tempest_connolli

<p>I meant for Nature, wildlife, zoos, birds, landscape, flowers, macro etc</p>

<p>Is this the forum for all of these topics?</p>

<p>I find the 24mm/2.8 AF-D to be amazingly sharp in the center on DX--better than the 17-35mm. Distortion control is good. On the other hand, even on film, the 24/2.8 was dark in the corners wide open (and probably not sharp) so I imagine that behaviour continues on FX. </p>

<p>Took a quick peek at 4/3 website. It seems they were big in telecentric design for their original 4/3, but the newer 4/3 specification cannot achieve nearly as much telecentricity because the lens is a lot closer to the sensor.</p>

<p>Shun, are any Nikon lenses (near) telecentric on FX?</p>

<p>Alvin, those eagles are nice. They seem to like that watering hole. What is that location?</p>

<p>I don't want to give up micro-contrast, fast focus and focus in low light. I guess what I really want is a pro-quality 100-400 F5.6 AFS along with a 105 prime.</p>

<p>I am thinking of downgrading from my AFS 70-200 2.8 VR (1st version) to something more affordable and lighter. Currently shooting DX, but who knows how quickly Nikon will introduce an FX camera that I would want, so I need to keep options open if possible.</p>

<p>The only Nikon brand alternative I found is the AFS 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR. Beyond the obvious 2-stop loss in light and more solid feel, I am wondering what I might be missing.</p>

<p>Focus speed is pretty important to me, btw. Recently, I did some hand-held bird photography, and found that focussing speed was very important. On the otherhand, f8 seemed adequate for background separation at 200mm.</p>

<p>Although I do lots other than wildlife photography, this is all that I've really used the 70-200 for.</p>

<p>Thank you for input, and I hope no one is offended by the comparison between these two lenses. If you have any alternatives, please do share.</p>

<p>Thanks Shun. That's definitely to the point. If you have any further thoughts, it would be much appreciated. Here is my reaction to the differences between the Nikon 10-24 and the Tokina 11-16.<br>

--I don't know what to think about f2.8 these days. With cameras becoming so much more sensitive, it is becoming less important especially in an ultrawide. However, it's not totally useless (and can be quite useful with video, since you can't stablize video in the same way (i.e. tripod) and you can't light video in the same way (i.e. flash). Also video shutter speeds aren't nearly as flexible). </p>

<p>--On the limited zoom range...I still have my 17-35 (not the wisest economic choice I ever made), so technically I am covered from 17 to 24mm (minus the convenience). </p>

<p>--I don't see myself, in the near future, buying a camera that requires AFS. </p>

<p>--The Nikon is 100g lighter (and would allow me to leave behind the 17-35 most of the time). Since I'm not getting younger, I appreciate every gram.</p>

<p>--The Nikon is [only?] $200 more. I don't know if this would be recovered on resale. The Tokina is reported to be more durable mechanically.</p>

<p>Can't answer your question, but I will say that unless the 16-35 turns out to optically out-perform the 17-35 by a good margin I fail to understand what kind of user it's aimed at. When you go from f2.8 to f4, you expect to really slim down both the size/weight as well as the cost, none of which seems to have occurred here. If I recall, the 18-35 was much cheaper than the 17-35, which made it a decent alternative.</p>

<p>Peter, Dave, Andrew thank you for the info. Leslie, I wish it were as simple as that. You actually have to find an interestion between what you need/can live with and what's available. And none of the current crop wide angle lenses stands out or has been thoroughly tested and compared by reliable sources. <br>

I'd love to see a big spreadsheet comparing basic specs, coupled with some testing of the ones with most potential. Rockwell's article on the subject seems to come closest to this, and seems to be less outlandish that some of his other writing. I think at the end of the day he's in favor of the Nikon 10-24 for smaller bodies and the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for larger bodies with internal focus motors. Seems plausibe enough, but I don't know for sure.</p>

<p>Ton, I sympathize with your desire to have a lens that you can use now on DX and on FX in the future. This is one of the reasons I have not invested in any DX lenses. However, 16mm is very wide on FX, and very demanding. Even the 17-35 suffers a tad at 17mm in the FX corners. So it may be ambitious to think that a DX 16mm will give very good results on FX. However, if you're on a desert island with only that lens and a D3X and Elvis appears on the beach, then by all means snap a picture! But joking aside, I wish you well in the search for a perfect DX wide-angle, and thank you for this post because I did not even know about this lens before (and now it's near the top of my list). If anyone can post a link to a reputable review it would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>While it is true that the LCD is not articulated, it is lightly bigger than the G-12's and has more than twice resolution (# of dots). So that is probably a wash, or depends on your preference.<br>

