chip_chipowski

<blockquote> <p>How about the 58mm f/1.2 noct?</p> </blockquote> <p>Chuck I think that ship has sailed: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-58mm-f%252F1.4G.html</p>

<blockquote> <p>One thing that puzzles me a bit is that Nikon still hasn't re-introduce the classic 105mm/f2.5 portrait lens</p> </blockquote> <p>Amen, Shun</p>

<p>Dieter - I think a fast 35mm is one of the bigger holes in the DX lineup. The new 24mm f/1.8 should help there, although it has not been announced yet so I don't know how big it is. You are of course right about no wide angle primes for DX. I wonder whether anyone has looked at lens sales numbers for Pentax, M43 and Fuji wide angle primes. I know people buy fast wide angles, but I am curious how strongly they sell compared to 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, etc. </p> <p>As you and Shun mention - one DX disadvantage will always be: the F mount was designed for 35mm film. </p>

<p>I am happy that more people are calling the D700 past its prime. The market for used D700 is persistently high. Yes, I have seen a few listed for $700-$800 but I am waiting for the $500-$600 spot. I have a lot of DX lenses, so I am not looking to abandon DX or anything. But I would like to gain entry to FX. D700 is an odd duck. Used D700 is still nearly as strong as a used D750 or D600. Perhaps those models will actually beat D700 to my price point. </p>

<p>I like the cooler idea, but possibly in the cabin versus trunk. I found some scholarly debate about it <a href="http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2507">here</a> and <a href="http://www.cockeyed.com/science/car_interior/car_interior.php">here</a>.</p> <p>My hunch: the lens would be perfectly fine even baking in the trunk of a hot car, so long as it is not for weeks at a time. If I owned such a nice lens though, I would be thinking like you to take precaution - just in case.</p>

<p>Morning shadows</p><div></div>

<p>A fair and logical point, Dieter, but for me it is a happy paradox :)</p>

<blockquote> <p>Perhaps that is just because they make me think more</p> </blockquote> <p>This is one of the reasons I like to shoot manual focus (also film) in addition to my normal AF/digital gear. Keeping it basic is good sometimes :)</p>

Yeah, it is not designated for the 105. I think it was associated with the 85mm you mentioned and an 80-200mm. It is reasonably deep so I'm happy with it.

I use HN-7 for my 105mm. I think it takes a 62mm cap on the very front, if you prefer to cap that way. I like the screw in hoods better than the snap on HS series, which seem prone to getting knocked off.

<p>John, I have heard about the legendary Lanthar and it sounds pretty amazing.</p>

<p>Andrew, I have read up on this lens recently and I think the people who sing about the lens do give it praise. But maybe Tim is saying the lens is not as popular as it might be. I really like the OOF rendering.</p><div></div>

<p>I recently had the good fortune of picking up a second-hand AF 180mm for no money. (so maybe my expectations are lowered) I have to say I just love this lens. I never thought I would bond with a telephoto prime. For example, I have not used my manual 105mm very much (I shoot DX). But this 180mm is a real pleasure to shoot with. Very nice slender lens barrel makes handling a joy. The quality seems very impressive also. Images have a nice pop, and I perceive a significant quality improvement versus my 70-300VR. The fixed focal length makes me think more about my framing and my position relative to the subject. Sure I would not give up my 70-300 zoom, which is more flexible. But the 180mm is so rewarding, it makes me <em>want</em> to work harder. Anybody else like this lens?</p>

<p>Great shot Norbert!</p><div></div>

<p>For me, battery life shouldn't be a big deal but it is. The more often I have to change the battery, the more likely the dead battery will come at a bad time. You can work around that by aggressively changing the battery when it goes below 50%, but battery life is most definitely a DSLR advantage I appreciate.</p>

<p>Chunk</p><div></div>

<p>It is interesting the F4 has come up several times in this thread. Up to this week, I had never seen one in person. Then I bought one on Sunday, as part of a kit (in order to get an AF 180mm). Here is my impression: the F4 has <em>presence</em>. It is a real chunk of a camera and the controls are exquisite. My copy looks like it has hardly been used, so it is still relatively soft and grippy. Most of the knobs are very robust and have locks to prevent inadvertent error. I will probably sell this F4, but it is a really impressive piece of hardware.</p>

<p>Glad to hear you are liking the Fuji system, Kyle. Although I am an entrenched Nikon user, I would like to see Fuji and M43 succeed. Good to have different options out there.</p> <p>I wonder if you can share any observations about your experience with Fuji versus Nikon DSLR? Do you like the EVF? How is the battery life on the Fuji? Good color from the Fuji?</p>

<p>Eric, I think Fuji's APS-C system is great. Also, I would LOVE to see Nikon make a bunch of new & great DX lenses. Maybe they will. As you noted, they made the 16-80. However, I believe it makes most sense for Nikon to compete in the FX format. A lot of the great FX lenses work well on DX anyway, so it is not necessarily an either/or proposition. When we look at dedicated APS-C gear (hard corps enthusiast level), you have two great non-Nikon systems: Fuji and M43. Tons of great native primes for those systems. As a matter of pride, Nikon could still have something to prove in APS-C. Otherwise, why compete for that space when your mount is designed for FX? Seems to me like the challenges may be greater than the potential rewards.</p>

<p>I have two push/pull zooms: the 75-150 Series E and the 50-135mm Ai-S. I mostly like the sliding zoom mechanism, which works well with manual focus. Obviously, neither of my lenses has AF. I would think this design should work well for the 80-200, but I wonder if the weight of the 80-200 will be a factor. For handheld use, I think the sliding zoom is intuitive, but it can become an issue for tripod use or if you want the lens to stay put at a certain focal length.</p>

<p>Since you got an XT1, why not consider the Fuji 35mm f/1.4R? Looks <a href="https://www.flickr.com/groups/1930895@N22/pool/">terrific</a></p>

<blockquote> <p>Maybe I'm more picky about what I show</p> </blockquote> <p>next post, with example</p> <blockquote> <p>This is not one of the better shots</p> </blockquote> <p>Anyway, I second the advice about practice. This is all great information, but a practice session would be really helpful if at all possible.</p>

<p>Q.G. - that's Eric's quote.</p>

<blockquote> <p>At what point does this lens go from great quality to poor quality?</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>... is lore, popular belief. No evidence.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>no evidence?</p> </blockquote> <p>Michele - I think you will find there is no consensus on things such as "quality" in the world of photography. This 200mm thing is a good example. I have never used this lens, but I understand what goes into its "reputation" for having weakness at 200mm. That doesn't mean it is "bad." I would recommend taking the "online reputation" on one hand, and comparing it with your actual experience on the other hand. In this case, you have a copy of the 70-200. Once you get a camera, the best thing to do is start shooting it at 200mm. Judge the results for yourself, and then you can see whether or not you need to worry about seeking better performance at 200mm. </p>

<blockquote> <p>we're all gearheads who enjoy spending other people's money</p> </blockquote> <p>It is understandable, but it does not necessarily help the OP.</p>