brian_yeung

<p>Looks like ghosting, do you have a filter on your lens?</p>

<p>D300s for sure, the build quality already supercedes the D90 by a lot, and dual memory cards are a plus.</p>

<p>There's no pics?</p>

<p>Nikon rep at a local store told me the d300 (or any other sealed body) plus the sealed lenses like 70-200 etc can hold up to normal rain for about 30mins, but absolutely cannot cope with high humidity/changes.</p>

<p>I noticed when the hood is attached, it's kind of rattles, so a bit loose I guess? Is all 70-200 like this? My 17-55 holds tighter.</p>

<p><br /> <br /> I want to know if there is a way to delete both pictures at the same time when you delete if you have a d3/d300s with either backup or the raw+jpeg on different cards.<br /> <br /> It's so annoying trying to find the exact picture you want deleted on both cards!</p>

<p>Well been not using video at all but preview is on.. i'm using same lens as you 17-55 but no grip. This was in a course of a week though, on and off shooting. Using AF-C and AF-S mode. Maybe it's because the battery gets drained when I'm using the LCD or just idling around. I know my d90 did lose battery once I left it in there for a week.. but if I had a day out shooting 400-600 pictures only drained like half or a bit more... I haven't got time to continuous shoot for a day but hopefully this weekend I can test that.</p>

<p>I don't know if shooting in RAW+JPEG will reduce capacity but compared to D90 I had, the battery capacity now on D300s is very low. Just around maybe 400 shots? Is all d300, d300s owners like this?</p>

<p>I did only shoot jpeg on the d90 though.</p>

<p>Yeah John gets what I mean. If I have my 17-55 with hood or 70-200, not going to carry it so it sticks out and I'm walking around hitting people or doors or something.</p>

<p>I guess the black rapid-R strap is the one I need if I want to carry and sling it back and forth.</p>

<p>Ok, I've learned that to carry your camera, you're suppose carry over a should around your chest, and basically flipping the cam backwards so the lens/body will face toward your hips, that way it won't stick out and hit random stuff like brick walls.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> So say you have your cam in this position, how can you shoot? Because if you bring the camera up, you have to twist it back the proper way and it's all tangled up and makes the strap short... So for me, I have to take it off and put it on right then take pics. Is this what everyone does?</p>

<p>I'm not sure if it was there when I bought it, I never looked that closely. As for counting to 100, not sure either, there are small specs and big ones. It just seems my 17-55 that is 5 years old has less than this 50mm that's 2 months old....</p>

<p>I just noticed my 50mm 1.8 which I didn't use much and bought 2 months ago, has quite a bit of dust inside all elements of lens. Behind the front, middle, even at the rear element. </p>

<p>What gives? Should I get this replace via "nikon warranty" or what should I do or is it normal?</p>

<p>I thought Prime lenses sealed pretty well so there's no movement compared to zooms...</p>

<p>Makes good sense.. I guess you are spot on, I did read Rockwell's site and he loves wide and landscape more than anything. I don't know if he likes portraits as much. <br>

Well I do probably shoot mostly in lower light, not outside in daytime. So 2.8 is a must, my 3.5-5.6 18-105 can't deal well indoors especially like restaurants where lighting is very dim. Sure outside in daytime the 3.5-5.6 down to f8 should be sharp as the 17-55.</p>

<p>Yes I can get the used ones but I rather new for lense, as they can be better investment than bodies. Yes my body is weather sealed, d300s should be quite good. So if I do get the tamron then I think I might not be able to seal the body good enough at the mount and if it rains a bit. Also again I do not like how these zooms extend out and then sucks in more dirt and it's also not as strong.</p>

<p>I guess I might have to get the Nikkor. In that case I guess I won't be getting the 11-16, over my budget that I want to spend. Unless someone thinks it's better to get the tamron/sigma ones?</p>

<p>Hmm intersting. Then it maybe wise to invest in the Nikkor 17-55. I'm not saying Tamron/SIgma isn't good but it's a great price for those, but build quality suffers and I don't like the extension of the lens that allow sucking in more dust and stuff.</p>

<p>Probably also can't use those in rainy/dusty desert conditions as well? Too bad the 17-55 can't be had for $900</p>

<p>Ok I've again been reading on certain things people say and my own experiences..<br>

