hnl_imaging

<p>Dieter, nice shots on both... either one of those have a bit more of what I am looking for. <br>

Leszer (sorry if I didn't get your name right...), I agree, razor sharp isn't always perfect. I may be getting too nit picky here but I would really like to be able to see a bit more definition... <br>

I'll post some comparisons of my lens to what I expect... </p>

<p>Yeah, I saw the new tamron offerings in a BH news letter! I agree with your statements. I think I would be very interested in their new 85 offering if it is anything like what I have seen of the 35 & 45mm. <br>

Dieter, nice comparison, the the 85/1.8G and the Sigma look a bit sharper/more resolved. the 105/2.5 doesn't look horrible but not on the same level. That is unfortunate. </p>

<p>I do like the 1.8G. I don't really understand what the big issue some have with the bokeh is same with the D lens for that matter.<br>

I may be able to exchange my 85/1.8 for another. That may be worth it if I actually have a crummy copy, which is what I have started to believe based on comparison of my images to those of others. I may not be the best photog around but if I can make it happen with other lenses and other people can make it happen with the same model lens I have, there may be something wrong with my particular lens.</p>

<p>The purple/ green fringe issue I have with this lens is that it's so much worse than the other lenses that I have used. It can be pretty bad. <br>

I have the 17-55/2.8 which I was able to buy after selling some of my pentax gear. Its not perfect, but I like it better than any of the alternatives for various reasons. That is why I am not really interested in a 50 at the moment. Would love a 50/1.4 some time, maybe... but I feel like I have that well covered at the moment and would like something a little longer. </p>

<p>I have had mixed feelings about manual focus. My old Pentax 100/2.8 M was great, for the most part. I actually sold it to fund a 70 ltd because I thought that AF would help me when photographing my daughters. That has some good and bad points, the first is that I have gotten images that I really enjoy that aren't necessarily in perfect focus, however, I have pictures that I like ALOT that I was able to get because I wasn't dealing with the failure to fire due to lack of auto-focus confirmation. The manual focus on the 70mm was horrid in comparison. I have often thought about going to an all MF lens set for that reason alone.... not sure if its really where I want to be though. The 100/2.8 also had what many would consider a "busy bokeh" but the micro contrast and color of that lens more than made up for it to me. It was pretty darn sharp too. </p>

<p>Peter, nice! I keep seeing that that lens (105/2.5) is pretty decent. You don't happen to have any examples with your D90 do you?<br>

Kent, the 1.8G is really on my list, in a suppressed sort of way. It's price is definitely more in line with what I am willing to save for... The two issues I have with it are 1) it (like the 85/1.4D which is on the bottom of my list) are more of a direct replacement for something I already own and probably wont be able to get rid of very easily. 2) Shun and some others have pointed out that the purple fringe is strong with this one as well... So that kind of scares me a bit. <br>

I recently went to the stock show with my family and and two things really hit me about my 85D. I don't usually take photographs of these kinds of things, was bored, but I took a few of the horse drawn wagons with lots of shiny parts... the resulting images were almost all purple! Then, I took a photograph of my daughter while we were inside of a building and I was looking at her with the door in the background. Eyes, hair, all edges of her head and face were purple. Some of it was so bad that I couldn't fix it in post with out a significant amount of work. IF the 1.8G is better in this regard, it may be my best option for sure. </p>

<p>I currently own an 85 1.8D. I like the focal length, but the lens is pretty mediocre at best. It has a few traits that make it a little less than desirable so I have been contemplating augmenting it with a somewhat similar lens. It looks like the 1.8D doesn't sell very well so I will probably end up being kind of stuck with that lens. <br>

I have contemplated the following: 105/2 DC, 105/2.8G VR, 105/2.5 Ai-s, 105/2.8D, and lastly possibly 85/1.4D. I have also looked at the tokina 100/2.8 and the tamron 90/2.8... <br>

My primary uses will be portraiture and the occasional landscape where I want the extra reach over my other lenses. Macro wouldn't be a bad option. I use a D7000. <br>

