commtrd

<p>See I told ya there would be many different opinions! That is because no one person is going to have the exact same creative impetus and vision as someone else. And that is a very good thing. Some will think a given lens is too big and heavy and I will say BS I can't hardly tell it is mounted to the camera. Some will say the only thing that will work is a 55mm; some will say a longer focal length is better. I will say that in the end money has to be spent to buy a lens and work with it for an extended length of time so that you yourself will know from shooting thousands of images with it. Only then will a photographer know if a certain lens will fit their requirements and no one else can really impart that information because it is a personal thing. And so it goes with buying lenses; it ends up being a ridiculously expensive hobby because the only real way to know for sure is to buy the thing and use it and find out if it works for you or not. Just renting a lens for a week may or may not tell you what you need to know in regards to purchasing or not.</p>

<p>Good luck with whatever you decide on. One thing is for sure: in this pursuit, putting a very low limit on price will necessarily keep you from getting the really good stuff. Doesn't mean that one cannot find good value older manual-focus etc. but for the most part, limiting by price will eliminate the good newer lenses for sure. Sad but true. Sounds like a tamron 90mm may be a good starting point and work from there. And a good tripod is many times a better investment than it is given credit for...</p>

<p>It is my FIRM BELIEF that anyone who shoots macro for any length of time will naturally gravitate towards wanting a longer focal length lens for shooting true macro-level work. I just don't have to get as close to the subject to get the depth of field and detail I am looking for and that is incredibly valuable no matter what the subject is, for tripod / support placement, isolation from skittish subjects, lighting / shadow avoidance, etc.</p>

<p>Now I would not buy a macro lens under 100mm for my only macro lens under any circumstances. Of course any other 10 photographers would give you ten other opinions so it really boils down to what the individual photographer thinks he / she needs to do what they want to do. The difference here is whether or not true macro work is desired or more closeup type stuff is being done which would then be better with the wider lens. I do intend to pick up a Zeiss 50/2 macro lens in the future for just this distinction. That Zeiss glass just pretty much smokes all other lenses IMHO. What would be awesome would be if Zeiss made a 200/2.8 macro lens which would be an absolute must-have in my opinion...</p>

<p>I would say that for the money, it would be almost impossible to beat the sigma 150 EX macro lens. I would not get a 50 or 60mm macro lens unless doing strictly product closeups etc. I found that I was always looking for more reach in doing macro work. Another good possibility might be the nikkor 200 f4 lens but I don't own that one nor have ever used it. I wish there was a 300mm macro lens available that would go to 1:1 magnification!</p>

<p>Anyway, for the money it would be difficult to do better than the sigma 150 macro lens IMHO. And that lens is also versatile for portraiture and telephoto duties as well. Hard to beat for color rendition, contrast, clarity, sharpness, and bokeh. The Zeiss 100/2 is another awesome macro lens but it goes to 1:2 magnification and BTW they are proud of those lenses (deservedly so) that this lens may not fit your budget. The nikkor 105VR is a very good lens as well but knowing that you will probably be looking for more reach soon it may be good to investigate the longer FL lenses from the start. Hope some of this helps.</p>

<p>Well being a surfer I can tell you from personal experience that most surfers have very little money. That is why they can surf all the time. The serious surfers will wait tables, or do spot construction jobs, or deal drugs or something so that they have the freedom to be able to go when there is surf. This may sound a little harsh but it is the truth. All surfers either figure out a way around normal lifestyle commitments to enable that freedom, or eventually they no longer have that freedom. How well I know of the truth in this. To this day I am continually scheming to figure out ways to get that freedom back. (No drug dealing though).<br>

The saying "Work is for those who don't surf" has a lot of truth in it.</p>

<p>This means that you may have some problems trying to sell your photos to these guys unless you happen upon a fairly well-heeled individual. Or else sell 'em really cheap. And to sell, they are going to have to be awesome action shots which unless doing in-the-water shots out at the break, will demand huge telephoto lenses and you know how much that kind of equipment costs... Professional surf action photographers spend many years acquiring the skills and equipment to pursue this type of photography and they all struggle for many years financially until they develop a name so that their work commands the prices it is worth. Weddings or other event venues will be much easier to develop income streams in my humble opinion. But if you must, give it a go.</p>

<p>I kind of feel like this whole thing is beating on a dead horse. These companies do not listen to their customers. A petition is OK to try but more than likely the company is not going to pursue this as they have already dropped the line some time ago.</p>

<p>I am referring to perspective distortion which is not exclusive to this lens. In other words due to the wide angle the lens captures it is necessary to mount (or hold if possible) the camera / lens perfectly level to keep vertical edges running perfectly vertical and not curving in madly, which really does bug me a lot! Optically the lens is close to distortion-free. That is not what I am talking about here. I guess it boils down to whether someone really needs such a wide angle lens or not. At least on full frame, I am starting to think that maybe 24mm is actually wide enough.</p>

