dmitry_kiyatkin

It is sharp. VR works. It expands quite a bit at tele end. Slow aperture for me. It

made a funny AFS noise - maybe mine was defective or they all do that. the lower

price I saw was at my local Penn Photo for $599.

D300 sounds better for you. I went from D70 to D300 and they are hard to compare.

D300 is just much much better. It will not make you a better photographer, but the

pictures do look a lot nicer.

I considered a D3, but the size for me was a huge negative. I think soon Nikon with

make a "baby D3" and then that will be a good option for many people. I think there

is demand for that.

I would consider getting full frame lenses even if you go the D300 route.

After much thought, I decided to get the Nikon's VR version instead of Sigma or the Nikon AF-S.

Now I am having trouble finding a new USA lens. EBay has some at $2000 which not so good. I

could only find a imported version at BH Photo (although at a good price). Does anyone know who

is selling a new USA lens now? If not, how bad is it to buy an Imported one? According to B&H

seems like not such a terrible idea. I am aware that Nikon USA will not fix it, but why not just mail

to Japan or where ever? Any thoughts welcome. Dmitry

Hi Scott, I own and use Nikon 35mm f/2 with a D300 and I am very impressed with

sharpness and contrast at f/2. Really no issues. Beats the 17-35mm everytime

easily! I bought a sigma 24mm f/1.8 and it was defective with gross front focusing on

all my cameras. Not my user error! I was fairly sharp with a manual focus body, but

not as nice as the Nikon 35mm. Also it was huge. It went back to the store. Never

used the 30mm Sigma. It sound nice, but I would try to test this on in a store prior to

buying it, to make sure you get a nice one.

Still my vote is for Nikon.

John, Try taking a photo of the sky at f22 and see how things really look. I must say

that I talked to a few professional photographers who use "other people's gear at work"

and they do use compressed air, although carefully, keeping the can standing on a

table for 30+ minutes and not moving the can before or while spraying the air. I think it

does have some risk to it and if you do not have access to NPS, I would avoid it. I

think the bulb method is safe, although the compressed air really packs some punch.

Its a fine camera for $300. Not great for action. Color balance is odd sometimes.

Small VF. If you have $1800 buy a D300, it is better in all respects, but is it 5 times

better? Really need more details about what you will use it for to answer that

question....

Not the best for digital. Funky zoom range - 30-50mm not that useful. Still heavy and

IQ is not the best on digital. Honestly 17-35mm is not the best either, but much better.

and more wide. Dor D300 I would just go for 12-24mm f/4. F/4 will not be a problem

on D300. Of course you cannot use it on film.

I would be afraid to use SB-25 on a D70 for the first time at a wedding. Honestly it is

not that easy. I would take off the hood from the zoom and use the built in TTL flash if

I could not get SB-600.

I guess this also depends on lighting at the wedding.

I must say that I tried to prepare for FX and bought a 17-35mm f/2.8 for my D300.

Although after F/4 it is fine, at F/2.8 the CA was quite obvious in bright light and it

was soft. I sent it back to Nikon and in 2 week got it back with softness fully

corrected. The CA is still there. Not the biggest issue, but I think 17-55mm would

be better for digital and cheaper too. I prefer my 20mm prime to 17-35mm on the

D300 indoors,

On my F5 it is really great !!! I do not know how it performs on a D3. I hope well,

because 14-24 (with a huge naked front lens) and 24-70 does not feel like a good

combo for me - I always liked 20-35 and 80-200. But probably it will do only as well

as it does on D300m since it was really a lens designed for film.

I retrospect, I should have just went with 17-55 DX and added 12-24mm for those

wide shots.

Another idea is to get a D300, which would let you shoot your lenses at one stop

higher ISO with no IQ loss!

Mark, It all depends on what photos you are expecting. I think for weddings the key is

to key good pro-quality portraits and the other stuff if a little less important quality-wise.

I think you can cover a reception wonderfully with D80, 18-135 and a good flash if one

knows how to use that equipment to its fullest. The portraits are little harder without

lights and a little more experience.

Make sure you know exactly what sort/quality of photos you and your family expects!

I will use it on an F5, but I am really close to biting for the D3 as well at some near

point.