The primary problems I have with the 85/1.8D are: <br>

1) May sound stupid, but people don't have eyelashes with this lens, at least my copy. Even if you get the eye in really good focus the eyelashes are almost non-existent. Sounds crazy, but if I were to take similar shots of my daughter with a 35/1.8g, just about any other lens I have ever used, and the 85/1.8D she would have more substantial eyelashes with the other lens than the 85. I know, its crazy... <br>

2) LoCA.... <br>

3) If I try and shoot anything at a distance, at least with my copy, things start to get really ugly. LoCA, from a tripod with timed shutter release and at f11 even things in the focal plane are not well defined or resolved. Trees render very little distinction between branches, it just doesn't seem to resolve that well. Something seems a little odd about the color in this situation as well. <br>

I am hoping to at least overcome some of these issues with a slightly different lens. The 105/2 is the one I really desire but... <br>

Does any one have any suggestions? <br>

Please, no "go buy such and such zoom," or "those lenses are too long for DX!!!," type comments. I am not particularly interested in zooms as the ones I would want are well outside my price range. I also know the focal length from pretty extensive use of either a 100/2.8 Pentax that is, sadly, now gone and my current 85. I have also used a number of 50mm 1.8/1.4/2 variants and my priority is a decent 85-~100mm lens at the moment. </p>

<p>i got to take a look at a few lenses yesterday and the day before in stores. I took a number of sample images from each home to compare them all. The 20/1.8 is nice and doesn't weigh very much. I much prefer it to almost everything... <br>

The 20/2.8 is interesting, I had a hard time getting it to show any real fringing. I did a shot of my own 85/1.8D as close as it would focus on it and I thought the lens was sot at first, then I looked at it at home and it turns out the lens focused just a bit behind where I intended it to. Where the lens was focused, it was really sharp. I took a few shots of my daughter and realized that the lens is about the slowest focusing of all of them. I took an overall shot of the store and it didn't come out very well. I am not really sure why though. It was hand held at 1/100th at f2.8 and focused on the other side of the room. I am not sure why it didn't end up being a bit better. Could've been me though. I did see some loss of sharpness in the corners though. Even shooting directly into the over head canister lights or up close to a lens with a metal mount, I didn't see to much fringing, I may go back and check it out this afternoon if there is still some light outside and I can shoot through the store window and see how it compares to the 20/1.8. <br>

The Nikon 18-35 I got mixed results with, it just doesn't seem that wonderful. <br>

The Nikon 17-55/2.8... is big. Not bigger than expected. It doesn't weigh as much as I have been led to believe, definitely a bit less chunky feeling than the 18-35/1.8 sigma, but I didn't have them side by side... At any rate, I took my oldest daughter with me to the two camera stores I visited so that I would have a somewhat "home like" situation to test the lenses. She doesn't hold still, so I wanted to test the lenses in average interior light and see how easily they would focus on her in that light. The 17-55/2.8 I tried yesterday, easily focused more accurately more often and kept up with my daughter more often than any of the other lenses. When I got home and looked at the images on the computer, not only did I have more in-focus shots of her being silly but it really seems like this lens outperforms the others. there is some distortion on the wide end but seems pretty well controlled by 20mm. The long end, at 52mm anyway, is outstanding. Color = good. contrast= good. CAs are there in some situations but not horrid like the nikon 18-35 or the 16-85 was. I feel like both the primes may be just a bit better in that respect, but I would like to check out the 20/2.8 again. But over all, it seemed like the best lens for me would be that 17-55/2.8. I don't know if I want to take it back packing or not, but I think for indoors stuff of the kids its probably the best way to go.</p>

<p>Got a chance to visit my local camera store yesterday to check out a 20/1.8 and a 16-85 (suggested by the sales rep...). The 20/1.8 is pretty impressive. I was probably using it in about the worst of conditions, shooting through the store through the front window during the middle of the day, revealed that the 20/1.8 is definitely better. Much less color fringe at the edges of zones of sharp contrast, quite a bit better clarity. The image just looks more alive and present... The lens is large but light... <br>

