The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[dj_mocok]

If I were you, I'd get the 17-50mm from Tamron too. The constant f/2.8 alone is well worth the $150 extra.
That's if you like shooting at lower apertures (some people shoot at a bit higher aperture and with flash most of the time).

[fureshi]

the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is the lens that i'm saving up for also. i was drooling over the nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 but from the reviews that i've read about the tamson, it's as sharp as the nikon in the center and a little CA on the edges. not a big deal to me considering that the tamron costs one third of the nikon. i'm one of those won't use flash unless i absolutely have to so the 2.8 will come in handy.

[perplex]

Beware that within 10 years from now all DSLRs may have 35mm sensors. So be wary of buying DX lens .

[Mercuttio]

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer

I found myself one of those as well (before I got my camera body, no less; go figure!)

You have the 18-70 on your D200, right? How does that work out for you? I've pondered whether to get it, or spend the extra $150 or so for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. I'm more interested in the narrow DOF than low-light capability (although I guess that won't hurt either), so I'm not quite sure how much a half to full stop will mean here (DSLR noob syndrome). Perhaps I should just stick to the 50mm when I want that effect.

Yep, I do have the 18-70. It's actually been much better than I expected... I was able to get much of what I wanted from it. It seems to me like a jack of all trades, master of none. Nice build with a waterproof seal, really quite nice in well lit settings. I decided to use it for several months and really figure out just what I wanted in other lenses... what were the limitations?

In low light, forget about darned thing. Frankly a large portion of why I'm going nuts over my new 50mm is the speed... I can shoot in low light and get super sharp images with very little trouble. It's also just so darned compact...

Curse you, Lens Fi!

[fureshi]

Originally Posted by perplex

Beware that within 10 years from now all DSLRs may have 35mm sensors. So be wary of buying DX lens .

but in 10 years, you would've gotten the value out of the lens so why not buy the right tool right now?

[dj_mocok]

Originally Posted by Mercuttio

Yep, I do have the 18-70. It's actually been much better than I expected... I was able to get much of what I wanted from it. It seems to me like a jack of all trades, master of none. Nice build with a waterproof seal, really quite nice in well lit settings. I decided to use it for several months and really figure out just what I wanted in other lenses... what were the limitations?

In low light, forget about darned thing. Frankly a large portion of why I'm going nuts over my new 50mm is the speed... I can shoot in low light and get super sharp images with very little trouble. It's also just so darned compact...

Curse you, Lens Fi!

Wait til you get your hands on 1.4

By the way, check out this hilarious thread on dpreview. Some people really get the D40 way out of their heads.

Anyway, I finally found a way to store my lenses.
I've been thinking:
- If I store them in a drawer or inside the cupboard ---> Might be too humid on warm days and might develop mould
- Outside sitting on the bench ---> gets dusty too quick and might develop condensation from air conditioner
- Putting it in a plastic container outside ---> Read about degasing and it might cloud the lens
- Putting it in a wooden box or shoe box ---> bad material, again, might develop mould
- zip lock ---> some people said it's better to let the air circulate, not sealed.

So I bought a metal bread bin (something like the one below), it can also breathe and I'm sticking a little bit of bluetak on the sides of lid so that it opens a bit more for the air to circulate, and since it's partially covered (with around 0.5cm opening and some small gaps on top), I hope it won't develop condensation from sudden temperature hike/drop from turning the air conditioner on and off. (hoping that the cool air inside will remain a bit longer when the A/C is off).
And they're cheap.

[perplex]

Originally Posted by fureshi

but in 10 years, you would've gotten the value out of the lens so why not buy the right tool right now?

True, depending on who you are. Some people will still be heartbroken spending £700 on a shiny Nikkor 12-24 DX only to find it won't be 12-24 in 10 years time or so. I've heard of people still using Nikkors bought 30 or so years ago .

Ah but then any 35mm sensory DSLR by Nikon will surely have a DX function too, so my arguement is flawed

[mbriant]

Some people will still be heartbroken spending £700 on a shiny Nikkor 12-24 DX only to find it won't be 12-24 in 10 years time or so. I've heard of people still using Nikkors bought 30 or so years ago

When I compare the build quality of my old MF Nikkors vs. the AF lenses of today, I have my doubts the newer lenses will last as long as the older ones anyway. At least not without a considerable amount of maintenance and/or repair. (not only because of the materials used but the complexity of AF)

I've already had to replace focusing motors in two AF-s lenses which were only a few years old. Fortunately it was done under warranty. Warranty's over now and one of them is developing the tell-tale intermittent squeak again already. I don't usually buy or recommend others to buy extended warranties for electronic equipment, but I do recommend them for today's expensive AF lenses.

[Contrastique]

Originally Posted by mbriant

When I compare the build quality of my old MF Nikkors vs. the AF lenses of today, I have my doubts the newer lenses will last as long as the older ones anyway. At least not without a considerable amount of maintenance and/or repair. (not only because of the materials used but the complexity of AF)

You are right about that one!! The af lenses contain much more electronics than the mf ones. That's also why your digital camera definately won't last 20-30 years as the old models did.

As for the dx function on the dslr; that will probably never happen cause the imagecircel in a dx lens is smaller so it fits the small sensor perfectly.
But for example; on a old Minolta af body the new digital lens wich is standard delivered with the Sony a100 will fit it but you have to zoom in, in order not to see the smaller circle of the digital lens.

[dj_mocok]

Hey hasn't the PMA started already? I haven't read anything about the new Nikon pro body yet. So it's just rumour afterall or they might announce it later or something?