dmitry_kiyatkin

<p><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6027/5959661788_b59751cdaa_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><a href="http://www.peterturnley.com/egypt/01.html">http://www.peterturnley.com/egypt/01.html</a><br>

Sorry if re-post.<br>

DK</p>

<p>Easy guys, just sharing some photos with anew lens. AF-D is on the way out for me. The hood, manual override is worth it for me. Wish the new lenses did not loose the aperture ring, but oh well. Best regards, D </p>

<p>Don't own a tripod, Shun. Just wanted to make sure the new one wasn't a dud or if it made crappy pics look wonderful :) It's neither of those and that is fine with me.</p>

<p>Early adopter that I am I just got the new AF-S 85mm and since my AF-d does nor sell on EBay until Sunday, I gave them a quick test. Both on D700s. Same place, same time. Very rough, hand held comparison, just to make sure that the AF-S does not underperform too much.<br>

Here are the photos: <br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmitrykiyatkin/sets/72157624741528505/with/4952671738/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmitrykiyatkin/sets/72157624741528505/with/4952671738/</a><br>

Conclusion: No big surprises. They are very very similar. Maybe a touch less CA on the AF-S one. I got less pics sharp with the new one, but this is likely my own error. Other than the price difference, it seems AF-S will work out OK. New hood is nice but the whole lens is larger and a bit harder to hold. Focusing is quiet and manual override is nice.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for posting. </p>

<p>For a non-photog who is not rapid fire shooter, I think a kit (slow) 18-50mm lens would be fine. I do not think flash really matters there he takes 5-10 shots. Now a more professional shooter who will take 50 frames, probably should avoid flash. Don't drop the camera :)<br>

But how about some HD video? You can get reasonable little prints and web pics and the video may be much more telling for this event if shot by a non-pro photog and least for the OR action ... The pics of a baby can be taken with a real camera a little later.<br>

HTH</p>

<p>Leon,<br>

I had a 17-35mm and 70-200 with a D700. They all were great. Then bought a 24-70 and it was markedly better than the 17-35 in the 24-35 range at 2.8. Not a huge difference, but clearly one was better. I basically stopped using the 17-35 and later sold it because I do not use the wide end that much and simply cannot carry those 3 lenses... <br>

Got the 16-35mm when it came out and I am really pleased witht he weight and the IQ. But it will not replace the 2.8 24-70 for me. If I did not have the 24-70, I would stay with the 2.8 17-35mm.<br>

FYI, I shoot low light, action, usually. I think at > f5.6 those lenses are hard to tell apart...<br>

HTH,<br>

Dmitry</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/2976452671_2692df9f18.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

One more vote. I would take the d700, 24-85 af-d, 70-300, 50mm. If you like wide 16-35 is a good one to add. I have both

70-300 and the new 70-200 and would not think about taking the 70-200 on such a trek - it is very heavy. Same for the

24-70 - it is an awesome lens that I love, but 24-84 is just a better option for travel. Now 16-35 is a bit smaller, but luckily,

that wide is not my thing. Be careful to consider dust and frequent lens changes. I got in trouble with that in the past with a wide and tele zoom option (and only one cam). That is why now I go with midrange zoom.

 

All that said, I would also seriously consider a dx system for this trip. Remember all this stuff is pretty .

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Dmitry

<p>Mikael, I think he means pay the subjects of the photos who will sue you for using their images w/o a model release for commercial pubs.</p>

<p>Good luck :)</p>

<p>IMO, there are 2 ways to get good pics:<br>

1. Spectacular pictures of the ordinary<br>

2. Ordinary pictures out of the spectacular<br>

Both have their merits, because not everyone can get to the spectacular :)</p>

<p>That is what the EXIF snippets seem to say. Lots with a fixed 35mm as well.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/<br>

Interesting.<br>

Dmitry</p>

<p>Mike, that sound like the advice I will take. Thank you for tbhe answers. DK</p>

<p>Thank you, I guess I will have to do that in US. I will be in Poland/EU - Does anyone know rules there by chance? </p>

<p>Small question that bothers me - I want to take a film camera to europe this summer (going from the USA). Would like to shoot TriX, bring it from home and develop back at home. What about film transport on the airplane? XRay exposure, packing, declaring? Any advice would help. Last time I had film on the plane was befopre 9/11 and I had to hassle the TSA people not to scan it and it was not so easy even back then. How is the best way to do this today???<br>

Dmitry </p>

 

<p>I had no idea. Just read on CNN too. I regret my comment now - "good job" directed at the photography not the act, of course.... <br>

Hopefully this will not lead to additional bloodshed. although from the sounds of it, it probably will.<br>

Dmitry </p>

<p>Don't know of any safe place to do this indoors without permission, but there are a lot of outdoor abandones stuff here. I guess it depends on what you need. Try Flickr group "Abandoned Baltimore" - they might know of some - pics there would certainly point that way. <br>

Best regards,<br>

Dmitry</p>

<p>Good job. Like the bus picture the most. When did this happen?<br>

Best regards,<br>

Dmitry</p>

<p>Howard, thanks for these examples. I just do not want to waist $500 if I can get similar DOF with the D700.<br>

Matthew, if I back up more I get too much empty space at expense of some extra DOF, not really ideal either.<br>

I've heard of programs that can stitch together shots at different focal distances - do they really exist and are they usable?</p>

<p>I think it is barely announced so far. I will definitely look into it when it become available. Sigma lenses are quite usable if you pick the right one and use it in a correct way...</p>

<p>Hello, I have a question for those in the know.<br>

I sometimes have to take photos of scale models for collectors. Attached example below. I use my D700 with 60mm macro and a set of studio strobes. I struggle with loss of sharpness at high f stops (32) and relatively low DOF. Would I be smarter to use something like a G10 at base ISO (since I have boatloads of light) rather than the D700? I am really looking for more DOF here, since that is all I really need?<br>

Thank you for any opinions.<br>

Dmitry<br>

<hr>

<i>Moderator note: 2.5 MB JPEG deleted. Please resize. Not everyone has broadband ISP access.</i>

<p>Hi Rene, Congrads on the D700!<br>

Vignette control I think only effect the JPEGs (RAWs are unmodified). Mine is set on normal and I never really thought about it much.<br>

Enjoy,<br>

Dmitry</p>