Unfortunately they haven't had a 17-55/2.8 in quite some time. It sounds like they Tamron 17-20/2.8 they have in stock usually, just not yesterday. And they are getting a 20/2.8D in from a sister store for me to try later this week. So hopefully, getting to try those will answer my questions. I am kind of hoping that another store will have a 17-55/2.8 so that I could check that out. I am not really looking forward to the weight perhaps. <br>

I think that I am just going to have to wait for the 20/1.8 or a 17-55/2.8 unless the 20/2.8 is as good as it looks like in some places on the net. I know its a horrible way to judge a lens, but flickr makes the 20/2.8 look pretty darn sharp, with nice color and clarity. Used on the FX bodies there is some noticeable problems in the corners and a little bit of coma. CA doesn't look as bad as it's reported to be... but if its anything like my 85/1.8 its probably worse on occasion than I know how to fix in LR... It will be interesting to try out. But I think the 20/1.8 is probably worth saving for. </p>

<p>The 17-55/2.8 looks quite nice not a cheaper alternative though... I am hoping to get into a store where I can check out the 20/1.8, 17-55/2.8, and maybe a couple of Nikon's cheaper super zooms like the 18-105 and 18-200. If I go the second route it will be augmented with a nicer prime in future. <br>

THat 11-20/2.8 looks pretty nice, but not like something I would use very often at the moment. I hope you are happy with your new lens though Joe... </p>

<p>THanks Stephen.<br>

I guess the 20/2.8 is probably out. That is rather discouraging. I will keep exploring the zoom options. </p>

<p>Oh.. I might be able to live with the soft corners in the indoors/ in the house conditions. That will generally be for candid stuff of the kids. I would like to avoid the soft corners at say f5.6-f11 which is where I usually am for landscapes. It would also be nice to know if that 20/2.8 have that harsh color fringing like the 85 does at those apertures if any one knows...<br>

The tamron is about the same price as the prime, so that may be worth looking at. </p>

<p>Right, I want either a ~30mm lens on DX. Prefferably the best quality I can afford. the 20/1.8 is probably it, but out of my price range so I am looking at 2 other options, a 20/2.8 or an 18-55/70/105/140. If I go with the 20/2.8 I am currious how it compares with my only other D series lens or the 35/1.8G. I dont expect it to be up to the G lens, but is it comparable to the 85/1.8D? if it is really horrible would it be better to go with a kit lens? if the kit lens is better than the 2.8 primes, then maybe I will just use it or use it till I can get something better.<br>

The 17-50/2.8 I assume is the tamron? I may have to look into that again. I know I passed on that lens at one point because I had a 20-35/2.8L that was better to my eye. I might look at it differently now</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe,<br>

Good to know... I may have to look at that as well. Is any one familiar with the optical quality of the 20/2.8 Ais?</p>

<p>Shun,<br>

I may be able to compromise on the aperture, but that is something that I feel I need due to the way I usually use my gear. I know from using other kit lenses that f3.5 indoors is kind of a drag. However, for outdoor landscape type use its not a big deal. So I would prefer 2.8 or better. But I am not set on 1.8. I looked at the 20/1.8 due to all the bad reviews about the 20/2.8 and how the 1.8 was so much better. If the 20/2.8 varieties performed as well as my 85/1.8D, I might be able to overlook some of the flaws, but the fringing on the 85 is fairly annoying. <br>

What I really don't want is the big bulky zooms. I would rather have a 2-3 lens kit that could go every where pretty easily. The real reasons I was looking at the kit lenses was 1) expense, and 2) Scott Kelby and his 18-200 or 28-300 can be pretty convincing and the two I mentioned may fit that bill and be cheap. Later I could purchase something nicer. That is IFF the 20/2.8 isn't good enough. </p>

<p>I ended up in the position of having a 20-35/2.8 L a long time ago when I used have Canon gear of my own... when I went from film to a 10D it was my widest lens... I grew rather fond of that focal length and started to be quite accustomed to it. I noticed that I was usually, not always, but usually happier with that once I was forced to use the ~30mm eq. <br>

