The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[milkpowder]

I think it was from dpreview, tom hogan and Photozone. There are some pretty heated debates regarding the 16-85 eg high price, ordinary specifications, etc...

When I said IQ, what I really meant was sharpness. I didn't take into account other stuff like distortion or CA. Sorry for the confusion.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by Arainach

I'd be curious where you've been reading. I've used all those lenses except the 16-85, and from my use and the reviews I've read, I'd put it at:

18-55 = 18-135 < 18-70 = 16-85 = 18-200 <<<<< 17-55.

My first and foremost concern is sharpness, followed by distortion/aberration, followed by maximum aperture and focus speed.

The 16-85 can't even begin to touch the performance of the 17-55, so I'm not sure who in their right mind would rate it as anywhere near equal.

I really disagree. Last weekend I had the opportunity to borrow a friend's 17-55 f/2.8, and nothing save build quality impressed me. Distortions are fine; they aren't overly field relevant but do show in a few architectural shots; chromatic aberrations are fine; nothing spectacular, but nothing un-correctable in Photo-shop; and sharpness - my and your foremost concern - is nothing to rave about either; the center is great throughout the range but borders rarely catch up before f/6.3 or above.

Now, I haven't been able to demo the 16-85, but just looking at the cold hard numbers, the lens seems to tie or beat every measurable aspect of the 17-55; save for aperture of course.

Bottom line for me: the 17-55 is nice - pro quality construction, decent performance, and a relatively large aperture - but nothing spectacular or worth $1100 US. Granted, the 16-85 is no saint of a lens either, but it can't be called a disaster, or very far off performance wise from the 17-55.

[RYCeT]

Hi guys, I know I should probably get a macro lens for this kind of pics but can I get away with my nikon 35 f/2?










Btw, I'm currently looking to buy this lightbox from ebay It's for $165.00, Any other alternatives guys?

[Towert7]

RYcet. The 35mm F/2 can get fairly close, though not true 1:1 macro. The 35mm F/2 is about 300$, and the nikon micro 60mm is about 400$. Close enough in price.

[stuartr]

Originally Posted by RYCeT

Hi guys, I know I should probably get a macro lens for this kind of pics but can I get away with my nikon 35 f/2?
It's for $165.00, Any other alternatives guys?

Unless you are going to be shooting macros all day everyday, why not just make it out of shirt cardboard, foam core or mat board...they are all white, easy to cut into shape and cheap. 165 dollars (excluding shipping I assume) seems like a lot of money what is essentially a box with some holes in it.

As for getting away with your 35mm lens, what do you intend to do with these shots? For less than the cost of the box thing you can get a 55mm manual focus macro lens...I am not sure if it will work on your camera, but there are certainly cheap options out there...you will not need AF to shoot this style of subject, nor will you need the clearance of a 105mm lens. The lens is certainly more important than the box. Check out www.keh.com if you are interested in looking at used equipment...they are very reliable.

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

I really disagree. Last weekend I had the opportunity to borrow a friend's 17-55 f/2.8, and nothing save build quality impressed me. Distortions are fine; they aren't overly field relevant but do show in a few architectural shots; chromatic aberrations are fine; nothing spectacular, but nothing un-correctable in Photo-shop; and sharpness - my and your foremost concern - is nothing to rave about either; the center is great throughout the range but borders rarely catch up before f/6.3 or above.

Now, I haven't been able to demo the 16-85, but just looking at the cold hard numbers, the lens seems to tie or beat every measurable aspect of the 17-55; save for aperture of course.

Bottom line for me: the 17-55 is nice - pro quality construction, decent performance, and a relatively large aperture - but nothing spectacular or worth $1100 US. Granted, the 16-85 is no saint of a lens either, but it can't be called a disaster, or very far off performance wise from the 17-55.

Sounds like your friend got a bad sample; there were some QC issues in the first few years it was out. There were plenty of people who upon testing the lens had to return it for a new one once or twice. A good sample of it, however, is as good as any lens Nikon's ever made.

Also, technical measurements mean exactly 0 in real-world use.

[lan]

That box seems ok given that it has it's own lights. It has the cons of being small and the lights are not flexible meaning you can't change their angle nor the brightness. It has the pro of being easy to use and portable.

You could make something yourself but you'd need lights. Sometimes it's ugly or too much to setup a bunch of stuff and it might not be as portable.

I use a light tent as a middle ground and multiple flashes. This is the one I use. Photekusa.com The smallest size is like <$50. Pros are that it's portable, you can use your own backgrounds, you can mess with your lighting. With this particular tent, I can orient vertical or horizontal, light from different sides including bottom.

As for the lens, you can use your cheap zoom if you have one and if you have working distance. See how it works out for you at first.

If you're going to shoot jewerly in particular, it's hard. They reflect everything. I'm trying to learn it myself right now. Here's some images I took tonight.



edit: hmm there's something off with this image but I'm not fixing it. It's just a test image.

[WhatMACHI]

Does anyone have an idea how much an 18-135 should go for second hand (in australia if that makes a difference)?

Im thinking about selling my 18-135, to get a 18-200 to go with my D50 for a walkabout all purpose lens. Ill probably use this to take some shots at my mothers wedding comming up in a few months, so the extra zoom might be fun for the lunch candid shots.

Ive heard plenty of stuff about getting a more suitable lens for the wedding, but i cant see myself investing money into a lens specifically for events/gatherings. I may bring my 50 1.8, but i really dont see myself swapping lenses on the day.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by Arainach

Sounds like your friend got a bad sample; there were some QC issues in the first few years it was out. There were plenty of people who upon testing the lens had to return it for a new one once or twice. A good sample of it, however, is as good as any lens Nikon's ever made.

Also, technical measurements mean exactly 0 in real-world use.

Interesting. I've never heard of specific QC issues with that lens, but keeping that in mind, perhaps it's worth a purchase afterall?

[milkpowder]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

Interesting. I've never heard of specific QC issues with that lens, but keeping that in mind, perhaps it's worth a purchase afterall?

Do it