flemming_nielsen

<p>And you'll probably also be getting a sturdier lens, I might add, before the devoted Tamron-owners do.</p>

<p>Good luck with Tamron's 17-50/2.8, Brooke.<br>

But bear in mind that at the wide end, your kit-Nikkor 18-55 is 3.5, so at that end, you are only gaining 2/3 of a stop for your investment.</p>

<p>To me the 35/1.8 is a wonderful people lens - including very new people.<br>

I use it in combination with the 50/1.8, and for me that combo makes a lot of sense and works beautiful in low light. Even if the 50 mm is a slightly short compromise for DX, it doesn't compromise your wallet.<br>

Getting everyone in the picture is another story all together. My "people kit" includes the Tokina 12-24/4 - and that supplements the 35 and 50 perfectly. A bit more of an investment than the 35/1.8, I am afraid.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Nikon's 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 have been my favorites with small children. A fast lens with a shallow depth of view can make for beautiful shots of the youngest members of the family. Just be sure where your shallow focus is at. The closest eye is a safe bet ;-)</p>

<p>The 35 and 50 are both quite reasonably priced. Good luck with the little one - and get lots of shots. They grow so fast...</p>

<p>If it's all about a better camera with low noise at 6400 iso and faster autofocus, then why is the portrait of Grant so striking?</p>

<p>Captured with a camera that was painstakingly slow to focus and with a iso-sensibility of the film used somewhere in the single digits? And it ain't even in color ;-)</p>

<p>Get close to your subject, look for beautiful light and work within the limitations of your camera. I think that's how Grant liked it...</p>

<p>@Andrew: Maybe I didn't make my point clearly.</p>

<p>For Nikon to tidy the shopshelves and make a version of the 50/1.8 that's attractive to buy for the majority of Nikon dslr-owners (who own D5100 and "below") makes perfect business sense. In fact it'll be a no-brainer in terms of what extra lens to buy for most newcomers.</p>

<p>Those of us who own the 50/1.8D and a D7000 or "above", need a little persuasion to trigger a new purchase. I might have taken a closer look, and it certainly would have spurned a case of NAS, if it were closer til my beloved 85mm of the film days.</p>

<p>FWIW my standard kit has become 12-24/4, 35/1.8 and 50/1.8, so I am not saying a 50mm is useless by any stretch of the imagination. Now let's see how sharp it is - if it materializes outside cyberspace.</p>

<p>I am with Peter Hamm on this one. It looks like a good and logical update, if the pricetag settles at no more than the 35/1.8.</p>

<p>But I am sure that many potential buyers are dx users, so why isn’t it a 60/1.8 or even a 55/1.8? Making it a 90 or 85 mm-equivalent rather than the 75 mm-compromise would give me a compelling reason to ditch the 50/1.8D, that so many of us already have…</p>

<p>55 mm could have been a compromise that the FX community could find useful too, I think.</p>

<p>Hi Lori.<br /> I absolutely admire your focus on capturing images, rather than getting lost in the tech stuff.<br>

<br /> I've seen some rather sweeping statements about your abilities as a photographer based on that. I assume they must come from people, who have had a chance to see your pictures. I am not that fortunate, but if people feel confident offering to pay you, I think that says someting for your eye as a photographer.<br>

<br /> I have just upgraded from a Nikon D40 - after just 40.000 exposures, mind you - to a D7000. I think that camera with its high iso performance and responsive autofocus will make you happy as well.<br>

<br /> How do you like your Sigma 50 mm? For the candid shots you like, the Nikkor 50/1.4 might be worth considering. And the 35/1.8 is a no-brainer for that kind of shooting. I love mine!<br>

<br /> And by all means - expand your territory beyond the Auto-setting - if it doesn't distract you from the important stuff :-)</p>

<p>@ Oskar:</p>

<p>I am sure that my primes will get even more use in a months time. Interesting if the 24/2.8 D can deliver with resolution of the D7000...</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses.<br />I do realize that 18-105 is an AF-S lens. What I meant to imply is that it doesn't give me the ability to manually override the autofocus in an instant.<br />And I have had much fun using my cheapo 55-200 VR with a plastic mount - which by the way did pass the drop-test when I lost my bag onto the tarmac of an airfield in Greenland! - but I still think the metal mount counts on the plus side for the 18-70.<br />I also agree that it's hard to beat the 18-55. In terms of value for money it will laugh in the face of any lens investment I'll ever make. Incredibly sharp for the little money it costs. But focus is slow and manual focus almost impossible.<br>

<br />But I will follow Shun's - and other kind contributors' - advice and test my 18-70 with my new camera upon its arrival. But the 18-105 comes cheaper in a kit, so I sought your advice here at decision time for that.<br />Good to be reassured in my plans by competent folks with hands-on experience in this troll-free forum. Keep up the good work, moderators!</p>

<p>I am anxiously awaiting my copy of the Nikon D7000. And I would like your opinions, fellow photo.netters, on lens choice.<br>

I have been using the Nikkor 18-70 for my midrange zoom - supplied with 24/2.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and 55-200 VR. And I can't decide if the 18-105 VR will be a real update?!<br>

