QUOTE(stsh90 @ Oct 24 2010, 07:29 PM)
Really? Hmm. Hopefully it is. Feeling like letting go my Tammy 17-50 & Nikkor 55-200 for it Nikon D90 V9, Nikon mid-high range DSLR
Nikon D90 V9, Nikon mid-high range DSLR
|
|
Oct 24 2010, 08:15 PM
Return to original view | Post
#21
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2010, 03:10 AM
Return to original view | Post
#22
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 25 2010, 02:18 AM) 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 QUOTE(invisibl3boyz @ Oct 25 2010, 03:02 AM) Wow this is nice. Sexy back |
|
|
Oct 25 2010, 04:59 PM
Return to original view | Post
#23
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
QUOTE(ReeNz @ Oct 25 2010, 02:39 PM) Woah nice QUOTE(celciuz @ Oct 25 2010, 04:44 PM) 1/4000? Wow. Now that's fill flash. Haha This post has been edited by FaezFarhan: Oct 25 2010, 04:59 PM |
|
|
Oct 25 2010, 06:34 PM
Return to original view | Post
#24
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
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
|
|
|
Oct 25 2010, 06:45 PM
Return to original view | Post
#25
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
|
|
|
Oct 25 2010, 07:13 PM
Return to original view | Post
#26
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2010, 07:48 PM
Return to original view | Post
#27
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
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 I see. Better than my Tammy, but not as good as Nikon right? A lot of differences from my Tammy? they call it "heat radiating member" rumor source if dun mind 3rd party, can consider Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, rm2.9k |
|
|
Oct 26 2010, 12:35 AM
Return to original view | Post
#28
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
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
|
|
|
Oct 26 2010, 01:01 AM
Return to original view | Post
#29
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 26 2010, 12:38 AM) 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 |
|
|
Oct 26 2010, 01:27 AM
Return to original view | Post
#30
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 26 2010, 01:04 AM) 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? 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 This post has been edited by FaezFarhan: Oct 26 2010, 04:28 AM |
|
|
Oct 26 2010, 02:06 AM
Return to original view | Post
#31
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
|
|
|
Oct 26 2010, 02:16 AM
Return to original view | Post
#32
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 26 2010, 02:10 AM) But I will only get some money out of it 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 |
|
|
Oct 26 2010, 02:37 AM
Return to original view | Post
#33
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2010, 11:20 AM
Return to original view | Post
#34
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
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? 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 I see. Hurm if 18-55, I'd rather keep my 17-50 tammy lol. 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! 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 Is this a good combo? 16-85 + 55-200 + 50 1.4 + SB900? This post has been edited by FaezFarhan: Oct 26 2010, 11:27 AM |
|
|
Oct 26 2010, 03:40 PM
Return to original view | Post
#35
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
QUOTE(jyhy @ Oct 26 2010, 07:51 AM) 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 |
|
|
Oct 26 2010, 04:00 PM
Return to original view | Post
#36
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
|
|
|
Oct 26 2010, 05:56 PM
Return to original view | Post
#37
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
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.
|
|
|
Oct 27 2010, 03:17 PM
Return to original view | Post
#38
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
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
|
|
|
Oct 27 2010, 04:00 PM
Return to original view | Post
#39
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
|
|
|
Oct 27 2010, 04:21 PM
Return to original view | Post
#40
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,435 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Kota Bharu |
QUOTE(KTCY @ Oct 27 2010, 04:05 PM) 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 |
|
Topic ClosedOptions
|
| Change to: | 0.0451sec
0.61
6 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 14th December 2025 - 05:11 PM |