Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed
5 Pages < 1 2 3 4 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Nikon D90 V9, Nikon mid-high range DSLR

views
     
FaezFarhan
post Oct 24 2010, 08:15 PM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(stsh90 @ Oct 24 2010, 07:29 PM)
I believe so. lol
*
Really? Hmm. Hopefully it is. Feeling like letting go my Tammy 17-50 & Nikkor 55-200 for it hmm.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 25 2010, 03:10 AM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 25 2010, 02:18 AM)
Forget about all in one. It will never beat even third party lens.
*
I see. But I saw comparisions in some websites. Compared with 17-55, can see it is sharper but 18-200 is not that bad, doesn't look soft for me.

Btw, check this out. Nikkor 18-200 sharpness rolleyes.gif
QUOTE(invisibl3boyz @ Oct 25 2010, 03:02 AM)
spam b4 go to slp..  blush.gif

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

*
Wow this is nice. Sexy back biggrin.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 25 2010, 04:59 PM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(ReeNz @ Oct 25 2010, 02:39 PM)
A pic from my trip during the weekend..

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
*
Woah nice thumbup.gif Can make it as a wallpaper. Used the tokina? smile.gif

QUOTE(celciuz @ Oct 25 2010, 04:44 PM)
Body and flash capable of flash sync can do it. D90 + SB900 can go up to 1/4000
*
1/4000? Wow. Now that's fill flash. Haha drool.gif

This post has been edited by FaezFarhan: Oct 25 2010, 04:59 PM
FaezFarhan
post Oct 25 2010, 06:34 PM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



Guys, which lens do you think is the best everyday lens for DX? Under RM3k hmm.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 25 2010, 06:45 PM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(zellleonhart @ Oct 25 2010, 06:39 PM)
DX lens ah... If nikon brand, I would say 16-85mm F3.5-5.6. Sharp but expensive, RM2.x K if not mistaken...
If FX, maybe 24-120 F4 VR?
*
I see. Nice range too. It's the kit for D300s right?
FaezFarhan
post Oct 25 2010, 07:13 PM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(zellleonhart @ Oct 25 2010, 06:56 PM)
As far as I know Malaysia doesn't sell D300s in any kit, overseas might have. Here mostly D300s body only. Personally I have no experience to this lens, just heard from reviews.
*
Yeah saw is some books, maybe overseas. Btw, is it worthy to upgrade from Tammy 17-50 f2.8 non-vc? hmm.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 25 2010, 07:48 PM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(General_Nic @ Oct 25 2010, 07:35 PM)
not reli heat spreaders, haha
they call it "heat radiating member"
rumor source
if dun mind 3rd party, can consider Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, rm2.9k
*
I see. Better than my Tammy, but not as good as Nikon right? A lot of differences from my Tammy? hmm.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 26 2010, 12:35 AM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



I feel like selling my Tammy too. 17-50 non-VC. But haven't decided to buy which one. Upgrading to the VC version is worth it or not? Other lens = 18-70 + save up some money to buy a SB900. Or 16-85 and stick to my Di622 hmm.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 26 2010, 01:01 AM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 26 2010, 12:38 AM)
16-85 my vote. VC and non VC basically not much different ! Optic wise, VC better but very minor.
*
16-85 comes with better optics? A lot better than tammy eh? It's about RM2.2k here in KB, Kelantan. How much can I sell my non-vc version?

*Sorry for asking so many questions, I'm a noob lol sweat.gif And thanks a lot for helping smile.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 26 2010, 01:27 AM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 26 2010, 01:04 AM)
the price for 16-85 looks good and personally feel it's better.

Non-VC ? around 1k or less.
*
I see. I'm gonna go and test it out at the shop. Hopefully it's gonna impress me. Btw, if you have the 16-85 lens, would you get a 50mm f1.4 or SB900? hmm.gif

QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 26 2010, 01:16 AM)
Personally feel, 1st photo if you want the dolls to stand out, use a bigger aperture to blur the background.
*
Yeah and if he took it from the front of the car, the ribbon will make it look more interesting as it acts as a leading line smile.gif

