[dj_mocok]

There's a new Nikon D80 review on photo.net (and some discussions) in case anyone would like to read more reviews of the camera.

 

[ozz]

thanks for the review its been months later and i am very happy
with my d-80 now if i can keep this lens addiction under control.

 

[dj_mocok]

What lenses have you got at the moment?

 

[ozz]

18-135 and 70-300 want a 105.

 

[dj_mocok]

The f/2.5 version or the new macro one?

 

[Gil Schwartzman]

Just picked up a D40 on Friday. Sweet camera... I can't wait to be able to afford a new lens. For now though, the kit lens is working well for me, I've been able to get some decent shots. Some of my favorites:

Camel backs at Garden of the Gods:

My kitty taking a nap:

 

[dj_mocok]

Actually the kits lens can produce pretty good pictures stopped down. It's very contrasty, they're just fine as long as you can stand the plasticky/toy feel.

 

[Gil Schwartzman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually the kits lens can produce pretty good pictures stopped down. It's very contrasty, they're just fine as long as you can stand the plasticky/toy feel.

The feel doesn't bother me at all (hell, its really all I know at this point)... really, the only reason I am interested in a new lens at this point is that I would like something with a bit more zoom.

 

[ozz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif The f/2.5 version or the new macro one?

the new macro but at a grand with tax it will be a while

 

[dj_mocok]

Don't bother with the new macro, just go like me and get the Tamron 90mm one, bokeh is great and to me image quality is equal (or even better - I'll be damned).

 

[DBrim]

The kit lens (the older 18-55, for the D50) did me fine for a good long while. I used it for six months nearly exclusively and had a lot of success with it. Since then I've bought the 18-200 VR and Tokina 12-24, but the kit produced some of my favorite images.

 

[fabool]

I'm eyeing a used 105 as well. Not the new one, but rather the older AI-s f2.5, which is said to be extremely sharp and still quite cheap.
To be honest, I don't really have a 'need' for the lens, but I just want to get a good manual focus prime to accompany my 18-200VR allrounder on my D200. For some reason I'm enjoying MF a lot more than AF, and the 18-200 just doesn't feel that good when manually focusing.
Other future considerations are the ever-so-great wideangle zooms (10-20 / 12-24) which, unfortunately, I can't afford at the moment and a shorter and faster prime [size=xx-small]and the 70-200VR über-lens which I doubt I'll ever afford[/size]

 

[dj_mocok]

MF is the way to go man. You feel much better when you take a nice picture using MF than AF.

If you are into MF, don't forget the 50mm 1.2 as well. Actually I was watching one went on eBay yesterday for AUS$ 345.
Was gonna get it, but then I got a few fast MF lenses already and I'm saving up for the upcoming Tokina wide angle (I think it's 11-17mm f/2.8)
Heard that the new Tokina will be made in SLD glass. Although I'd prefer it to be LSD glass though, sounds cooler, hehe..

 

[DBrim]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif MF is the way to go man. You feel much better when you take a nice picture using MF than AF. If you are into MF, don't forget the 50mm 1.2 as well. Actually I was watching one went on eBay yesterday for AUS$ 345. Was gonna get it, but then I got a few fast MF lenses already and I'm saving up for the upcoming Tokina wide angle (I think it's 11-17mm f/2.8) Heard that the new Tokina will be made in SLD glass. Although I'd prefer it to be LSD glass though, sounds cooler, hehe..

MF depends a lot on your eyes. Mine are pretty poor, and as a result I'm not particularly good at focusing manually. Oh, and that Tokina is 11-16. I'm looking forward to seeing if the CAs are reduced from the 12-24.

 

[dj_mocok]

I usually depend on the green dot confirmation thing. I know some people just think that they're useless, but if you know how to take the 'middle point' in between the dot flashing on and off, it should be fine. I'm using it with 1.4 and most of the time the pictures are focused fine.

Ah so it's 11-16? No wonder I tried to search 11-17mm but couldn't find that many info. I don't really mind about flare prone or CA as long as they aren't terrible. How bad is the CA from 12-24mm? Some people complain alot but some are just fine with it.

But what I really wish for is it's sharp wide open, because the only thing that makes me not want to get the 12-24mm f/4 version is the well, f/4. And the actual T stop is reportedly slower than that too (I love fast lenses).