glenn_c1

<p>For what it's worth Lex I agree completely and believe critique to be appropriate only when asked for, otherwise presumptuous, to put it mildly. One must remember that photography is a very personal thing and one can never be certain of the appeal of a given photograph to its photographer. For those who photograph intending to produce results others will find appealing, maybe the equation is different, but for most of us here I imagine it is the appeal a photograph to ourselves that is most important. That's not to say such photos can't be shared usefully, but critiques in such a case rather miss the point.</p>

<p>I know exactly what you need, Philip. </p>

<p>First, your terminology is off a bit. "Zoom" is just the ability of a lens to change focal length - your 18-105 is already a zoom lens. What I think you mean is that you need a "telephoto" zoom lens - one with a longer focal length range.</p>

<p>I think you would probably be satisfied with Nikon's 55-200mm VR lens. It's a good optical performer and has VR, which is very important in this focal range. There are alternatives, and the 55-200 does have weaknesses, but it's a good choice and will hold its value, making it likely less expensive to actually own than many third-party lenses. It is quite decent at 200mm, whereas many of the xx-300mm lenses are actually not very good (poor, even) beyond 200mm, so you don't add much with that extra range that you couldn't get by cropping from 200mm. The 55-200 is also small and light, making it a great walking-around lens. I have a comparatively expensive and quite heavy 80-200mm f/2.8 professional telephoto zoom but have no qualms about using the 55-200 when I don't want to carry around all that weight. It makes for a versatile combination.</p>

<p>As for macro function, the 55-200 focuses down to about three feet at 200mm, which gets you fairly close - it might be all you need, although I'm not sure about the 18-105 performance in this area. However, if you want to make it focus closer, it takes 52mm filters, meaning that a good-quality close-focus attachment will be relatively inexpensive for it.</p>

<p>On that note, stay away from cheap close-focus lenses. The Canon 500D is actually a two-element lens and I've heard that they are very good. Marumi also makes a two-element close-focus attachment that is also highly recommended by some who have used it.</p>

<p>Finally, the price is right. You can still get a perfectly good "reburbished" 55-200mm VR for well under $200, leaving enough to also get the best close-focus lens and still be within your budget.</p>

<p>Try the Nikon Parts department. If the sticky note on my monitor means what I think it does, the number is 310-414-8107. They're only open weekdays and only 'till 3:00 PST. However, they seem willing to sell any part to any interested party - you don't have to be a dealer. My guess is the part you need will be quite inexpensive and no problem to get.</p>

<p>Matt, thanks for the samples. I'm sure most people here recognize that you never expect to get something that is twice as good when you spend twice as much, in a lens or anything else. As if you could even measure what "twice as good" is. It's a silly notion. </p>

<p>The question is how do the lenses differ and to what degree. Your samples do show a dramatic difference in bokeh. The top photo is a textbook "neutral" bokeh sample and the lower is textbook "bad" bokeh. It would be interesting to see a comparison with the 35/1.8 since that's what is being discussed here, but I'm sure there are lots of bokeh samples around for this lens for anybody who wants to look for them.</p>

<p>The other thing that struck me about your samples though was the difference in color rendition. I'm surprised nobody else has pointed it out. The top lens' colors look washed-out and muted compared to the bottom lens, and I'm curious whether it would be different stopped-down a bit. This would be much more important to me than either bokeh or sharpness in choosing between two lenses of this type. By the way, the 35/1.8 does seem to give very crisp, saturated colors.</p>

<p>Oh, I had a 50/1.8 for a while, and it was terrible at f/1.8. Far worse than yours for some reason.</p>

<p>I've written about this a few times here, most recently just yesterday in comparing the 35mm f/2D to the new f/1.8G. The "perfect" lens would pass color information to the sensor with absolute fidelity. However, in reality all sorts of things get in the way. Spherical aberration affects local contrast, which takes away some of the visual snap of the lens, and coatings that are required to control internal reflections will have a great effect on the efficiency with which different colors of light are reflected and transmitted. There are also various types of chromatic aberration, caused by the fact that different wavelengths are refracted differently as they pass through the lens elements themselves.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that color renditions of different lenses can be very obviously different. I found the 1.8G significantly better than the f/2D between these two - more vibrant, contrastier, colorful - though it is also a matter of personal taste.</p>

<p>To cover that entire range with one zoom requires compromises. My 70-300 VR wasn't very good and was quite bad over 180mm, though some people are very happy with them. It does have quick focus, though. The 80-400 has slow focus and opinions on quality at the long end are mixed, though I've seen some stunning photos from them. With the 80-400 you are getting into quite a large, heavy lens.</p>

<p>The cheap 55-200mm VR lens is quite good, and light. Combine that with a 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x converter and you have a very flexible setup at reasonable cost. One of the older 80-200mm f/2.8 lenses, either one-ring or two-ring, will give excellent quality and mid cost level ($350 - $650, say), and can also be used with a converter, but you are again into a large heavy lens and you give up VR.</p>

<p>What are you looking to shoot in the beyond-300mm range? Sports? Wildlife? The answers will tend to suggest the direction you should look.</p>