This post has been edited by FaezFarhan: Oct 26 2010, 04:28 AM
FaezFarhan
post Oct 26 2010, 02:06 AM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 26 2010, 01:32 AM)
Flash is the main thing I will get before anything else.
*
I have the 50mm already but don't use it a lot. Probably sell it together with the Tammy lens, and get the 16-85 & SB900. Now just waiting for my budget smile.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 26 2010, 02:16 AM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 26 2010, 02:10 AM)
sell your 55-200 better. 50mm comes in handy if you needed something with big aperture.
*
But I will only get some money out of it hmm.gif Decisions decisions doh.gif

And I use it for some events like racing at sepang, football at the stadium and etc. Next year I'll probably take pictures for Kelate's unofficial football website so I think I need it hmm.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 26 2010, 02:37 AM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 26 2010, 02:25 AM)
Get something better like 70-300 VR. You need to have longer end if for football or racing.
*
What about the 55-300? Cheaper than the 70-300 right? Woah how I wish so. 16-85 + 55-300/70-300 drool.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 26 2010, 11:20 AM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE
The 16-85mm is also very expensive: about $650. For $650 you're buying great optical performance, but mostly paying for convenience. Honestly, Nikon's 18-55mm kit lens ($120) has the same quality optics, but without most of the convenience features of the 16-85mm. I'm not kidding: I've compared them directly against each other.


Really? From kenrockwell. Then what's the difference? hmm.gif

QUOTE(freddy manson @ Oct 26 2010, 06:39 AM)
I want the range? Then get 18-55 with 55300 loh.. With additional 50mm for the once-in-a-while bokeh shots
Because that's the cheapest portrait lens that's also very2 powerful lens, if u know what to shoot with it

But if u want super sharpness then get the 1685 and 70200 loh (: the later VR II is such an adored lens!
*
I see. Hurm if 18-55, I'd rather keep my 17-50 tammy lol.

The 70200 is wayyy above my budget for now. RM7k right? Maybe I'll get it when I get my MARA loan, pay with installment. Ekekeke biggrin.gif

Is this a good combo? 16-85 + 55-200 + 50 1.4 + SB900? hmm.gif

This post has been edited by FaezFarhan: Oct 26 2010, 11:27 AM
FaezFarhan
post Oct 26 2010, 03:40 PM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(jyhy @ Oct 26 2010, 07:51 AM)
my 50 mm are all soft.. never once can be sharper.. maybe my skill problem.. hmm.gif
*
My 50 1.4 wide open is kinda soft too. But the main problem is CA, fringes are clearly visible. Even tho I love the bokeh of 1.4, I don't use it that much. Too soft and too much CA. Didn't expect that from a prime lens but I got what I paid for I guess, under RM1k smile.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 26 2010, 04:00 PM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(fubs @ Oct 26 2010, 02:59 PM)
if you take misfocused/blurry pictures, no amount of unsharp mask can fix it.
*
Yeah true. My tammy 17-50 backfocuses sometimes. And the photo is completely spoilt. Even photoshop can't save it. Too
much of unsharp mask then to photo will be filled with noise doh.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 26 2010, 05:56 PM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



One of the local shop here recommend me to take 18-200 / Tammy 17-50 VC instead of the 16-85. But he didn't state why. hmm.gif Getting headache from this. Haha doh.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 27 2010, 03:17 PM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



Lower-end models like D3100 is about 50k. D90 & D300s is about 100k. FX is 150k and above haha. IIRC smile.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 27 2010, 04:00 PM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(celciuz @ Oct 27 2010, 03:34 PM)
D300/s and D700 is 150k if not mistaken. D3 and D3s is 300k.
*
I see. D300s is FX class already, except that it's DX lol doh.gif

Btw, biggest regret of my life, choosing Tammy 17-50 non-VC instead of VC. Now if I wanna change, sell mine for RM1k and add RM900 for VC only doh.gif doh.gif
FaezFarhan
post Oct 27 2010, 04:21 PM

United till I die!
*******
Senior Member
3,435 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: Kota Bharu



QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 27 2010, 04:05 PM)
Not much different la. Why bother spending 900 on that ? doh.gif
*
That's my point, not gonna spend 900 for VC only. Rather spend it on a lens which has more quality to it. But I don't have a lot of budget. 16-85mm in my mind but I really like the 2.8 except it backfocuses and lacks VC doh.gif

5 Pages < 1 2 3 4 > » Top
Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0451sec    0.61    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 14th December 2025 - 05:11 PM