richard_wood5

<p>So, in light of the change in direction of the discussion, here's why it happened. 'UserX' wrote in asking about how to tell a DX vs. an FX lens, because they're thinking of upgrading from a D300 to a D700. Coming from someone who has a D300 and 50% of their lenses are DX, but can't tell the difference between DX and FX, it raises a red flag (apparently, with some of us) that UserX might not be quite ready or fully aware of the differences between the D300 and D700, either. The red flag is raised, because it seems odd that they would know their gear well enough to truly benefit from the thousands of dollars spent on the gear transition from the D300 to the D700, considering the simplicity of the original question.</p>

<p>It looks to me like there are very few people watching out for their fellow person, out here. Who cares if they can afford it? Who cares if it's an irrational purchase, due to want over need? Well, what if the person is stressing themselves to pay for gear, think they need it, but are under that impression from some previously bad advice? They came here for a simple question that we all willingly answer, but look at the nature of the question and see if more can be done to help the person out. Nobody knows what UserX's uses or skills are, but based on the nature of this question, doesn't it seem like additional advice is warranted?</p>

<p>For all I know, UserX is Joe McNally's competition and is an amazing artist. On the flip side, he may not be a photographer at all, and thinks the D700 is going to revolutionize his photgraphy, but doesn't understand the applications of aperture, shutter speed, ISO, FX vs. DX, shutter priority, aperture priority, focus points, and so on.... in which case, it wouldn't matter if they were shooting with a Pentax K1000 SE, Nikon D300, or Nikon D700. None of those cameras are going to revolutionize their art.</p>

<p>Want to spend a lot? Go for it. By all means. For the rest of us, we must consider gear purchases more carefully, and appreciate advice in line with that premise.</p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>IIka,</p>

<p>I don't necessarily disagree with most of your comments, but I think the overall message might have been misconstrued by the snippets taken from my post, rather than interpreting the overall message.</p>

<p>As for the better viewfinder on FX, yes it is better. However, within the context of my last post, I maintain that it will only be marginally beneficial to someone, unless they are highly skilled at photography. In the spectrum of viewfinders, from the plasticy point-n-shoot viewfinder, to the LCD screens on small digicams, to the DX viewfinders, to the FX ones..... the person is still the driver behind the image. The difference between a DX and FX viewfinder won't make better photos. If you put a good driver behind the wheel of a Ferrari and an excellent driver behind the wheel of the same car, only one driver will benefit from being behind the wheel of the Ferrari. It's a great novelty for the good driver, but should be recognized as such.</p>

<p>The SNR and ISO points are also well made, however my previous message still stands: Evaluate your skill level, and see if you can really make use of the technology. The statement is only meant to help fellow photographers evaluate their wants vs. needs, and spend accordingly. The better ISO and SNR performance are great with the D700, no doubt about it. It's still not going to make a picture great. That's still the person.</p>

<p>As for the last statement, well - - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. However, if you send a National Geographic photographer out with a Pentax K1000 and an amateur out with a D700, the photo from the K1000 is more likely to make the cover. Why? Because cameras are our tools, they're not the artist. Artists make the most of what they have to work with, and good ones make good art with whatever they have.</p>

<p>The overall message here is about cameras as tools, rather than cameras as artists. If one can truly utilize the differences between the D300 and D700, great. If one can afford to buy all new lenses and bodies to the tune of thousands of [dollars, pounds, yen], great. If one is unsure about the camera differences, and doesn't have an exorbitant expendable income, then some good advice about spending wisely will go a long way.</p>

<p>Take it or leave it: The D700 isn't going to make a photographer better. Marginally, due to sensor quality, image quality might improve, but not in art and impact of images. That's the person behind the lens. Ask yourself if the benefit is greater than the cost, and go forth. Nobody on a forum can make that evaluation, but you. Everyone on the internet is going to tell you to get the D700 - - - because it's not their money.</p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>Josh,</p>

