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 368

post #5506 of 5785

The 35mm was too narrow for DX, but perfect for FX for me. That's why I was thinking the 24mm would be good. It is small and light.  I used to hand my D7000 to my daughter with the 35mm on it and tell her to take photos of her brother. The results were very good. I've let her play with cameras since she was about 3 years old though. A kid with a pocket camera can be quite amusing. Lots of laughs when you go later and look what is on the card.

 

There was a second-hand 14-24 in the camera store the other week. VERY tempting. It is such a mad lens. I enjoy how it makes everything you stick it right up to look more interesting by overblowing the depth and size of objects, but with tons of detail. 

 

I can assure you that this stone creature was not at all interesting at a distance.

 

 

I have a ton of pictures of my kids and friends' kids taken with it shoved in their face more or less.  Way more fun than the usual flat, generic shots of them doing stuff. The downside is: Portrait shots do not work. It is landscape or nothing.  It gets tiring after a while though, as everything is crazy, all the time. That's another reason for the 16-35 choice: I can have normal or crazy without having to change lenses.

post #5507 of 5785

How is the sharpest between the 14-24 and 16-35 around f/5.6?  When I tested the 14-24, I have the D700 and I do not see much difference.  Now, I have the D800E and wonder if there are any difference.  The 16-35 has more usable range for me and the VR function is really nice.

post #5508 of 5785

That's a good question. I don't have the 14-24 here any longer to test. I think you need to check -- I forgot the site name -- that does comprehensive measurements, or DP Review maybe. Ken Rockwell has good comparisons as well.

 

I don't stress over sharpness excessively, as I mostly shoot my kids, so getting them actually in focus in the first place is trouble enough! 3D focus mode is a godsend for that!

 

I'll try and find some shots later from both lenses that were taken at f5.6 and post them up at full resolution or some 100% crops so you can take a look. 

post #5509 of 5785
Both the 16-35 and the 14-24 are later generation lenses. Both are on the Nikon approved list of lenses for the D800. Both are ridiculously sharp. There may be slight variances between them but at this level it's of little consequence. Get the best one that fits your criteria and budget. You can't go wrong. The extra stop the 14-24 affords you isn't that big a deal on an 800 as the 800 can run up to ISO 3200 with no COLOR noise.
post #5510 of 5785

Nikons 1st built in meter. It wasn't even TTL!
For all the digital only shooters notice the lens is designated in cm.
Edited by musubi1000 - 9/27/13 at 12:51pm
post #5511 of 5785

Just got the 80-200MM lens today and also have the 70-200MM on order to compare both. Like what I see on the 80-200MM so far

AppleMark

 

AppleMark

 

AppleMark

post #5512 of 5785

AppleMark

 

AppleMark


Edited by Frank I - 10/3/13 at 7:40pm
post #5513 of 5785

This thread seems dead!

 

Nikon last week announced D610.  The web went crazy (mostly in a bad way).  It's the same as the d600 with a different shutter; .5 fps faster with a new quiet mode, same everything else.

 

Retailers discounting on hand d600's and refurbs -- $1600ish at the moment.  May be a great time to scoop one up (or second hand)!  Just be prepared to have to clean your own sensor regularly for the first 10k or so clicks.

 

I don't have a d600 anymore but it is a really great camera and IMO you definitely see/feel/know the difference when you step up to full frame.  People complain about smaller buffer and less autofocus points, older AF system, and dust/oil on the mirror.  None of which render the camera useless if you are a reasonable individual.

post #5514 of 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyline889 View Post

For those of you that shoot digital, since the Nikon wb setting for incandescent light is pretty bad, what do you guys do about it? I adjust wb manually through Photoshop but it would be a lot less hassle if there was a trick to do it through the camera. I had this problem on both the D70 and the D50 and it's plagued on the D40 as well, is it like this on the higher end D80/D200 as well?

I do nothing at the taking stage.  I shoot RAW.   No white balance settings are applied to RAW files, just as there is no sharpening, or colour profiling....   it's a RAW file.

 

As I don't wander around taking random photos, and everything I do is on a professional basis, I ensure the first shot of every studio session contains a grey card to act as a reference for colour balancing the whole batch.  It takes one click.

 

If on location, I so the same thing, but before each image shoot (as light is changing more dynamically outdoors).

 

This is the only totally accurate and easy way of colour balancing.

 

As an amateur you may not want to do that, but shooting RAW is still my recommendation, as you don't have to worry about this at the time of shooting.  Do it later in Lightroom or Adobe Camera RAW.


Edited by pookeyhead - 10/15/13 at 10:09am
post #5515 of 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc9394 View Post
 

How is the sharpest between the 14-24 and 16-35 around f/5.6?  When I tested the 14-24, I have the D700 and I do not see much difference.  Now, I have the D800E and wonder if there are any difference.  The 16-35 has more usable range for me and the VR function is really nice.


The D800E (I own both E and non E) shows a difference, as does the non E version (not much to choose between both cameras), with the 14-24 being sharper in the edges.  It's minimal at 5.6 though.   Wide open the 16-35 is pretty poor in the corners at the best of times, but the D800 really hammers it home...  if you print big of course.

 

If all you are doing is viewing the images on screen, or at A3 or less in print, then there's not much in it.  To be honest, if all you do is look at your images on a screen or only print sub A3, then you don't really need a D800 though, do you?

post #5516 of 5785

AppleMark

 

AppleMark

 

AppleMark

post #5517 of 5785

Nice Frank, I'm a little late so only a pic of full moon.

 

post #5518 of 5785

I did not see any but you got a good shot too lunar eclipse

post #5519 of 5785

Some lightning photos I took a month or two ago:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/98391529@N03/sets/72157635552820145/

 

And my photostream:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/98391529@N03/

 

I'm still pretty new to photography, and I don't have any of the fancy lenses you all have, but I'm trying to get the hang of it!

post #5520 of 5785
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)