tony_demonte

<p>Thanks Sem and Shun. nice words of encouragement. maybe the 40mm is the "safe" route. since it is inexpensive, I could use the 40mm as a test run of sorts. and then eventually look into the 90mm-105mm range of macros down the line.</p>

<p>Thanks, Sem and T. Zen</p>

<p>I put off getting the macro lens until I know 100% which I want to get. I opened up to the tamron, sigma and now the tokina. they all seem to be better focal lengths for macro work. I think 90mm on the sigma and higher would be best for a macro lens. </p>

<p>If I can remember, I don't believe you can do that. you have to switch it to the 1.3x crop every time you want that extra reach. It's pretty easy to do it, so it's not a big deal.</p>

<p>Nice point, Clive. the 1.8's seem to get better results than the 1.4's. and the 1.4's are triple the price. the extra bokeh does show though at 1.4. but, to the normal persons eye, you can't tell.</p>

<p>any time someone I talk to who wants to get into photography with a dslr, I always suggest a prime lens to start with. the 35mm is the one I usually suggest. I started out the same when my friend suggested it and I learned everything from DOF to composition. I personally like the 35mm cause it is pleasing to my eyes. I also have the 50mm for its portraiture capabilities. If I got to go back in time, I would of gone with the 35mm and 85mm 1.8g. that is, if I could only have 2 lenses. If I could go with 3, probably the 28, 50, 85.</p>

<p>I don't know if any one was at Venice Beach today when thatnikonguy (matt granger) was in town for a photowalk? but, here is a picture I got of him.</p><div></div>

<p>it's an easy choice for me...in California, amazon charges tax while B&H doesn't, plus the cheap shipping on B&H is great. and the 2% reward points like Rick said is nice.</p>

<p>the 16-85mm from Nikon is a great lens. I've used it for a day of shooting with the D7100 and have found it to perform beautifully. I wouldn't opt for the 18-200mm. when I compared the 16-85 and 18-200, (I owned both at one point) the 16-85 was far sharper. </p>

<p>awesome, thanks everyone for the input. I am leaning towards the 60mm 2.8g. I have ruled out the 85mm dx lens. I am also looking into the tamron 90mm like Wouter has suggested. reviews on the tamron are very solid. I do own the 35mm and 50mm from nikon, so maybe the 40mm is not the best option?? cause the focal lengths are too close. any thoughts on that? I guess I could look at the 40mm at more of a micro-ish lens instead of a walk-around lens like the 35mm. </p>

<p>yes, Shun, the San Marino one. I used to go pretty often, like once a month just for photography reasons. I've been busy with work and haven't been in a while. </p>

<p>Wouter, I will be practicing a lot. photography is part of my job at work. I live in the OC, so, going to the huntington gardens will be a multiple time a year trip for me. I will have time to learn from mistakes and be able to get macro photography down. </p>

<p>budget is $600 and subjects would be most likely be flowers and portraiture.</p>

<p>I've planed on a micro lens from nikon for a while now and am making the purchase by the end of the week before I go to the Huntington gardens. I won't say which of the 3 lenses (40mm 2.8g, 60mm 2.8g, 85mm 3.5g) I am leaning towards because I want to get a feel of how my fellow p.net photographers feel about each lens. I have already ruled out the 105mm just cause of the price. I know about the tamron and sigma versions, but I ruled them out also.</p>

<p>I have the nikon D7100. </p>

<p>any input would be appreciated. thanks</p>

<p>I am loving the D7100 so far. I went from a D7000 to the D7100, so my upgrade jump won't be as high from a D90. however, I am seeing a lot of improvements cosmetically and tech wise. The AF system is the biggest one for me since I do a lot of wildlife/sports photography. the ISO performance for indoor use is also improved. but, I have my SB-600, so indoor is no problem. the buffer is not all that great for RAW. but I can compromise. the D7000 was 1200 back nearly 3 years ago and now you can buy the D7100 for the same price. so, TY nikon for that. </p>

<p>I love my copy of the 70-300mm VR. I got my a year ago or so and have sense wondered how a great lens like the 70-300mm is under $600. I'm currently saving some money for the 80-400mm lens that just came out. most likely, I will be renting a copy before actually buying one since it is a big purchase.</p>

