The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[darkninja67]

Originally Posted by lan

Ah yes. Forgot there were newer 17-50s with motors built in. What were the issues?

I think the issues were AF related. I need to check FM's forum I guess.

[lan]

The D300 has AF fine tune. One thing that I'm tired of is AF issues on either Canon or Nikon. This feature has saved me the hassle of finding a good AF copy or sending it in and recalibrating.

[darkninja67]

Originally Posted by lan

The D300 has AF fine tune. One thing that I'm tired of is AF issues on either Canon or Nikon. This feature has saved me the hassle of finding a good AF copy or sending it in and recalibrating.

Nice feature among many others on the D300. Just trying to justify the cost over a 40D which is almost an $800 premium. I am just so comfortable with Canon too. The D300 is pretty sweet though.

[milkpowder]

Yeah perhaps the tamron would've been better value in terms of distortion and speed, but it has very high levels of CA.

Just casually shooting around with the 18-70 just now, I do find that the slowness can -just- about be compensated by increasing ISO. However distortion and vignetting are both very obvious ta the wide end, rendering the 18mm almost unusable. Fortunately, both aspects improve hugely (almost non-existing vignetting) at a few mm towards the long end. I also miss the VR of the 18-200, which I'm finally beginning to "understand"now that I don't have it.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by darkninja67

Nice feature among many others on the D300. Just trying to justify the cost over a 40D which is almost an $800 premium. I am just so comfortable with Canon too. The D300 is pretty sweet though.

It's funny that you mention that. The 40D sounds like such a nice camera, and looks really nice. I was expecting a lot from it. Two days ago I got a chance to use one for a few minutes, and it felt like a big square box........... No where near as comfortable as my D50, which shocked me. I wouldn't want to carry that thing around all day. Too bad too, because canon has some nice lenses.

[lan]

Originally Posted by darkninja67

Nice feature among many others on the D300. Just trying to justify the cost over a 40D which is almost an $800 premium. I am just so comfortable with Canon too. The D300 is pretty sweet though.

Since there's no Nikon equivalent of 70-200 f4, it shouldn't be much of a choice if that's a lens you're really into.

Originally Posted by milkpowder

Yeah perhaps the tamron would've been better value in terms of distortion and speed, but it has very high levels of CA.

Just casually shooting around with the 18-70 just now, I do find that the slowness can -just- about be compensated by increasing ISO. However distortion and vignetting are both very obvious ta the wide end, rendering the 18mm almost unusable. Fortunately, both aspects improve hugely (almost non-existing vignetting) at a few mm towards the long end. I also miss the VR of the 18-200, which I'm finally beginning to "understand"now that I don't have it.

I don't think the Tamron has very high levels of CA. But everybody has their own thresholds of what's low, medium, and high.

You can use auto ISO to compensate for lens shake also. Just set the minimum shutter speed high enough.

[vagarach]

So, I think I've decided on getting the Nikon 50mm f/1.8. I like the fact that for $150 CDN I can get some superb quality optics without spending much money.

After seeing the behemoth that is the 70-300, I seriously doubt I'd have a use for such a thing, it's like a telescope mounted on a camera! Usually due to price constraints in the zoom lenses I end up looking at Sigmas, which are FULL of little quirks and oddities optics and usability wise. (I read that the focus ring direction is reversed compared to Nikon lenses!).

50mm is the standard for 35mm cameras, but is the 75mm equivalent length on the D50, etc just as useful? I was thinking of playing it safe and getting the 35mm f/2, but that would give the ability to use a larger aperture at ~50mm than on the kit lens, as well as closer focusing and higher image quality, but still a focal length I'm used to shooting at.

[bigshot]

In general use, I find more use for wide angles than I do telephotos.

See ya
Steve

[Iron_Dreamer]

Originally Posted by lan

Ah yes. Forgot there were newer 17-50s with motors built in. What were the issues?

Hmmm...the 17-50 I have is the A16-II type with the built-in motor. I have had no focus issues so far, and tested carefully for front and back focus at 4 different FL's. I also dragged the sucker up 5000 feet of mountain on 'er first day out, so I doubt any issues are going to pop up all of a sudden. I will say it's not the quickest or fastest focus around, and the noise is a funny chirping sort of a sound that is not exactly confidence inspiring.

Originally Posted by lan

I don't think the Tamron has very high levels of CA. But everybody has their own thresholds of what's low, medium, and high.

The 17-50 certainly has noticeable CA at certain FL/Ap combos, but rarely enough to be annoying, or enough to make me bother correcting it. After the the 18-200, which had noticeable CA in most shots, it's a definite improvement, but not like my Sigma 10-20 whose CA has been consistently negligible.

[milkpowder]

I've got a question about a shot I took today.

Here the resized but otherwise untouched photo:


It was a pretty grey, downcast day so I set WB to "cloud". Whacked on aperture priority F/5.6, ISO 800, lined up and shot. Why is the background (and actually most of the picture) so hazy? I think I should use a smaller aperture next time because quite a bit of the photo is out of focus. It doesn't help that I don't have a particularly steady hand


The 18-70 is quite prone to CA too: 24mm F/4.5, 100% crop of the top right hand side:


Barrel distortion is also rather ridiculous at the wide end.