kane_engelbert
-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by kane_engelbert
-
-
<p>Rene, if you read my post, I was never assisted whatsoever from Helen. I was assisted by the customer service department. That's the only phone number I had to actually talk to someone. I recieved two nice emails from Helen before calling, and no phone number to contact her. Due to the time contraints, I had no choice to call the customer service department. In fact, if she was aware of my issue and communicated that to the department, then why do I have to haggle with their customer service department to send my lens overnight? </p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>A 7 out of 10 for customer service, if you consider the bad lens just bad luck. I waiver there, because it was clear within 5 shots there was something wrong with the lens. The zoom ring also had some play at 50mm. I wonder why the 1600.00 lens was for sale. What I appreciated most was Helens fast response and willingness to do her best. In the end, just one thing didn't feel right, but everything else was spot on. <br>
The following happened with Adorama customer service. Helen may have had some behind the scene input but we did not communicate with her via phone. I did not get a phone # for her, so we had to quickly find someone to talk to ensure I got a new lens by Friday. <br>
We ended up having to buy another lens to get it sent out today from NY so it would arrive in Denver on Friday. I am cool with this, logistics, and weird circumstances occur. There was no way my bad lens would get back to NY in time for a credit and in time for another to be sent out to me in Denver. I was lucky to have my tax refund showing up Friday. Adorama agreed to pay for the overnight shipping after I paid for a new lens... with a little nudge from me of course. For whatever reason, Adorama first asked us to pay 30.00 for overnight shipping. My wife had to convince Adorama to pony up the overnight fee so I can have the lens by friday. <br>
The only other issue I have is that Adorama would not overnight the bad lens back to NY so they could quickly refund 1600.00 by Friday. We did not fight this because Ive got that tax refund showing up friday. Instead, they are sending us ground shipping. So, I hope to be refunded next week at some point. </p>
<p>Thanks Adorama<br>
thank you Helen for</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>There was zero wind. A bluebird day. What threw me off instantly was looking through the viewfinder, I couldn't focus entire image, its impossible. Just parts of the image would focus. As you can see in the image, the right side of the image was in focus but the left side was incredibly out of focus. Next I focused on the left, but the right would be out of focus.</p>
-
<p>There was zero wind. A bluebird day. What threw me off instantly was looking through the viewfinder, I couldn't focus entire image, its impossible. Just parts of the image would focus. As you can see in the image, the right side of the image was in focus but the left side was incredibly out of focus. Next I focused on the left, but the right would be out of focus.</p>
-
<p>Just received a refurb 24-70 2.8 from Adorama. Within 5 shots on my d700 I couldn't believe my eyes. I couldn't get the thing to focus through-out the image. Only the focus area would focus and everywhere else would not. <br>
Im not the most savy "lens tester" but I pulled out my 70-300 vr, set my camera to manual focus, the lens to infinity and shot some trees at 200 f8 at 70mm. <br>
Here are the images at full res. #1 is 70-300 #2 is 24-70 2.8. You will see the image from the 70-300 is BY FAR the better image. Even when trying my best to focus the 24-70, I could only get some of the trees to focus. everything else is completely out of whack. What the hell is the issue. Is this front focusing or focus shift? <br>
Im highly upset, because I have a week long backpack in Canyonlands beginning this Sat. I paid for expedited shipping to get the lens here on time. <br>
-
<p>Ive got the money for a new USA version however saving up to 160.00 would be nice too. <br>
Would you buy a Nikon 24-70 2.8 Refurb from Adorama for 1579.00? It was reburbished by Nikon USA (90-day warranty). Or would you spend 1649.00 on Grey Market (1 year warranty) Or would you spend 1739.00 (5 year warranty)for a new one?</p>
-
<p>Am I missing something? In Bulb, do I really have to hold the shutter release button down and continue to hold it for the desired duration of the long exposure? </p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Why do I occasionally read reviews that this lens was designed and performs better for macro use? Then I read from photozone <em>"There are some rumors floating around the web stating that the lens performs much better in macro mode than at standard distances. This was not recreatable during the tests. "</em><br>
<em></em><br>
How does your 60mm 2.8 D work with conventional, non macro shooting?</p>
<p>Im interested in this lens. </p>
<p>Kane</p>
-
<p>I want to get just one Reverse Grad filter to shoot sunsets. What f-stop would you get? </p>
<p>What's a reverse grad?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.singh-ray.com/reversegrads.html">http://www.singh-ray.com/reversegrads.html</a></p>
<p>Thanks!!!</p>
-
<p>How about a D300 with a 70-200 vr and a Nikon 1.7 teleconverter. Doesn't that equate to 390mm on FX?</p>
-