The off brand lenses kind of put me off due to the many complaints of focus issues and I had an old sigma that was handed down to me... when my 10D wore out and I purchased a clearance 30D the lens wouldn't work with it. In talking to Sigma they said that happens and the only way to fix it is to buy a newer lens. I would rather stick with proprietary gear. <br>

I realize that you are paying more for FX lenses on DX... my primary concern is getting the focal lengths I want and some usable lenses. I know that a 20 mm on DX isn't for every one, but I rather like it and have grown used to using it. <br>

I am not used to having a camera with really good ISO performance, but in my experience the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is large enough to be problematic. But that is coming from limiting my ISO range to 400, maybe 800. I may have to experiment more with that on the D7000, its supposed to perform better than anything I've had before... <br>

Does any one know how the 12-24/4 compares size wise to the 20/2.8 Ai-S or D. Used they aren't horrible in price. </p>

<p>Hello, I am pretty new to Nikon and I am trying to build up a small collection of lenses. I currently own a 35/1.8 and an 85/1.8D. I would really like to have a 20mm of one type or another but I am having a hard time finding one that is decent. <br>

I primarily take pictures of my family and I like to do landscapes and travel type photography when I am able. <br>

I know the 20/1.8G is probably the best way to go, but I would really like to have a lens that may fill that hole until I could possibly afford one. I am pretty against large zoom lenses for the most part so I am not really interested in the 16-35 or 20-35 type lenses. I know Nikon has a few that are really nice but... the 20/2.8D/Ai-S lenses seem to get pretty poor reviews but some of the photographs I have seen from them look pretty decent. If they performed like my 85/1.8D I might be able to live with them. The 18-55/105 kit lenses seem to go for quite a bit less money and cover the range + some. The voightlander 20/3.5 color skopar looks pretty nice too but I am a little concerned with how slow it is as I do use that focal length quite a bit indoors to take pictures of my daughters. <br>

I guess, the questions are, how do the 20/2.8 nikon variety lenses compare with the 85/1.8D as far as sharpness and color fringing, flare and aberration go? how do those lenses compare with the more modern 18-55/105 lenses? Would it be worth it to pay $100-150 on one of those lenses and save for the 20/1.8 or would it be worth it to just put out the $300+/- a little for a prime that may not be perfect but hopefully better than the kit lenses?<br>

Lastly, my lack of attraction to the kit lenses comes from mixed experiences with my own Pentax kit lens and my mother in laws canon 18-55 IS. They both worked but weren't great, the Canon was possibly a bit better than the Pentax in most ways. I expect the Nikon to be the same. However, if guys like Ken Rockwell can be trusted about the 18-55 Nikon, maybe I could just skip the 20/1.8 altogether and go that way. </p>

<p>Micheal,<br>

I think the main issue with aperture priority that I am having is familiarity... I am very familiar with say using an incident light meter and setting my exposure that way because the green button wasn't consistent with all of my old manual focus lenses and the light meter on my old K1000 didn't always work. The 645 I had actually seemed to have a pretty reliable meter, however, I trusted my incident meter more so I would usually double check the camera with that. It is really easy for me to set my exposure and keep track of what is going on. Especially if I have some indication of the metering in the viewfinder. With the K200 in aperture priority, there is no indication of the camera is metering. It assumes everything is 18 or 12% grey. Then you set your compensation based on that, but the camera automatically changes settings based on what is in front of the lens. I am not used to paying attention to the camera making its own changes. <br>

SO, for instance, this weekend when I was photographing my kids I set up like "normal" for me... I found a spot I liked, couldn't meter or set the camera up so I took an educated guess about what kind of exposure compensation I would need and took a test shot, adjusted it by a 1/3rd of a stop and thought I would be ready to go. Inserted family into scene so that we could get some photographs to give the grandparents for Christmas and expected to be fine. I usually shoot with my LCD off as it eats batteries on the k200... Well the kids clothes threw the meter off and I am programmed, from years of doing it one way, that if you set the camera up for the incident light, that exposure value you set is what it is until you change it. Well a couple of shots in I took a peek at what I was getting and realized that it was over exposed so I tried to change that. After that point I thought I had it dialed in, but a few shots later I noticed that the images were pretty over exposed again for some reason. Maybe everyone had moved in the frame enough to make the matrix meter ( which I am also not really used to using) chose an exposure value that wasn't consistent with the previous one I expected to basically stay constant. <br>