<p>I'm with Peter on this one. I'm not sure what you mean by "lighting advantages"..... the only advantages that you'll get out of the D700 are if you have exceeded the abilities of your D300 and are at that razor-edge, where the D700 might actually make a difference. Otherwise, I've seen photos from the D700 from people who thought they needed FX over DX to make better pictures, and find them to be remarkably unidentifiable from photos from the same person with a D300 . The difference between the image outputs of these cameras lies with the photographer, not the body. </p>

<p>Quite frankly, if you're having trouble differentiating between a DX and an FX lens, your D300 is probably already overkill. The D700 isn't going to make the difference between an award winning photo and an honorable mention.</p>

<p>Not trying to deter you, if you want to drop the cash..... just keep in mind that it is probably a 'want' before a 'need', unless you're really a seasoned pro, shooting for major publications, and just can't live without a feature that the D700 has that your D300 doesn't. Plus, 75% of your glass will have to be swapped to make use of FX, anyway (yes, that 70-200 f/2.8 is marvelous, but you'll be happier with it on your D300 than the D700).</p>

<p>Just trying to save you some money here - -</p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>I have the 17-55mm and 80-200 combo on the D200, and I am very happy with it. The 24-70 is a lens I will be getting if I upgrade to FX. Until then, the 17-55 D200/D300 combo is unbeatable. If you really don't think you'll be upgrading to FX and like the range of the 17-55, go with the 17-55. The optics on both lenses are excellent. The 24-70 is a bit of an awkward range on DX. Really only good for portraits, so far as I can tell.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, for the price of the 24-70, you can get the 17-55 and prime, flash, or ultra-wide. And, the optics aren't significantly different enough between the two lenses, to justify the huge price difference.</p>

<p>I've seen the 17-55's go for $750-$1000 in my area, if you're willing to go the used route. </p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>Candice,</p>

<p>I second Wouter's comments. The D300 is a professional grade camera, with a huge set of customizable features that must be understood and adjusted correctly to get the most out of that camera. If you had to have the lenses explained in terms of "<em>...the first lens was to take far away photo's while the second was for more close up shots...</em> ", you might find the camera to be overwhelming, or that the images that you are getting are not very good. I say this, because the D300 is really a RAW-powerhouse (meaning, it is optomized for those with experience with photography and photo editing, who don't want the images to be processed in-camera), not a learning camera, or as a point-and-shoot. </p>

<p>Unless you have years of experience with photography, you might find that your money would be better spent on a simpler, flexible, and more friendly piece of equipment. The D80/D90 is at the high end of what I might recommend. You could learn a lot about cameras and photography from a Panasonic Lumix LX-3. The Nikon D5000 or the Canon T1i SLR's would also be good places to start. By the time you learn the D300 and 'about cameras', it will be obsolete, and it will be many frustrating years of getting to know the machinery and concepts. </p>

<p>Unless money and time are no object, by all means, great setup. If they are, you might find a better photographic experience with a simpler setup; one with the beginner in mind, rather than the professional.</p>

<p>My recommendation: Sell the D300 setup, buy a Panasonic LX-3 or Canon G10 (advanced point-n-shoots); or a Nikon D5000 or Canon T1i (capable, but simple dSLRs).</p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>I got mine at Arlington Camera (Texas company), and had excellent, personal service. My first one came defective, and they took the lens back and replaced it, without any resistance, and I was able to talk to real employees (not phone bank operators). They seem to get adequate shipments every couple weeks. You might call them, and see if they have any in stock, and ask about frequency of shipments. I was skeptical, due to no name recognition, but was highly impressed after the experience with them. http://www.arlingtoncamera.com/</p>

<p>As for this lens, I might offer a couple anecdotes about my experience with it. If you've been reading anything by (rhymes with) Hen Mocksmell, be warned that you are likely to find his reports of this lens to be inaccurate and exaggerated, likely because he borrowed the lens for about a day, knocked a few frames out of it and judged the lens. My experience is far different.</p>