<p>For this reason, I find that every time I use my 14-24 I have to mount the camera on my tripod and ensure a perfect level to get good shots out of it. Of course, when I do that they are exemplary. The lens renders color beautifully and is super sharp. I still may sell mine. I kind of started migrating towards Zeiss primes in manual focus and I am really jazzed on those lenses. So this discussion should be taken with a grain of salt relative to where I am going with my photography which means nothing to anyone else since I am just an amateur who is still learning etc. so my opinion doesn't draw much water.</p>

<p>The length of the post was the reason I referred to it as a "diatribe". Not a disparaging remark per se just that it was extremely verbose and does not pertain to nikon camera equipment. Maybe fuji will someday decide to start developing another DSLR camera platform.</p>

<p>I don't see any problems with nikon camera bodies relative to dynamic range or skin tones. Don't really care what fuji does or does not do. I am sticking with nikon camera equipment until / unless some other manufacturer makes something massively superior. Hasn't happened yet. Given the funding to work with, would probably go with Hasselblad MF but that's not going to happen either.</p>

<p>OP should post this long diatribe on the fuji board; this is a nikon forum.</p>

<p>Many thousands of dollars later after purchase of 11 lenses plus a D300 and a D700 I think that for the vast majority of folks the following kit would suffice very nicely: a D3s camera body, a 24-70 nikkor f2.8, and a 70-200 VRII Nikkor f2.8. Throw in a good tripod and a L-bracket for the camera, and there you have a very versatile and hi-quality kit that would do great for 99% of everything any amateur would ever shoot. If really into macro, then maybe add in a sigma 150 macro lens or a nikkor 200mm f4 macro lens.</p>

<p>I know how confusing it is for a new photographer due to the vast amount of lens / camera choices and brands available. But after spending WAY TOO MUCH MONEY on this stuff, I can honestly say that the above kit would cover almost every amateur's needs very well (in excess of their capabilities for sure) and the initial money spent would be for good top-notch equipment that would serve them well for many years. Problem is that no one knows this stuff until shooting many thousands of images, doing the post, thinking about which way to go etc.</p>

<p>And please, if one gets the urge to burn some old equipment, please give it to some kid or someone who otherwise could not afford any equipment at all. It's called paying it forward and is a much better way to get rid of old obsolete equipment than burning it. Even obsolete equipment can still take pictures after all.</p>

<p>I think lack of distortion is important too. In fact that is the reason I was thinking about selling my 14-24 due to the terrible distortion unless it is shot perfectly level. The IQ is awesome but when I see buildings curved in or walls, windows, doors, etc. in interior architecture like a bad acid trip I just hate it. I am kind of starting to think that 24mm on FF might be wide enough...</p>

<p>I HATE DISTORTION!</p>

<p>I don't notice any amount of distortion in my 24-70 that amounts to anything at all. Now the 14-24 needs to be kept level to help eliminate perspective distortion. I once had an 18-200 and that lens had horrible distortion on the wide end. It is gone. I don't buy lenses that are slower than f2.8 so will not have any f4 lens unless it is over 500mm and I don't shoot extreme telephoto so not a problem.</p>

<p>Well I have none to burn (those images just horrify me to no end...I think they show complete lack of respect for the wonderful artistic tools that are camera gear) but I do have too many lenses and here is an interesting corollary to NAS: if you think you are going to get anywhere near your expenditures on gear back probably sadly mistaken. I figured I would sell my Nikkor 105VR, my Nikkor 70-200 VRI, my 14-24/2.8, and the D300 camera body since these items are basically just sitting in the bag unused. I sent in lists of these items to KEH and to B & H for quotes. I was fairly disgusted at what KEH indicated they would pay me for this equipment. B & H has not responded yet due to the weather over there, but I don't expect they will be any better.</p>

<p>Well I can and will keep all these (they are absolutely mint in flawless condition) and use them some. But this is something to think about when getting all wound up about getting yet another lens or whatever: better really like it and need that piece because turn around to sell it and will likely take a beating on it. I thought camera lenses at least maintained their value somewhat but apparently not.</p>

<p>Or I guess you could just throw it into a fire... 8-(</p>

<p>I have both the D300 and the D700; I use the D700 for landscape, wide angle, and portraiture / low light, and mainly the D300 for macro since I don't get into extreme telephoto (not that I wouldn't, but the long glass gets into serious money). These guys have all made valid points and in all things photographic what really matters is what you find to be true for your own way. If you only had enough money to support one or the other you would have to make do with what was available and it would be good...something to think about.</p>

If great ISO capability and a big bright viewfinder is desired FX is awesome that's why.