<p>Lots of very nice shots this week and some that are quite stunning.</p>

<p>My personal favorite this week is a quick grab shot across Colorado Springs from the Garden of the Gods. The western arm of the city is hidden in the depression between the high spot from where this was taken and the foothills in the background. The weather was moody, not common in this part of the world and it makes the shot evocative for me in a strictly personal way. </p>

<p>Equipment: D90, 16-85 VR @ 22mm, 1/100 @ f/8.</p><div></div>

<p>I've said this enough times here that I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but I sold my 35/2D right after receiving the 35/1.8G. They were actually pretty similar for sharpness, except that at wide apertures the f/2 lens dropped off pretty quickly towards the corners, even on DX. The f/1.8 was definitely better, but in the center and at smaller apertures the differences amount to hair-splitting.</p>

<p>However, I was never completely happy with my f/2D. I loved the way it felt and worked, and the sharpness was perfectly acceptable, even better really, but pictures I took with it never had quite the snap I expected. When I finally compared it against my 16-85mm in a direct test, it was obvious that the color rendition of the 35/2 was substantially less contrasty. This was a disappointment but it did explain the impression I'd gotten. </p>

<p>After receiving the 1.8G I did some quick testing with it and confirmed that it looked just like the 16-85 and better (to me) than the 35/2, and I put the latter up for sale.</p>

<p>Sample variation? Possibly, but I doubt it. Two reasons. One, it was every bit as good in sharpness as it is supposed to be, and I doubt that contrast would suffer while sharpness did not. And two, I've had similar experiences with some other older lenses - 85mm f/1.8, 35-70mm f/2.8 for example. I really think - broken record again - that it has something to do with the improved coatings and possibly improved engineering of the newer lenses, despite the apparent and commonly maligned lower build quality of a lot of the newer stuff.</p>

<p>By the way, some of the older lenses don't suffer this issue, for example my 80-200 f/2.8 (two-ring), which is excellent.</p>

<p>There is nothing more important to lens performance, to me, than the ability to produce a snappy, colorful, high-contrast image. When just a <em>tiny bit </em> of that is skimmed away, a big part of the magic disappears, at least in most normal scenes. It can be such a small bit that you don't really even notice it, by itself, until you look carefully or compare directly to another lens, but the photograph's impact just subtly disappears. My humble opinion only, of course, and only regarding the types of images in which color and contrast are important, which for me is most but not all of them.</p>

<p>Glen, what raw program was adding the noise? Would like to know so I can avoid or work around.</p>

<p>As for the original question, I agree the new monitor is simply showing what was already there but not visible before. The difference between my old half-dead CRT and new 24" LED LCD is astonishing.</p>

<p>I can tell you that for me the lens issue is the most significant. When I started with digital not long ago I bought a D40, which shares the D5000's inability to use old screw-drive lenses. In doing so I made a mistake in not realizing the degree to which this would be a disadvantage. Within a month I sold the '40 and bought a D90. I have saved the difference in their prices several times over already by having the ability to use older lenses, such as my 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom, the AF-S equivalent of which costs $1k more than I paid for that lens.</p>

<p>Many lenses are not even available yet in AF-S form and some will never be. There is no f/2.8 wide zoom to match my Tokina 11-16mm, for one example.</p>

<p>The difference in price between the D40 and D90 is much more than between the D5000 and the D90, by the way.</p>

<p>If your needs are modest and you will never go beyond the casual-shooter stage you will probably be okay with the D5000 and a couple of "consumer" level AF-S lenses. If anything more, the D90 will add flexibility well beyond the price difference.</p>

<p>Oskar, as one of the people theorizing that the new coating technologies represent an improvement, please don't take it to mean that I always equate newer technology to better. My opinion here is generated empirically: I have found better results with new lenses when it comes to color saturation/contrast, in certain cases. The introduction of newer coatings, and perhaps more advanced engineering technology, are my hypothesized explanations for that. After all, Nikon does state that these are improved technologies as well.</p>

<p>On the other hand some people <em>prefer</em> the different color renditions of older, or specific, lenses. I am certainly not going to tell them that they are mistaken!</p>

<p>Edward, good answer but did you miss that part about the "plainest English possible?"</p>

<p>I think when you throw blackbody radiation and quantum mechanics into the answer to this question you are pretty much giving up on plain English.</p>

<p>Don't worry, I'm just kidding you. I do believe that the correct answers are there in your reply and I will see if I can pry them out.</p>

<p>The important thing to know about the difference between the RGB histogram and the luminance histogram is that luminance takes into account the fact that our eyes are more sensitive to green light than red or blue light. By summing all pixels, including two greens for every red or blue, the luminance histogram displays a good approximation of what our eyes will see in terms of the overall brightness or darkness of the image.</p>

<p>The RGB histograms show each channel separately, which is technically useful to prevent clipping, which is the word for electronic overexposure. This is important because the red or blue channels could easily clip without it being quite apparent otherwise in the image. White balance changes the effective sensitivities of the red and blue channels, shifting them in opposite directions, while the green channel remains unaffected. In fact, if you shoot at a neutral object it should have equal red, blue and green histograms that are identical to one another, and the way custom white balance settings work is simple: the camera adjusts channel sensitivities to make them all the same.</p>

