[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Internal focus is a big improvement. As having the lens element keep extending as I tried to get closer to a subject would be annoying. -Ed

To me, internal focus is not needed, especially since the AF-D version didn't rotate the front element when focusing.

I'm lucky, because this allowed me to buy the cheaper, stronger built version. But if you need IF, then the AF-S is the logical choice.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY /img/forum/go_quote.gif Obviously, the Nikon 105 is even better than the Tamron in that respect and many others; but for $700, it should be.

I have the Tokina 100mm f2.8 Macro and I'm very happy with it.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Internal focus is a big improvement.

Auto focus isn't that important for shooting macro, because most of that would be done manually. It's important for using the lens double duty as a portraiture lens though.

See ya
Steve

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Auto focus isn't that important for shooting macro, because most of that would be done manually. It's important for using the lens double duty as a portraiture lens though. See ya Steve

Ed is not so much referring to auto focus, but internal focus. Internal focus is a feature whether you use auto focus or manual focus. I believe it means the front element will not extend when focus is changed. This can be helpful in macro work when you get close (2" or so).

On a related note:
My work with the 60mm doesn't get me so close that it becomes an issue, so I'm lucky. If you plan on doing macro to 1:1, or 1:0.5............... then I wouldn't even look at the 60mm. At that point the 100mm+ become a big help.
With the 60mm, you simply get tooooo close!

 

[paulr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow, huge difference in those two pictures. Wonder what the zeiss does to portraits without stopping down much.

Wow, it looks almost like the camera shook on the Zeiss shot, to cause that weird looking flare. Are you sure that's completely a lens effect?

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ed is not so much referring to auto focus, but internal focus. Internal focus is a feature whether you use auto focus or manual focus. I believe it means the front element will not extend when focus is changed. This can be helpful in macro work when you get close (2" or so). On a related note: My work with the 60mm doesn't get me so close that it becomes an issue, so I'm lucky. If you plan on doing macro to 1:1, or 1:0.5............... then I wouldn't even look at the 60mm. At that point the 100mm+ become a big help. With the 60mm, you simply get tooooo close!

Yes, what he said.

Yeah, I'm still debating that one. I would like to have a Macro double as a decent portrait lens. Which the 60mm would be more handy focal length.

-Ed

 

[nineohtoo]

Anyone getting the 50mm 1.4 AF-S?

Nikon's been on a roll and I don't think they're gonna be stopping anytime soon. I'm seeing an 85mm 1.4 AF-S in the very near future, and a wide low light prime within the next year.

 

[dj_mocok]

Hmm, not me. I got 2 50mm's already. Although it's nice to have a lens that will meter with my camera, but I think I'd rather spend the money on a new body.

If I didn't have a 50mm, I'm pretty sure this would be high on top of my list. I think they will sell a lot of these. But now I just feel sorry for Sigma...

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif But now I just feel sorry for Sigma...

Lol why? They have their lens on multiple mounts.

I do not like 50mm much unless on full frame.

 

[dj_mocok]

Yeah because in regards to Nikon users, if they had a choice between Sigma and Nikon and the Nikon wasn't much more $$$, I'm pretty sure most Nikon users would go after the Nikon one.

Now they have to bank on Canon users a bit more I guess...

 

[flashnolan]

Recently I purchased the following at an Ultimate Yard Sale event in my area.

$20 (I think; can't remember)

Both for $30!

Can anyone explain all of the adjustments on these lenses? I figured out how to focus, but there are a lot of other settings that I am not sure what they do. Both lenses have real heft and weight to them. They make the stock lenses from my D40 feel "cheap". Also, I got the flash listed above. It fits into the camera well enough, but I can't figure out how to sync it with the camera for a shot. The wire coming off of the flash goes to something that also looks like it can mount on a camera. Is there supposed to be a battery or something else with the flash?

Thanks.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah because in regards to Nikon users, if they had a choice between Sigma and Nikon and the Nikon wasn't much more $$$, I'm pretty sure most Nikon users would go after the Nikon one. Now they have to bank on Canon users a bit more I guess...

Yeah I know what you mean. The price difference isn't that much. I'd like to see how they all compare.

edit: Just reading around, the new Nikon has no Nano coating, no ED glass, nor aspherical elements. So it could come down to the feel (AF speed, build, size, manual focus ring) or look (colors, bokeh). Maybe not so much sharpness.

I'm quite happy with my 50 1.8.

and since I don't use it often, I don't see the need to upgrade.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

edit: Just reading around, the new Nikon has no Nano coating, no ED glass, nor aspherical elements. So it could come down to the feel (AF speed, build, size, manual focus ring) or look (colors, bokeh). Maybe not so much sharpness.

It's quite simple to get sharpness without any of the above. The old 50 f/1.4 had none of the above and it was razor sharp. This isn't a hugely complex zoom. It's a 50mm prime. The simplest lens in existence. It doesn't require a complex formula.

 

[philodox]

When I was out camera shopping the other day, the guy in the store advised me I might want to consider an old Canon film SLR instead. His reasoning behind this is that their lenses are much cheaper on the used market since Canon uses a new mounting system for their digital cameras. If I stick with searching for an F2, I have to pay premium prices for the lenses since I am competing with every other Nikon user out there. With an older Canon camera, most people who have moved to digital are looking to offload their lenses.

They didn't have any Nikon F2's in the store, but the Nikon F3HP's were all around $600 without a lense. Looked in the Canon section, and they had A-1's for less than $300 including a 50mm lense.

The only problem is, I'm not sure if there is a Canon equivalent to the Nikon F2. From some brief looking around, the following are on my short list: Canon F-1, Canon EF and Canon A-1.

Any ideas? Or should I go ask this in the Canon thread?

 

[mightyacorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only problem is, I'm not sure if there is a Canon equivalent to the Nikon F2. From some brief looking around, the following are on my short list: Canon F-1, Canon EF and Canon A-1. Any ideas? Or should I go ask this in the Canon thread?

If you go the Canon route, those old bodies used the FD mount and can't be used on modern cameras without modification.

A lot of the lenses from the Nikon F series can be used with current Nikons.

Do you want to go completely manual? Nikon FM doesn't appeal to you?