Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here) - Page 365

post #5461 of 5774

some recent ones

 

should have stopped down more here.  I was walking next to them and took this snapshot.  Probably needed to be at around f/3.5 with my 50mm 1.8 lens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on of my first times trying out the multiple exposure feature on my camera.  

 

 

 


Edited by hyogen - 5/8/13 at 12:16pm
post #5462 of 5774

 

 

post #5463 of 5774

I'm a bit short on time, so I'm going to have to throw in an annoying request for advice without properly searching the thread, sorry about that.

 

The Nikon 55-200mm VR seems to be a pretty good price at Amazon UK right now. Do you guys and gals think it would be worth getting as a small, light lens for hiking around, given I already have a Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6? The latter is supposed to be capable of some decent results.

 

The extra range would be nice but it's not something I'm too bothered about. The VR is more enticing but I do have a 70-300mm VR for that; I just don't always want to carry it.

 

I did try the Nikon 55-300mm VR at one point but didn't get on with it. I found the AF a bit slow and prone to hunting. The VR didn't always settle satisfactorily at lower light levels. At the 300mm end I found the lack of permanent manual focus override to be limiting. This may be less of an issue at 200mm.

 

The 55-200 is supposed to focus better but it will be a slower lens (as in f/5.6 at 200mm; that said, ISTR there wasn't a lot in it).

 

So, any advice? Is there any real benefit over the 80-200mm other than VR? Is the 55-200 too good a price to pass up?

 

Of course, my budget for this may get wiped out in the next week!


Edited by anoobis - 5/23/13 at 12:06am
post #5464 of 5774

I don't see the point having two lenses in the same range like that. If your camera body is fairly recent, speed shouldn't be an issue. Just up the ISO a tad.

post #5465 of 5774
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

 

Ooh, I recognize where that's from! I walked through there a little bit when I went down to Portland over spring break...

And as to not derail the thread:

 

1000

No impressive pictures with the camera so far, I'm still trying to figure out all this photography jazz, but I'm excited to learn!

post #5466 of 5774
Thanks for the reply. I agree, no point in covering the same range. If I got the 55-200 VR I wouldn't keep the 80-200. Just wondering, whether the image quality and usability improvements (?) make it worth changing. Must check size and weight, since that's the point of the 80-200 for me at the moment.
post #5467 of 5774

 

post #5468 of 5774
Quote:
Originally Posted by anoobis View Post

I'm a bit short on time, so I'm going to have to throw in an annoying request for advice without properly searching the thread, sorry about that.

 

The Nikon 55-200mm VR seems to be a pretty good price at Amazon UK right now. Do you guys and gals think it would be worth getting as a small, light lens for hiking around, given I already have a Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6? The latter is supposed to be capable of some decent results.

 

The extra range would be nice but it's not something I'm too bothered about. The VR is more enticing but I do have a 70-300mm VR for that; I just don't always want to carry it.

 

I did try the Nikon 55-300mm VR at one point but didn't get on with it. I found the AF a bit slow and prone to hunting. The VR didn't always settle satisfactorily at lower light levels. At the 300mm end I found the lack of permanent manual focus override to be limiting. This may be less of an issue at 200mm.

 

The 55-200 is supposed to focus better but it will be a slower lens (as in f/5.6 at 200mm; that said, ISTR there wasn't a lot in it).

 

So, any advice? Is there any real benefit over the 80-200mm other than VR? Is the 55-200 too good a price to pass up?

 

Of course, my budget for this may get wiped out in the next week!

I'm sure you know all the prices for said lenses. The 55-300 is what you already described for $400. Have you looked at the newish Tamron 70-300 VC? $450 then minus $100 mail in= $350.

 

 

 

Capable of 1:2 Macro and the BEST stabilizer in the industry! Good optics and snappy focus once it decides to go. I think one of the best value lenses right now.

post #5469 of 5774
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc9394 View Post

 

 

Great shots. Where were they taken? What did you use for the shots? Thanks

post #5470 of 5774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank I View Post

Great shots. Where were they taken? What did you use for the shots? Thanks

John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, taking with D800E with 24-70 on a tripod.
post #5471 of 5774

inside The Alamo in San Antonio

 

 

 

capitol building in Austin, TX

post #5472 of 5774

musubi1000, thanks for the reply and the photos. I'm not sure that rebate applies in the UK but in any case I was after smaller and lighter. I did try the Tamron in a shop at one point. It seemed quite nice but I didn't even get chance to go outside with it so didn't get a proper impression.

post #5473 of 5774
I had a friend over with a Nikon d200 and an 18mm to 200 mm zoom lens. I had an old film Nikon body and an old prime 18mm lens.

What was amazing is through the viewfinder the film Nikon 18mm had about a 1/3 frame more wide perspective. Obviously taking a 35mm photograph then comparing just what was on the D200 digital frame side by side would be a better example of the difference. View finders don't always show excactly what is falling on the sensor.

I know the view is just slightly cropped with my d3000. Just a slight more info is hitting the sensor than what it shows threw the viewfinder.



The amazing thing here is I truly don't think an 18 to 200mm lens on a d200 is really giving you a full 18mm focal length. At first I thought it may be that the lens could be used maybe with dx and non dx cameras, so that is where the descrpeticy was. But no it's only a dx lens and the d200 is a dx Nikon.


You would think all 18mm lens systems would put the same image on the sensor. Now I'm going to have to compare the 18mm to 55mm kit lens perspective with the 18mm to 200mm perspective at the full 18mm mark and look for variations.



Wow, just started to research this. It does turn out that many cameras and especially Nikon Dx line don't always show in the viewfinder what goes on the sensor.

Now I'm also trying to figure out if they still put the focal length for a full frame body on Dx lens specs?
Edited by Redcarmoose - 7/6/13 at 10:02am
post #5474 of 5774

Film cameras are full frame. A D200 is a DX crop sensor. There is a 1.5x difference between the two. A 50mm on DX would be the same as 75mm on full frame. A full frame sensor is bigger than a DX sensor, but the image created by the lens is the same. So the DX lens crops it a bit.


Edited by bigshot - 7/6/13 at 1:05pm
post #5475 of 5774
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Film cameras are full frame. A D200 is a DX crop sensor. There is a 1.5x difference between the two. A 50mm on DX would be the same as 75mm on full frame. A full frame sensor is bigger than a DX sensor, but the image created by the lens is the same. So the DX lens crops it a bit.


Thx that is what I thought.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)