dmitry_kiyatkin

... Do you think this will continue in the next few months as the D700 is released. I know it is around $4000 in Japan now. Is that were we

in U.S. are heading as well?

I feel a weapon of any kind in more likely to get you in trouble that help on the streets. If it is so dangerous that you feel

unsafe - reconsider shooting or bring a guide or even a friend or make contacts prior to shooting. Just my humble opinion.

Thank you guy. This is the answer I did not want to hear. It sounds like D300/D700 would do a pretty good job with 2

remote flashes. One less reason to get the D3!

In my thought process regarding benefits of D3 vs D700, I am wandering if someone can help me answer a question.

 

If I have a D300 and want to use its built-in flash in commander mode, wound a large lens with a hood (e.g. 17-35mm

f/2.8 or 24-70mm) mess up the exposure. I am asking this because with the hood on, the biuilt in flash is useless

with that lens for regular flash photography. I suspect it will not get the exposure right, but I am not sure.

 

Any one know the answer?

So the Nikon 50mm has better image qulity at larger apertures. I do not thing this should be unexpected. Compare your 50mm to the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 and you will get the same results. You get the zoom for the variety and focal lengths, small size, and cost saving. The images at 2.8 are still quite usable if you need to go there..

D300 and 17-55mm is a solid combo for the price of D700 body only. I like how D300 does in low light. For B&W it is

actually very nice.

 

D700 will be clearly better in low light. For FX, you will probably want a 2.8 zoom with it to match the DX option. Your

options are 35-70mm ($400 used), 28-70mm ($1200 used), or 24- 70mm ($1700 new).

 

I think an AF 24mm/28mm ($250), 50mm f/1.8 ($100) and an 85mm f1.8 ($300) would be a great little setup for the D700.

Total price $600-$700 for the glass with good resale value and fast aperture. That is what I would do, but you still need

$3800 for it all.

 

So basically if you have around $3000 and do not really need the zoom, I would go for the FX body and the primes for documentary work. You can add a $200 low speed zoom for travel as well.

Just sold my mint, 2 months old tamron 17-50 for $300 on EBay. that is their current value. Consider it closely - it is a

good lens. HTH, Dmitry

I though the lens was not really damaged in the fall?

Marcel, I really cannot speak to the corners. They seem to me, but for my style of photography, it does not really matter on a wide lens. Although, I have no evidence of this, I am sure it is as good or better than the Tamron.

 

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 is very nice. At 16mm, it makes a nice FX 24mm lens. I tried it out and it is indeed very sharp. I just want a nice small compact 24mm to carry around - the Tokina is almost the size of 17-35mm. Cost is also a factor I think as it is not cheap.

Hi Marcel:

<BR><BR>

I have both 17-35mm and the 20mm and on my D300, 20mm is much sharper at 2.8. Less CA. I do not know about

narrower apertures. Overall I am very happy with image qulity of the 20mm AF-D. The trouble for me is that it is not

wide enough. The 17mm makes a huge diffference in DX format - you go from 30mm to almost 24mm. Think about

that seriously. I use the heavy and huge 17-35mm mostly for that reason.

<BR><BR>

Distortion will be different on FX, but IQ I think very similar in my opinion.

<BR><BR>

Here are some examples with the 20mm:

<BR>

<img src="http://www.ww2models.com/ebay/L1_s.jpg">

<BR>

<img src="http://www.ww2models.com/ebay/L2_s.jpg">

<BR><BR>

I think this is the greatest fault of Nikon's DX system - no wide primes. And it is a reason that will push me to get

the D700 someday.

<BR><BR>

HTH, Dmitry

I had the 17-50mm. It is pretty sharp. I think as sharp as Nikon. But AF not as good. It is much lighter and cheaper.

Plastic and flimsy. I think for a real 2.8 lens, I would go with Nikon. If you only use occasionally at 2.8 and if it will see

light use, it is a good choice. HTH

not july, i see...

That looks pretty good to me for 3200. I was all set to jump onto a D3 this month, but it looks like I should wait until this

D700 is really out. Any idea when they are really to appear in stores? Thanks for sharing.

35mm AF-D is great on my D300. 28mm just seems worse to me. Woildgo with 24mm AF-D in its place.

Local stores should still have them. Try them. Dmitry

Hi. This is not really a question but a demonstration. I bought a brand new D300 this spring. I had a D70 before, but never really used it a

lot. I took the nice new D300 to Greece with a few lenses. I never considered the sensor dust issues in the past. I saw a spec of dust at

one point in the trip but had no way to clean it out on the road. I knew there was some dust on the sensor, but I didn't quite expect this:

<img src="http://www.ww2models.com/ebay/Dusty.jpg">

At home I tried the swabs, but could not get half of the stuff. I had to send it back to Nikon for a cleaning and now it is back in great

shape. Many pictures are damaged, but obviously no big deal. This is just a warning of what might happen. I would recommend learning

to clean the camera prior to the time when it gets this bad!

I think for flash photography, the D version is better. If you never use flash, I think IQ is in theory the same. Dmitry

My locate store in baltimore has the Tokina now.

Thanks Guys, I will have to underexpose by .3-..7 stops. I must say that the lens seems very very sharp, even at 2.8. No

formal tests, but much better than 16-50mm Tokina I tried before. The zoom range is very small. This lens would be more

valuable if it went up to 24mm at 2.8. Still, if you are sticking with DX format, it is a nice addition!

I noticed before that my 20mm underexposes compared to 17-35mm.

Although I posted an outdoor picture, this is most annoying on the indoor shoots.

Dmitry

And this is shot with the Tokina at f/5.6 Aperture Priority

<br>

<img src="http://www.ww2models.com/photo/Tokina.jpg">

<br>

This also happens at F/2.8, etc.

<br>

Is this the issues with my particular lens or Tokina overall? I can actually see the ca,era choosing a slower speed with the Tokina

compared to the Nikkor set at the same f-stop.

<br>

Thanks, Dmitry

Hi, I just bought a Tokina 11-16mm and have been trying it out this weekend. It seems sharp enough, but I am having some exposure

issues. Shots seem very overexposed. This occurs at all apertures.

<br>

Here is an example:

<br>

This is shot with my 17-35mm at f/5.6 Aperture Priority:

<img src="http://www.ww2models.com/photo/Nikon.jpg"/>

I like the 20mm AF-D lens. It comes out to about 30mm in 35mm world. Not too large or heavy. Very sharp, much like

my 35mm AF Nikkor. Much better at 2.8 than any zoom in this range in my opinion (compared to 17-35mm and 17-55mm

as well as the Tamron mentioned above). This way I can carry the 20mm, 35mm, and 85mm with a camera for a "light"

set-up. I am sure 24mm is very sharp too, but I just think something a little wider is nice.

The Tamron 17-50mm is very light and actually sharp, but in low light, I still do not quite like it somehow.

Here is a small picture I took yesterday with the 20mm I got for $250 off eBay:

 

<img src="http://www.ww2models.com/ebay/L2_s.jpg">

how about a 17-35mm f/2.8. It works on FX and is almost same as 17-55 on DX..

Almost same price as the other two lenses mentioned. The IQ is not as good as the

Nano coated Digital lenses, but I think good for most people.

It would seem that it would be possible to do. It gets in the way if you never use it. Anyone tried

it? Without too much mutilation of the lens?