VR will obviously be an improvement, but no AF-S, 5.6 at the long end and plastic mount? Plus a zoom range I can't really see the point in. 165 mm was never a classic in the film days, eh?<br>

The 16-85 solves some of those problems, but still - 5.6 at the long end, and 85 mm is not a top of the zoom range, that makes much sense to me for the DX format either. And the price is high.<br>

I plan to buy the Nikkor 10-24 sometime in the future so I will get the wide angle coverage, I need that way round.<br>

My 18-70 serves me well in many ways, but it's got a lot of distortion, and my sample seems to flare in certain situations. But it's fast and responsive and sharp when the flare doesn't foul it up.<br>

I am sure many of you have taken the journey from a D70 kit to a D90 kit, so I would like some advice from people who have tried both the 18-70 and 18-105 in practical use.<br>

Should I stick with my 18-70 for the D7000? Or is the 18-105 worth the while?</p>

 

<p>@Brad.<br /> I would also like to see someone sketch a revolutionary new camera from scratch.<br /> In this case of refined simplicity and retro design, we could have something else - if Fuji delivers:<br /> Having tried the original Konica Hexar-experience, I've learned to appreciate the capability of being the goofy-guy-who-seems-to-be-fooling-around-with-granddads-camera. No one notices you - or at least your taking pictures - until you return with razorsharp images of candid moments.<br /> It's that kind of stealth capability, that I suspect is more difficult to achieve using a Nikon D3 and Nikkor 24-70...</p>

<p>I beg to differ. The fixed lens is the key to why this camera could be a niche-classic. <br>

I wholeheartedly agree that we can only wonder why no other company could figure out what Fuji seems to have done now. A high quality compact second camera for the pro or serious amateur needs to be just that - compact! As well as solid.<br>

If the lens is as good as it should be, and the sensor delivers in low light, the world looks lighter. In many respects.<br>

My Konica Hexar, which I downsized and upgraded to in the late film days, seems to have resurrected for the digital era.<br>

But I hope that a price of 1700 $ is mere speculation?! At a 1000 or even 1200 it could be a run away hit.</p>

<p>Point taken, Lex.<br>

As a back up for D700, no doubt D300 comes closer in handling. Some of us digressors just wouldn't want to carry it out in the wilderness as extra weight.<br>

Fact remains: There are people such as myself that might be willing to spend the extra bucks on a D300(s) and definitely would like to have the best possible AF and the possibility of using legacy MF lenses - but won't buy it, since its weight and size will get in the way of getting the photographs, we want. And I shall stop my digressing now...</p>

<p>Mary, let's agree that Nikon D90 is an excellent camera - and definitely my choice for what I like to shoot.<br>

But state-of-the-art has been pushed to somewhere, we didn't think possible in the film days in models like D300 and probably not least the D3-models. Don't take my word - Thom Hogan thinks so too: "Digital has spoiled us on a whole bunch of fronts. Today's top of the line DSLRs are Ferraris compared to my old F3HP and Tri-X film"<br>

I love what the D90 can do and its size - and in future models I would like to see Nikon "downsizing". Putting todays state-of-the-art capabilities in a mid-sized body. Big isn't more pro-like in my eyes.<br>

Great shots, Scott! Certainly showing what your fast AF makes possible - if somebody with an eye sees the moments.<br /></p>

<p>My primary reason for not upgrading to the lovely features of the D300 is weight and size. Could I have the AF capabilities, metering with MF lenses and weather sealing in a small package, please?! For now D90 will do just fine, though.</p>

<p>Congratulations on your purchase, Gabi.<br>

I'd say that Nikkor 50/1.8 is a no-brainer for low light portraits. Tack sharp and cheap! Buy and experiment - and sell it again - probably losing very little - if your needs turn out to justify the way more pricey 85mm.<br>

I love my 50 - and I don't want to distance myself more from the person, I portray. Different folks, different shooting styles. Question is: What's yours? And if you don't quite know yet - start out cheap to find out.<br>

I sure like the idea of a metal bayonet on my midrange zoom - but again consider your needs. Are you going to be that hard on your equipment?16-85 is close to three times the price of 18-105.<br>

I am considering wide angle options myself just now: Difficult choice between Nikkor 10-24 and Tokina 11-16, I think. Tokina offering better aperture and probably even sharper. But 10-24 makes for a more useful reportage range in my opinion - not "just" a specialty lens. And the colors, it renders, are more likely to look like your other (Nikon) lenses.<br>

Have fun deciding! And shooting...</p>

 

<p>@Leif Goodwin: I agree with you completely. There's always an angle... Wide angle in this case :-)</p>

<p>I've seen a lot of disappointed comments about the price of the announced 24/1.4.<br>

Maybe we have been spoilt by just how good Nikon's cheap stuff has become.<br>

But surely a heavy duty full frame wide angle with that sort of aperture belongs in the category of exotics! It's aimed at pros that know exactly, if it will be worth the investment for just their kind of work.<br>

The comfort for the rest of us being that Nikon is practically giving away 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 so that no one is left out of the available light game. Let's just hope that there is a 24/2 (perhaps DX to keep the price down and create a cash cow for Nikon) in the pipeline somewhere for those of us who don´t see our return on investment in cash...</p>

<p> </p>