<p>I've researched the forum history and still can't come to a definitive conclusion if the 80-200 vignettes on a FX sensor. For the most part I read that it does a much better job of contoling the vignette. I would prefer zero issues with vignetting. I know the 70-200 vr does vignette at 200mm, that's why I just sold my copy. Shooting landscape, I despise vignetting and don't want to waste my time and money on another zoom lens that keeps me post processing.</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
-
<p>I have a 16-85 vr lens. Does anyone know if I will experience vignetting at 16mm f4 with P series? </p>
<p>What's the benefit of an extra long (XL) grad ND filter? 84mm x 165mm vs standard 84mm x 100mm. </p>
<p>Also, is there a difference between Color Graduated ND and Graduated ND?</p>
<p>Thanks<br>
kane</p>
-
<p>I've read some pretty good customer reviews on sites like Adorama/Amazon and wanted to know how this audience feels about either one of these converters. I read something somewhere that the 1.7 was specifically designed for the 70-200. I understand that I will loose up to 1.5 stops, or more? </p>
<p>Adorama is selling a gray market nikon 1.7 for 379.00. That's 130.00 under the non gray market converter. What's the deal with gray market? Would you feel comfortable buying a gray market item like a converter from Adorama? What are the drawbacks of Gray Market, including resale? </p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Kane</p>
-
<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4025373">Tuyen Tran</a> ,</p>
<p>I shoot landscape, so that's what I know. Here's a few images from the past few weeks that hopefully speak to the resolution of the 70-200 lens. I may be setting myself up for a flaming but to me these shots show detail I've never had before with my past zooms. </p>
<p>First, I have never shot the 80-200, so I don't know what that looks like. Second, I upgraded from the 18-200vr to 55-200vr to 70-300vr to 70-200 vr. These lens are what I know and what I can compare to. The following images are all stitch's but will show the 'freaky' detail I'm not used to.<br>
All images are scaled down for internet. Have a look at the trees in these images. #1 shows intricate rock and tree detail. #3 shows black and white, look close at the trees and the tree shadows. #4 shows the brilliant color. <br>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Thanks to all of you for the excellent feedback. In all, I got my answer (and more) to my 17-55 question. I'll keep my 16-85. That will save me 500.00.</p>
-
<p>I don't really know how to explain the level of sharpness my Nikon 70-200 2.8 vr lens performs, so I'll just call it "freaky sharp." There is a big-time "Wow" factor when I view images with this lens. This lens simply blows away my Tokina 11-16 and my 16-85vr, two lens that are supposed to be as sharp as there is. There just isn't any comparison and quite frankly I've already begun to think of upgrading. </p>
<p>I've already explained to my wife that if I ever have to sell this lens I'll quit taking pictures forever. </p>
<p>First do any of you feel the same about your 70-200? </p>
<p>Also, if this lens is in its own world above the rest, what other lens do you feel are right there with this one?</p>
<p>More specifically, I was wondering about the Nikon 17-55 2.8. I wouldn't have a problem selling the 16-85 and paying the differance to pick up a freaky sharp mid-range zoom. I won't miss the 55-70 range.</p>
<p>Thanks,<br>
Kane</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Well, I certainly have the answer I was looking for. Thanks for the excellent feedback. I think I'll refocus on the 17-35. And No, I would never actually buy a camera at Mike's, it's just a nice place to hold a camera. Maybe its my turn to upset the salesman, I'll keep going back to hold the camera. </p>
-
<p>Long time lurker, new poster.</p>
<p>Been researching Nikon camera body’s and lenses diligently for 6 months; I’m interested in getting the D700. I’m also ready to drop 1500 on a pro lens.</p>
<p>Yesterday I stopped by Mikes Camera and asked if I could handle the D700 and feel how a few lenses felt on the camera. I new they wouldn’t have one but I still asked if they had a 17-35 and the guy asked me why in the world would I want to put a film lens on a digital body. I was surprised by his gusto. He basically made me feel like a caveman living in the dark ages. After more ranting, he said something about losing at least 20% image quality when you use a film lens opposed to a digitally calibrated lens. He said the only digitally calibrated fx lens are the 12-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 70-300, and the new 50mm 1.4. I tried to challenge him by asking why photozone reviews all lenses with a D200. He blew me off. He spoke at length about how light travels through a digitally calibrated lens to the sensor opposed to a film lens to film. He also spoke about losing dynamic range. He whipped out a book and showed me pictures of light moving through the lens. All this seemed to make sense.</p>
<p>Lastly, he said that Nikon likes the lack of information on this topic because people keep buying the film lenses for their digital cameras.</p>
<p>Is this true? Is there such a huge difference in image quality?</p>
<p>Are these the only digitally calibrated lenses?</p>
<p>Other threads out there that speak to this topic?</p>
What the heck is going on with my 24-70!!
in Nikon
Posted
<p>Helen, again know I'm impressed with the effort. I think the logistics of me receiving a different lens before i leave tomorrow was my big issue. All in all it worked out. Received the new lens today and it's just what I was hoping for. I'll definately be back for more shopping. Thanks mostly to you and your kind words.<br>
Kane</p>