joseph_massimino

<p>Is it true that the difference between the Nikon 70-200 VR1, and the VR2 can only be detected on an FX, and not DX? They says that the VR1 suffers on the outer edges of the image and that it can only be detected in a full frame. So an FX owner will always want the VR2. The other common thing known about the 70-200 2.8 VR2 is that there is nothing better. The competition is cheaper, but not as good. <br>

Please excuse me if this comment does not add value to the thread. </p>

<p>Go to Ebay and you will find batteries and chargers that ship direct from Hong Kong and wil be of good quality. I use batteries from Hong Kong in my Nikon vertical grip, and a charger I bought from Seido that charges via 12vDC or 110-240 AC. It came with a two year warranty and thyee have great customer service.</p>

<p>I have a good selection of lens for my Nikon D90 and of them all, I would say that the 10-24mm Zoom is one of my favorites. I have the 10.5mm Fisheye and while it is a great lens and I do use it, I do not use it as often as any other. The other lens that I get a lot of use from is the 50mm F1.8, this is a good lens for low light, or natural light shots, and I can keep it on the camera 50% of the time. One other that I enjoy using is one of two that will do Macro shots. I have the Tokina 35mm Macro, and the Nikon 105mm macro, both are very good. Keep Tokina in your sites as they have very good quality lens and much lower priced than what you would think. They have a fisheye that you may like, but I don't recommend it unless you have money to burn, it will not be as useful as the 50mm F1.5, or the 10-24 Zoom. Judging by what you have , the 10-24mm fills a gap in your current lineup of lens. The other gap is in telephoto above 300mm. That is a gap I filled with the Sigma 120-400mm. It is a good trade off for the higher priced Nikon model. The great bang for the buck award would go to Tokina, and I would give second place to Sigma. Good luck in maki ng that choice. Joe</p>

<p>Speaking in general, there is a lot more to a lens than how sharp it is. Lots of lens are sharp, and that is all they are. Your question is to general. Don't you have a lens in mind, a zoom, or telephoto, or wide, or fisheye, or fixed fast lens. The lens is selected to suit the conditions of the shoot and the desired effect that the artist may have. At the very least you don't take a 400mm lens to shoot landscapes, nor a fisheye to shoot most sporting events. I think you could get a better response if you were to give some idea of what you plan to do with a lens, or what type of lens you are looking for. The majority of lens are at least sharp, but there is so much more to a lens. </p>

<p>I ordered this lens from Adorama via Ebay. I read a lot of reviews and this is what my conclusion was after doing so.<br>

In the user reviews, it got very high marks from most all who owned it. They all agreed that it is heavy. More than a few agree that it is soft at 400mm, and starts to soften after 300, with a gradual increase until you reach 400mm. Not all were bothered by that, and lots didn't mention it at all. Most all said they would buy it again and recommend it to a friend. More than a few said it was better than some other lens they had. Many thought that the trade off from the Nikon to the cost savings of the Sigma made the Sigma a bargain.<br>

The professional review criticized it in a royal way and said that the reviewer returned it after testing and writing the review. He brought to light the softness from 300 - 400mm, and complained about a lot of things that the casual user never mentioned. This guy’s review was so bad that I almost wanted to cancel the order. I came here and read the reviews from the users, and decided that I would make up my mind after I spend one entire weekend testing it. <br>

Joe</p>

<p>I found that the greatest impact on the use of a lens is in direct relation to its speed. The teleconverters add to the cost and reduce the benefit afforded by reducing the speed of the lens. You have a good range of lens, but none are very bright. If I were going to change anything about your lens setup, I would take the most used lens and get a much brighter version of it. The wireless triggers are best bought on ebay from some of our friends in Hong Kong. I boguht my Photo GPS (for Nikon D90) from Ebay and it cost me half of what Nikon wants, and worked every bit as good, and maybe better in some ways.<br>

