penwaggener
-
Posts
86 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by penwaggener
-
-
<p>I've got to agree with the previous posters about the 17-55 (and probably the 24-70 as well). It's a phenomenal event/people lens, and is an absolute pig to carry on a hike. I don't think an f2.8 normal zoom is the right horse for the course.</p>
-
<p>If you shoot film and may one day shoot full frame, you really shouldn't be tempted by the DX lens for speed. As I understand it, the AF-D lens at F2.0 actually transmits more light to the sensor/film than the AFS does at 1.8. (T-stops vs F-stops?)<br>
If you shoot only DX, there are <strong>plenty</strong> of reasons to love the 1.8, but I think this case calls for the AFD 2.0</p>
-
<p>If shallow depth of field portraits are your aim, you might also consider one of the eminently affordable 55-200's, which are fully compatible with your D40x. At 135mm and 6 feet, even at F5, you're only getting 0.11 ft of usable depth, but with <strong>considerably</strong> more versatility.</p>
-
<p>I used to recommend and use canon point-and-shoots, but the current crop of affordable A-series cameras omits the manual mode entirely. However, if you can find one, the Nikon P50 and P60 models had pretty good manual controls before they were discontinued. I picked up a new P50 for $99 from JR.com last year, and then found another one at KEH for $90, brand new. They're not class-leading in any way, but they're well-sorted and affordable if you just want something to keep in a briefcase or pocket.</p>
-
<p>Get the 35mm 1.8 and a book, like Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure." With those and your 55-200, you should have the most bang you're going to get for 200 bucks.</p>
-
<p>I've mounted a few DX lenses on my N80, and the modern coatings DO lend a certain something to the image, even if there are vignetting and sharpness issues at the edges. You'll see immediately if you can live with the image circle at a given zoom setting, although you won't know much about the edges of the frame until you develop. It won't hurt anything to experiment, and it only costs about 7 bucks to try a roll of film and make some notes, then see if you like the outcome.</p>
-
<p>It makes a terrific normal lens on a crop camera. I sold one when I got one of the new 35mm 1.8's, but I found it to be a wonderfully useful walkaround lens. The flaws people cite when comparing it to other nikon primes tend to relate to using it for landscapes, which was the obvious use on film. However, on the smaller cameras, it's much better for other uses, with the obvious benefits of a super-affordable, super-light little 2.8 lens. I wasn't a fan manually focusing the 28 on my D80, though, and it's one reason I might recommend the 35, (or an even older 28, that was designed to be manual focus).</p>
-
<p>I'll add another vote for 17-55. It's a terrific events lens, and built like a tank. Ditto the 85 1.8 for portraits, unless you can spring for an 80-200, which is even better, in my opinion. As for the body, the d200/d300's are different enough from the d80 for adjusting ISO and WB that I think a d90 might be far more productive. The newer sensor in the d90 is a definite plus over the d80 and d200 in lower light situations, with noticeably cleaner results at ISO 800 and 1600.</p>
-
<p>Dan beat me to it, but a D700 and any moderately fast, moderately wide lens will probably trump d200+24mm 1.4 for the same money, both in terms of low-light IQ and subject isolation.</p>
-
<p>Get the D90 with the kit lens.</p>
-
<p>Lighting can make the single biggest difference in your results by far. I say go SB900 and start the Strobist boot camp.</p>
-
<p>I agree that it sounds like either a sticky aperture if it always happens with the same lens, or maybe misreading ISO 2000 as 200, which would also get you to weird exposures in a hurry in daylight, but make it seem like things are peachy at night.</p>
-
<p>About the only zoom lens you could get with the proceeds from selling a used 18-55+50 would be, well, another 18-55. Really, while the kit lenses do have limitations, sharpness isn't likely one of them. Without a tripod, you're not going to get really sharp landscapes with any lens, so maybe wait until you've gotten a tripod, and figured out how to coax some really sharp shots from the kit, before trading it in.</p>
-
<p>I agree with Shun and Dieter -- "sidegrading" the lenses to newer DX compatible ones would probably give you much better results than downgrading the camera. If you really want to shoot with the older lenses, you could pick up a phenomenal film camera for under a hundred bucks...</p>
-
<p>One more vote for the kit. Nikon's kit lenses are incredibly useful for the money. I think when someone is new to SLRs and wants to shoot a lot of different things, they're probably much better served with a kit lens that lets them try different things, and a few good books or classes, than with trying to guess in advance which other lenses might be a better compromise for specific shooting situations. It's highly unlikely that the lens is going to be the "limiting factor" for someone new to SLRs.</p>
-
<p>What are you trying to shoot with the 70-300G?</p>
-
<p>I've got one, and they're fairly durable, but they're definitely no replacement for a real tripod. Mine is rated for DSLR's, but my D80 caused it to sag with anything bigger than a small prime lens. For smaller cameras, it's great. And they're much, much better than no tripod at all.</p>
-
<p>I recently moved from a D80 to a D300s, and I certainly wouldn't recommend a switch for Low-ISO IQ. For fast-moving subjects and low-light shooting, the D300's been a pleasant upgrade, but at base ISO, the IQ is just <em>different</em> , not better. Maybe spend the money on a bigger studio. ;)</p>
-
<p>One more vote for the 35mm 1.8 as a great low-light, do-everything travel lens. 50mm always felt a little constrained to me on a 1.5x body, but the 35 seems to hit a very sweet spot indeed for the money. And as far as you can go with higher ISO's on modern cameras, you can go even farther with higher ISO's plus F1.8.</p>
-
<p>I'd like to revise my previous anwer, and say that the test photos probably <strong>are</strong> typical of this lens. The 85 1.8 is a very nice lens for people shots and low light photography. I don't think you're imagining things, but I do think you're expecting too much of the lens in that situation. It looks like a great way to test a macro lens, but I'd take some pictures of people to decide whether or not a portrait lens was performing.</p>
-
<p>Your results don't sound typical. I agree with Josh: more info/examples needed...</p>
-
<p>I recently added a D300s to my D80, and I've shot one indoor wedding/reception with the two. I was more impressed than I expected to be with the 300's high-ISO work. Overall, the two cameras produce images that are <em>different</em> . But there's a definite, visible improvement at higher ISO's for the newer camera.</p>
-
<p>One more vote for the 35 1.8.</p>
-
<p>You can use your flash(es), but you have to set them to manual mode. It works great once you get the hang of it.</p>
How good is the 17-55mm f2.8
in Nikon
Posted