allan_martin

<blockquote>

<p>Why are you still obsessing then, Allan?<br>

If it were an expensive lens, I'd be obsessing, too, but it's a $500 lens that you got for $300, for God's sake!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry. It's not really something I can control that easily. <br /> Thanks for the sucker-punch though, Mar, very often that's what I need :(</p>

<p>Thank you people. Forums do alleviate the pressure on an obsessive mind!<br /> One last concern: Do you think that my deal which saved me $200 and left me with that shiny spec was good? Or would anyone here rather pay the extra $200 for a new lens without specs? (disregard warranty-related stuff).</p>

I'll contact nikon and see what they have to say about that. But just for piece of mind, how much would it cost to have that

spec removed?

Thanks guys!

 

I have the invoice from the store along with the warranty papers, all still blank.

 

Id probably have to pay for shipping but nothing else.

 

Oh and I saved $200 with this lens as opposed to buying a new one, at store. (Is having that spec worth saving $200?)

 

My OCD mind wants it gone but the idea of opening up a new lens worries me a bit.

Will it look like it has already been opened? And what if opening it makes big dust specs appear?

<p>Even considering Im still under warranty?<br>

On the other side I'm really concerned that when they repair it, more dust might get in and I end up with something worse.</p>

<p>Really doesnt look fungus. So you really wouldnt bother? Even it being a new lens? <br>

I could ship it to nikon but Id have to pay shipping costs and hope they do their job right.</p>

<p>Hello gents!<br /><br />Got this brand-new lens off of a guy which had quit doing photography. Apparently he got as a gift and never used it, so technically brand-new. Roughly 3 months.<br /><br />As I was examining the lens, I noticed this bright shiny little spec inside/below the from glass.<br /><br />It's not really shiny in the pic but it is, take a look: <br>

<img src="http://s28.postimg.org/sn7nt557x/IMG_2898.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="960" /><br /><br />What do you think, is it a flaw/defect? Should I try to return it or send it in to Nikon? Never saw that in my other lenses.<br /><br />Thanks! </p>

<p>Thanks gordon, that's a nice idea. However some extra cash could be good right now. And since I bought the lenses in the US but I'm not in the US, I'll actually get a little bit more than I paid for when I sell them.</p>

<p>I'm leaning towards keeping the 105mm over the 85mm. Any objections?</p>

<p>Hey Roy.<br>

I guess so. That's what I'm planning on doing, eventually.<br>

Though I don't see why I'd get a tamron 90mm. My current dilemma is keeping the 85mm 1.8 vs the sigma 105mm 2.8 macro.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, I agree that 85 f/1.8 is only a bit faster than the 105 f/2.8 when it comes to subject separation.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>but you'd be shooting short portraits at a slow aperture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey Andrew! You got me confused right there. Is the 85mm really worth it over the double duty provided by the 105mm? (Not only talking portraits, which is the certain thing that both can accomplish, but everything else one could do with either the 85mm or the 105mm).</p>

<p>Hey Dieter very nice insights!<br>

But then I'd be fastglassless? Either way you really don't see them being useful? Lightweight, smaller, wider aperture, low light shots possibility. Maybe there's even more to primes than I've mentioned.</p>

<p>Yeah you do have a point. Let's leave that for later then.</p>

<p>What do you think about <strong>50mm prime + sigma 105mm macro 2.8 vs </strong><strong>60mm 2.8 macro + 85mm prime</strong></p>

<p>Okay guys, I'd like to thank everyone for really helping me out. Ive taken the first step towards my final decision!<br>

What I know for sure now, rock solid:<br>

<strong>UWA, 17-50 2.8 and 18-140.</strong><br>

The last decision I gotta make is:<br>

<strong>50mm prime + sigma 105mm macro 2.8</strong><br>

OR<br>

<strong>60mm 2.8 macro + 85mm prime</strong></p>

<p>Andrew, dont stop posting man. I like your posts. I'll get back to your thoughts in a sec.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Taking into account your follow up posts, this sounds like a good solution for you. But which prime? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Prime is the least of my worries, but yes, it'll be the 50mm or the 85mm. That is a nice solution, for sure, if I didn't know 2.8 existed. I mean, if I'm able to make it with the 18-140, I'd trade my current setup for it. It would definitely make things easier. But I'm pretty sure I'll miss the constant 2.8.<br>

Am I overvaluing the 17-50 constant speed? What do you think?</p>

<p>@peter: What about the 18-140?</p>

<p>@andrew and chris: I forgot to mention that I and the 35mm, we dont get along so well. Every time I go with the 35mm I end up wishing I had more or less FL. I really need a zoom for that range, I need an all-rounder no matter what.<br>

<br />At first the 18-140 could be used as my main lens and also as a long-range (when Im feeling in to it). As I said, I dont need longer FL that much, but it would be nice to have as an add-on. So I need to find a way to replace the 70-300, which I'll rarely use, but still having at least 150mm. (sigmas 150mm $1k tag is way too much for something that I dont prioritize).<br>

One possibility I'm thinking right now is UWA, prime, 18-140, macro.</p>

<p>Yeah I'll probably be travelling and moving a lot. So many lenses will turn out to be a burden instead of joy. However I enjoy very much my D7000 and I really don't plan on keeping only my Canon S120. Couldnt live without my DSLR. Just gotta make it "lighter". </p>