<p>As a user of the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8, I'm a little spoiled on color reproduction, contrast and sharpness. That said, the Tokina 11-16 is a well built lens, but I've found that the optics are not as 'prime sharp' as (rhymes with) Mocksmell makes it out to be. Some colors aren't reproduced quite right, details are sometimes muddy (like ground cover with small leaves). In short, it performs more like the Nikkor 18-70 kit lens, than a prime (as some make it out to be). My copy is in spec. The f/2.8 is only to make it perform better at f/4 and smaller, as far as I can tell.</p>

<p>I've taken some good frames with this lens, but after reading reviews and raving forum-hot air, I found the lens to be less technically competent than it was made out to be. Have modest expectations of it, and you'll be quite satisfied. If you're expecting prime-like results, you might be unhappy. I'm not trying to discourage you, but offering a differing opinion from some of the reviews, as a 'worst-case' scenario. Take it with a grain of salt, as it is an unsolicited review.</p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>Jason,</p>

<p>If your focus point was truly on the left-most bottle (say, on the text), even at f/5.6, these images should be sharp. One reviewer, from the past, said that f/5.6 was the sharpest point for this lens (for what's in focus). The right-most bottle is clearly more in focus. It looks like there's some cyan fringing around the glare on the top of the bottle, too - I'm not used to seeing fringing with this lens, so perhaps that's another point to hit them with. It isn't radical, but something.</p>

<p>Is there any possibility of exchanging the lens with the dealer that you got it from? That would fix your problems. If you have other lenses, perform the same tests and see if you get identical results. That would help identify any body/user issues, if the results come out the same. </p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>Jason,</p>

<p>The problems you are having are quite strange. I own the 17-55 f/2.8 and it is one of the sharpest, most accurate focus (except at infinity) lenses that I have used. I had the kit lens for a while and it didn't perform as well on any level, just for comparison. I infrequently use a tripod, unless I'm shooting at less than 1/60th of a second, or need ultimate sharpness and have the luxury of a tripod. I'm afraid there are a couple things you might want to consider here -</p>

<p>First, it sounds like you might have a defective lens. Perhaps an exchange or repair is in order. This lens WILL focus on any point that you give it, in any condition short of darkness. And it will do it very quickly.</p>

<p>Second, if your lens is not defective, then you may want to practice aiming your focus points at your subject. Again, if your lens is not defective, it will focus on any point that you give it. </p>

<p>Also, make sure that your ISO and aperture are not going to make your photos blurry. The higher the ISO the less detail that will be captured. The bigger your aperture (smaller F-number), the more sensitive the DOF. (covering the obvious here)</p>

<p>Since you are shooting babies (photographing, to be clear), I might also recommend turning your camera on to continuous-focus (the 'C' on the front lever that reads M S C). Keep the focus point in the viewfinder on the part you want to be most focused by pressing the shutter half-way down, then when you see the moments you want to capture, press the shutter the rest of the way down, all the while, holding as still as you possibly can.</p>

<p>Make certain that your focus mode is set to single-point focus and that the camera is set to only release the shutter if focus at the point you select is found (focus-priority). This will prevent you from firing the shutter if the lens is not focused (and unless your body is defective, it truly will not, and will show you if your lens is defective by the number of times the shutter won't release). I have rarely, if ever had this lens not find focus, and prevent the shutter from releasing (out of numerous thousands of pics).</p>

<p>Finally, be certain that you are not moving when you're taking pictures, and that your shutter speed is above 1/60th (or faster, depending on how able you are to hold still).</p>

<p>So, in my message here is kind of a check-list. If you complete these steps, and are still getting blurry pictures, your lens and/or camera may be defective. The D80/90/200/300 &17-55 f/2.8 is one of the sharpest camera/lens combos you can get, and is highly geared toward event/people/low-light photography. If you can't get it to work, you have a defect in equipment or user. It's that simple.</p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>Wow, really? No contest. The Nikon, optically, hands-down. For wedding photography, it's going to make this awful '80s vintage-motor sound the entire time - make sure the folks are okay with that. You might also consider a lightly used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S:</p>

