The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Iron_Dreamer]

Well, I've got a 35mm F2 AF-D on the way. It will be interesting to compare with the 18-200VR, which has left me with nagging questions about its' performance from time to time. This will be my first prime lens, but from all I could gather about it, it seems like good one. While I could have gone with the much cheaper 50mm F1.8, I just don't think that I'd use that length quite as much (aside from the idea that if I get hooked on primes, I'd want the F1.4 anyway).

[nickknutson]

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer

Well, I've got a 35mm F2 AF-D on the way. It will be interesting to compare with the 18-200VR, which has left me with nagging questions about its' performance from time to time. This will be my first prime lens, but from all I could gather about it, it seems like good one. While I could have gone with the much cheaper 50mm F1.8, I just don't think that I'd use that length quite as much (aside from the idea that if I get hooked on primes, I'd want the F1.4 anyway).

I'm thinking about renting a 35mm for an event I'm shooting on Friday. I'm still debating if I want to get that, or a zoom lens...I figured I can always crop them down. I've seen quite a few pictures with that lens and they were amazing!

I just bought the 50mm 1.8 the other day off a guy on the Cafe and should be here today, I'm eager to try it out. I was going to use that for the event, but I don't think it's going to be a wide enough shot...we'll see, hopefully I'll have both with me.

[Towert7]

The 50mm on a DX sensor is a bit tight for me most of the time when I'm out doing landscape shots, but it's pretty nice for head shots where you are not very close to the person..

I also have the 35mm F/2.0 lens. It's quite an interesting lens. You get such a tight DOF with it for closeups, you can create some effects that you never dreamt of with the 18-200mm. It's made quite nice for the price. Personally, I tend to use the 35mm for closeups when I can use the tripod. It allows pretty close focusing (especially for a non micro lens)!

[jterp7]

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer

Well, I've got a 35mm F2 AF-D on the way. It will be interesting to compare with the 18-200VR, which has left me with nagging questions about its' performance from time to time. This will be my first prime lens, but from all I could gather about it, it seems like good one. While I could have gone with the much cheaper 50mm F1.8, I just don't think that I'd use that length quite as much (aside from the idea that if I get hooked on primes, I'd want the F1.4 anyway).

I remember when picking out my first lens I got recommendations for primes ranging from the 50mm 1.8, the 50mm 1.4, and your aforementioned 35mm f2. Now thinking back, the 50mm most of the time allows me to keep a good distance from the subject, but there are those times when I feel the it could be just a bit wider. I initially chose the 1.4 over the others since it would be used for indoor pics of the kids. Later on I picked up the 18-200mm VR, but like you have some issues with its performance. I have to say that the convenience of zoom is really nice, but the sharpness of the 50mm 1.4 from 2.8 and up just kills it. The 18-200 is definitely better for outdoor shots since light isn't as much of a problem, but for pictures indoors of people, the wide end of the 18-200 definitely helps.

I'm debating whether or not to sell the 18-200..and just pick up the 35mm f2, but I'm wondering if after that i won't even pick up the 50mm and thus sell that as well

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer

Well, I've got a 35mm F2 AF-D on the way. It will be interesting to compare with the 18-200VR, which has left me with nagging questions about its' performance from time to time. This will be my first prime lens, but from all I could gather about it, it seems like good one. While I could have gone with the much cheaper 50mm F1.8, I just don't think that I'd use that length quite as much (aside from the idea that if I get hooked on primes, I'd want the F1.4 anyway).

35mm is a great focal best all-around imho. I used to shoot only with a 50mm and even though it gave great results, it got boring pretty fast. I believe the f1.8/2 nikon are not only much cheaper but usually sharper than the 1.4 so it's not really worth it... I've always wanted to try the 105mm 2.5 from nikon, supposed to be one of the best portrait lens, anybody has it and could post some pictures?

[dj_mocok]

Originally Posted by nineohtoo

It feels good to be back on the internet. The storm in the bay area last week only took out the power for a day, but my internet has been gone for nearly four days now. It was tough relying on my cell phone and using the PCs at work(and I was off the last two days!). Sorry for the rant, to my post:

Just picked up a 50mm f1.8 today(err yesterday?) for $75 off craigslist. I picked up one of those rubber lens hoods for it, and I'm debating whether or not to get a filter for it(I get them for about $8 at work).You people weren't kidding about it. I'm in love with this lens, and probably won't be using anything else for a good while. I only which I could afford the sellers 20mm f1.8(he was asking $180) or maybe find a fast 35mm to carry around with this for group shots. I'm just gonna tell myself to use my 18-135mm and SB-800 for those cases, so I can put that money towards a decent telephoto.

Don't bother putting on filter on your lenses. All my lenses don't have any filters on it. Unless you shoot in extreme condition, I don't think you need those 'protective' filters. You look like you're having fun with the lens, same like me, I think old manual fast primes are more fun that zooms.

About the other lens that you couldn't afford, did you mean 20mm 2.8?
I can't quite remember what camera you got, but for decent telephoto, used 80-200mm (the earlier push-pull version) can be had for pretty 'cheap'. (but I think it's too big for anything smaller than D80 size. Actually even D80 is a bit small to be comfortably used with this lens).

Too bad Nikon doesn't offer something like Canon's 200mm 2.8. (well they have 200mm f/2 but man that's serious money you're talking about) Although I'm not really into tele, but that Canon is one nice, affordable telephoto lens IMO. And it's relatively compact too.

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by dj_mocok

Too bad Nikon doesn't offer something like Canon's 200mm 2.8. (well they have 200mm f/2 but man that's serious money you're talking about) Although I'm not really into tele, but that Canon is one nice, affordable telephoto lens IMO. And it's relatively compact too.

Nikon has the 180mm f/2.8 at the same price. Of course, for just about the same money you could get the 80-200 f/2.8D and be far better off.

[dj_mocok]

I was kinda hoping for a Nikon's 200mm 2.8 that can perform as good as the 200mm f/2 (less the VR) and can be had for the cost (and size) of Canon's 200mm f/2.8

[Arainach]

Keep dreaming. The 200 f/2 is done with the same optical care as the 300 and 400 f/2.8 - a level of quality that may not appear in sub-$1000 lenses in our lifetimes (and given the rate of inflation, maybe ever).

[nineohtoo]

I stand corrected. I checked his listing and it is indeed a 20mm f2.8.

For my telephoto, I was hoping for a 70-300mm, or something that could get me close enough to shoot some surfing. I've seen people get decent shots from shore with that length. I played with the VR one at my work, and I feel like a spy when I take pictures with it lol.

The 50mm is such an awesome lens though. I really want to shoot with it at a club, but unfortunately there's no shows I'd be interested in seeing until next month when the Hives come around(probably wont even be able to bring my camera). For those in the area somebody just relisted their D version with hood, box and paperwork for only $90 on craigslist. Only about $15 more than I paid for my regular version and rubber quantaray hood.