anuragagnihotri

<p>Thanks Wouter and Dan. <br>

Hey Shun, thanks. I really hope i will get some great images with this :)</p>

<p>Forgot to add: It is an 'E' version. </p>

<p>Guys, <br>

After numerous threads on 'ifs' and 'buts', i have finally bought it. <br>

It is "imported on December'12", so the label says on the box. Guess that's safe in terms of getting a lemon (left focus). I am in no mood to check for those things though...:)<br>

I have sold my D7K to fund this purchase. <br>

I have exchanged my DX 35 1.8 with a 50 1.8 G.<br>

Just thought should tell you all, who have spent some quality time answering my queries. <br>

regards,<br>

anurag</p>

<p>At 100%, D800 has lots of noise. <br>

Down-sampled, it doesn't. <br>

It's how you look at it. </p>

<p>I own a D7000 and a OM-D both. <br>

i get better pictures from OM-D. Not saying its a better camera, but i get more keepers from it. I use 14 and 45 primes on it. </p>

<p>Hi, <br>

As stated in another thread, i will be purchasing a cheap AIS 180 2.8...shooting with this lens, more than anything else, should tell me if i need 70-200 F4, or a new AF version of 180 2.8 itself. Hope they bring out 135 F2 in the next 6 months...i will feel very bad if i buy a new 180 and next day they announce a 135...</p>

<p>To further inform you about the current status: <br>

35 sigma <br>

70-200 F4 or 180 2.8<br>

85 1.8 G<br>

These are the lenses i have decided upon :)</p>

 

<p>Andrew, yes they are no longer there, had to throw them away. <br>

I don't mind much, because my interest in photography developed with the digital age...i had a film camera like everyone else and used to take some pictures sometimes...<br>

Some of them were nice, and those are the ones i really miss. <br>

By far, the biggest accident i had was losing some nice images due to foolishly rewriting large files with smaller ones...i lost this picture in the process: (Now i only have a much smaller size than the original RAW, and that too, JPEG...<br>

Keep wondering how can i salvage this image...<br>

<img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3625/3469139302_57ca0b1a98_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Am going to check the lens personally...lets see</p>

<p>thanks peoples :)</p>

<p>Michael, this one is on rear element...</p>

<p>Yes its a scratch...the seller says so</p>

<p>Hi, <br>

I can buy this 180 2.8 AIS...but it has a scratch in the rear element. <br>

Price is about 100 pounds. <br>

??<br>

anurag</p>

<p><img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NxutiDRl2AE/UNMsoSHfyFI/AAAAAAAADng/7VG44-sbMyg/s1600/b083+7470+nikon+180mm+003.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g8O6NtYylbo/UNMspv78MzI/AAAAAAAADno/MTihUOgOnyk/s1600/b083+7470+nikon+180mm+004.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Hi, <br>

All my old film negatives have been ruined. But i do have 6mp equivalent scanned files, which are not really suitable for large printing. <br>

If i shoot optimum prints made from these files with a high resolution camera like D800, will i be able to print them bigger? Should it be better than up-sampling the files in photoshop and then printing them big?<br>

Any experience on this? <br>

Thanks and regards,<br>

anurag</p>

<p>Rodeo, basically you are saying that 180 will blur the backgrounds more...much more.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Another issue is that a DoF calculator only shows the limits where definition becomes noticeably blurred, it doesn't show how blurred an object 15ft behind the subject will be. So although the DoF calculator shows a minimal difference the actual amount of blurring 15ft behind the subject may be much more obvious.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Rodeo, exactly what i was thinking...the DOF master doesn't tell if the trees 10 feet behind the subject will be equally blurred or not. It tells that yes, they will not be in focus. </p>

<p>I read somewhere that 180 retains its focal length at close quarters and there is no breathing issue here. Its MFD is not very handsome though, 5 feet is lots.</p>

<p>DOF master tells me that the difference between these 2 lenses is minimal at the most when it comes to DOF (surprise)<br>

Example, at 10 feet, the DOF difference is just .02 feet when you shoot at 180/2.8 or 200/4...<br>

Assuming the DOF is almost the same, will the creamy-ness of the background will also be similar? Suppose there are trees 15 feet behind the subject...which one will render them creamier? </p>

 

<p>Lorne, <br>

I looked at DOF master. It was surprising to learn that there is hardly any DOF difference between a fast and a slower lens...in fact, the opposite because the slower zoom has a lesser MFD. </p>

 

<p>Sorry i will re-phrase my question a bit. I realize that you don't shoot a head and shoulder portrait from MFD, that is 3 feet and 5 feet. So how far one typically stands with 200+- focal length for head/shoulder and full body portrait?</p>

<p>Hi guys,<br>

Here's a question, hope someone who has knowledge of this will help:<br>

The question is about DOF comparison of the two lenses: the new nikon 70-200 F4 and the old 180 AF ED.<br>

One would think that the 180 will have a shallower DOF because its faster, but a stop slower 70-200 has a better minimum focussing distance...<br>

New Nikon 70-200 F4 has a MFD of 3.2 ft...<br>

The nikkor 180 F2.8 has a MFD of 5 ft...<br>

Which one will have smoother/less DOF at the long end (200mm), at their respective MFDs, lets say, while shooting a portrait (head/head and shoulder)?<br>

What if we are shooting not at MFD but a full length plus some background kind of portrait?<br>

All wide open. <br>

regards,<br>

anurag</p>

<p>Hi, <br>

I think i will go with 35/85/180 plan...<br>

85 will most likely be Nikkor G.<br>

regards,</p>

<p>Hi<br /> Thanks for your suggestions. Which make me even more confused...<br /> Looks like i will never be able to make up my mind on 70-200 vs 180...<br /> rest i can handle: i will definitely buy 35 and a 85 to begin with and postpone the purchase of wide zoom till i start feeling the need for it in real photographic terms...<br /> But the tele zoom vs prime (180) has me going nuts...<br>

My heart says buy the 180 2.8...pictures will look like these...http://www.flickr.com/photos/agnihot/sets/72157631810676336/detail/<br>

My mind says, 180 is no 135L...is old...buy the 70-200 F4<br>

regards,</p>

<p>Hi, <br>

I have a D7000 now, with a 35mm lens on it. I have used it, but not much in the last 4-6 months that i have it. I had bought it as a stop gap arrangement because then i didn't have money to buy D800. <br>

Well, now the D800 is going to come...and i just want to share the list of lenses i should purchase...open to modifications by all you knowledgable photographers here: <br>

Expensive option:<br>

16-35 F4 (landscapes/candids)<br>

Sigma 35 1.4 (candids)<br>

70-200 F4 (landscapes/general purpose)<br>

Sigma 85 1.4/Nikon 85 1.8G</p>

<p>Less expensive option:<br>

Tokina 11-16 F2.8 (to be used at 16 on FX and rest on DX)<br>

Sigma 35 1.4<br>

Nikon 180 2.8 + 55-300/70-300<br>

Nikon 85 1.8G</p>

<p>Notes: <br>

I really wanted to buy a tele prime so 180...will compliment it with a cheap tele zoom. Will 70-200/4 be better than this combo? Looks like 70-300 is very good till 200mm and i will also have the prime in the same money. <br>

Not sure about wide options: 16-35 will be very expensive and mixed reports about it. Tokina is a DX lens, but i can use it at 16 on FX and generally on DX. Or i can skip both and just do with Sigma 35 1.4 and wait for a 24 prime...<br>

What do you think?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is funny, but i was about to pull the trigger on 180/2.8.<br>

After a week or so, again drifting to that one, slowly but steadily. </p>