hi,<br>

    I just looked at you portfolio (great pictures!!!). To me, at least, it looks like all your pictures were done under a "controled light enviroment" (read, using flash). I would imagine that most of them were made at base ISO. Are this the pictures you want to make? I mean, If you are allways shooting at 100 ISO then I would say that, probably, there won't be much difference between D300 or D700. </p>

    <p>I would even say that, if you use FX lenses on the a DX camera, you will be able to get a better performace out of them.</p>

    <p>May I give you a recomendation? I do it with my best intentions. All the pictures from your web page look extremely compresed. There is compresion noise in almost all of them, which is a shame, because you can notice that the oiginals are very sharp, detailed and well iluminated. I think it would be a better presentation for you if you could publish less compressed pictures. (with less compression artifacts)</p>

     

    Body material - in the days of old they could do rugged things...

    in Nikon

    Posted

    I see a lot of people talking about plastic resistance compared to metal, but I wonder how many do really know what are real numbers.

     

    <p>

    I know enought about material physics to say that "plastic" and "magnesium alloys" doesn't mean much if you don't know the actual composition. Then comes laboratory testing: heat, resistance, impacts... etc. Statements such as "plastic/magnesium bodies are..." are senless. It is not different than saying: "because you can drink water all liquids are drinkable".

     

    <p>

    Again, If people that earn their money in world leading industries think that a particular magnesium alloy is better than a certain plastic to use with a high end camera model It should be more than "the feeling of the end user".

×
×
  • Create New...