<p>I never trusted ebay or paypal. I have always refused to use either one. I have a buddy who bought a water pump for his big block chevy crate motor on the airboat from ebay and when he got it the thing was trashed. So he lost twice since he had to go buy one at the parts store after that. I can learn from other's mistakes (at least sometimes) and will never have anything to do with the two above mentioned entities for anything especially not any high-priced camera gear.</p>

<p>Our house was just broken into but thankfully they did not have time to get at my camera gear. I have it insured but still do not want it to get stolen. We installed roll-up shutters on all windows and doors in the house to help prevent access forcibly (they kicked in the front door) which will also help when a hurricane si coming since I will not have to board up the windows.</p>

<p>With the economy the way it is, expect to hear more and more of thefts increasing. And insure that camera gear!</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Shun. My 14-24, while very sharp and beautiful color rendering etc., is a lens that I tend not to use so much on FX due to extreme perspective distortion if the camera is not held perfectly level on the tripod. So an 8-16mm lens is going to be the same on DX. I also think that the resale value of a third party lens is not going to be what a nikon lens will bring. I am thinking that for most purposes on FX, that a 24mm FL is fairly wide. Of course that is my opinion and others will think differently.</p>

<p>If sigma could get a handle on their quality control they could well be a viable choice vs. nikon. My 150 macro lens is really nice and there are those who rave about their 50/1.4 lenses. It is good to have competition so these manufacturers will feel some heat. Are all these new lenses for the DX format? If so, I am not interested in any of them. I only purchase lenses that are compatible with full frame sensors.</p>

<p>Eventually will migrate to the D3s or whatever comes after that one for better hi-iso and the video capability. I think the longer focal length the better for macro work. I currently have the sigma 150 macro as my longest but also have the Zeiss 100/2 and the Nikkor 105VR. All are good lenses but for macro I always grab the sigma 150.</p>

<p>I have both bodies and use both for macro work. I have kind of started preferring to use my D300 for macro stuff and I really like the sigma 150 on the DX sensor. Just a magic combination IMHO. I find that both formats have their strengths and weaknesses, but for extreme telephoto and macro I think that DX might have the edge. Now if I absolutely had to choose one format over the other, I would have to go with FX and one big reason is the bigger brighter viewfinder. Fortunately I don't have to choose and long ago decided to keep both formats just because I wanted to have the D300 for shooting macro, since that is what I started out on and shot many thousands of good shots using the D300 and the 105VR lens. Still a beautiful combination of lens and body BTW.</p>

<p>The 24-70 is an awesome lens and I have not seen any appreciable distortion anywhere within the FL presented by my 24-70. I think the speed of the lens is more important than whether or not it has VR. Basically I agree fully with Mr. Cooper's assessment 100%.<br>

Plus I choose not to have any lens in my bag that is slower than f2.8, for DOF and low-light ability.</p>

<p>The move to FX, while definitely worthwhile, is also very expensive. Lenses hold their value much better than do camera bodies. In fact for the product cycle present now it may be a good idea to wait for the new round of FX sensor bodies to come out and see where they go with them, and that will also make the D700 much more affordable as it will be seen to be "obsolete" which of course is ridiculous. For the majority of amateur photographers, the D700 is far and away more camera than they will ever need for many years (even if NAS does take hold).</p>

<p>The 24/1.4 will be more of a specialty lens so that should be considered in the prospective purchase. If you are going to be shooting wide angle a lot it will be a neat lens to have. On DX I suppose it would simulate a 36mm so it would be a good FL to have. Lot of money for that one lens which is OK if you would use it all the time. </p>

<p>Whatever. I am still going to turn the camera off each and every time I change a lens or anything else. Since I paid cash for all my gear I get to make that choice. If it doesn't hurt anything to change lenses or cards with the camera on then that's great. That means that taking the precautions to turn off the main user-interfaced functions via the on-off switch helps ensure further that nothing bad will happen to the camera or lenses or cards on change-out.</p>

<p>I always turn the camera off even between shots if I am not immediately going to shoot another one. Always off for lens changes and would not dare to have the power on when hooking up the USB to computer or changing flash cards (never do that anyway) so I am extremely AR when it comes to that. Once in a great while I will discover that I left power on to change a lens and I always freak out wondering if I messed something up. I wonder if it would be a good idea to remove the battery when in the case not being used. Or maybe best that it is in there if that is actually hot standby?</p>

<p>Go for the 600 but you will need to support the lens adequately to ensure best IQ. Then again being able to find one on extremely short notice may be pretty difficult as nikon seems to make these exotics in limited runs so they are not readily available all the time.</p>