The best feeling I got from buying any new lens, came from buying the very bright ones. I have the 50mm F1.8, which is a standard for many people, and might be the most bought lens on the market. I also found great joy in using the Tonina 35mm F2.8 Macro. Not only is it very inexpensive, but also very bright and useful for so much. I also love my Nikkor 10 - 24mm zoom, it is one I have used a lot when hiking in the Grand Canyon. You can see some of my photos on my facebook. Joseph Massimino I tried to mention what lens I used for many of the pictures. I suggest that you get one bright lens. It will cost a bunch more, but it will fill a gap you have now.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Terri, if you are happy with, and know how to make good use of the features of your camera, stick with it. I'm not sure what type of lens is available for your camera, but you could improve your action sports shots by getting a faster lens. I don't know how close you can get to the action, but if you need a zoom that is fast, you will cry when you see the price. For Nikon owners, almost all own the 50mm F1.8 for low light action pictures, among other things. As far as fast optics, it is very bright and a bargain for the $114 I paid for mine. Unfortunately, as the focal length goes up, the price goes up faster. You might do well if you keep watch on eBay for a reliable, fast zoom lens. I don’t know what you will find that is compatible with your camera, but be very careful about the type of mount you need so you get yourself a great lens that won’t fit your camera. The faster lens will allow you to get better actions shots, and let you work into dusk without the need of a flash.<br>

I’m sure that someone who is more familiar with your camera may make other suggestions.<br>

<br>

Joe</p>

 

<p>I think that anyone that has ever taken a great picture would not credit the camera. The camera is only a tool. The person who said "Upgrade the photographer, not the camera" Hit the nail right on the head. Nobody could look at any picture and tell you what kind of camera took it. They may get as close as to tell you the rough focul length of the lens, but not which lens, or the model, and in some cases not even that. There are so many variables in a DSL camera, you could take the same picture with a 100 different settings and get 100 variations in the same picture. How well you know your camera will make all the difference in how good your pictures will be.</p>

<p>The D5000 is not in the same class as the D90. They are not alike in many ways. I don't know anyone that would use ISO 6400 on any camera unless they had no other choice. The noise at ISO 6400 is huge. The D5000 goes for $560 to $670, and the D90 goes for $1000 to $1200 depending on the lens, and where you buy it. You can buy that D5000 in a Walmart, same for the D40, you can get that in a Sam's club. Not the D90.</p>

<p>I find Capture NX2 to be fast and easy to use. I take too long to do anything in Photoshop. The control mechanism used in NX2 is very good, and almost anyone can blows to doors off of many photoshop editing times. Go to the Nikon web site for Capture NX2 and watch the demo if you aren't believing me. The only thing photoshop is needed for is inserting objects into the picture that were not there when you took it. All other editing is fast and simple in capture NX2. The only thing holding it back is the Nikon is slow to release the 64bit version. Right now it runs on my 64 bit Vista machine, soon to be Windows 7, with no problem, but in 32 bit mode. It is stil lpretty fast because the machine is fast. It will be a lot faster once the 64 bit version hits the streets.</p>

<p>I have the AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED zoom, and I love it.</p>

<p>I have the Nikon 105MM Macro, with VR and AF-s. It is very nice and well worth the money. If it is out of your budget range, I have another I am fond of, it is the Tokina F2.8 35mm macro. That one goes for $349 almost anywhere. It is bright and will focus in really tight spaces. I think I got it to focus an inch or so from subject. It's light and you can carry it as your standard lens, it does a nice job on most things when you don't need a zoom.</p>

<p>I had the same problem with a Nikon and a Tokina 35mm F2.8 Macro lens. As it turned out, if the camera can't focus on a blank object, such as a wall, it will not snap a picture until it has soemthing it can focus on. The proof in this is that you can put the lens in man mode and shoot all the pictures you want, in or out of focus. You can also point the camerat soemthing it can focus on and once it reaches focus it will take the picture. I found this while talking with someone in my ofice while pointing at the wall and having the camera keep running up and down to focus, then stop and not take hte picture. She put her hand on the wall it bingo, the picture snapped, then removed it and no picture again.<br>

This brings me to my complaint about the future of phography. When life was simple and you could snap a picture no matter what the settings were, you took full responsibility for the quality of your work. Now, the basic DSLR camera will take great pictures for 90% of the time, and it will stop you from taking anything that it can't understand no matter what you want to do.</p>