It's sharp! I remember seeing Burnett's portrait using the SP90, so sharp that the girl's small blemish also can be seen. But not sure whether it's convenient to focus or not, I find macro lens like SP90 focus range is long, sometimes it might hunt =D

That's my noob little experience with SP90, not sure because I only played once.

Oh can limit the focus? Then it's really a good lens. Yeah aperture changes... If I'm not mistaken all macro lenses are like that?

The beep can be turned off. I find it very annoying so I always have it turned off...

In the MENU... not sure which Sub menu, you will find it somehow.

So far I see none here... only got D5000 > D7000 (Kent3888) if not mistaken. I'm still on my D90

huh? what do u mean by that?
My siggy the widget is showing D90 wad.

lol I thought what == No way I would upgrade from D90 to D7k la, I just got my D90 half a year and very happy with it...

celciuz is waiting for D700 replacement, later straight away FF~

Theoretically and technically we can say (like kiki-lala said) that 1:1 means the object captured as life size on the sensor. Practically the MFD (min focusing distance) is shorter than non-macro lenses and you can shoot real close but the macro lens won't hunt like your kit...

But there's still a limit how close you can go...

same, correct me if i'm wrong lol

Most famous and new nikon lenses are all AF-S already (with motor in the lens). Like 24-70, 70-200, 16-35, and the DX 18-200, 16-85 etc...

Prime wise, 50mm 1.4G, 85mm 1.4G, 35 1.4G, 24 1.4G.

If you plan to use lenses like 50mm 1.8D, 50mm 1.4D, 85mm 1.8D, 80-200mm F2.8D and other AF-D lenses then maybe D90 will suite your need...

but of course AF-S lenses are more expensive la XD

You mean you take tamron 17-50 VC as your PRIME for your D7000, or u mean you take 17-50 as zoom, then u asking for our advice for another prime?

17-50mm is not a prime yo..

Sorry bro, 18-55 VR is NOT crap, it's sharp and light and cheap. I don't see any reason why it should be called crap.
17-50 might be better than 18-55 in terms of low light but it doesn't make 18-55 a crap. 18-70 is sharper than 18-55, still 18-55 is not a crap.
please don't mislead the others.

Hmm you want best choice budget, but you actually used the camera before? I suggest 18-55 or 18-105. 17-50 is not bad but I personally don't have good feelings towards this particular tamron...

cik_tak, for a kit lens with that price I would rate it very good. I've used canon's 18-55mm and I feel nikon's 18-55 is better. And please don't go compare a 1.9k tamron 1750 with nikon 1855VR, it's not fair.

You pay what you get, I didn't say 18-55 is better than 18-70 or the expensive 16-85, but 18-55 is not something so bad that we would call it CRAP. Crap = USELESS, no value at all.

I've captured lots of photos using the 18-55 NON VR before, and it's not crap either.

Pointless argue with you. You just don't get it.

lol all spamming pics now. I spam too.


Nikon D40, 18-55 non VR, F11, 1/320, ISO200

This post has been edited by zellleonhart: Nov 20 2010, 05:50 PM

Nikonians here are more gear headed... (not all). See canon thread, you'll be surprised.

this is gear oriented forum, grouped by brands (canon, nikon, sony etc) so it cannot be avoided... But too much talking in forum but without real practicing and skills is useless.

Agree

Interesting! Initially I thought the couch was captured thru the 'window' but then I realized there's no window lol

Nice one

Sometimes rules are meant to be broken at the right place, right timing =D

Woah kelvin! Saw your siggy and clicked, now only I know you got D3s!!