The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[jmmtn4aj]

Originally Posted by Mrvile

lol, I'm exactly opposite.

My parameters are: Contrast -2, Sharpness 0, Hue 0, Saturation -2

I prefer using lower contrast and saturation to ensure that I get no clipping or lose any image information. I then work the contrast, saturation, and sharpness later in Photoshop as I see fit. Photoshop's processing is a LOT better than in-camera processing.

Surely you lose information when you lower saturation and contrast using the camera's processor anyway? I used to shoot raw, but then I begun to realise something Edwood has touched on

Originally Posted by Edwood

I am very proficient with Photoshop, but I just don't want to do that much work on nearly every single image I shoot.

[dj_mocok]

I just finished shooting with my bro's 17-35mm today, boy, that lens was awesome! There's nothing less-contrasty or pale looking at all about that lens.

But manual focus wise (but who wanna do manual with that kind of AF-S lens anyway), once you've tried a good manual Ai-S , even something like 17-35mm won't make you happy when it comes to manual focusing.

[skyline889]

Hmm, I've been looking for a good, affordable, telephoto lens for a while now and I'm still not sure which way to go. What are your guy's opinions on the Nikkor 80-200 AF-D and the Tokina AT-X 80-400? I know the first version of the 80-400 wasn't great but the newest version is supposedly really sharp with minimal amounts of distortion, the only downside would be that the maximum aperture isn't great, so it's not that fast of a lens. Right now I'm kind of leaning towards the 80-400 since it seems to offer better value for the money but I'm really not sure. Either will eventually be complemented by a Tokina 12-24mm. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[lan]

Originally Posted by Edwood

LOL, I'm the opposite, I'm so used to small prime lenses, this lens is huge compared to my other ones.

Pentax makes some insane small pancakes. You're all body and no lens.

I'm the opposite. My body is a glorified lens cap.

[morphine]

Originally Posted by skyline889

Hmm, I've been looking for a good, affordable, telephoto lens for a while now and I'm still not sure which way to go. What are your guy's opinions on the Nikkor 80-200 AF-D and the Tokina AT-X 80-400? I know the first version of the 80-400 wasn't great but the newest version is supposedly really sharp with minimal amounts of distortion, the only downside would be that the maximum aperture isn't great, so it's not that fast of a lens. Right now I'm kind of leaning towards the 80-400 since it seems to offer better value for the money but I'm really not sure. Either will eventually be complemented by a Tokina 12-24mm. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

I'm in much the same situation skyline. I picked up a D200 a couple months ago and I've been shooting with a 35mm f/2 and a just recently acquired 50mm f/1.4 so my only experience is with standard primes. This has helped my composition for those focal lengths but unfortunately has left me lacking for ANY experience with zoom lenses and telephotos.

Some good friends just suggested another trip to Asia in October so before then I'd like to have a somewhat broader set of skills (and lenses) . Looking into telephotos, I'm just frightened by the pricetags; this may simply be because I'm spoiled by the speed of the primes I've been using and couldn't imagine shooting with a lens with a max aperture of f/4 or f/5.6. Either way though, I've been trying to decide between the 80-200 and the 70-200. I think I would really like VR but would I like it enough to justify double the cost? I've done a good bit of research, but as you can see I'm torn. Any help would be very appreciated!

m

[lan]

Originally Posted by morphine

this may simply be because I'm spoiled by the speed of the primes I've been using and couldn't imagine shooting with a lens with a max aperture of f/4 or f/5.6.

Either way though, I've been trying to decide between the 80-200 and the 70-200. I think I would really like VR but would I like it enough to justify double the cost?

I don't have experience with those lenses but my observations from using these focal lengths are it depends what you want to take pictures of and how you like your pictures.

- Telephoto depth of field is narrow. To get more in focus, you'll have to stop down. I find myself at f4 to f5.6 for isolation normally anyway.
- You gain a little better quality stopping down.
- I hardly use f/2.8 unless it's a more low light situation.
- Image stabilization will give you sharper pics. It helps at all focal lengths. This could be bad though... once you wonder why your non VR lens images look a little blurry

Unfortunately you don't have many options so if you're going to spend the $, I would get the 70-200. That extra 10mm on short end can be useful. Changing lenses can be annoying. 80 on 1.5 crop would be a little long for up close action.

[morphine]

Thanks for the input lan. I didn't even consider the extra 10mm.

Also, I agree that 95% of the time I won't be shooting wide open but that extra 5% has a nagging loud voice..

m

[Edwood]

Here's a little Nikon VS. Pentax Comparo...

