The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Towert7]

Wow, what an upgrade, and all for 20$!!!

I have the real old version of the 70-300mm. I really love it, execpt that mine doesn't have VR and it has a fair amount of chromatic aberration. From what I gather, the 70-300VR has nicer optics. That plus the VR really makes it a nice budget telephoto.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu

What does everyone think of the 24-120 streetsweeper? I am thinking of getting one, mainly for the VR, but also for the zoom.

I use a film camera, so no nerfed DX lenses for me.

I've got around $200-$300 to drop on a lens.

From what I've seen, it seems comparable to the 18-200mm, only for FF. At the price, I bet it's worth every penny.

[skyline889]

Originally Posted by Towert7

From what I've seen, it seems comparable to the 18-200mm, only for FF. At the price, I bet it's worth every penny.

Really? I was actually considering this lens since it would mate well with my 70-300 VR and a 12-24 Tokina but everywhere I've read says that it's not a very sharp lens. Some people actually took their camera in for service thinking it was their camera and not their brand new lens!

On a different note, I got a chance to see my friend's 30D and 10-22 and wow! I thought 18 was decent enough for what I do but 10mm is ridiculously wide, even on digital.

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by skyline889

Really? I was actually considering this lens since it would mate well with my 70-300 VR and a 12-24 Tokina but everywhere I've read says that it's not a very sharp lens. Some people actually took their camera in for service thinking it was their camera and not their brand new lens!

On a different note, I got a chance to see my friend's 30D and 10-22 and wow! I thought 18 was decent enough for what I do but 10mm is ridiculously wide, even on digital.

I haven't had a chance to use one myself but I've heard similar things - high levels of distortion and not-that-great sharpness.

And, yeah, ultrawides are a load of fun. I've tried a friend's Sigma 10-20mm on my D50 before, and it was unbelievable. I'd like to get one myself eventually, but I don't foresee any budget for camera expenses in the next year or so.

[uppis]

Talking about ultrawides, what would be your recommendition for widest, cheapes and best quality one..? I'm thinking about Tokina 12-24mm, but I'm not quite sure yet. And I live in a place where is no photography stores near, so testing is quite hard..

[nineohtoo]

^get that one. From the pics on nikon cafe, flare seems to be the only noticeable difference between the two. I sold my nikkor 12-24mm yesterday to help pay for my eeepc, and i didn't really like it. I'd personally wait for a DX f2.8 wide angle(I'm on the fence about the fisheye), but that's me. I'm not much of a landscape person, and f4 made the pictures I took with it boring imo. I prefer my 20mm 2.8, even if its really a 30mm.

I got it for $500 w/filters and sold it for $650 w/o filters(i needed them for my 80-200mm) and then i got my eeepc for cheaper than retail with more ram

[skyline889]

Originally Posted by uppis

Talking about ultrawides, what would be your recommendition for widest, cheapes and best quality one..? I'm thinking about Tokina 12-24mm, but I'm not quite sure yet. And I live in a place where is no photography stores near, so testing is quite hard..

The build quality and optics on the Tokina are great but there's a significant amount of chromatic aberration. I personally can't stand purple fringing so that broke the deal for me but it can be corrected in CS3 if you're not lazy like I am. Other than the CA and the flaring the poster above mentioned, it's a really great lens, especially if you can get one for between $350-400.

[OverlordXenu]

Originally Posted by skyline889

Really? I was actually considering this lens since it would mate well with my 70-300 VR and a 12-24 Tokina but everywhere I've read says that it's not a very sharp lens. Some people actually took their camera in for service thinking it was their camera and not their brand new lens!

On a different note, I got a chance to see my friend's 30D and 10-22 and wow! I thought 18 was decent enough for what I do but 10mm is ridiculously wide, even on digital.

I've also read that it's not very sharp...but I doubt it's so unsharp as to inhibit your photos.

If you're not taking product photos, I doubt it will matter.

On that note, I'm trying to get the VR version on ebay.

Originally Posted by nineohtoo

^get that one. From the pics on nikon cafe, flare seems to be the only noticeable difference between the two. I sold my nikkor 12-24mm yesterday to help pay for my eeepc, and i didn't really like it. I'd personally wait for a DX f2.8 wide angle(I'm on the fence about the fisheye), but that's me. I'm not much of a landscape person, and f4 made the pictures I took with it boring imo. I prefer my 20mm 2.8, even if its really a 30mm.

I got it for $500 w/filters and sold it for $650 w/o filters(i needed them for my 80-200mm) and then i got my eeepc for cheaper than retail with more ram

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that fisheye doesn't work nearly as well on digital as it does on film.

[uppis]

Originally Posted by skyline889

The build quality and optics on the Tokina are great but there's a significant amount of chromatic aberration. I personally can't stand purple fringing so that broke the deal for me but it can be corrected in CS3 if you're not lazy like I am. Other than the CA and the flaring the poster above mentioned, it's a really great lens, especially if you can get one for between $350-400.

I find chromatic aberration quite irritating too, I like when I don't need to mess with photoshop too much, in best cases pictures are ready straight out camera. Although BW is always something for PS.. Is Nikkor 12-24 better with CA?

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that fisheye doesn't work nearly as well on digital as it does on film.

The effect is reduced on DX.