<p>http://sinarbahagia.com/images/AFS_80-200_2.8D</p>

<p>Interestingly, this forum is blocking all links and mention of a guy with a name that rhymes with "Sven Smockmell", for being a fibber..... while I agree, his illustrated page would have helped greatly with this. Anyway, google "Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S" if it interests you, at all. I'd recommend looking for it at KEH, if it ends up being the lens for you. </p>

<p>I wish I had gone this route. Quiet, slightly faster on the focus, same optics as the AF-D. I can't figure out why Nikon didn't just keep this in their line, anyway. It's a good mid-point between the AF-D and the current AF-S VR.</p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>Ummm.... maybe because people use forums to help solve problems that they can't? Or they're looking for answers to a question they have? </p>

<p>Imagine if everyone who visited a forum talked about what they did with their camera today and how well it worked. The number of good experiences that I have with my camera far outnumber the bad, but it is the bad that I tend to come to forums for help on. Can you imagine 100,000 posts about, "Can you believe how good the aperture ring on the xx-xxx mm lens feels?!" or "My shutter button feels great!" or "The sound of my shutter going 5 fps makes me RANDY!"</p>

<p>So, I'm afraid you might be #'s 1-5. Sorry, you set yourself up for that one.</p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>Wayne,</p>

<p>Because I'm a Nikon user. I'm a Nikon user, because I got a bunch of bad information from Nikon users on forums and in reviews. I'm now far too invested in Nikon for a switch to Canon. I'm providing a valuable service to anyone who I comment to, by being honest, rather than tooting the Nikon-horn, just because it's what I own. When buying new equipment, it would be nice if more people told the pros and the cons, rather than just the pros of what they own.</p>

<p>Ever notice how the Nikkor 18-70mm AF-S lens has the same 5 star ratings everywhere, as the 17-55 AF-S? Ever used both? I've owned both, they're not even in the same leagues. Everybody's perception of what is good and why is different - I don't believe I'm bashing anything, without information to back it up.</p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Keep them all and make yourself a nice oak display case with glass and a light, and place the lenses in it. You'd have your own little Nikon museum - that's a great lineup of lenses.</p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>After using the 17-55 AF-S, you're going to find the 80-200's handling to be clunky, slow, and inaccurate; though similarly sharp, contrasty, and with similar overall IQ.</p>

<p>I've heard that the 70-200 will not withstand the test of time, as the corner sharpness at lower apertures is very poor on full-frame bodies. Perhaps someone else can expand on that. </p>

<p>As others have stated, it makes no sense that Nikon dropped the AF-S (silent wave focus), non-VR (vibration reduction) lens from the lineup. It took Nikon out of the competition with Canon's lineup in the 70-200 range, which include numerous options. </p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>Epp B,<br>

<strong>Is the screwdriver-type AF any good?</strong><br>

No. The motors are noisy, slow, and inaccurate compared to the AF-S lenses. They hunt a lot, if you spend time using AF points, other than center. I have both the 60mm AF-D micro and the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D. I love both optically - and while they are built well, I hate them mechanically. Noisy, torquey, slow, and slovenly, compared to the AF-S lines.<br>

<strong>What is it like to focus manually with AF-D lenses?</strong><br>

Like driving a Yugo in the wind. First, you have to disengage the AF/MF ring to allow the focus ring to turn. Though, with a D40/D60, you're not likely to have the AF on at all. Without a split-focus screen in a dSLR, manually focusing a lens is approximate, at best. If you plan to manually focus for photos, you will want to have a focus screen installed, if available. Most AF-D lenses feel like plastic on plastic, undampened, though smooth.<br>

<strong>Is it here to stay?</strong><br>

Not likely. Nikon is finally upgrading their lens lineup to use Silent-Wave Motors (as seen on AF-S lenses), though at exorbitant expense to the buyer. These new lenses are silent, incredibly fast and accurate. They have a long way to go, before the lineup is up to date.</p>