The big question for me is the picture quality. If it matches the Canon G12, then I would opt for the Nikon to get a bit more reach out of the lens. </p>

<p>I've put off the purchase of a wide angle lens for years now, thinking that I will eventually go back to FX (in fact, I have not really made any major lens purchases since moving to DX from film).<br>

But it's beginning to dawn on me that I may be shooting DX for a while longer. For a time, the 12-24 Nikon was a more or less the obvious choice, but now there are so many choices that it is truly bewildering.<br>

I've done some research, but have not found any complete review of the different choices, nor any authoritative guidance on any particular lenses. Someone likes this lens but hasn't tried any of the 5 new ones, someone else likes that lens etc.<br>

Part of the problem is I don't even know what I want out of this lens. (1) As wide as possible? (2) Most zoom range? (3) good, constant f-stop? (4) durability? (5) Size and wieght? (6) sharpness? (7) Does it need to be a Nikon? (8) AFS?<br>

It was so easy before...choose the 17-35 f2.8 or the 18-35 variable f-stop and you're done.<br>

So if anyone has seen (or would like to put together) a guide to all of the wide angle DX lenses available for Nikon, I think it would be an instant best seller.</p>

<p>Thank you for all of your reponses. Joseph, the technical information your provided is most helpful. I have one ring right now: something called E2 and it has a plunger. I also have a TC16. I realize the E2 is too short to do much, but I'm thinking of trying them to see what happens. I also do have a Tamron 90mm macro, but I want to get rid of it to raise money for other pursuits (and to reduce # of lenses as a matter of principle).</p>

<p>Scott, I thought focussing is possible with extension ring. You can't reach infinity though. The camera will be DX.</p>

<p>Thanks Kent, Craig and Matt for sharing. I realize that there are lots of different subjects out there. I just wanted to hear about what some of the experienced folks carry and their reasons. I tend to have too many lenses, and will at some point pare down. But for now it was just curiosity asking a question.</p>

<p>I was thinking of trying some macro photography, but did not want to buy a dedicated lens since I already have a decent 105mm lens. What is the best way to convert a 105 mm f2 (DC) to a macro lens?<br>

Would you use extension tube, a TC or one of those screw on close-up lenses, or some combination of the three?</p>

<p>Wilderness photographer Boyd Norton lists the following lenses in his camera bag:<br>

10-22mm; 28-135mm; 100mm macro; 100-400mm. <br>

(From the list, I assume he's shooting Canon with a crop factor.)<br>

That's a remarkably austere list for a professional. What's in your camera bag, and what would you choose if you were building from scratch?<br>

(List found at <a href="http://thewildernessphotography.blogspot.com/">http://thewildernessphotography.blogspot.com/</a>)</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

Does this mean that an otherwise fine lens on the D70 (6 Meg) could actually produce worse results on the D90 (12 Meg)? I don't dispute that a lens could prevent a a high resolution sensor from reaching its potential. There are also issues with the angle that light from a lens hits a sensor. But could a lens actually produce bad results merely because the sensor has a higher resolution? And if so how will we ever know until we buy what combinations of lens and sensor are good?</p>

<p>Where are you looking for your information? The D7000 has (per DPReview):<br>

TTL exposure metering using 2016-pixel RGB sensor*<br />• Matrix :3D color matrix metering II (type G and D lenses); color matrix metering II (other CPU lenses)<br />• Center-weighted: Weight of 75% given to 8-mm circle in center of frame; diameter of circle can be changed to 6, 10 or 13 mm, or weighting can be based on average of entire frame (fixed at 8 mm when non-CPU lens is used) <br />• Spot: Meters 3.5 mm circle (about 2.5% of frame) centered on active focus area (on center focus point when non-CPU lens is used)</p>

<p>New or used? Do you need to use roll paper?</p>

<p>I looked at the Katz Eye website, and don't really understand what they are selling. Is it a replacement prism? Does it actually split the image when not in focus (like the old cameras)? Or is it just a brighter screen?</p>

<p>"I am sure a few individual old lenses are still fine today, but most of them are not. Those who expect a lot from old lenses on the D7000 will likely be disappointed."<br>

I hear this often, but do not fully understand. Can you help me understand--disappointed in what way? I use a 35mm f/2 Ais on the D90, and I am quite happy with it. It is no worse on the D90 than on film. I would expect the new AFS 35/1.4 to be better in some ways, but does that translate into the 35mm f2 being not very good because a high resolution sensor can show its flaws (probably only the pixel level) whereas film could not?</p>

<p>Can any comment on this book? It seems promising but I can't find it at my local bookstore (it seems to have flown off the shelf). </p>

<p>I see this forum is still in its infancy. Any where else? dvxuser used to have good discussion of D90, but quality of discussion seems to have tapered off.</p>