Nikon D80
AF-S DX VR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
SB-400 with Stofen Omni-Bounce

Shot with Pentax *ist DS





Pentax *ist DS
SMCP-FA 35mm f/2.0 AL
AF-360 FGZ with with Stofen Omni-Bounce

Shot with Nikon D80




I love the yin and yang of the flash size to camera body and lens size between Nikon and Pentax here.

Shot with Nikon D80 Click pic for larger pic.


Shot with Pentax *ist DS Click pic for larger pic.



Nikon is definitely the master of flashes. Even the diminuitive SB-400 outperforms the much larger Pentax AF-360 FGZ.

The 18-200mm VR is a very nice lens. Definitely has barrel distortion, but it can easily be fixed with a nice Photoshop plug in. With the pics above, I made no corrections, only brightness and exposure. Also, definitely softer at the corners, VS. the Pentax 35mm Prime's sharpness from corner to corner. I could always slap on a Prime lens on the Nikon and enjoy corner to corner sharpness, but the 18-200mm offer such a large focal range in one lens.

Where the Nikon fails compared to the Pentax is natural lighting, particularly with compact fluorescent lighting. Pentax wins out here, but only if you can get the damned thing to focus on anything. Pentax's AF system is piss poor, very slow and hunts all the time in low light. Even using the AF-360 FGZ's focus assist lamp, it still hunts.

Perhaps if I had a better Prime lens like the legendary 28mm f/1.4, I'd think differently, but I could buy a Pentax K10D and a 31mm Limited f/1.8 and still have money left over. I could also buy a Canon 5D and a nice Prime lens for what the going rate of the Nikkor 28mm f/1.4 is selling for these days.

I really hope Nikon releases a new AF-S 28mm or 35mm f/1.4 in the future.

So, as much as I like shooting without a flash, it just isn't possible with the 18-200mm VR, unless I shoot at crappily high ISO's.

However given Pentax's iffy financial state, I pretty much have no choice to jump ship to Nikon.

So, I am officially part of Team Nikon.

-Ed

[nogrot]

Originally Posted by Edwood

Where the Nikon fails compared to the Pentax is natural lighting, particularly with compact fluorescent lighting. Pentax wins out here, but only if you can get the damned thing to focus on anything.

I like how you just said flourescent lighting was "natural." I'm pretty sure you're commenting on their attempts at white balance, which from what I've seen, not a single DSLR from any manufacturer is truly great at. WhiBal's are a great product and I'm told ExpoDiscs are awesome too. Also, Nikon does offer a lens or two with f/2.8 aperature and larger...

Perhaps if I had a better Prime lens like the legendary 28mm f/1.4, I'd think differently...

Comparing a very mix-reviewed 12x super-zoom to a super fast wide prime seems a little silly to me as far as overall statements on systems go. I suppose you write about what you have, but the lens doesn't always make the photo.

I really hope Nikon releases a new AF-S 28mm or 35mm f/1.4 in the future.

Me too, with VR. My other hope is that I have the clairvoyance to sell my 28mm for an outrageous price before the bottom drops out on the market.

So, I am officially part of Team Nikon.

Congrats. May the evil red triangle serve you well!

[Edwood]

Originally Posted by nogrot

I like how you just said flourescent lighting was "natural." I'm pretty sure you're commenting on their attempts at white balance, which from what I've seen, not a single DSLR from any manufacturer is truly great at. WhiBal's are a great product and I'm told ExpoDiscs are awesome too. Also, Nikon does offer a lens or two with f/2.8 aperature and larger...

Bleh, you know what I meant. I'll just say no flash pics from now on. My D80 definitely has a warm tint to every pic. Great for people pics, not so much for product stuff. Had the same result with a D200, but that is no big surprise.
So I'm guessing I'm going to have to get a white or gray card to take a custom white balance shot each time I take "no flash pics"? Any recommendations? Preferrably cheap and portable.

Comparing a very mix-reviewed 12x super-zoom to a super fast wide prime seems a little silly to me as far as overall statements on systems go. I suppose you write about what you have, but the lens doesn't always make the photo.

Why not? People compare IEM's to full sized cans here all the time. I can dream about the "perfect" lens, can't I?

Me too, with VR. My other hope is that I have the clairvoyance to sell my 28mm for an outrageous price before the bottom drops out on the market.


Congrats. May the evil red triangle serve you well!

LOL, just watch the PMA and news closely, then when there are confirmed rumors, eBay that sucker!

If Pentax had a wider angle prime with F/1.4, I'd be more likely to stay with them, but as it stands their "best" primes are f/1.8. Close, but no cigar.

Oh, yeah. I am dreaming of a 35mm f/1.4 VR Nikkor! Better yet, 16-50mm f/1.4 VR Nikkor. I'd even settle for 16-50mm f/2 VR. I'd bet they weigh 5 lbs, though.

-Ed