<p>On the other hand green/magenta adjustments move the green channel in one direction and the red/blue (which equals magenta) channels opposite.</p>

<p>"Normalizing" is for practical purposes the same thing as averaging. (The only difference would be the units shown along the x-axis. It is identical to averaging when units aren't shown, as in Nikon's histograms.)</p>

<p>I see primes as special-purpose lenses. I like to use them from time to time, to focus my concentration at a certain focal length or to be able to get narrow depths of field, etc.</p>

<p>However, I wouldn't want to give up the flexibility of a zoom lens for normal use.</p>

<p>If you are constantly bumping up against either end of your 17-55 zoom, perhaps a wider-range consumer zoom, for when you don't need wide apertures, and a couple of primes for when you do, would be a more versatile combination. With my 16-85 VR I only have to switch lenses when light is low AND I'm photographing moving objects - for still subjects, the VR will beat a fast lens any time, and that is without the great sacrifice of depth of field that f/1.4 - f/2.8 lenses require.</p>

<p>I definitely see what the poster is referring to in the full size photo. If I'm not mistaken "banding" is usually vertical or horizontal - in this case the "bands" are circular and concentric with one another, so I don't think it's what would normally be called banding. The "bands" seem to have the brightest spot in the photo - the two persons' heads - as their radius, but are only visible in the very dark upper area. I wonder, at this very high sensitivity level, if this could be some sort of lens-related effect. </p>

<p>The overall magnitude of the noise seems appropriate to the ISO however.</p>

<p>I have noticed used prices of the 85mm f/1.4 have popped up, as well. I had a chance to buy one a while back at $700 and should have snapped it up, but the timing wasn't good. Now they're right around $1k.</p>

<p>My understanding was that the oil issue with the 35/2 was fixed somewhere around 2001. Mine was certainly perfect and several years old.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Paul and others, how do you find NX2 for things like batch edits, for example instances where you want to select a handful of photos, or dozens, and have it make the identical white balance adjustment, contrast adjustment, and exposure adjustment to each?</p>

<p>I've heard it is very poor or even un-useable for this type of work, but maybe those are exaggerated accounts.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Excellent points.</p>

<p>Personally, I found the ability to shoot at 100-300mm effective focal lengths without worrying about shutter speeds to be a revelation. Huge increase in flexibility of f/stop and lighting conditions for any except fast-moving subjects. Whether one uses and appreciates this increased flexibility is of course a different question.</p>

<p>I greatly appreciate VR even for wide/normal lenses. The attached photo was taken handheld at 1/4 sec, f/3.5 and 3200 ISO with my 16-85mm VR set at 16mm. One of dozens that came out well at speeds of 1/8 - 1' at varying focal lengths.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks everybody for the excellent and detailed answers. I've read them all carefully and will go over them again.</p>

<p>I was hoping that there would be a clearly superior solution for my needs that would be flexible and simple and involve a small number of steps, but it looks like such a thing just doesn't exist, something most of you seem to have already realized. I think the next step is to download trial versions of some of these apps and try them out myself. The Nik products and the Adobe products all seem to have significant and distinct benefits, and I'm afraid I'll find I need every one of them to be able to do everything I want to do. LR2 seems to be the most flexible overall with the best speed and batch editing, and I think I will probably start with it.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>That looks like very normal depth of field to me. Parts of the left flower look to be in focus, but depth is not enough to get both flowers completely sharp, or even close. Out of curiosity, what aperture was this shot at?</p>

<p>I think you will need to try much larger apertures, if possible, or arrange your subjects so that they lie nearer a single plane.</p>

<p>Sounds like a problem with the lens. Does it do anything funny in MF mode? Bind or hang up? </p>

<p>Might try cleaning the electrical contacts between the body and lens. Sometimes funky behavior such as this can be traced to bad connections here.</p>

<p>I've had three of these, two VR, one not. All focused perfectly.</p>

<p>Diffraction is entirely a lens characteristic. The sensor comes into the equation only because DX sensors have smaller pixels, meaning that a given level of diffraction will make more difference on a smaller sensor - or to be more accurate, at higher pixel densities - exactly as Joe most excellently explained.</p>

<p>The 16-85 is a very good lens and I love it, but the 18-70 is also quite good and quite a bit cheaper. Also, have you considered the 18-105mm VR lens?</p>

<p>I wouldn't pick between these lenses based on speed, as they are all slow if you need to shoot moving subjects in low light. However, I find the VR extremely useful at any focal length - when the light is dimming and you want to continue to shoot handheld - even at night - VR is absolutely indispensable. One or two fast primes, which you will probably want anyway, will be faster than any f/2.8 lens and will complement any of the standard zooms perfectly. The 35mm f/1.8 is an excellent start.</p>

<p>I do prefer the 16-85 because of its wider wide end and because its optics do improve slightly on the 18-70/18-105, overall, according to tests. I'm very happy with it but would be satisfied with the others as well, I suspect.</p>