keith_leonin

For **ME**, a "Give me CV or give me..." approach doesn't work. I've been gone from the RF world for a while and have only recently come back to the fold. I'm all for price/performance, i.e., value, but sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and pay the price.

IMO, "Acceptability" of a lens is dependent on qualities that are ranked in order of individual likes/dislikes and tastes, i.e., what I consider best would NOT necessarily be someone else's best.

Having said that, I do like CV, and currently have the new 21mm/4 and a 35mm/1.2 (just received). However, when I went looking for a 75mm, the CV 75mm/2.5 Heliar was the one lens that I did NOT want. Why not? I used to have one, and it had to be the softest lens I had ever owned, when shooting wide open. Now, I'm not a sharpness nut, so when a lens is soft even for me, then you know it's REALLY soft. I realize that's just one sample, but it was enough for me to look somewhere else.

To make a long story short, for price/performance in a 75mm and for the qualities and attributes that **I** consider, I decided to order a new f2.5 Summarit-M. I should get it today, and look forward to playing with it this weekend.

Keith

While I would never hesitate to order NEW gear from B&H or Adorama, I am somewhat hesitant to order USED gear from them online. It'd be different if I could walk into their stores to personally inspect it.

For used gear, buying online, my first stop is always KEH.com.

Depends on your style. For me, a 24mm (f2.0 or faster) on an FX body would give me the perfect angle of view for NYC. With the D50, your 10-20mm would be the easy choice. I'd bring along the 50mm as well, since it won't take up much room anyway, and I'm almost certain you'd need faster glass than your Sigma.

KL

I've seen several versions of this. While they are great on hard floors or concrete, they don't work too well when out in the field -- on grass, sand, dirt, etc... where the ground is softer than concrete -- that base plate you step on tends to slide out.

Somewhere in my closet, I have a modified version -- a wide velcro loop that I step into rather than a plate to step on. The loop holds in any condition. I built one just to see, but for the most part, I still use my monopod, since it nicely doubles as a walking staff.

<i>But many of us don't necessarily have the room (even if we live in houses) to run even a basic darkroom, let alone a good one. Almost all of us have room for a laptop or iMac etc. - Karim</i>

<p><p>

But now you're talking about convenience... not control.

<p><p>

An no one has ever argued against the convenience advantage of shooting digital.

For a hobbyist, I think these are great times for shooting film, especially with manual focus Nikon lenses. There are MANY in the used market, as well as MANY manual focus bodies.

Strictly for manual focus (and assuming you don't do a lot of flash photography), pick up an F3. Pair that with a 24mm/2.0 or 2.8 AIS and an 85mm 1.4 or 1.8 AIS or even a 105mm/2.5mm AIS and you are good to go.

<i>who sez the ultimate destination of the image is a print? If there's another 'death' in the offing, perhaps the plummeting cost of digital 'frames' makes paper irrelevant? Think how much simpler color synhronization will be when printing is no longer part of the process? -- Bernard</i>

<p><p>

See my post -- in today's world, I believe "print" can mean either paper media or a monitor. Don't fool yourself into thinking that even IF this becomes a paperless world, that color fidelity/synchronization is, as you say it, 'no longer part of the process.' That's nonsensical -- how can it be, when you need to deal with how your digital camera captures and processes color versus how such an image looks like on your monitor (not even considering that you may have several different monitors) when it goes through your digital darkroom versus how that processed image will look like on one or more 'digital frames.'

<p><p>

If anything, 'color synchronization' will become more complex.

<i>It would be nice if the tripod can latch on the outside for easy retreival and so it doesn't get in the way of other stuff.... it should not look like a typical camera bag that screams, "Steal Me!"

-- Asim</i>

<p><p>

Wouldn't the tripod strapped on the outside pretty much scream "camera inside!"

With my D200 + grip + 70-200mm/2.8, I get a lot of:

"THAT must take a lot of nice pictures."

<i>"...when it goes to the lab I lose control of my images.... your images should be under your control from start to finish. Digital cameras allow that. -- Karim</i>

<p><p>

So do film cameras -- every heard of a darkroom?

<p><p>

TOTAL CONTROL is about 1) Taking the image (composition & exposure), 2) Post-processing ("wet" or digital darkroom and 3) Printing (on paper or on screen).

<p><p>

Given two people with equal expertise at a specific medium, can you honestly say that one has MORE CONTROL over the other?

<p><p>

Maybe the reason you think you have more control with the digital medium is because you don't know enough about shooting, processing & printing film?

