[dj_mocok]

85 on DX is still perfectly fine for portraits, maybe a tad long for full body, but still is a great equipment to do portraits nonetheless.

Actually even the old 50mm 1.8 Ai/Ais is excellent in this regards. Set it at f/2.8 or f/4, it will give you great results.

Also try Tamron 90mm DiMacro F/2.8 - excellent bokeh.

 

[fureshi]

Darn, another lens to add to my list of wanted lenses. You guys are killing me with the headphone and lens suggestions...

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually even the old 50mm 1.8 Ai/Ais is excellent in this regards. Set it at f/2.8 or f/4, it will give you great results.

The 50s are a nice focal length, but even the f/1.4 still has a 7-bladed diaphragm that makes rough rather than circular light points in the background. The 55 f/1.2 is excellent if you can find a copy, but they're hard to track down.

 

[dj_mocok]

Nightshots or with lots of point of lights they maybe not that great but if you do daytime in a shaded areas, they are great.

I was thinking to get a 50mm 1.2 but then, I already got 2 50mms.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 85 f/1.4 is a classic on either DX or FX sensors. Its bokeh and DoF control are to die for.

I guess I'm not real picky about the fuzzy parts of the picture. I haven't found any Nikkor lens where I didn't like the bokeh.

See ya
Steve

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nightshots or with lots of point of lights they maybe not that great but if you do daytime in a shaded areas, they are great. I was thinking to get a 50mm 1.2 but then, I already got 2 50mms.

Even the 50 f/1.2 was a 7-blade. Only the 55mm had a 9. I've never figured out why they chose to do that, but whatever. Personally, I far prefer the look attained with the modern f/2.8 zooms (the 17-55, 28-70 or 24-70, and 70-200) over the look of any of the 50mm primes anyday for portraits.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess I'm not real picky about the fuzzy parts of the picture. I haven't found any Nikkor lens where I didn't like the bokeh. See ya Steve

Fair enough. I reccomend checking out Nikon Lens Bokeh Comparison however. Even in just that 30-second test you can see where the background with the 18-200 is far sharper and more distracting than lenses like the 80-200 f/2.8 or 105mm Micro.

 

[JaZZ]

When you guys are talking of the «18-200» here, you mean the AF-S Nikkor 3.5-5.6/18-200 mm DX VR G IF-ED, right? Has anyone compared it with the Sigma 3.5-6.3/18-200 mm DC OS? I'm asking because the latter has performed far better than the Nikkor in the comprehensive lenses test of the German ColorFoto magazine. According to them (and the measuring values) it's the best megazoom available to date.
.

 

[Arainach]

Last I checked no one could get ahold of the Sigma. The Non-OS version was crap, but I haven't seen any reviews of the new one.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif When you guys are talking of the «18-200» here, you mean the AF-S Nikkor 3.5-5.6/18-200 mm DX VR G IF-ED, right?

Well I am, at least.

Sigma lenses seem to be quite hit-or-miss as it comes to build quality. Just the other day, in a store, I demoed both their 10-20 and 18-50 EX HSM lenses. The 10-20 felt noticeably better built, focused faster and quieter, and had a focus ring that didn't rotate and allowed instant MF override (whereas the 18-50 was the opposite). Considering that these are both "top of the line" lenses in their scheme (EX), I was quite surprised to note such a gulf of quality. Being that their 18-200 is a non-EX lens, who knows how well it may or may not hold up.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Non-OS version was crap...

In what respect? (It received a fairly good judgement as well in said test.)
.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif In what respect? (It received a fairly good judgement as well in said test.) .

Huge distortion at both ends, very visible. Heavy vignetting. Major quality control issues in trying to get a 'good' sample. In the brief time I tried it, it was impossible to get any reasonably sharp image faster than f/9, even with a tripod.

The OS version is a totally new optical formula, so I won't condemn it until I've seen it, but I don't hold much hope. The 10-20mm has been the only Sigma lens I've ever liked, and even that's a pain to get a good sample of.

 

[JaZZ]

Some excerpts from the test:


Vignetting

18 mm
IF: 1.3/0.5 apertures (open/stopped down)
OS: 1.1/0.4
Nikkor: 1.2/0.4

106 mm (IF) / 60 mm (OS) / 105 mm (Nikkor) (I know, strange procedure!)
IF: 0.7/0.2
OS: 0.5/0.2
Nikkor: 0.8/0.1

200 mm
IF: 0.8/0.3
OS: 1.0/0.2
Nikkor: 1.0/0.2


Distortion

18 mm
IF: 1.1%
OS: 1.3%
Nikkor: 1.6%

106 mm (IF) / 60 mm (OS) / 105 mm (Nikkor)
IF: 0.9%
OS: 0.6%
Nikkor: 0.7%

200 mm
IF: 0.9%
OS: 0.4%
Nikkor: 0.5%


It would go too far to list all other test results, just so much: The Nikkor shows quite poor sharpness at 200 mm, also already at 105 mm, compared to both Sigmas, especially the OS.
.

 

[joneeboi]

I'm looking for a used Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens for my D40. Any suggestions as to where to look?

 

[fabool]

Maybe eBay?

I just bagged a 50/1.8 Ai (old version, not the pancake) and, surprisingly, a Katz eye focusing screen for my D200 from there. Just waiting for them to show up, probably sometime after Xmas - unless I was scammed (fairly unlikely).