<p>Unless you're really set on getting the real manual feel of photography, like you are with your E-series lenses, I'm not sure you'll like manually focusing on a digital body, without a focus screen to help show you how focused you are, when newer faster technologies are available. My AF-S lenses focus better than I could even with a focus screen, and about 10x as fast. I used to hate the idea of auto-focus, but now love it. Unless you're specifically interested in manually focusing for all of your photos, check out Canon's lens lineup, since all (if not, most) of their lenses have the silent motors available, at low prices. Then, sell your Nikon stuff and buy yourself a Rebel XSi and a nice USM lens, and enjoy life in the years following 1990 (where Nikon is still living). I wish I hadn't already spent thousands on this archaic Nikon junk, when I could have had access to a full USM lens lineup, from Canon. </p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>I have that lens also - it's great, but it makes me wish I had bought Canon, instead. Yeah, cuz while the optics are great, it's about 15 years behind in the way of technology. The screw-drive is a screw-job. It's noisy, slow, torquey, and inaccurate compared to the USM and SWM's. <br>

Great optics, though - clear, bright, and sharp! Just don't try to shoot fast-moving objects with it, or in a place that you want to go unnoticed with your foot-long camera. <br>

Richard Wood</p>

Well, Doug, I'm afraid your camera and lens might be having the serious problem of: User Error. You obviously have money, since you were able to afford a $1200 camera kit and a BMW. I'm going to help you by suggesting that you either return your D90 kit and start with something more simple, or that you learn something about photography. You seem kind of like someone who goes out and buys the best rock-climbing shoes available, before knowing how to tie them. The obvious aside.....

Lenses sometimes have defects, but I don't see anything in your images that couldn't be cured by a basic understanding of shutter speed and aperture. For example: Shooting at 105mm (~157mm 35mm equiv, aka. telephoto range), at 1/25th of a second without a tripod or other sturdy brace will almost NEVER be successful. VR only goes so far.

Here's another example: Shooting at 105mm at f/5.6 with the expectations that you're going to have tack-sharp depth-of-field.

I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't think anyone will be able to answer your questions with anything other than: No, your lens does not appear to be defective, your technique does. You need to read up and understand shutter speed and aperture and the relationship that they share. As part of that study, be sure that you understand depth-of-field - what it means, how to use it. This is just a starting point. Otherwise, you might have been better served by a Canon G10, if you were really interested in getting started in photography. Everybody starts somewhere - - you just chose to start with El Capitan, rather than a rock gym.

Good luck -

Richard

Thank you, all - that is what I suspected, but just wanted to make sure. It makes perfect sense, but I've never had it officially described.

Richard

Hello,

I was just wondering if anyone could tell me why zoom lenses are typically

marked as, "f/3.5-5.6", for example? Does this mean that the aperture is

limited to that range? Fixed-focal length lenses appear to be marked as f/2.8,

for example, and seem to go all the way down to f/32 (again, for example). It

doesn't seem to make sense that zoom lenses are only good between the specified

range, but it also seems odd that that number is a range - does it have to do

with the focal length of the lens needing a higher f/stop, as the lens is zoomed

in?

Any info would be great!

Richard

Could you post the serial number of the lens?

I'd like to know, so that if I ever buy a lens like that, I can be sure it isn't yours.

The coatings are likely damaged, and there is likely to be sediment throughout the moving parts.... since it was dropped in a river. I'd chuck it, if I were you.

Where was your neck-strap?

Richard Wood

William,

I'm terrified and stunned. You had enough money to drop on a $1,800 camera setup, yet you didn't do enough research about the camera and lenses, to know if the store was pulling a fast one on you? AND, with all that money burning a hole in your pocket, you didn't happen to look into the company that you were buying from, online? You didn't even know what the difference was between a D70s and a D80?

If I were you, I'd do some serious soul searching, to see if you're ready for a camera in that price range.

You're LUCKY they weren't able to charge your card - you were about to get scammed big. These companies feed on people who don't research what they're buying and who make extremely impulsive purchases.

Congrats on missing the big scam, but having to learn your lesson that way is what keeps companies like that in business.

Richard