<p>I liked your idea. But how about getting a 18-200? For me it would kind of be replacing the 17-50, 105 and 70-300. The thing is it's not 2.8. I think I might get frustrated after using my 17-50 2.8 for so long.</p>

<p>Hello!<br>

<br />I have a D7000 and I'm about to move to another country for more than 1 year. I really want to bring all my camera gear with me but it's just NOT practical at all. The more lenses I ditch the better. I'm willing to sell them and buy different ones if it takes.<br>

I was thinking about 4 lenses MAXIMUM, 3 would be perfect. I'm really lost and I've already tried to analyse which focal length I use more, which lenses I use more and ended up with no ideas.</p>

<p>Here's what I got right now:<br>

35, 50, 85 primes<br>

70-300<br>

sigma 17-50, 2.8<br>

sigma 10-20, 4.5<br>

sigma 105 2.8</p>

<p>Couple things worth mentioning so you guys can help me out:<br>

I don't use my tripod often. If I could I'd shoot always handheld 1.8 or 2.8.<br>

I don't use longer FL a lot. However, I'd like to have a 18-200 or 18-140, if possible. (Still not sure if it's worth giving up the 2.8 for more FL though).<br>

I need one UWA. I just love that. However I think I could use the tokina 11-16, 2.8 instead of the sigma, right? Easier handhelds, 17-20 FL is not wasted.<br>

I need at least one prime. Which I'm clueless about which one to choose. I love them all.</p>

<p>Lots of info but WHAT DO YOU THINK!? Anyone willing to enlighten me?</p>

<p>Thanks guys!<br /><br />I won't be selling it in the US. Over here camera stuff gets way more expensive and consequently resale price is higher too.</p>

<p>Also I have to say I've been in constant struggle with the "one lens for all" thought. When I first bought my DSLR, I wanted a 18-200. After experimenting with my 18-105, I realized I REALLY cared for more aperture. That's why I got the 17-50.</p>

<p>Last trip I made I felt the need for more range, but it would be the same thing if I had picked the 18-105. I wouldve wanted aperture. Damn you compromise!</p>

<p>ps: Nooo I dont plan on getting another body! I like to travel light! </p>

<p>Hello!</p>

<p>Lately I've been trying to clean up my old stuff and when I took a good look at my lenses, I realized it's been a huge time since I havent touched my nikon 18-105. It came with my d7000 kit.<br>

Im not sure though if it's a wise choice to sell. Ill be getting $300 for it.<br>

Here are the lenses I currently own, for you guys to have an idea:</p>

<p>sigma 17-50 f2/8: main one, all-rounder.<br>

35mm, 50mm, 85mm primes.<br>

nikon 70-300<br>

sigma 10-20</p>

<p>As I'm an amateur, I'm not sure whether I could still make good use of it in the future or not.</p>

<p>What do you guys think?</p>

<p>Hmm alright, good point guys. I really thought they were all taken with a 50mm, sorry about that.</p>

<p>But well, you do agree that 35mm is way too short for a nice bokeh without major distortions right? And that a 85mm would be TOO long for street, meaning Id be able to get mainly headshots, otherwise Id have to stay too far from the subject?</p>

<p>As far as I know there are only these 3 primes I could be taking into consideration.</p>

<p>Willian, yes, it is. D7000 more specifically. <br /> I'm aware of that. A time ago I remember reading somewhere the a 85mm 1.8 would be great lens for street/candids, used by lots of pros. 85mm would sure be too long for me with a D7000, so 50mm should be alright.<br /> Also, take a look at this: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/97039143@N00">http://www.flickr.com/photos/97039143@N00</a><br /> He's just starting out with this kind of photography and most of the pics are taken with a DX + 50mm. I find his hots interesting for a beginner. Thought I could do the same.</p>

<p>Well $160 is definitely very expensive for me to pay for a filter. I'll probably pick one from hoya, super HMC.<br /> But thanks guys, I'll sure think about this and hopefully get rid of everyday-filters.</p>

<p>Now, regarding the 50mm, I already have a 35mm and I find it great, except for bokehs, which I love. With the 35mm, in order to make a good bokeh I usually have to come too close to the subject, and especially for people, it looks bad. Also, I think a little bit more range would be beneficial for street photography, although I still could crop stuff with the 35mm.</p>

<p>Think I'm just not ready to leave my lens unprotected! I tried it once and I realized I was constantly checking the glass minute after minute to see if something had touched it or whatever. I'm a little OCD about my photography stuff...Hopefully that will go away if I ever start to make money out of it!</p>

<p>Alright guys, thanks! I had a wrong idea about polarizing filters. Think they wont add much to my photos needs in this case. Ill stick with the UV for protection.</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>Hi!</p>

<p>Ill be soon buying a 50mm for street photography and candid shots.</p>

<p>I wanna get used to it and make it my "standard" focal length for when I have to take just one fast prime lens.</p>

<p>Well, my question is this: Should I get a regular UV filter or a CP filter? I dont want to change filters, I want only one, leave it there and forget about it.</p>

<p>So, do you think CP filter would bring me any advantages for the kind of work I want to do?</p>