<p>I've read quite a few "reviews" from ken rockwell and have found it to be very repetitive in a way that he always seems to say something like...."this is a great lens and all, but I find the 18-55mm to be a lot better." I think the 18-55mm is his favorite lens of all time. ken rockwell is a "reviewer" for a novice to dslr cameras and lenses. he just gives you a few sentences (literally) of his thoughts on a product. there really isn't any reviewing going on. it's mostly just the specs of the product. </p>

<p>this is pretty funny stuff. nice one, matt</p>

<p>I plan on doing nothing. but, you could get a protective film screen protector. something like what you would put over your phone's screen.</p>

<p>I would of cancelled my order within a few days if it didn't ship. of course I would allow weekends to pass. 3 business days. If I saw on their site that it was in stock and nothing is being shipped....cancel that order and order it somewhere else. to wait since March 6th....that's a little to much time to let go by. what I usually do is go to best buy or samy's and just price match to online. best buy has a great price match policy now. they will match B&H. I've done it before. the wait time is 2 minutes instead of 3 weeks and it hasn't even been shipped out yet. a week ago when I was just browsing lenses, they had an 85mm in stock. easiest way to get one is your local brick and mortar</p>

<p>you're a very patient person, Joesph. and I envy that. I would not be able to wait as long as you have. lol</p>

<p>I also was looking into the 85mm lens but opted for the 50mm for reasons that suited me better. at $500 ($400 this past month) I couldn't justify the purchase for what I like to shoot. I like doing portrait shots, but I found myself when using the 16-85mm, shooting more half-body portrait shots than head-shots. The 85mm can be used for any type of portrait shooting, but the 50mm can also do many different portrait shots. and the price difference being $280, I went with the nifty.</p>

<p>I have also checked for moire and haven't found any on my BIF shots. so far, so good.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't think the focus is on the table at all on the "D". the focus is on the camera. It could be that the camera is on the edge of the table? hard to tell. if anything, the "G" is sharper on the tables edge anyway. I would think Andy would take a picture of the camera and not the edge of the table.....that I assume of course. </p>

<p>the "D" is just soft at 1.8. it doesn't get sharp until 2.8. the extra 80 dollars is worth the optically better lens.</p>

<p>The 1.8G looks a lot better. much sharper and the color contrast is better. Nice comparison, Andy.</p>

<p>the 50mm 1.8G is on sale until this saturday (2 days) for $200 compared to the 50 1.8D which is $135. now, I have used both the D and G a lot and have found the G to be better. I bought both when the G first came out to decide between the 2 and did a lot of comparison shots. at f1.8, the G is a lot better. much sharper. the AF on the G is a little bit faster, not by much, but, it is a lot quieter. I like to say this a lot on here, but, for the money, the G is a better buy. oh, and the bokeh is better on the G. more round bokeh on the G.</p>

<p>The D7100 is a great camera for sports. ISO performance is quite good also so that you could get a faster shutter speed. of course, a full frame camera will out perform in the ISO range. indoor sports will entitle you to use a higher ISO to get a fast shutter speed. so, maybe a full frame would be better.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you plan on keeping you camera for 8-10 years, why not go for the latest technology right now?</p>

<p>plus, the 51 AF points does make quite a difference. I have noticed better performance with my 70-300mm VR lens with shooting BIF. </p>

<p>I did the same thing Peter did. I got the 16-85mm and the 70-300mm to replace the 18-200mm.</p>

<p>the 18-200mm was convenient but lacked optically. the 16-85mm and 70-300mm are sharper throughout. but, if you only go for the all-around lens, the 18-300mm is $300 dollars off right now. so, I think it's an easy choice. </p>

<p>this is a no brainer for the next 3 days!! the nikkor 18-300mm is only $700 everywhere online/in stores up until the 30th of March. I don't know if you know that or not, but the 18-300mm is on sale right now. I'm sure you do. the nikkor 18-200mm is $600. so, for only 100 dollars more, you get the 18-300mm lens. so, if you are buying the lens within the next few days, you might as well get the 18-300mm.</p>