<p><p>

Just a thought...

a new model using a 6fGB SSD

s/b 64GB SSD...

It depends on what you need. The eeePC (and forthcoming Everex Cloudbook (this weekwend) are good for surfing the internet and checking emails on the road, and as a "passthru" device where you can plug in your media card reader into one USB port and an external hard drive in the other.

Another option is the Fujitsu Lifebook U810 (a full-on Windows laptop) -- but at roughly $1000; a new model using a 6fGB SSD will be coming out soon. This one actually has a CF and SD media card port, and USB ports as well.

There are many so-called UMPC's in the market. However, if all you need is a photo storage device, then a dedicated PSD is obviously cheaper.

Keith

<i>Sure I posted what I did 8 days ago but if you read a little slower and a little closer you'd see that I said I shot an event ONE WEEK ago with the 35-70 and after THAT event I started to consider getting rid of the 17-55 because I didn't need to use it for that event. -- Daniel</i>

<p><p>

Exactly my point. If 8 days prior, you considered the 17-55mm THE lens for serious work, and THEN change your mind so quickly AFTER ONE EVENT with the older and more limited (albeit FX) 35-70mm, I wonder what you might think 8 days from now.

<p><p>

You ALREADY have the perfect 2 lens combo (17-55mm and 70-200mm) for what you shoot. I don't know how a 35-70mm and 12-24mm will supplant that. I shoot similar events, using 2 D200's, a 17-35mm and 70-200mm. Sounds like what you need is another body, NOT another lens.

<p><p>

So, give it another 8 days before selling the 17-55mm -- who knows what you might be thinking then.

Interesting question, considering that 8 days ago, this is what you posted. I guess you no longer do serious work.

<p><p>

<i><b>

Dan K, Jan 11, 2008; 03:12 p.m. -- "My 17-55 is for my serious work..."

</i></b>

Hey Dan - if it's just hiking in the woods and worried about rain or light snow, then you have a lot of options, such as backpack rain covers.

But if you're also talking about floating down the river, where submersion is possible, then I would suggest putting your gear in a backpack and putting the backpack in a waterproof bag, or the other way around.

Check out the link below for options -- get st least a Class 3 (Class 5 would be best) waterproof bag.

http://www.thewaterproofstore.com/

Keith

The choice between 24mm and 28mm is personal, depending on how you view the world. So, you had stated, getting both may be appropriate if you haven't yet settled on a "world view." IMO, any of the 24mm or 28mm, f2.0 or f2.8, Ai or AIS would be good, EXCEPT for the 28mm/2.8 AI. Yes, there IS a difference between the 28mm/2.8 AIS (which is an awesome lens) and the 28mm/2.8 AI (which is not).

For a fast mid-tele, the easy answer is the 85mm/1.4 or 1.8, or the classic 105/2.5 (or even 1.8).

I will also suggest an excellent AIS zoom -- 50-135mm/3.5 AIS; unless you absolutely need f2.8 or faster, this zoom should be at or near the top of your list.

KL

@ Daniel

You talk about serious work with a 17-55mm, then say that you won't really use it much if you get the old 35-70mm?

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

I guess yours is one response that will get filed appropriately...

90mm - Tokina 90mm/2.5. Other good ones are Tamron and Vivitar

105mm - Kiron 105mm/2.8 (aka Lester Dine), if you can find one. The Nikon 105mm/4 AIS is also good (need PN-11 tube for 1:1).

@ Eric

EXACTLY.

@ Hiro & David -

I guess that's the crux of my post. I am hoping that while not the "absolute best," either the Tamron or Tokina will be a "good value."

I look at this purchase in the same light as when I bought the 24-85mm G AFS -- not the absolute best in that approximate FL range (the 28-70mm/2.8 was, and now the 24-70mm/2.8), but has proven to be a very good value.

Thanks for the responses.

Keith

@ Daniel:

"Going full frame" implies shooting the FX format 100% of the time. For what I shoot, that won't happen. When FX bodies come down in price, I will add an FX body to complement a DX body, NOT to replace it. If I should need add'l lenses at that time, I will buy them as I need them.

18-55mm - Pass on the plastic mount. That's **ME** -- others may be fine with the plastic mount, but that's their choice. I'd rather spend $800 on something that I will like, than $200 on something that will sit in the closet.

Keith

A MINTY 17-55mm would be good if I can find one for $800 AND have one in hand by May.

Selling the 17-35mm is NOT an option.