mike_s.3

I wonder if you could add a few more captions specifying the ISO used? You did this for a few of your shots. I can't find ISO info under the ?photo info? button, perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.

 

Shots look good so far - I miss Seattle.

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS is a decent lens with good reviews.

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm

 

I'd buy what you need now and worry about FF later.

Elliot, thanks for the post. For $170 it looks like it may be worth a try with my D200 raw files.

<center> <img

src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2352/1512837018_403c5480ed.jpg">

</center>

If you can't find info on ebay, and you can't find the lens already listed for sale on KEH, then contact KEH and ask them how much they will pay for the lens. As Robert mentioned they will quote you a much lower price. Take that price and multiply by approx 2 and there is a rough answer to the question.

You can get great shots with a Nikon D80. I have a D200 and I get good 13X19 prints.

 

Are you shooting JPEGs and if so what is the setting (large, medium or small; fine or normal)?

 

What ISO did you use?

By the way, there are many, many examples of full frame lenses that excellent on digital, just as they were with film.

A few points:

 

1) There is more than one 85mm f/1.4. Which are you referring to (e.g. MF or AF versions)?

 

2) The performance of another brand's lens probably has little relevance. But due to the cost of this lens (assuming you talking about the AF version) I can understand you paranoia.

 

3) Bjørn Rørslett has good reviews. He likes this lens (MF or AF) on either an F5 or D2x.

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

Look under "lenses"

 

Sometimes he frequents this website, if you are lucky he may respond to your post.

ISO 800 sure looks good - a lot better than ISO 800 on the D200.

If you don't understand this then I second Keith's recommendation.

Perhaps one should ask: What ISO are you shooting at and what camera are you using? With a 20D, for example, its possible to bump the ISO higher and still get good shots. With the Mark III its possible to go even higher. If you don't care about anything but f/8 maybe ISO should be you "focus" rather than a new lens.

Should read "seriously, though, check this out"

It means its "D' bomb" - or a very good lens.

 

Seriously, thought, check this out

 

http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm

That's temping. Do I order a Mark III now, or continue saving for the 500mm f/4 IS? Hmmmm.

D300 for all the reasons that Shun mentioned.

 

and for Anthony:

 

"Congratulations on the most film chauvinist post ever. You would not use a DSLR even if it were given to you; and if your job required it, you would decline the job."

 

He probably meant this as a joke. Lighten up a little. This forum has one moderator already.

A lot of the reviews that I see for the new D3 are from people like Dave Black who - although an excellent photographer - is nearly a paid spokesperson for Nikon. Wait until we see some more objective reviews that compare the D3 with the Mark III for example. I would not assume that Nikon has the upper hand on ISO until you can see actual comparisons.

 

You may think "well that sounds like a typical Canon shooter", but you would be wrong. I shoot with both Nikon and Canon so if the D3 lives up to its hype I'm happy. However, I just don't think that its going to be anything but comparable to a Mark III in a head to head test.