The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[jude]

Originally Posted by Towert7

....If I was doing pictures of very tiny things, I wouldn't even consider the 60mm. Go for 100mm or higher.

I went with a 60mm f/2.8 macro when I using the Canon, mostly for product photos, and then finding out that it could work for taking pictures of bugs, too.

That being said, I agree that 60mm is too short for me for bug work. That Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro is intriguing, but the reports of its slow focus turn me off. With the Canon 60mm--which had a pretty fast focus--I could put it on continuous focus, and it would quickly adjust for tiny movements caused by me, the wind, etc.

Also, like Towert7 said, shooting macro with large apertures resulted in parts of my targets being out of focus, so I tended to shoot bug shots when it was very sunny out so that I could stop it down and get the DOF I needed. I never really did much with the flash (for macro), nor did I ever pick up a macro-specific flash, although that's another tempting piece of kit.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Assuming one can even see a difference, how would he go about seeing it? By blowing up the picture to four feet across in photoshop and pixel peeping, or by printing it as a normal sized print and comparing?

I have to say though, that I've found my pictures that are the sharpest at 100% magnification (more or less) also look the sharpest looking at 25%.

The 18-55 VR is sharper than the sensor can reproduce at f8 and 35mm.

I don't know. My 18-55 wasn't always sharp, even at F/8 or F/11. Near the tele range it was, but when it went to wide angle things started to look worse. I will agree that the FX lenses are more limited by the sensor size than their sharpness. Though oddly, I still see differences in sharpness on a DX sensor, though not as much as a canon lens on a 5D vs. a 50D.

If image quality is that much of an issue, 4x5 or 8x10 view cameras can deliver MUCH better resolution with almost no distortion,

Tell me about it! If I had the money, I'd spring for a Mamiya digital kit right now. I have a book with scenery landscapes from japan, and a fair amount of them were taken with mamiya medium format cameras. Phenomenal!

I'm sure most of these sharpness fanatics would have a medium-large format camera, if only they could really afford it (digital, that is). Myself included.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Towert7

I have to say though, that I've found my pictures that are the sharpest at 100% magnification (more or less) also look the sharpest looking at 25%.

That may be a focus issue, not a sharpness issue. If a lens front or backfocuses, it's liable to look softer than a correctly focusing lens even at normal sizes. I've read about some lenses that focus fine close, but at distance, they focus beyond infinity. (That might even open up a black hole to swallow the universe!)

I think it was at dpreview.com where I read about the 18-55 VR exceeding the resolution of the sensor at f8. Looking at the specs for a lot of my lenses, this is the case. The biggest problem with sharpness in digital cameras is the antialiasing, not the lenses. But blown down to normal sizes, it isn't a problem at all.

See ya
Steve

[Towert7]

I took this with the old kit 18-55mm lens, at F/5.6, and it's one of the sharpest pictures I have of my cat (if not the sharpest).
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/...e22c30e3_o.jpg

The thing cost 100$..................
I still can't get over that.

Some of the budget nikon lenses rock.

[nickknutson]

Originally Posted by philodox

Nice, what did it run you if you don't mind me asking? I've been considering a FE since a reasonably priced good condition F2 seems to be near impossible to track down.

I paid $66 shipped. It needs a new rewind lever, but otherwise it's in perfect condition. (It's a $10 fix) My local shop has one that was in great condition for $150...but that included an MD-12 grip. I didn't want the grip, so I passed. I'm seeing them priced from $70-$100. There's a guy on ebay from Minnesota that's selling quite a few FE's. He restores them. I think his prices vary from $110 to $130. Nice guy. I've never met him, but I've spoken to him over the phone.

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Pro lenses are great, but with good lighting stopped down, there just isn't a lot of difference between a pro lens and a good kit lens. Why? Because at the middle of the aperture range on most lenses, the resolution of the lens comes close to exceeding the ability of the sensor in your camera to reproduce the image. The 18-55 VR is sharper than the sensor can reproduce at f8 and 35mm. No lens, no matter how well designed is going to perform better than that.