First I think it was Thom Hogan who said in an email to me and also wrote in his reviews on certain normal zooms (17-xx) etc, and he said that most pro's (I dont know what he meants really, like magazine shooters, wedding?) use only tele+wide zooms and foregoing the normal range because they like to focus on things like depth perspective, exaggerating near and far. <br>

So that made me think, hmm, so is it waste of money to spend $1400 CDN on that 17-55, if it's not as "used" so get a third party for 1/3 of the price. But then people say here, it's very unusable if I just have my tele + a UWA 10-xx, 11-xx, 12-xx lens.<br>

So it is confusing at the least! I never shot with an UWA yet, widest I have is 18mm on DX with a 3.5/f, I don't worry about tele end, I know I can have uses for those, but what about the mid part of the normal zooms? Ok just say I do use the lower end like 17-20 for my "wide" shots, but would I just not get much use from 21-40mm and start using from 50-200?<br>

I don't know, but I know when I use my 50 1.8, it does feel a bit long, indoors I have to stand further to do anything in close spaces unless I want head shots. But also feel I'm missing the longer range of 100-200 for shots I don't want to stand too close.</p>

 

<p>So I'm hearing that regardless which choice I choose, I would be using the 17-xx more than a 12-xx,11-xx.<br>

It is probably true, I just thought it would be neat to have those very near/middle/far shots with a 11or 12mm focal length I see in pictures, perhaps I can do something similar with the 17-xx or hold off for those until later if the 17-xx can't make those shots.<br>

Yeah the Nikon seems pretty expensive compared to the other options but I like strong build quality, as some said the tamaron isn't build as weather strong but cheaper. I don't think I'll get the 16-85, as for the non 2.8, I like taking indoor lower lighting shots. Right now my normal zoom is 18-105, as good it is in good light, low light it's not great as it's 3.5-5.6. <br>

I do use my SB-600 as much I can though but I find that I'm doing the dragging the shutter technique to bring in the ambient background into the shot, so I would still need the bigger aperture lense.<br>

Maybe get a used 2.8, either Nikon or Tamron, Sigma, for now until later to upgrade to a newer one. I rather have brand new lense if I can.</p>

<p>It seems good enough to be honest with the orignal 70-200... some people like to create the light fallout in the corners as an asthetic look. But what of the other gains on the newer lens. Is nano-coating really an advantage, no one addressed the flare from the current 70-200. They claim the AF is faster, but of course we don't know, but is the current af that bad?</p>

<p>And lastly the VR2, with 4 stops vs 3 stops with the current one. How useful really is that?</p>

<p>Sorry I didn't extrapolate my question.</p>

<p>Well I like to shoot a myraid of things, but I like a lot of portraits/candids which is why I am getting the tele zoom, more isolation and ability to shoot further away to catch the candid shots without intrusion. I also like landscape shots such as shooting waterfalls, so that is why I asked if the UWA is more worth than a normal 17-55. I also have a 50mm 1.8 prime though but of course its the inconvinence of swapping lens and the fixed prime length of the 50.</p>

<p>Like for example, if I went to a vacation destination and brought my 70-200 and say UWA vs the 17-55 lens, would I miss out on more things to shoot than having that normal zoom?</p>

<p>I guess I'm asking if could only purchase 2 out of 3, being wide, normal and tele zooms, which is more useful or important.</p>

<p>I will get the tele zoom for sure but should I spend the rest on a normal (17-55) or a wide (11-16). I'm using Nikon D300s</p>

<p>Well I have a d300 and will use that for a while, at least couple years before I get full frame or whatever comes Nikon's way in 2 years. So the corner issue won't matter but I would keeping this lens for long time so I hope the old one won't affect any issues for future full frame bodies.</p>

<p>The prices I got are from my local Henry's... I put a refundable deposit on the new lens which was MSRP $2679.00 CDN, could change at delivery but more or less it's this price. With our super happy tax Canadians get, it's about $3k even, which means the older version with tax is about $2200, so 800 give or take 50.</p>

<p>Just like title says, is the newer upcoming model worth the extra $700-$800(canadian) or just buy the older model? Sure there are the advantages of the newer one but I'm not shooting professional but would like this lens. What would most do? Get the new one or not?</p>