The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by fureshi

there are some good books out there about exposure and how to take exposure readings properly.

I was talking about sharpness, not exposure. f16 is not necessarily sharper than f5.6. At very small apertures, diffraction can cause a picture to have huge depth of field but overall fuzziness. The middle of a lens's f-stop range is the sharpest.

Here is a vivid example of how f 5.6 is sharper than f 16 or f 32.

See ya
Steve

[milkpowder]

Re: 60mm AF-D

And I really dig its old-school looks too.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by RYCeT

It's been awhile for me to read this nikon thread, so Ed, have you picked your micro lens yet? Which one? Are you happy with it?
The reason I'm asking, I also looks for a micro lens. I'm considering Nikon 60mm, 105mm, and Tamron 90mm. Currently I'm leaning on Tamron, they have $90 rebate which bring the cost down to around $350. I read their reviews, it give 105mm run for their money and capable to take a good potrait as well which I find important since I loved taking potrait and lust for nikon 85 1.4 but what can I say, at my latest financial condition I can't afford to buy the nikon 85 1.4 yet and I need a macro lens. It seems the tamron 90 is a very good alternative to me.

The Tamron also gives you a solid working distance at 1:1. With a 60mm macro, you could find yourself inches in front of a subject at maximum magnification - which isn't ideal for depth of field purposes or camera-shy creatures. Obviously, the Nikon 105 is even better than the Tamron in that respect and many others; but for $700, it should be.

[M0T0XGUY]

This ain't Canon's thread, but the recent 5D MK II Samples Gallery is up on DPreview; and the results are impressive. Detail seems phenomenal at lower ISOs, and low-light performance is solid considering the 21 megapixel sensor. I am a bit curious as to the accuracy of the metering and dynamic range, however: the highlights on a lot of the shots are fairly blown out. Regardless, I think Canon has finally caught up to Nikon's digital offerings after a few years of playing the underdog. $2700 for a 21 MP, FF digital SLR is a great deal.

EDIT: Check out this ISO 3200 shot of a black watch. Digital Noise is noticeable in the dark color, but unobtrusive; and chroma noise is invisible.

[bigshot]

I took my new Sigma 50 f1.4 out last night after work and shot a few shots. You can see the results on my blog Late Night Coffee Shops.

I'm not entirely happy with the pics, not because of the lens, which performed beautifully, but because I have gotten used to VR. I've gotten lazy and I don't brace myself for long exposures as well as I should. But all in all, the Sigma is exactly as advertised- sharp all the way out to the corners at all f stops, super fast and accurate focusing, and beautiful bokeh.

See ya
Steve

[Edwood]

Originally Posted by bigshot

I was talking about sharpness, not exposure. f16 is not necessarily sharper than f5.6. At very small apertures, diffraction can cause a picture to have huge depth of field but overall fuzziness. The middle of a lens's f-stop range is the sharpest.

Here is a vivid example of how f 5.6 is sharper than f 16 or f 32.

See ya
Steve

That would explain why I sem to favor f/5.6 when shooting a lot.

I also like it's depth of field, it's a happy medium.

-Ed

[lan]

For sharpness I prefer f4 to f8 myself depending on the lens. Of course it depends which camera also.

Isn't the 60mm AF-S better than the old one? It's one of the new nano coated ones.

[dj_mocok]

If I ever used f/4, 5.6, or smaller, it's mainly because I want the depth of field or it's just way too bright.

Apart from that, stopped down to f/2.8 gives me sharp enough results already for the things I shoot.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by lan

Isn't the 60mm AF-S better than the old one? It's one of the new nano coated ones.

Optically I really can't fault the 60mm AF-D. It doesn't really suffer from glare, or CA. Its optics were phenomenal! The AF-S only seems to improve the mechanics, adding AF-S, and having internal focus.

If the improved mechanics (and that, is debatable), at the cost of a cheaper feel, are enough to warrant 80$, then you know which to get.

[Edwood]

Originally Posted by Towert7

Optically I really can't fault the 60mm AF-D. It doesn't really suffer from glare, or CA. Its optics were phenomenal! The AF-S only seems to improve the mechanics, adding AF-S, and having internal focus.

If the improved mechanics (and that, is debatable), at the cost of a cheaper feel, are enough to warrant 80$, then you know which to get.

Internal focus is a big improvement. As having the lens element keep extending as I tried to get closer to a subject would be annoying.

-Ed