The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[dj_mocok]

85 on DX is still perfectly fine for portraits, maybe a tad long for full body, but still is a great equipment to do portraits nonetheless.

Actually even the old 50mm 1.8 Ai/Ais is excellent in this regards. Set it at f/2.8 or f/4, it will give you great results.

Also try Tamron 90mm DiMacro F/2.8 - excellent bokeh.

[fureshi]

Darn, another lens to add to my list of wanted lenses. You guys are killing me with the headphone and lens suggestions...

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by dj_mocok

Actually even the old 50mm 1.8 Ai/Ais is excellent in this regards. Set it at f/2.8 or f/4, it will give you great results.

The 50s are a nice focal length, but even the f/1.4 still has a 7-bladed diaphragm that makes rough rather than circular light points in the background. The 55 f/1.2 is excellent if you can find a copy, but they're hard to track down.

[dj_mocok]

Nightshots or with lots of point of lights they maybe not that great but if you do daytime in a shaded areas, they are great.

I was thinking to get a 50mm 1.2 but then, I already got 2 50mms.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Arainach

The 85 f/1.4 is a classic on either DX or FX sensors. Its bokeh and DoF control are to die for.

I guess I'm not real picky about the fuzzy parts of the picture. I haven't found any Nikkor lens where I didn't like the bokeh.

See ya
Steve

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by dj_mocok

Nightshots or with lots of point of lights they maybe not that great but if you do daytime in a shaded areas, they are great.

I was thinking to get a 50mm 1.2 but then, I already got 2 50mms.

Even the 50 f/1.2 was a 7-blade. Only the 55mm had a 9. I've never figured out why they chose to do that, but whatever. Personally, I far prefer the look attained with the modern f/2.8 zooms (the 17-55, 28-70 or 24-70, and 70-200) over the look of any of the 50mm primes anyday for portraits.

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by bigshot

I guess I'm not real picky about the fuzzy parts of the picture. I haven't found any Nikkor lens where I didn't like the bokeh.

See ya
Steve

Fair enough. I reccomend checking out Nikon Lens Bokeh Comparison however. Even in just that 30-second test you can see where the background with the 18-200 is far sharper and more distracting than lenses like the 80-200 f/2.8 or 105mm Micro.

[JaZZ]

When you guys are talking of the «18-200» here, you mean the AF-S Nikkor 3.5-5.6/18-200 mm DX VR G IF-ED, right? Has anyone compared it with the Sigma 3.5-6.3/18-200 mm DC OS? I'm asking because the latter has performed far better than the Nikkor in the comprehensive lenses test of the German ColorFoto magazine. According to them (and the measuring values) it's the best megazoom available to date.
.

[Arainach]

Last I checked no one could get ahold of the Sigma. The Non-OS version was crap, but I haven't seen any reviews of the new one.

[Iron_Dreamer]

Originally Posted by JaZZ

When you guys are talking of the «18-200» here, you mean the AF-S Nikkor 3.5-5.6/18-200 mm DX VR G IF-ED, right?

Well I am, at least.

Sigma lenses seem to be quite hit-or-miss as it comes to build quality. Just the other day, in a store, I demoed both their 10-20 and 18-50 EX HSM lenses. The 10-20 felt noticeably better built, focused faster and quieter, and had a focus ring that didn't rotate and allowed instant MF override (whereas the 18-50 was the opposite). Considering that these are both "top of the line" lenses in their scheme (EX), I was quite surprised to note such a gulf of quality. Being that their 18-200 is a non-EX lens, who knows how well it may or may not hold up.