And after nearly an entire page of posts, you still don't get it, so I'll put it in a few nice, bolded bullet points:

• There is a LOT more to an image than sharpness, such as contrast and color rendition
• Saying "this lens is just as good at focal length X and aperture Y" does NOT make the lenses optically equal
• The reason people buy Pro glass is that it delivers excellent results at EVERY focal length and EVERY aperture, something which consumer-grade glass does not

[bigshot]

Using the example of the 17-55 at 35mm stopped down to f8 and the 18-55 at 35mm stopped down to f8, to me, they have nearly identical performance... sharpness, contrast, color, CA and distortion. If you are shooting in daylight and using those settings, there is no advantage to the pro version aside from build quality (and the weight that accompanies it).

The last point on your list is in my comments already. (Perhaps I should have bolded it so you could see it.) I pointed out that pro lenses have better performance in low light and at extreme focal lengths. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about an average focal length at an average aperture used in the average daylight conditions that most people shoot in.

See ya
Steve

[Towert7]

:sigh:
This is getting a little boring guys...................
Going around, in circles and circles and circles..........

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Using the example of the 17-55 at 35mm stopped down to f8 and the 18-55 at 35mm stopped down to f8, to me, they have nearly identical performance... sharpness, contrast, color, CA and distortion. If you are shooting in daylight and using those settings, there is no advantage to the pro version aside from build quality (and the weight that accompanies it).

The last point on your list is in my comments already. (Perhaps I should have bolded it so you could see it.) I pointed out that pro lenses have better performance in low light and at extreme focal lengths. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about an average focal length at an average aperture used in the average daylight conditions that most people shoot in.

See ya
Steve

So, the sum of your argument is "consumer zooms are fine for daylight tourist snapshots". The main problem being that that describes roughly 0-1% of the shots I do with my DSLR. When I bring out the DSLR, it's because of demanding conditions. I very, very rarely shoot at apertures smaller than f/5.6. Even during the day, I usually don't want infinite depth of field - I'd prefer some background blur, so I shoot at larger apertures. Which consumer zooms tend to suck at. My 18-70 was merely bearable at f/4.5 70mm; my 18-200 at 200mm f/5.6 is unbearable to the point where I'm selling it. Even in normal use there's a clear difference between pro and consumer lenses. I don't spend my life at 35mm f/8. When I was using an 18-55, I was at either 18mm or 55mm for 95% of my shots, and for a very substantial chunk of them I was wide-open.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Arainach

So, the sum of your argument is "consumer zooms are fine for daylight tourist snapshots". The main problem being that that describes roughly 0-1% of the shots I do with my DSLR.

We aren't talking about you. We're talking about the average person who buys a DSLR. There's nothing wrong with shooting in daylight at f8 or f11. Millions of photographers, both professionals and amateurs, do it every day. Ansel Adams did it too, and he certainly didn't just shoot "tourist snapshots". Maybe you need to shoot at a wider aperture than f8 or have a super long telephoto or ultrawide, but to most people, spending many times the cost of the consumer lens just to get the ability to shoot in rare exceptional circumstances just isn't worth it.

Lenses are just tools that are either suitable for a purpose, or not. The gold lettering on the barrel and the high price tag doesn't represent the quality of images that can be produced with them. Their ability to do the job at hand does. A bag full of pro lenses doesn't say anything about one's ability as a photographer. Weston and Steiglitz each owned one lens.

A great photographer is a great photographer if he's holding a Leica, a Speed Graphic, a D700, or a Casio pocket point and shoot... given the right circumstances, he can get a great photo with any of those. When asked which camera and lens was best, Eisenstadt said, "You can take excellent pictures with the simplest camera, because it is THIS lens that matters." He was pointing to his eye.

See ya
Steve