leonard_forte2

I just got my nIkon 50mm f1.8g. Haven't done thorough testing but from the few photos that I took I would say it focuses faster and has

better IQ than the 50mm 1.4afd that I sold. It seems quite sharp at f5.6 and f8. I plan on getting the 24-70 and wonder how it compares to

that lens at 50mm.

Thank you for all posts. I think I will go with Nikon 50mm f1.8g.

I have read about how good the Nikon 50mm 1.8g is but I was wondering how it compares to the Voigtlander. Is the

50mm f1.8 really much better than the 50mm 1.4d which I found soft until about f5.6.

I just sold my Nikon 50mm f1.4 AfD lens am looking for a replacement. I don't want a heavy and very expensive 50mm. I was wondering

how the Voigtlander 58mm, newest version, compares with the Nikon 50mm 1.4G. I'm also wondering if the Nikon 50mm 1.4G is much

better than the Older D lens. I am willing to give manual focus a try. Thanks

What I dont like about the 50mm afd is the wobbly barrel. I read that its not wobbly on the afg.

I have a nikon 50mm 1.4 afd and would like to get the 50mm afg. Wuld the upgrade be worth the prce? Will I really notoce any difference,

particularly wide open? Thanks

Noone mentioned Tokina 17-35 f4. I don't have one (planning to get one) but reviews seem to be good.

I'd like to mention that I had the Tokia 12-24mm for the d200 a d was quite gappy with it. I think tere tends to be a bias

toward Nikon glass. I wonder if Tokina 17-35 is quite co parable to nikons 16-35.

What i dont like about the nikon 16-35 is the distortion wide open. Is there any noticeable distortion at 18 mm?

I would prefer the nikon 16-35 over the nikon 17-35(which is more expensive)

Looking to buy a wide angle zoom for my d800. The. Hoices seem to be nikon 16-35 f/4, tokina 17-35 f/4. Im not i terestes in the Tokina

16-28. The nikon is 500$ more than the tokina 17-35 but i read about the distortion especially at 16 mm. Any suggestions would be

appreciated. The nikon lens is also bigger.

Its overpriced Because its Nikon

I, not too long ago, listed my whole Bronica SQAi outfit with the lenses for 1100 and had no success. I will try listing

again.

<p>Has anyone used Bronica SQ lenses on a nikon DSLR using an adaptor which is currently available on ebay for about 68$? I have four Bronica lenses (50mm, 80mm, 150mm and 180mm) and I was wondering how they perform on a Nikon DSLR. These lenses are not worth much and I think difficult to sell so I may as well see if I can use them. </p>

I think i will keep the D200 and keep one lens attached to it. The photos it produces are still quite good, the main drawback of the D200

is the poor ISO performance.

However it doesn't make sense to keep DX lenses. I will sell my two DX lenses and buy a 24-70 now and 16-35 (when I can afford it). I

have a nikon 85mm 1.4 AFD which I may sell and replace with the new 85mm f1.8 AFS. Thanks for all input. It really helps to see

different points of view and help come to a decision.

I also have a 24-85 f2-4 and it seems quite good on the d200 but i think the 24-70 gives better IQ. Another option is as

rick suggested, add the 24-70 and keep what i have although its a stretch financially.

Elliot you probably right. I may find myself using the d800 most of the time. I think the dx body is good for telephot but then can' i use the

d800 in dx mode fir telephoto? What is a good UWA for nikon?

Mary, I think i would grab the 24-70 for the fx body and 17-55 for the dx body. I find 24mm is not wide enoughon dx. I use a 24-85mm

f2.8-4 and oftenwish for something wider on the d200.

<p>The D200 is still a good camera and I have about 2oK shots on it so it still has some good life on it. If I sell it I won't get much for it so I may as well use it. If I sell the 17-55 than I lose that midrange zoom and the 24-70 is not a great range on the D200 but I can't really afford to keep both.</p>

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I have ordered a nikon D800 upgrading from a D200. I have two DX lenses (17-55 f/2.8 and 12-24 f/4). I like the 17-55mm, it gives good results.<br>

I would like to get the 24-70 f/2.8 but should I sell the 17-55 f/2.8? Its seems wasteful to hove both of these zoom lenses. I'd like to keep the D200 for backup and for certain situations. I could sell the nikon 17-55mm and the Tokina 12-24 but then that will limit the use of the D200. What would you do?</p>

<p>Noone mentioned the Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4. It has a very useful macro and is quite sharp as well. The only problem is that sometimes it may not be wide enough. The macro works very well and seems quite sharp.</p>