Things maybe better with newer cameras, but in general I have been accustomed to not trust the matrix meter and many of the auto functions to govern themselves. So I don't use them. I am not so familiar with them that I know how they are going to respond. On top of that, I <strong><em>feel</em></strong> like I am basically running blind with out the meter scale in the view finder to give me an idea of what is going on. It's one of those things I would have to get more comfortable with. </p>

<p>I got a chance to use the 70/2.4 yesterday. That lens can be pretty amazing. I think some of the problem I have had with it is that I haven't gotten to use it that much and that my K200 doesn't seem to focus very well/consistently with it for some reason. So when it is in focus, it is pretty great. Definitely smoother bokeh than my 100/2.8 at 2.8, though I still miss that lens for other reasons. Aside from the K200 not focusing, which may actually be impaired from the fall..., I haven't masted the aperture priority thing yet. So many of the images didn't come out quite the way I expected. I did a few test shots and thought I had my exposure compensation dialed in, but that isn't constant for one scene apparently. Its so nice to set your exposure and only change it when the light changes... <br>

So, I ended up getting a Nikon with a used 35/1.8. I am not convinced that I will be happy with it in comparison to the Pentax. However, to save my self other frustration I decided to go that route instead of wait and get a K3. I don't know that I will sell my Pentax gear just yet though, I like the lenses too much. I may end up returning the Nikon for a Pentax depending on a couple of factors. If every company has something that doesn't sit well, might as well go with what you like... </p>

<p>Jeff, that is interesting. I recently had the opportunity to won a Pentax 645 for a while. It was pretty great in many ways, would've liked a couple other features. I love the film, and like you, would gladly stick with something that doesn't change all that much. I made prints from the 645 with Ilford 50 or Portra 160 and the K200 to compare side by side, for dynamic range and clarity and overall feel of the image, I much prefer the 645. The killer for me was my wife's reaction to the cost when I had 4 rolls of film developed and only had ~60 photographs in return. I would gladly do as you are talking about now. I have looked an an MZ-S a number of times as well as the 645Nii. The cost of film is a bit prohibitive for my family at the moment. Otherwise I rather enjoy it.<br>

I was also under the impression that many of the old P67 and P645 bodies weren't readily fixable as the parts aren't always readily available. I know having my K1000 LOOKED at was quoted to me at $160 a few years ago by 1 local shop and another online was similar, I think $130 if I recall. <br>

This may be totally unfounded, however, I have seen Olympus totally drop a line of cameras- the E series after quite a while in production. Those seemed like nice tools as well. Fuji, in some respects, I feel has done the same thing with the S series cameras. The X series I believe uses a Fuji proprietary mount and that may stay in production compared to the S series cameras which were all based on the Nikon mount (as far as I understand). At any rate, while more and more I am beginning to believe that photography equipment is not an investment of any kind, I really have some anxiety over putting money into a system that may be a passing fad for the company making that equipment. Unfortunately, that does seem to be the way it goes for almost all manufactures in one way or another. </p>

<p>All fairly good points. <br>

I do whole heartedly agree with the film analogy, though I have slowed down the frame # on digital quite a bit over the last few years it is still cheaper. <br>

In researching Nikon over the past few days it has been interesting to see that, depending on where you look, their service stinks to. Thom Hogan also almost paints the picture of them possibly going out of business or maybe severely cutting or cutting out altogether DSLRs and lenses. Pentax forums also made the future of Nikon and possibly even Canon, look not so bright while apparently Pentax/Ricoh sales are actually up just a bit in the last couple of years. It really does depend on the data you are getting and where you get it.<br>

I may have to get used to the somewhat broken K200D for a while till I can sort things out. The internet makes everything look bad in one way or another... </p>