I want the VR, but I want the pics to be sharp in a full frame camera more. All this talk

about how crappy the VR is on a full frame body got me scared.

I am looking to buy a fast tele zoom for use with a film camera, possibly FX in future. I would like

AF-S for easy focus adjustment. VR would be nice, but I can probably live without it too. I do not

want to wait too long (>1 month) for a release of a new lens. The price of AFS or VR lens seems

similar enough to me but AFS would have to be used.

Would image quality be better with AFS lens than the VR version?

Very sharp lens with a good zoom range for digital. VR is great. The only trouble is

the aperture size, but for some that may not be an issue. I guess it is not a huge step

up from 18-70 which is also a nice lens. The only benefit is the VR in my eyes.

Hi Dick, I do not like to join into these discussion, but could not resist.

I was there and really lines were a part of USSR life in 1991 and long before. People

stood in line for everything, all day. Prices were too low and there were few goods

on the market and people bought up what they could. For Westerners this seemed

unusual and a sign of some kind of desperation, but often this was just Soviet norm.

On the other hand, old people and kids got hit very hard after 1990.

Starving/freezing was/is not uncommon, although not that common either. Now

prices are high and people no longer stand in lines. Everything is available, but I

think people still are in bad shape if they cannot afford the stuff.

What I am trying to say is that in USSR long frustrating lines did not equal hunger.

HTH, Dmitry

My Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens front focuses heavily in tele range. You can see it in

close portraits at 2.8 - eyes are soft and nose is sharp. I tried to adjust it in the fine-

tune mode on the D300 with no luck. It is so severe at F/2.8 that the fine-tuning

really does not make any difference (although you can see some shift in focus). My

Nikon lenses do not seem to have these problems. I think for a good lens, that

feature will not need to be used by most users. It does work, but the shift is very

minor and really will not compensate for a defective lens. I do not know if all

Tamron 17-50 do that, but if you shoot at 2.8 a lot, I would go with Nikon. I still like

it for its sharpness and small size. HTH, Dmitry

Hi I want to send in a lens that is under warranty for repair. How do I do that? I am in USA, Maryland.

I could not find the address on the registration card. How long does it take to come back? Thanks,

Dmitry

For example:

<img src="http://www.ww2models.com/photo/nikoncrop1.JPG">

<img src="http://www.ww2models.com/photo/nikoncrop2.JPG">

I had one for a few days. It was very sharp. VR really works. I returned it because the AF

made some funny noise. The shop said that was normal, but that is not how my other USM

lenses sounded. I was going to try another one, but tried the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and am

completely sold on it. And save $250 too. Still I think the 16-85mm is a great range if you

are shooting in good light. Congrads.

Hello, I've asking petty questions for a few months, but now I have something to offer. I use a 17-35mm

lens with my D300 and it gives OK results. At 2.8, not too sharp and lots of CA. I do not know if it is my

lens or a general rule. I am going on a vacation and did not want to lug around the 17-35. So I bought a

Tokina 16-50mm. Heavy as well, but a little smaller. At 2.8 is has both more CA and is softer than the

17-35mm. So while visitng my local shop, they showed me the Tamron lens and I decided to try it.

It is light and plastic, but for my purposes that is OK. Results are really nice at 2.8. It is better than my

Nikon and way better than the Tokina. The only thing that Tokina has going to it (image-wise) are the out

of focus areas - they are the smoothest of the three.

My question is, should I send the Nikon lens in for repairs, or is that just how it is on digital?

And if you think about it, it is actually easier to make better pictures with a 50mm than a

wide zoom. It takes a lot more skill to shoot a well composed and thought out photo with,

say, a 24mm lens.

I hate to post such a post, but I am going on a trip and want a telephoto lens with 2.8 aperture. I own a

D300 and will probably have it for a couple of years at least. I do not want to pay extra for the VR or even

AF-S. The old AF-D is an option, but I think the Sigmas are actually lighter and real time manual focusing

is a nice feature for me.

If I am sticking with DX for now which lens provides better results? I do not really care about weight, just

picture quality.

I imagine they are both similar as their cost, but want to make sure....

Thanks, Dmitry